Slashdot Mirror
Internet Censorship in Utah Schools & Libraries
One of my old partners in crime, Michael Sims, contacted me with the latest report from Censorware.org. By analyzing their web logs, Censorware found that they were blocking access to such offensive materials as The Bible, and The Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution, using the unaptly named SmartFilter software. Check out the Salt Lake Tribune for more information.
Don't forget:
Peacefire. They're into the anti-censorware, too, but the catch is that it's primarily run and operated by the people directly involved: high-school aged kids. ((And really intelligent and dedicated ones, not script kiddies and IRC weenies.)
Check it out. Lots of good stuff there.
The Bible's relevance to U.S. history is minimal.
Sheesh! Is this what passes for history these days?
Regardless of your personal feelings about the Bible, the fact is it played a fundamental role -- both directly and indirectly -- in the shaping of our country.
The very concept of individualism, so fundamental to our government and our society, originates with Martin Luther's insistence on the right of private interpretation of Scripture. All of Western jurisprudence has its source in the law code of Justinian, which derives from the Bible. Perhaps you've heard the words, "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights...". Which religion teaches a Creator God?
The Pilgrims, and many of our early immigrants, were fleeing religious persecutions in Europe, fighting for their rights to read and interpret the Bible. Our public school system has its origins in the Sunday schools of New York state. Both the abolition and civil rights movements were led by Christians, motivated by their religious beliefs.
The list goes on. Regardless of whether this is a "Christian nation", regardless of whether any or all of the Founding Fathers were Christians, regardless of whether you're personally offended by the idea, the Bible and Christianity were of fundamental importance in shaping our nation.
Everyone repeat after me: only the government can censor. If your parents, or your preacher, or Time-Warner, or anyone else wants to restrict your access to published material, that's just fine. And your opposition to such a restriction is just fine too. May the better argument win.
Now dust off your Bill of Rights. Find the first amendment. (It's toward the beginning.) Notice the first five words? CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Now that's as plain as plain can be, and because the Founding Fathers didn't reserve regulation of the press to the Feds, anyone else should be free to to do so. The anti-Federalists were finally able to pervert the 14th to their cause, but that's a story for another day.
IOW, stick with the moral outrage; the legal pronouncements merely expose your ignorance.
Rubbish. In fact, the federal government has spent lots of money looking for proof of that, and has never found any.
Look how the rape crime rates have risen since the 1950's.
Correlation is not causation.
it is completely reasonable to prevent children from seeing this material.
No, it is completely sensible to perform psychological screening on all children, and put to sleep any that are such sociopaths that looking at a picture of a vulva will turn them into rapists later in life.
From the United States Constitution:
Article VI, Section 3 -
...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Amendment I -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Hardly a twentieth century notion. As for your other (just as wrong) points -
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...
- John Adams, while President of the United States
All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites.
- All quotes by Thomas Jefferson
Joe Haldeman wrote in the forward to one of his books that people who learn their science from science fiction deserve what they get. I suppose the same can be said for those who learn their history in church.
All of American jurisprudence has its source in the Constitution, which derives from many ideas, but primarily the belief that only when the rights of the individual take precedence over the rights of the government will that government survive.
I have heard the words "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..."; has it ever occured to you to wonder why it doesn't say "our God"?
The original settlers of this country (America) came here with the purpose of establishing a claim to this land for Queen Elizabeth, who was afraid Spain was going to claim it. The group usually referred to as pilgrims (the puritans) came later, were a small proportion of the immigrants, and by the time this country was formed no longer existed as a cohesive group.
The movement to maintain slavery was also led by christians; and the abolitionists were motivated by their belief that one man cannot own another. Religion played a large part in this belief for many; for many it did not.
The Bible and Christianity have had a large part in American history. Things like the Salem witch trials, for instance. They are frequently the motivating force behind attempts to establish the types of tyranny most immigrants to this country came here to escape.
Posted by Ominous the Foreboding:
For the record, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) does NOT promote Polygamy or Pedophilia. AFAIK, pedophilia has NEVER been promoted by the Church, while polygamy has not been practiced or promoted by the Church in about 100 years.
As far as why the site was blocked in the first place, I can find a great many references in the Book of Mormon (as well as in the Bible, for that matter) that refer to "asses", "pissing against a wall", etc., all of which could be the subject of an automated censorship sweep.
