Slashdot Mirror
Worst Censorware Blocks Cannot Be Fixed
The ACLU is threatening to sue a group of Tennessee School Districts for using blocking software that blocks sites categorized as "LGBT" — that is, sites themed around lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender issues that would not be classified as pornographic. Some of the blocked sites include the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign.
Legally, the school districts' decision to block these sites seems fairly indefensible. The content being censored is political speech, not illegal to distribute to minors, and as the ACLU points out, by blocking these sites the school districts are engaging in "viewpoint discrimination," since the schools allow access to anti-gay sites like Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality (which, ironically, features a disclaimer saying its content is not suitable for children). But, you never can tell with judges. A judge in Utah once ruled in favor of a school that suspended a student for wearing a t-shirt with the word "Vegan." (Do you think the judge would have made the same ruling if the student's t-shirt had said "Christian"?)
However, while the ACLU would be right to bring this case, there may be another unintended side effect. By focusing on the fact that the "LGBT" category is enabled to be blocked in these districts, this sets up a contrast with districts that do not have the "LGBT" category enabled, which could lead people to think that such districts are not blocking LGBT sites. This is not the case.
When a school district buys blocking software, the software comes with an encrypted list of websites listed in different categories; categories like Pornography and Nudity are typically blocked, while categories like LGBT would usually not be. If a site falls into one or more of the blocked categories, then attempts to access that site will be blocked (at least until some reprobates help you get around the filter.) However, it's the blocking company that decides what to put on the list under each category. And even if only categories like "Pornography" are enabled, there are likely to be many non-pornographic sites categorized as "Pornography," and hence blocked wherever that category is turned on.
When the ACLU of Washington sued the North County Regional Library system for enabling blocking software for all patrons (including adults), they asked me to test the Fortinet Web filter that the library was using. I used a random sample of 100,000 .com and 100,000 .org domains and ran them through an automated script to find 536 .com domains and 207 .org domains that were blocked by Fortinet. Of those, about one out of every eight .com sites categorized as "Pornography" or "Adult Materials," and one of out of every four .org sites blocked in those categories, was a site with content that could not possibly be considered "adult" — some of the sites blocked in these categories included the Dabar Worship Center, the immigrant-rights group Families for Freedom, and the Seattle Women's Jazz Orchestra. Extrapolating these ratios to the set of all .com and .org domains in existence, one could conclude that there were about 71,000 non-pornographic .com sites and 5,800 non-pornographic .org sites blocked by FortiNet as "Pornography" or "Adult Materials" — a number almost certain to grow into six figures when you add in all the sites outside of .com and .org. Years earlier, I had run similar tests for Cyber Patrol and SurfWatch (products which have since been discontinued) and found that an absolute majority of sites blocked by each program were actually non-pornographic, which translated into an estimate of hundreds of thousands of .com and .org sites wrongly classified as "porn."
Only the blocking companies know for sure how such stupid mistakes end up on their lists, but the most widely accepted explanation is that they use machines to crawl the Web and guess which sites are pornographic, and add those sites to their blacklists without any human intervention. In their early years, the makers of SurfWatch and Cyber Patrol claimed that employees actually did review sites before adding them to their lists, but that claim became increasingly untenable as more and more reports came out of sites being blocked with no adult content on them.
Nobody has yet done a similar study for the ENA blocking program, but every blocking program that has ever been tested has had a non-trivial error rate that extrapolates to at least hundreds of thousands of non-pornographic websites being blocked under "Pornography" and similar categories. There is no reason to think that the ENA blocker is different; at the very least, if they claim that it is, then the burden of proof should be on them.
So, the ACLU will probably succeed in persuading the Tennessee Schools Cooperative to stop blocking the "LGBT" category, but that doesn't mean that LGBT sites — or any other category of non-pornographic sites — will no longer be blocked. A student who encounters a blocked LGBT site could request an override, but what if they don't want to "out" themselves as someone who was browsing an LGBT site? Is Tennessee the best place to be known as the "queer who wanted to get around the porn filter"? And there may not be an option of getting an override anyway. Some of the correspondents on Peacefire's mailing list for new proxy sites to get around blockers are teachers who aren't given a password to bypass the blocker on their school's computers.
Then of course — you know what's coming — there is the other "larger sense" in which unblocking the LGBT category doesn't "fix the problem," which is that there would be no "problem" if we didn't think of teenagers as children instead of adults. You've probably already decided which side you're on in that debate, but consider it as a scientific question instead of a moral one. Do you think there is any objective evidence that teenagers, if they were given the opportunity to have the same rights and responsibilities as adults, would behave differently from adults to a large degree — more differently than, say, men and women behave from each other? The trouble with the "evidence" that we gather from personal interactions is that it's not truly objective — if someone believes that teenagers are immature and adults are not, they're likely to see and remember only the pieces of evidence that confirm that belief. A true double-blind experiment might involve talking to someone through a computer terminal and rating the other person's "maturity" just based on their responses. That's a start, but the trouble with that experiment is that adults tend to know a larger set of words, so a participant might rate the other person as more "mature" because of their large vocabulary, even though having a large vocabulary is completely different from having mature thoughts or logical reasoning skills. A fairer test might be to take a non-native-English-speaking adult and a native-English-speaking young teenager who scored about the same on a test of English vocabulary, and see if participants could tell the difference in maturity between those two test subjects while talking to them through a computer terminal. I am not aware of any experiment along these lines that has been done, but this is the sort of evidence of differences between adults and minors, that would be truly objective.
Most of the evidence in favor of the innate "adulthood" of teenagers is also anecdotal and not scientific, but it is compelling. As psychologist Robert Epstein has pointed out in The Case Against Adolescence, for thousands of years humans in their early teens were giving birth and raising children of their own. That obviously does not mean that that is a good idea in today's society, it just means that somewhere along the way, we must have lost sight of the level of responsibility that human teenagers are biologically capable of handling. If one of our Stone Age forebears could be brought back to life, he might eventually get used to the Web, but he'd probably always be amused by the idea of Web blockers for teenagers who are older than he was when he was raising his first child.
Read 8960 More Bytes?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
...to TRANNNNNNNNNNNNNY!
Why would they want to block Mac sites?
Because while little Timmy can have his internet activities monitored by his parents at home when he gets to school his parents wishes are cast into the ditch because other people have decided they know what is best.
People love to demonize parents for not getting involved in the lives of the children but when those children are outside of their control for eight hours a day what are they to do?
Frankly I do not believe they need internet access outside of what is required to finish a class assignment. I figure most of this comes down from haters who look for any chance to embarrass or otherwise annoy religious oriented Americans who send their kids to public school. The parents are legally responsible for most of the actions of their kids and legally prevented from knowing about many of them.