Combine this with stories of, for example, a man "spilling his seed on the ground" (and, no, we're not talkin' pumpkin seeds here), and you get a great deal of potentially-offensive material.
Read either book (or both, if you have time), and you'll see a lot more examples.
Posted by T_X_N:
a pal of mine said
"Protect the easily affended....Ban Everything"
Then as now, people use religion to convince them that their political views are right. This is both good and bad at the same time. Religion is a political tool, face it. At least the writers of the constitution were trying to do something to change that (they weren't very successful, though).
Just as religion can currupt politics, politics can corrupt religion. Those guys knew that. They'd seen enough of it in Europe and they wanted no part of it. The first amendment was as much to protect religion as it was to protect politics.
My point? You don't have to be an atheist to want separation of church and state. It's in the best interests of the religious as well to keep them apart. They don't have separation of church and state in most of Europe and the atheism rate there is much higher. Why? Government mandated religion tends to make more people dislike religion.
Keep 'em separate. Its in the best interests of both theists like you and atheists like me.
Now, as far as this censorship goes, I'm just as much against censoring the bible as a Christian would be. After all, reading the bible yourself is a good way to scare you into becoming an atheist. That propagandistic trash is one scary manifesto.
The real problem in this case was not deliberate censorship, but the laziness to assume that a piece of pattern-recognition software could accurately filter info about certain topics. It doesn't work that well. Think "AOL" and "TOS". Doctors talking about breast cancer are not being pronographic, yet dumb censorship software can't tell the difference between that and, "Naked breasts R' us!" - type sites.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I've heard of a few people marrying 16 year olds way back in the 1800's, but then that was the times. In fact even in the early 1900's in places like Louisianna and East Texas it wasn't uncommon. When I lived there I remembered that it most women I met over 50 that grew up there was married at least once before 18. One in particular was married at 14.
~ ~^~
I'll guarantee that the site never promoted polygamy or pedophelia.
And yeah there are still cases of abuse in the upper ranks. Its rumored even that one of the origional apostles sold out Christ himself.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
Why should children "simply not be allowed to view certain things"? Suppose, for example, that a high school student is writing a term paper on propaganda for a history class, and wishes to use contemporary neo-Nazi sites for examples?
Saying that children categorically should not be exposed to certain things is neither effective nor desirable. They'll either find other sources for the same information, or find ways around the filters. It's much preferable for them to be exposed to this material under mature supervision than to see it in secrecy with their peers, who probably don't understand the harm at all (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not), or who think that it's cool to kill people, and gee, isn't it neat that this web site advocates killing people and tells us how to go about it?
Since it's contraband, it will not be possible to use this for educational purposes. It will not be possible to discuss Nazi propaganda and explain the harm caused by it, and point to examples on the net for classroom discussion. It will be that much harder to teach children how to think critically and thereby avoid the same mistakes in the future. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it (Santayana), and children are better learners than adults.
To address the issue of adult usage: libraries are not intended solely for purposes of scholarly research. Most libraries contain works of entertainment (novels and such). Certainly if one individual is tying up resources to the exclusion of other library patrons the library can enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations; libraries routinely restrict how many books one individual may have checked out at any one time, and impose fines for late return.
Furthermore, even by the definition of scholarly research, individuals may not want others to know what they're accessing. It may be that someone wishes to research something unpopular and does not wish to be exposed to the opprobrium of the surrounding community (consider someone who wants to study the ACLU or Planned Parenthood in a conservative community -- or the NRA in certain other communities). It may be for other reasons of secrecy, such as a desire to be the first author of a given piece of research, for preservation of patent rights (as distasteful as that may be to many of us), a nondisclosure agreement that someone may believe he is in violation of if others can see what's on his screen, and so forth.
So no, I cannot agree that censorship is good in certain circumstances. I'm Jewish, and for that reason I would want my children to have access at a relatively early age to hate sites, in order that I could teach them the dangers of hatred and how to recognize it.
Yeah. It proves young people are more mature.
And more cocky.
...in certain circumstances. Thirteen-year-olds should not be allowed to use school resources to look at porn. We can argue about how to best restrict access (adult supervision is probably the best way), but what is inarguable is that children should simply not be allowed to view certain things (porn, nazi-propaganda, heaven's gate style religious fanatics recruitment page).
Adults using libraries is another issue. Personally, I would have the monitors be facing in such a way so that a number of people would be able to see what someone was looking at, so hopefully the shame factor would prevent library resources being used for less-than erudite purposes. Also, library resources are limited, and some people are trying to research papers and such, so there is every reason to discourage and even disallow web browsing for entertainment (this would include less objectionable content, too, not just porn and hate sites).
-Eric
> And why should kids go to school?
"To learn how to read, write, and do simple math. Hopefully, to learn a bit more than that. To be a useful member of society in the 20th century, you
need to have at least these basic skills."
Not American society. If your "at least" is reading, writing, and simple math, then you're in a world of hurt. "Readin' ritin' and cipherin'"
is a skillset adequate for a steam-powered thresher-driver of the late nineteenth century.
That's called the "straw man" argument, when you purposely misunderstand a person's view in order to rail against them. You knew that I made no such claim, inane sophistry notwithstanding.
You (or another AC) asked me why children should go to school. I listed the most basic skills imaginable that children typically learn from school (Reading, Writing, Arithmatic). I never suggested that this was the limit of what children should learn. But no one without these skills can become a useful member of society.
Now, my dear demagogue, how do you suggest children gain these skills if they don't attend school? Not enough parents stay home to make home schooling en masse a viable alternative. Do you suggest a means of education, or are you simply taking potshots for the fun of it?
-Eric
I am using Smartfilter for a 30-day eval period. (Squid version.) Like other filter vendors they do not publish the list of filtered sites. But there are also other configuration files that allow you to exempt sites and workstations. In short, there's flexibility.
With filtering in place, ACLU types bitch & moan about suppressed free speech. Without it, conservative types bitch & moan about subsidizing perverts.
Smartfilter was intentionally purchased to filter "objectionable" sites. It enforces a policy. If a user unsuccessfully attempts to access a "non-objectionable" site then the user should notify the IT person in charge. That site can then be exempted.
Smartfilter is not perfect. It is, however, flexible.
But there are also other configuration files that allow you to exempt sites and workstations. In short, there's flexibility.
It is unfair to expect this to serve in place of the vendor's inability to construct a sane blocking list. School officials and librarians cannot hope to keep up with the huge list of wrongly blocked URLs for SmartFilter and other censorware products. Librarians are not supposed to monitor the thousands of sites being added to the web daily - that's supposed to be the software's job.
In fact, as the report shows, certain blocks were overridden, such as Utah's own www.mormon.com (one wonders why that was blocked in the first place). But the list of wrongly censored sites dwarfs any attempt to catch up.
In short, this "flexibility" is a red herring.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
How are the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence offensive to people in the US?
I'm confused.
ebw
I agree.
Slashdot: Please censor all posts by burnsbert. I find them offensive. It has the words porn and nazi which I do not agree with. Therefore the rest of the post is useless discussion that no one should ever read, especially non-adults. Further more, based on the word "burns" in burnsbert's URL, the web site must promote arson. A past survey on Slashdot proved there are minors observing this site.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
"We could be happy if the air was as pure as the beer"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
Smartfilter was intentionally purchased to filter "objectionable" sites. It enforces a policy. If a user unsuccessfully attempts to access a "non-objectionable" site then the user should notify the IT person in charge. That site can then be exempted.
In libraries, we don't need a policy of what can and cannot be viewed. This is censorship, pure and simple. If you want to prevent your child from viewing anything you find objectionable, I suggest you hold your child's hand and restrict, TV, books, movies, school, as well as anything else found outside your home. I realize that might be much work, but in this manner others can find what they are looking for, regardless how objectionable I or you might find it.
By instituting a filter, you are instituting censorship. It is absolutely impossible to filter objectionable material without filtering non-objectinable material at the same time.
Don't forget, there are many non-objectionable site that use XXX. There will eventually be 10 web sites for the Super Bowls with XXX in it.
Also, how is one supposed to know if a filtered site is really not objectionable to whatever institution so that it can be brought to the IT manager's attention? That would preclude some unfiltered method of looking at web pages which would make filtering web pages useless.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
"We could be happy if the air was as pure as the beer"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
Seriously, I was in a school a while ago that had censorship, and it was terrible. It blocked useful sites and let some really bad stuff through (a pudgy kid in the back was hogging the printer--I can't believe no one said anything).