Public education should have standards on EDUCATION. What a locality wants to do beyond that should be off limits to the Feds. As long as they don't try to indoctrinate based religion/race it should be fine. The problem with education is that the system is keeping parents out and then blaming them for it.
Let them be more involved, but realize freedoms you claim the students don't have should not be granted by the system over the wishes of their parents. If you do that then you absolve the parents of any liability for their children thus making them wards/products of the state. Then again maybe that is what these people want.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
What does this have to do with anything? I don't know. I'm just typing furiously away at the keyboard to make my boss think I am actually working (while alt-tabbing to wikipedia and google images).
Enjoy :D
There has been a rush to really start cracking down on what people can do at work or school via the internet. Most often these implementations are reactionary measures to a discovery that people are doing all sorts of things that admin types deem as unacceptable, although in many cases people were never actually informed of this... Anyway, the root here is really a lack of understanding and communication on what is actually expected of people, and how this goal should be gone about.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
OpenDNS FTW.
/thread
lgbt wont be happy till they get "equal time" to indoctrinate kids.
But why isn't that fair? Wanna bet that these assholes aren't on the block list? These nutballs even keep a list, making the blocking very easy. If "indoctrinating kids" is your objection, you'd expect them all to be blocked, right?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
A judge in Utah once ruled in favor of a school that suspended a student for wearing a t-shirt with the word 'Vegan'. (Do you think the judge would have made the same ruling if the student's t-shirt had said 'Christian'?
Yes. Sure they would, but only if the t-shirt included dangerous words such as, "Dear Lord", "please" and "Amen". Allowing students to silently ask grace for their school lunches is downright un-American! Dangerous!
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Just remove the censorware entirely.
Technoli
Why does the article go on to talk about designing a double-blind study for judging the "maturity" of teenagers?
Exactly what laws is the school breaking by not allowing them to access certain sites?
It may be wrong and hardheaded and backwards... but I'm sorry... it _is_ the schoolboard's right to do it. If they really wanted to, they could block Mac Sites and keep IBM sites or block Evolution Sites and keep Creationist ones. They're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government and I highly doubt that you can classify a local school board as the State Government, so they're probably not bound by the State's Constitution, either. The schoolboard is subject to state _laws_ and local ordinances, neither of which say anything about this, I am guessing.
This sort of thing is determined at PTO meetings by elected school board officials, and therefore, the appropriate action is to take it before the schoolboard, before a PTO meeting, and to parents and teachers who make the decisions, not some judge who is likely to uphold whatever the aforemetioned committee happens to decide, even if it's something as stupid as the right to ban a kid for wearing a t-shirt.
This may sound weird and backwards and stupid but I actually think that's how it should be: the local community decides what they want, specifically, so long as it meets certain state standards. Some may want 5th Grade Sex Education, others may want to wait until high school. Some may want to "shield" their kids from the influences of the world and keep out anything related to sexuality, others may think it's important to teach tolerance. Certainly, if this were a predominantly Quaker Community, nobody would even raise an eyebrow. And if you don't like the community, there are several million others in the US to choose from.
The Seattle Women's Jizz Orchestra isn't pornographic?! How could you possibly come to that conclu--
Wait, what's that? Jazz, you say?
Oh. Ohhhhhhhhhh....
Never mind.
The question of whether they are children or adults, IMHO is moot. If it's true that they're blocking gay sites while allowing anti-gay sites, then we are dealing with discrimination, not the appropriateness of content. The post above discusses whether we can trust the government to do the right thing and make it illegal to block these sites. IMO, if you wait for the government to handle this, you've already lost the battle.
The people that feel outrage at this are the ones that have to do something. A simple proxy shared with the students, gatherings, protests and boycotts would make changes on the local level initially and gaining in size, a global level.
The legal system however, would not.
They're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government
umm.. Perhaps the 14th amendment applies here?
Constitutional scholars need not fear for their jobs any time soon.
Keep your day job.
you said the problem
"oftware company to develop a filtering solution that blocks 100% of what you don't want kids to see"
translate
"[someone else] filters reality for your child how you feel it should be filtered with no action from you"
what it should be is "parents take the time to teach their child about the world and what is appropriate when and where"
i'm just getting sick and fucking tired of parents that want to shove all the problems onto someone else and when that someone else doesn't get it right they sue them.. i'm sorry but that someone else never agreed to raising your child..
personaly .. i feel if a child fucks up the parents should be punished along with the child. lets get some accountability in parenting for a fucking change
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
They're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government and I highly doubt that you can classify a local school board as the State Government, so they're probably not bound by the State's Constitution, either. The schoolboard is subject to state _laws_ and local ordinances, neither of which say anything about this, I am guessing.
<img src="facepalm.jpg">
Tennessee is, after all, not exactly known as a center of tolerance and enlightenment.
I'm sure the T-Shirt said 'Vogon' and the judge was their captain...
I recently replaced my Surfcontrol product. I reviewed around 20 different products and had live demos of several.
Every single product had a way to re-categorize sites. Each provided a way to "allow" access to a site, regardless of the category.
I don't understand how this "cannot be fixed."
I'm currently running on a very restrictive network which has the iPrism, 8e6, and Websense filters all in place at the same time. Each of the article's listed websites are not blocked. ATAH, HRC, GLAAD, none of them.
The Internet is the greatest tool for free speech and learning in all of human history. It has the power to put everyone on equal footing in terms of knowledge-power. Some of us see the this extremely powerful technology for what it is, a liberator with the ability to challenge existing hierarchical structures. Organized religion, corporate advertising, government deception, and restrictive social norms all crumble when the people can learn the truth.
The established leaders and their conservative allies fear us. If we want to see the Internet revolution, we can't just let it become a tool for corporate advertising, state approved and restricted learning, and social networking within closed cliques. We must have unrestricted access for everyone, starting at a young age. This necessitates a battle for civil rights on par with the struggles of workers, women, racial minorities, etc. It can't be won by court cases alone. We need to create a new culture of info-freedom, new forms of subverting attempts to control, throttle, and censor us. We need to fight in the streets, on-line, and in our hearts.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
They're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government and I highly doubt that you can classify a local school board as the State Government, so they're probably not bound by the State's Constitution, either. The schoolboard is subject to state _laws_ and local ordinances, neither of which say anything about this, I am guessing.
A. If they're taking Federal Funds (which almost everyone is) then they're stuck with whatever rules the Feds tie the money to. If they're taking State Funds (which almost everyone is) then they're stuck with whatever rules the State ties the money to.
B. How the fuck do you get to the conclusion that there is anything in the USA not bound by the US Constitution. Further, how the fuck do you get to the conclusion that there is anything in [State] not bound by [State]'s Constitution? Even Bush had to go to Cuba to try and dodge the US Constitution.
This sort of thing is determined at PTO meetings by elected school board officials. ..., not some judge
Whoever modded you up is as ignorant as you are.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
To save anyone from having to look it up, parent is referring to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted as giving the several states the same responsibility for upholding the Bill of Rights as the federal government. The fact that school boards are not the federal government in no way diminishes their responsibilities under the First Amendment.
--Obyron
...I'd be fine with a filter that stops the GBT, but letting L through would be fine. :)
(And yes, I understand the idiomatic usage, but aren't L's actually just a subset of G? Why do they get their own category like that?)
-Styopa
Schools have wide latitude to control computer access for students and employees.
Unless the school is running a public-access program like in a library* they are pretty much immune to "denying free speech" arguments.
*Some American school systems run public libraries or other public-computer-access programs. Restricting adult patron use on these computers is asking for a challenge.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Heh... Pwned him, you did.
Why modded troll? I thought it was very interesting?
A blocking program should consist of two parts: a very simple blocking algorithm, and a plain-text list of sites to block. That should be trivial to implement, and easy to freely distribute. That way libraries and schools could easily say "Yes, we are running blocking software" even if the list of sites to block is empty.
It would also allow parents to demand to see the list of blocked sites, and to argue among themselves about whether a particular site should be added to (or deleted from) the list - in other words, it would bring the argument about free speech out into the open. In an ideal world, the list of banned sites would be posted on the school board's web site.
They're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government and I highly doubt that you can classify a local school board as the State Government, so they're probably not bound by the State's Constitution, either.
Excuse me but they ARE bound by the U.S. Constitution. Every entity organization, corporation, individual is bound by it. For example, I do not have the right to suppress your freedom of speech. I am not a member of the federal government, I have no specific ties to it yet I am still not permitted to by the Constitution.
The ACLU has happened on yet one more issue that would be completely a non-issue if schools were not an extension of government.
Schools should be able to do whatever they want, or whatever the parents want.
When the Bill of Rights was written, it's intention was to restrict what laws congress writes, not the sites should be in whitelists and blacklists in a web filter.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
None of you have children? There is a cadence to growing up. There is a an appropriate age for gaining such knowledge. Unless you are trying to indoctrinate young minds full of mush, what is the purpose in providing this content?
You have a serious misunderstanding of constitutional law.
Local school boards, cities, and states most certainly ARE bound by the US Constitution.
It can also refer to intersexual people, i.e., people with sexual characteristics of both genders. This is more common than most people realize, but often newborns undergo "corrective" surgery to assign them to one gender category or another.
Corrective surgery can only correct the physique.
If you are lucky, your brain is as "all male" or "all female" as your average guy or gal and the doctor guessed right when he did the "corrective surgery." At this point, you are no longer intersexual.
Although the term "intersexual" usually means having ambiguous genitalia and other obvious physical characteristics, it should really mean "between genders" whether in the genitals or in the mind/brain. By this definition, people who are "trapped in the wrong body" or who are psychologically neither "masculine-normal" nor "feminine-normal" would be described as intersexual, even if their body outside their brain was completely male or female.
Note I said "masculine/feminine-normal" not "completely male/female" - if you survey all the people who self-identify as "completely male" and give them thorough physical and psychological tests, the vast majority will have very few if any distinctly feminine female characteristics, but a sizable minority will have dominant psychological characteristics that are normally considered feminine. The opposite will be true for those that self-identify as completely female.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I believe that if a school receives federal funding they're bound to federal regulations regarding non-discrimination.
Regardless of whatever bullshit definition of "questionable" used, schools should not block "questionable" websites. Students who use school resources for purposes other than education or stimulating the growth thereof, the judgment of which should be determined on a case by case basis, should be subject to disciplinary action including but not limited to: notification or legal guardian, suspension of computer privileges, detention, suspension, and/or community service.
Yeah well, people think it's cool to have their 7 year old ripping around the internet because "They are smarter than those other kids." Then they get mad when their kids are looking at porn and want porn to go away. Maybe they should learn how to parent? I keep my kids off the computer, (except for the OLPC I got for them) and they still know what to do. If they are on a computer it is with me at their side. They have their whole life to be online. Right now I would prefer them to enjoy their childhood. Outside with other kids. Socialization is very important and they'll never get that on IRC. Well they might but then they would be like me......
anon: for the mod!
While the GP was wrong, so are you. If you are on my property, I have every right to ban you for what you say. Not that I should, but I have that right. You'll notice that the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law restricting...". The fourteenth amendment applies the bill of rights to the states. School districts, in general, exist by virtue of state law, as an extension of the state government. Therefore, school districts are bound by the bill of rights. You, however, are not.
B. How the fuck do you get to the conclusion that there is anything in the USA not bound by the US Constitution. Further, how the fuck do you get to the conclusion that there is anything in [State] not bound by [State]'s Constitution? Even Bush had to go to Cuba to try and dodge the US Constitution.
I am fairly sure you don't actually mean this. The Constitution has never regulated private parties. See parochial schools, for example.
Going by another response...
To save anyone from having to look it up, parent is referring to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted as giving the several states the same responsibility for upholding the Bill of Rights as the federal government. The fact that school boards are not the federal government in no way diminishes their responsibilities under the First Amendment.
Alright. I'll bite. So are schools breaking the First Amendment when they give a kid detention for talking in class? How about by enforcing a dress code? How about forcing the kid to sit still and listen in class for 8 hours?
To me, those are all clear examples of the School _actually_ infringing on someone's rights. On ther hand, how, exactly, are they breaking ANY amendments or infringing on anyone's rights by installing Blocker software on computers which they are providing to the students?
You're going to have to flesh out an actual argument instead of just making an offhand comment if you want to make any sense.
In this case, the LGBT issue is important. Let's say that the school is very conservative, and the child might have two mommies, so to speak. The conservative community might tell the child that he or she is a bad person, the mommy is going to hell(I certainly had kids and adult tell me this when I was a kid), and that he or she had to convert to save themselves for enteral damnation. Now, a well adjusted educated kid would know that the bible says that only god can judge, that god is the ultimate good, and that pharasis are supposed to be pitied and ignored. But the child has no access to such information, and only hears the side that preaches faith through fear, what damage will be done?
Then there is the case of well meaning people making questionable position. This is a site promoted to the k-12 geek crowd by officials who should now better. I have no problem promoted legal speed to teenagers, but promoting such products to young children. I don't know, what is next, college recruitment sponsored by beer companies?