The only cure for this is to have adults monitoring their children when they use the Internet. Of course, that would require that a parent be involved in their child's life, and that really does take more effort than we'd like. The sad thing is that most parents don't realise how much worse the material on T.V. is. IMO (and IIRC there is research that confirms this) watching violence depicted in a moving picture is more harmful to a young child than seeing a still picture of a much worse seen. No-one wants to address these issues with the real solution, which is for parents to take care of their children. Everyone wants software and V-chips to do the parenting for them.
Cheers,
Joshua (hi Orwell!)
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
First things first: I agree with you wholeheartedly that community resources like computing time in the library or in school shouldn't be wasted on browsing porn, etc. Of course, they shouldn't be wasted browsing the news, ESPN, or Slashdot either, unless that's an assignment or research project. It's a non-argument that schools and libraries exist to provide information, not entertainment, and when resources are limited, those with legitimate information needs should get preference over mere web browsers.
However, I will certainly argue with that. Who decides these "certain things"? I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with your choices for what my kids should see, because I have no idea what your beliefs are - your religious convictions, your morals, even your taste in art. Can't have you deciding things for my kids.
I'll go a step further and say that I may not even be a good person to decide which "certain things" we censor. Why, you ask? For all you know, I might be a militant flat-earther, a Luddite, or some other persuasion of thought that society generally sees as reactionary. Do you want me to decide that your kids shouldn't read about space travel, evolution, or medical information about the human body?
Granted, none of my examples address the examples that you mentioned. Personally, I happen to agree with you that I wouldn't be crazy about my kids learning how to treat women from pornography, or learning about the rest of the world from a Nazi viewpoint. However, I don't see censorship at school as a solution. Why?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Living out here, I can tell you that, should the ACLU win the fight to un-censor the net, Utah schools will simply shut off all net access.
The buzzwords out here, like pretty much anywhere else, are: don't endanger the children.
Pornography is believed to endanger children out here. Should (hypothetically) censorship-free net access somehow be mandated, many parents will pull their children from school.
Considering the funding that schools would lose, the schools will simply figure some other way to keep the kids from the internet.
*************** Here follows my personal views, and Lest ye think otherwise, I've got a growing collection of magazines and videos that feature the undraped feminine form divine, and I'm all for porn.*******************
All in all, it's probably much better in this situation to just let the schools throw a censoring program on. (Do you REALLY want 10yr olds looking at genital-mutilation or bestiality sites? I've seen some. They're not for kids.)
The Mormons didn't come here voluntarily, and they've never forgotten it. Ever since the U.S. Army invaded Utah to put down the Mormon Rebellion (and lost), these people have hated the federal government.
Just treat Utahns like a damaged section of the Internet, and ignore them.
They ignore you.
By the way, Rob must be having sig file problems. The following witticism isn't mine. (always preview)
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
You made a key comment...
:)
Everyone wants software and V-chips to do the parenting for them.
I see increasing problems with the lack of responsibility parents are showing these days. With two income households becoming more the norm, parents have less time for their children so they are trying to burden the government, school districts and corporations to do the parenting for them.
IMHO censorship is the absolute worst thing a child can experience. One day they will be in a situation that they were censored from before, and now they have no point of reference to base an education decision on.
Parents need to sit down with their children while they're on the internet and learn with them (because you know the ones who know the least about it are the loudest advocators of bills like the CDA).
They need to explain to their kids what it is to have safe sex and use a condom (face it, it's going to happen, so better for them to hear it from you).
Make sure they have money to call a cab in case they "find" themselves at a party where they or their ride is too hammered to drive home. Hehehe...I "found" myself in quite a number of those situations
And so on...
Parents need to be parents, across the board, and the Internet is just one example. If they don't talk to their kids about what needs to be talked about, then they'll find out from their friends.
Who would you trust more?
Unfortunately, censorship programs rarely work very well on things like pornography sites. There are only really two ways to catch things like that:
1) Trying to second-guess the URLs the sites will use. It's already been shown just how badly this works. The filters _invariably_ manage to filter out something that isn't really offensive.
2) Constantly updating site lists. This requires continuous maintenance, and therefore drives up the cost of the software (and our taxes, if the schools use it).
Both of these things result in a cat-and-mouse game to a certain extent, as some providers alter their sites to get past the filters, and the filter makers try to keep up the filtering lists.
To boot, who are these content providers to say what is offensive? Some religious parents may find the text of the bible offensive, and not want their children to read it...
Taral
WARN_(accel)("msg null; should