In a school there are constitutional issues to think about. Then there are legal matters. Then there are statutory rules and regulations. There there is just common sense. Finally, there is a desire to provide a legitimate education. I know this last one gets lost on most people. If the kid knows how to read and write and do maths that is all that matters. That they leave as ignorant as the enter, to some people, is a good thing.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Half the kids can't read anyway. Or solve the equation "x = 5" for x. The content of the school's Internet filter seems a bit far down the list of real concerns.
Bush Tits are small sparrow-like birds. Boobies are (fairly large) seabirds.
My web site will feature both and I'll make some noise when I get censored.
(yeah, yeah...right now, I've got the default "under construction" page up... I gotta find some material to put up on the website)
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Exactly what laws is the school breaking by not allowing them to access certain sites?
The one universal rule shared by all human beings THOU SHALL NOT BE A HYPOCRITE.
The schools are a direct obligation of the government which supposedly preaches and guarantees freedom speech.
The schools censor conduits of free speech.
One of these has got to be wrong.
The Constitution, for example, prohibits the federal government from abridging the freedom of speech. It says nothing about what individuals may do. There may be laws addressing what individuals may or may not do with regard to abridging freedom of speech, but IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. The words are right there, you should read them before posting ignorantly.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
This just in, the constitution is in fact the "supreme law of the land" and everyone and every law in the US is bound by it (unless of course they contribute enough to someone's campaign yacht).
Are you suggesting that a public school could bar black or gay students from attending, because that sort of thing is only in the federal (and not state) constitution?
I'd be interested to see how far you get with that argument
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
I'm iffy on the whole concept of blocking content. People just need to learn to surf responsibly, and teach their children right and wrong. And no matter what, children are going to be exposed to smut, mostly by their peers.
That being said, there are clear cases where the sensorship is wrong, and technical explanations are not adequate excuses.
Professionally, I worked as a chip designer and software developer for air traffic control systems. I've made my share of mistakes. I've coded bugs and had to fix them. But when that happens, I take it VERY seriously. Yes, the ATC systems have sophisticated fail-over systems, but the last thing I want is to have ANY chance of increasing the probability of putting airline passengers in danger. "Oops, sorry." doesn't cut it, and once a bug is discovered, I certainly can't dismiss it. I have to fix it right away!
If you know anything about this history of the USA and plenty of other free countries, you know that people are willing to trade their lives for freedom from oppression. And I generally think of censorship as oppression. Of course, I'd prefer that there were no blocking software. But with it being there, all I can say is that there's no excuse for leaving discovered blocking errors unfixed for any length of time. People's rights are being infringed, and the people who develop these blockers need to take those rights seriously.
As long as there is censorship, there's going to be a slippery slope. The law must protect people against abuses of censorship laws. There needs to be checks and balances. There are laws that let the police search your home. The check against that is that they have to have a warrant issued by a judge, which means they need to show significant probably cause. A balance against that is called "exigent circumstances", where if they believe someone's life is in danger, they can enter a home even without a warrant. The balance against THAT is that even WITH exigent circumstances, things they find in your home are likely to be inadmissable in court. Likewise, with censorship laws, there needs to be other laws that come with penalties for abuse of the censorship laws. If you censor, you're taking on a huge responsibility, because false positives and false negatives are not something you can just brush off.
The constitution applies to everyone ....
They should not use a companies known faulty list to block access - it blocks sites that are legitimate, and does not block some that are definately not ....
They should either get a human to regulate internet access, or whitelist the site they want their students to access ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Uh... NO.
You have NO IDEA what the Constitution is for, do you?
It is to prevent the Federal Government, and by some interpretations, the State Government, from infringing on your rights. NO ONE ELSE.
Your Constitutional Rights are infringed all the time... and rightly so. Try and exercise your 1st Amendment Rights by yelling FIRE in a movie theater. You'll get arrested. Try and exercise your religious rights as a Muslim by praying your prayers in a Catholic Church during a service. Try and exercise your right to "Free Speech" by blasting a KKK rant at full volume a la "Blues Brothers" from your car while driving through a small town... you'll get arrested for disturbing the peace if not "Inciting Unrest". Try distributing porn on the streets. Try and exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights near a school building. Try exercising your right to due process when you get fired from a job because your manager doesn't like the color of your shirt (They can fire you for undisclosed reasons).
Etc, etc.
The Constitution is about how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TREATS YOU. Not how you and I treat each other.
For example, I do not have the right to suppress your freedom of speech.
See my above post.
And yes, you do... assuming you have Mod Points.
God, this is old news! Any so-called blocklist, where some faceless group of people you don't know - and who quite possibly have values contrary to yours - are making decisions what you should and should not be allowed to see, is intrinsically bad.
Given that, how exactly are blocklists any less of an infringement of personal rights than a heavy-handed government telling people what to do? Why is it that some government-hating reactionaries who are terrified of government intrusion into their lives will hypocritically endorse blocklists, which are similarly intruding?
While I think I disagree with the judges ruling, the incident occurred because of a "gang" problem. It's less about banning the word vegan and more closely related to banning gang symbols. There's a group in Salt Lake City (and other places as well) called the Straight Edge movement. They encourage the vegan lifestyle among other things but at least in that area they were using violence to promote their ethical stand.
School administrators went overboard but I don't think it's fair to compare banning a particular vegan sweatshirt to banning a tshirt that says Christian. If the local community was having a gang problem that used a particular cross symbol on their sweatshirts I'm not sure that same community wouldn't have tried to ban that sweatshirt. (I still think they'd be going about fighting the problem the wrong way and that they'd be in the wrong, but I wouldn't outright dismiss the possibility of them acting that way as absurd).
It's not like they were just going around banning shirts that support causes they disagree with. If they had a list of banned items that included "Vegan", "Environmentalism", "Obama", etc. I'd be much more in agreement with the rhetorical question used.
And I suppose the National Guard escoring black kids to high school was petty interference too? I don't wish to equate the situations but the idea that government should take no role in policy at all is atrocious. Americans of all people should know just how nasty, cruel, and mean-spirited a small community can be.
[FUCK BETA]
Tell that to my local Mayor who passed a law banning Lawn Signs... even on private property. Yes, he's allowed to do that. He's not the Federal Government and Local Ordinances can do almost _anything_.
whose only chance to have any social interaction with that superhot chick is when she needs him to teach her how to configure tor, or that anoymous proxy, or even just rdp
so please slashdot, for the sake of geek kinship, just let this whole issue slide
leave the poor 14 year old geek's only source of social capital in the brutal world of high school society intact
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The case of interest here would be Tinker Vs. Des Moines. Decided by the Supreme Court in 1969, It held that while the school had a compelling interest in curtailing certain rights that would otherwise be unacceptable violations of certain civil liberties, (in this case the first amendment, though the decision seems to apply to others) speech that was non-disruptive to the school environment could not be denied.
It's a complicated decision, and there has been MUCH discussion on exactly how Tinker does and does not apply, but it would seem to blow several of your arguments out of the water. One, that school districts arn't bound by the Constitution, not being "Federal government agencies". They are (Bound, that is, not federal). They get have special dispensation due to the fact that there is a compelling government interest in educating children, and that interest can justify curtailing certain civil liberties, at least as held by this case. But that shows clearly that school districts are held to constitutional tests, and are clearly NOT outside the jurisdictional bounds of the constitution or the federal court system.
Now, just what contributes to disruptive speech, acceptable curtailing of rights, and other issues has been argued fiercely, often in other SCOTUS cases. However, schools are NOT private entities, and cannot censor at will without substantial cause.
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
"Constitutional scholars need not fear for their jobs any time soon."
That is true. They have created such an abominable, incoherent kludge that no one can understand it.
One successful lawsuit equals one blocked website. Very simple.
No, but several judicial decisions have lessened those responsibilities, especially the ones put forth in the 1st Amendment.
Exactly why we shouldn't have Public Education involved with anything "sociological" and teaching PC crap and all that, and trying to correct the crap that parents subject their children to.
And while you may want(or not want) kids to know about that stuff, other people don't (or do). Who is gonna sort out what is allowed, or not allowed?
If we cut the crap out of the schools, and let parents instill their values (or lack thereof), then we won't have these types of crap showing up in schools in the first place.
And what may be okay for 16 year olds may not be appropriate for 7 year olds. And while you may want your 7 year old to know everything about everything, who are you to say that is okay for everyone else's kids too?
Here's a suggestion. Lets focus education on, you know ... reading, writing, math and science, and perhaps some art and music, and getting people literate before we start our little social experiments.
I work for a school, and there aren't enough hours in the day for teachers to teach all the required crap, and it is REALLY showing up.
When I go to McDonalds and the bill comes to $5.58 and I give the brain dead clerk $6.08 and she starts to cry because she can't figure out the change we have a seriously under educated populace.
It happened when the state started to demand that parents turn their kids over to their schools. You want to fix the problem? Look to the cause of the problem.
Good luck with that.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
A teenager is between the ages of twelve and nineteen, inclusive. The question of treating them as adults returns different answers depending where they are in that age range.
Which shows that the question is a bad question.
Of course, at this point I've concluded that government run schooling (even when the government is local) is a failed idea.
I see, they doesn't seem to like aliens from Vega in Utah.
Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on
Regardless of what your local officials are doing, they are in fact bound by the US Constitution (at least most of it). Try this article for more info.
Individuals are not bound by it (except for the Thirteenth Amendment - nobody can have slaves), corporations are only rarely bound by it, but almost every government entity is required to follow the Bill of Rights. There are many exceptions, and pretty much any right can be violated for a good enough reason, but that doesn't change the fact that, if they get called on it, a court is going to shoot them down for violating the constitution.
Now, much of the time local action doesn't end up getting challenged, even if it is in violation, so in effect they're often not bound by it, but you should really make sure you know the law before making such confident statements.
Bobb9000 - raised by the wolves,
Oxford education as phrased by the wolves.
The constitution enjoins the government. It has nothing to say about consenting adults urinating on each other, for instance.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
All I can say after reading a submission that says that teenagers should be considered as being adults (read the last 2 paragraphs in the submission) is that submitter Bennett Haselton not only has no teenagers of his own, he conveniently doesn't remember what it was like to be a teenager.
My school blocked Youtube, maybe I should have called the ACLU too...
Seriously though, is the blocking tasteful? Of course not. But illegal...?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
The Constitution, for the most part, does not restrain the individual; it restrains the government. The first amendment does not generally apply to private parties. Exceptions exist
On my personal property, I can restrain any number of First Amendment rights, such as not allowing guests to practice their religion or not allowing them to watch adult videos.
The states, as well as their proxies in local government, are restrained through the Supreme Court's incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights via the Fourteenth Amendment. Amendments not held to be incorporated against the states are the Second, the Third, part of the Fifth, the Seventh, and part of the Eighth. An analysis of the First Amendment's incorporation can be found here: http://1stam.umn.edu/main/historic/Incorporation%20Chart.htm
Students are not subject to the same First Amendment protections as ordinary adult citizens. However, their right to access non-obscene, non-pornographic material is constitutionally protected. The LGBT filter employed by the Tennessee schools is restraining that right.
Schools and libraries are required under CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) to use web filtering software as a condition of receiving certain federal funds. The Supreme Court has upheld (wrongly, in my opinion) that this condition is a valid exercise of the spending power of Congress.
I don't believe any censorware can perfectly balance students' First Amendment protections with the requirements of CIPA. The filtering software used in Tennessee goes above and beyond the requirements of CIPA by blocking access to non-obscene, non-pornographic information. Interestingly, the software allows access to anti-LGBT information, such as "reparative therapy" and "ex-gay" ministries. This makes me suspicious that the filtering is targeting pro-LGBT sites, which in turn makes me believe that it's not simply a software deficiency.
You should really do research on this before you spout off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Trees_School_District_v._Pico
I'll save you the trouble of actually reading the link, from the deciding opinion:
Petitioners rightly possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries. But that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Interesting.
:)
You're the only poster to provide conclusive evidence to toss out my claim.
I concede the point... and you ought to be modded up.
Alright. I'll bite. So are schools breaking the First Amendment when they give a kid detention for talking in class? How about by enforcing a dress code? How about forcing the kid to sit still and listen in class for 8 hours?
IANAL, but the the rationale that giving a kid detention for acting up in class is that it is OK because the child undergoing punishment is actively harming another individual (they are denying the other children their chance to learn in an environment without undue interruptions). Dress codes are more iffy, and there's various arguments either way, but generally are OK, so long as the speech involved is not specifically protected, and as long as they are not targeted towards protected groups, as dress is not in and of itself considered to be in the class of protected speech, because it is not generally religious nor is it political in nature. Furthermore, if dress or something advocates illegal action, the presumption of protectedness is much harder to gain, which is the reason schools can ban clothing featuring ads for illegal drugs. The relevant cases are Tinker v. Des Moines (a dress code case that also established the right to free speech in schools, and is broadly applicable to any case involving protected speech in schools) and Morse v. Frederick (which established that promotion of illegal drug use is not classified under protected speech) in particular, but there are others. As regards the last argument, I suspect that it is generally assumed to be covered under the in loco parentis principle, in which it is generally assumed that without specific statements to the contrary, the school's faculty and administrators are assumed to have responsibility to act in the the child's parents or guardians behalf for the good of the child, and that it is presumed that ensuring an education meeting meeting the minimum required standards meets that responsibility.
To me, those are all clear examples of the School _actually_ infringing on someone's rights. On ther hand, how, exactly, are they breaking ANY amendments or infringing on anyone's rights by installing Blocker software on computers which they are providing to the students?
In comparison, the blocker software is illegal because it actively prevents students from obtaining information under the first amendment, infringing on their rights and arguably the rights of those publishing the information. Because they are denied information, the student may make choices which they would not have otherwise, and may open themselves up to harm that they would not otherwise face. In particular, potential viewpoint discrimination, as in this case, is generally going to result in the blocking methodology being considered to be infringing, as it can include infringement on religious, political, and/or commercial grounds, particularly if the scheme is not incredibly well-crafted to avoid such issues. This is basically impossible, at least as far as automatic blocking goes due to the presence of non-trivial quantities of errors, something noted by TFA. Potentially, non-automatic blocking could work, but is impractical in part due to the number of administrators versus the number of students and also in part due to the way the internet works. The classic example in this era of infringement without intent (for example, infringement due to a false positive from automatic site blockers) is the LGBT student who's still in the "questioning" phase or the child with LGBT parents and who lives in a conservative community where such things are looked down upon who wants to look at LGBT advocacy materials which are blocked. Chances are, in that environment, viewpoint discrimination is going to be hard to disprove, and therefore, the school needs to tread very lightly where their blocker is concerned. Even a smart blocking scheme, that lets teachers cancel blocks if necessary, may be a problem, due to embarrassment of the student, and potentially the problem of possible physical violence against the
well they shouldn't. what do you get when you raise a generation under 'totalitarian control'? I'll leave that to your imagination.
Where I studied LGBT was the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual society. Does this strike anyone as odd?
The months are just too short. I can count the number of days on one hand.
hey're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government
That is a false statement. The freedoms and protections of the Constitution of the United States apply to all subordinate governments, as detailed in the Constitution itself.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Your mayor can ban lawn signs, as long as they are content neutral. S/he can, for example, limit the size, shape, color, location, etc. of signs. A mayor could, I suppose, ban *all* signs regardless of content or location, but that's been struck down as overbroad, and a violation of the First Ammendment. Signage, and control thereof, is normal part of land-use ordinances.
Your mayor, cannot, however, ban content on signs, unless that content is pornographic. I could, for example, erect a sign a sign that says "Your mayor is a blithering idiot" and, as long as it complies with the local laws, I received a sign permit, and it was buit according to the building code, there ain't a thing he can do about it. (I've written these ordinances; I've argued them, and I've approved and denied signs under them.)
The parallel here is: A school has every right to ban all of the internet. Presumably, it could ban only that part of the internet considered pornographic. It has no inherent right to ban other parts of the internet just because it doesn't agree with them.
Try North Central Regional Library District. That's a big freakin' difference, considering the NCRL basically covers Leavenworth, WA east to past Moses Lake, WA; Rock Island, WA, north to basically the Canadian border.
Also, in your own ACLU-WA link, you only had to read until the end of the first paragraph (update ignored) to get the name right. Of course, I barely remember this tizzy at all, and I actually live around the NCRL's headquarters. Go ACLU!
Not quite right...
shove all the problems [of parenting] onto someone else ... but that someone else never agreed to raising your child
But that is the very point behind the existence of these software companies. They are in business to provide a service. Leaving aside the moral question of abandoning an aspect of parental guidance to some other entity, there is a demand for this software and the market proposes a service. If the proposed service fails to deliver what it promises, then the provider of the service can be sued for failure to homor its contractual obligations.
When your child is in school, the school is acting in loco parentis. Now I may be able to keep a close eye and provide good guidance to my own two kids, but you just try keeping a close eye on 25 to 30 at a time. Now give each of them a computer and an internet connection, and tell me you know what they are all doing, and that you can have a frank and honest discussion with each of them about everything out there.
Talking with a friend recently, about 'net filtering on kids' computers at home, he told me what another friend had recommended.
no filters, but the kid knows that I look in the cache and history... if they are cleared, it means he's hiding something... so he polices his own usage
This approach covers not only about things that a parent might consider "inappropriate" for a particular child, but it also catches things like watching Sponge Bob instead of researching Vaco de Gama's expeditions...
K.
Doesn't that indicate that filtering is an ultimately useless effort? If a kid wants to see porn they'll find a way. I'd be shocked if there wasn't a TA/teacher/adult of some sort supervising the children in the computer labs such that they'd not be able to get away with seeing whatever you don't want them to see. Maybe, just maybe, the person should have to take responsibility for what material they're accessing.
There are lots of people who like to beat up queers, and they seem to have pretty broad definitions of who's queer enough to beat up. Even aside from them, there are lots of people who discriminate against people because of their sexual identity or behaviour or whatever.
Yes, you're being to hung up on the extreme, though living around San Francisco is a good way to get your parameters for extremeness reset. One of my friends had the surgery a few years ago. His chromosomes were XXY, and while he had male external parts, his endocrine system never did really get along with being male that well (things like not going through puberty until his mid-20s). Being not-quite-female seems to be working much better, and most of us get the new name right almost all the time. (On the other hand, I've met several other people who just look like unskilled drag queens; it's easier to ask people to treat you as a woman when you're small and thin than when you're built like a football player.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
When I go to McDonalds and the bill comes to $5.58 and I give the brain dead clerk $6.08 and she starts to cry because she can't figure out the change we have a seriously under educated populace.
Srsly!
If the manager couldn't even figure out how to train her to press "amount tendered" then punch in $6.08 so the machine can figure out your change (I'm not doing the math, sorry), that really is sad!
Anyway, why are you paying cash in the first place? You should be putting that on your card, like a good patriotic consumer!
K.
Many school districts and libraries get Federal E-Rate dollars to help pay for networking infrastructure. One of the stipulations for getting these funds is that net access be filtered. That alone will get filtering imposed and that is before the board and Little Johnnie's parents ask about porn.
lgbt wont be happy till they get "equal time" to indoctrinate kids.
But why isn't that fair?
Because the LGBT's are not the ones making the kids?
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
That's not a very good argument, and even if it were I know more than a few gay couples with kids.
Do you think that when you become a lesbian, your reproductive tract falls out or something?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You were fairly sympathetic until you started to make the absolutely insane claim that teenagers should be treated as adults. I have two sons, 15 and 19. Great kids, and they're probably more mature and responsible than most of their friends. But they are not adults. Treating them as such would substantially hurt their development.
(They can be given responsibilities in doses, to help them grow; that's necessary, good, but clear proof that they are still in the process of maturation.)
When someone is attracted to you, you should take it as a compliment, because it is. There are several reasons you might find such a thing repulsive, and almost all of them reflect badly upon you.
I'm speaking from personal experience here. In my early twenties, I found myself having the same reaction as you, and not liking it. After some soul searching, 1, 2, and 4 were true for me. I'm now a happily married father of two, completely comfortable in my own skin, and flattered beyond measure when some guy still manages to find my fat ass attractive. Some day, you may miss the attention.
I worked for one of the top consumer/commercial/edu/gov't/business internet filtering companies for 5+ years and know Peacefire well
While this article is entirely correct, it fails to hit the mark on the real issue
First off, a few of the better internet filters out there DO NOT use black or white lists, blocked or allowed sites. They use dynamic engines that are based on contextual algorithms that take many content factors of a Web site into account.
In today's Web 2.0 world, many of these old list based technologies cannot maintain accuracy.
The real issue this article does not reference is the fact that these filters and controls are the answer to many, many attempts to legislate content and protecting kids on the Internet at a state and federal level, over the last 16 years.
As I type this a committee is meeting in Washington DC as part of the "Protecting Kids in the 21st Century Act" to analyze and look at media and technologies penetration into youths lives and how to address the control of that.
I encourage everyone to read and follow Adam Thierer of the Progress and Freedom Foundation as he participates and is the foremost authority in the US on Parental Controls and allowing parents to take responsibility for content consumption.
http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/04/comments_in_fcc_child_safe_viewing_act_proceeding.html
Should we as citizens of the country allow the government to manage and control blacklists and whitelists? Effectively becoming the content gatekeepers for us? Should we go down the path of Australia? Should we not allow private enterprise to tackle this issue of protecting our kids while maintaining our the freedom of information we are privileged to have here in the US?
So yes, while there may be some overblocking, and it may be extra effort to click a button to request an override or in may cases an anonymous request to simply have the site re-categorized (many filters do this)- we are all better served than the hand of big brother managing this.
There are some very good reasons to argue against filtering in schools.
Introducing some crazy argument about 16 year olds not being children will just make people write off any reasonable arguments you make.
They are often mislabeled as gay.
You're a dude. You like dudes. That's gay. :-)
Seriously, by definition, it's gay.
I guess you could claim that you're a dude who likes chicks, but would suddenly prefer dudes if converted to a chick. I don't think that's the normal feeling.
Any non-gay interpretation is really reaching, and surely more offensive. Suppose you thought you were a fish trapped in a man's body. You want surgery to fix it. We'd **all** think "WTF?!?!?" and consider you absolutely insane. Interesting question: would it be ethical for a surgeon to make a best-effort attempt at giving such a person his desired fish body? If this is somehow different from gender reassignment, please explain.
we have a seriously under educated populace.
Your being ironic?
Exactly what laws is the school breaking by not allowing them to access certain sites?
Depends on what and why and how they are blocking them. This is what a trial is for.
The schoolboard is subject to state _laws_ and local ordinances, neither of which say anything about this, I am guessing.
Keep guessing. But don't expect to get anywhere any time soon.
Edith Keeler Must Die
And I suppose the National Guard escoring black kids to high school was petty interference too?
I was just curious where this came from. More info please?
Note:
This is not a troll/flame...I actually experienced that very thing during Junior High.Middle school in the late 1960's when they started forcibly desegregating schools.
'Bussing' was what we called the tactic, and I was one of the few 'token whiteboys' they 'bussed' to Malcolm X Middle School[all black school at the time], just outside of Wash. D.C.
Interesting times, those three years...
So I know you are not making that up, just curious about your reference. :-)
Americans of all people should know just how nasty, cruel, and mean-spirited a small community can be.
You said a mouthful there!
My Dad worked for NASA, and we got moved around a lot!(by High School, I had lived in eight different states.
If I had a dollar for everytime I would hear:"you ain't from around here, are you?", as I was being surrounded or cornered, I could easily retire. (well, I think I would rather they be Euros, or Canadian Dollars!-)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
The guys keeps bringing up the same studies he did 10 years ago as of they have any relevancy now. This issue needs a better face than Bennett, he lacks credibility.
Those who can do... Those who can't get a certification from Cisco or Microsoft.
When I go to McDonalds and the bill comes to $5.58 and I give the brain dead clerk $6.08 and she starts to cry because she can't figure out the change we have a seriously under educated populace.
It happened when the state started to demand that parents turn their kids over to their schools. You want to fix the problem? Look to the cause of the problem.
Quite the conundrum ya got there. So are the parents supposed to not turn them over to schools in order to to learn math, or is McDonalds supposed to because the schools aren't teaching math since parents are "forced" to turn their kids over to them and have more say about whether math or morality is taught?
50 cents
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
This is the only case I know of off the top of my head, but it's a fairly well known one. Though reading that, I had never realised that it ended up becoming a federal matter.
[FUCK BETA]
A good resolution to this would be better funding of schools, providing elective classes. Some kids could go to sex ed classes while others learn creationism. Some kids can learn Japanese, while others learn Latin. Some do science, some do woodwork, etc etc.
Problem is, the people at the top of the heirarchy in the USA don't like to spend tax dollars providing public services, and prefer to spend them on specific pin-point projects creating jobs; see the amount spent on prisons per prisoner or the military per ?? (Soldier?) compared to the amount spent on health per nurse (or patient) and the amount on education per teacher (or student).
This entire creation/evolution thing could be fixed so easily by running both classes; both curricula; and allowing parents to choose.
You would be guessing wrong.
I'll think you'll find that this language is typical:
The department's supervisory activities include chartering all educational institutions in the State, including schools, libraries, and historical societies; developing and approving school curricula; accrediting college and university programs; allocating State and federal financial aid to schools; and providing and coordinating vocational rehabilitation services. About the New York State Education Department
There was a Department of Public Instruction in recognizably modern form in 1853 and in embryo as early as 1812.
It's useful to remember the basics:
Local government in the U.S. has only the independence and authority a state is willing to give it.
States possess sovereignty within the Federal union, while local governments are not sovereign in any way, shape, or form, even within their respective states; on the contrary, they are governmental corporations chartered by (and whose charters may be revoked by) the legislature of the State whose boundaries they are within. Local government
But the issue here is not porn, but a group of people who have been part of human society since about three weeks after Adam told Eve "Snake, my ass.."
These are the same people who are afraid to let gays marry each other because that would somehow put their own marriages in danger. As my wife has said to a lady who made that claim, "The only way gay anything will threaten your own marriage if your husband secretly wants to suck a dick". And this during the coffee klatch at a board meeting at my daughter's high-school after there were complaints about a discussion of gay marriage in a social studies class.
[To get the full impact you had to hear her say it in her Eastern European accent. Imagine Natasha from Rocky and Bullwinkle saying "suck a dick, dah-link".]
You are welcome on my lawn.
There are cases when there is either no viable set or the gonads don't match the external genitalia, e.g. functioning testicles where the ovaries should be.
In the former case, the baby won't be siring children, so practicality on the grandchildren front is moot.
In the latter case, if the testes are viable, it would be a complicated surgery possibly requiring donor tissue to construct a functional penis, scrotum, and the necessary plumbing, if that is even possible with today's medicine.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
One of the greatest mistakes in our country was to allow something as important as our childrens' education to be handled by the government which is run by bureaucrats and politicians. The government will teach its agenda to its kids and that is a bad thing whether it's Bush or Obama or Dems or Reps in office. And the government has a vested interest in ensuring a not very well educated populace.
Libertas in infinitum
I hope you're also being ironic.
Do you think that when you become a lesbian, your reproductive tract falls out or something?
Are you inferring that lesbians can reproduce asexually? Or that a human egg can fetilize another human egg? I mean no offense to you, as I find many of your posts to be enlightening. This one, though, politically correct as it is, is mind-numbingly short-sighted.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Oh, c'mon - of course I know that a lesbian needs sperm to have a baby. But they can be parents, too - usually with help from a sperm bank.
Gays with kids might not be common in some parts of the US, but I've sure met a few in New York. Sometimes it's an adopted kid, sometimes it's a birth - but they are parents, and they should have just as much say in what their kids can see as hetero couples do.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
direction a person leans in their own world.
I'm in mine and I have my views.
Now The ACLU has no business what so ever in
trying to unblock these sites.
Why? Cause Teaching kids that to be LGBT is not
the school districts responsibility. That
responsibility lies with the parents and the
parents alone. You see there is this little thing called the 3 R's that I was taught when
I was in School in Tennessee. Reading, Writing and Arithmetic.
Along with those 3 basic courses there was
also History, Geography, World History,
And a whole host of other classes that were designed to
prepare you for the life of a responsible adult.
I've watched the Education system
go from something that the Americans could be
Proud of to something that is akin to timed
concentration camps. The biggest problem
is that the fed stepped in and fucked the
system. Put Education back into the local system for the local area knows what
the area will need from these kids in the future.
Not every one is going to go to college or all
over the world. Most will stay in their
local area and try to enjoy a good and wholesome
life. Stop trying to shove something on the people that may not
want it. If they are LGBT or
whatever their choice of the week is then they can do those
things in the privacy of their own home.
Again it is up to the individual and their parents to decide not the ACLU.
The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
Certainly, if this were a predominantly Quaker Community, nobody would even raise an eyebrow.
Huh? The Quakers are quite LGBT friendly as far as religious groups go. When you use the "inner light" more than an outer text you can apparently be rather progressive. There's no need to smear them with your outdated stereotypes.
How the fucking hell did this shit get modded up? They're not censoring fucking pornography here. Websites of groups working for equality in rights for minorities aren't "indoctrination" or "mush" by any definition of the words. And given that they're not censoring anti-gay sites, it's obvious they're not even trying to protect the poor children from the concept of homosexuality (Not that they could. The schools certainly aren't their only source of information.). They're just trying to prevent it from being portrayed as anything but some horrible terrible sinful thing that if you think is normal you're a monster, and if you happen to be gay, well you should just kill yourself immediately for the good of society.
When did Slashdot turn into some moralistic, closed-minded religious asshat website?
So, is it abusive to teach your child that life is a non-stop guilt trip that can never be overcome? (religion) Is it abusive to teach a child that eating meat is "wrong" or "normal" ? Is is abusive to slice a quarter inch off your little boy's dick ? Where do you draw the line ? Is it abusive if you shield your child from reality (includes "alternative" lifestyles), thus ill-equipping them from living harmoniously with their fellow humans ? You think "abuse" only means fingering your little girl, do you ? Or making your little boy jerk you off in the bath ? Those are widely accepted as beyond the pale, but they're easy pickings - think a little harder, and you'll rapidly run into one of those dreaded "grey" areas. Let's be blunt - one man's "culture" is another man's "abuse" - are you going to tell the Finnish that sharing an all-naked sauna is abusive, just because you don't think children should know that humans mature and grow pubic hair ?
please, dear sir, think before you communicate....
Internet at school is used for more than just class work - even when I was at college we had a some time each week we could do as we wanted on the net (with reason of course!) Many students use the internet connection to sign up for GLBT support sites because their parents are so pathetically out of touch with their kids and the kids cannot speak to their parents about the fact that they could be either Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgender.
Maybe once parents get their act together - kids will be able to speak to their parents about issues they are facing rather than having to resort to making contact to other kids their age half way around the globe.
I go to school in a large (relatively) city in New Zealand, and the filtering is stifling. Among the subjects filtered are those in the terrifying category of "Art/Heritage", "General News", "Blog", and for any Geocities domain, "Personal".
I estimate 75% of the sites I get as results on Google are blocked for just that. It makes research pretty difficult. For a while they blocked ALL images on Wikipedia after a certain student*ahem* searched nudity out of curiosity.
But its often the case that decent players aren't picked for the dodge ball team anyway.
The purpose of a public school isn't to do whatever parents want. It's to educate children in ways that would be useful to the nation. Sure, it's funded by your tax dollars, and more closely, property taxes. So What? So is the plumbing system. So is the military. You can't decide that house Y gets no water, or that country X doesn't get bombed. Creating a bubble around children is expensive, and requires a lot of maintenance. The government, and the rest of us tax payers, simply aren't going to help you do this. So if you're going to give up and use public services, then you'd best be prepared for your child to be exposed to ALL of our wishes, desires, opinions and what not, because all of us are putting our money into the public education pot, not just you. If you want to protect your kid from the rest of the world, the rest of the world isn't going to help you do it.
You know, there are support groups if you ever feel the need to talk about this with anyone. Speaking as a post-everything transwoman, it really does make an amazing difference to my ability to make friends, function in society, and be happy to have transitioned. It's never too late.
And since nobody knows how to change a person's mind about these things, and it is known how to change a person's body, the body has to be changed.
I think the possibility of being able to change the sex of someone's brain would bring up a much bigger ethical dilemma than changing the sex of that person's body. See a short story about such a thing for an example.
Thanks, I had forgotten about the Little Rock Nine.
Though reading that, I had never realised that it ended up becoming a federal matter.
Same here, and noticed from your link they were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Not a frequently given award to civilians!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti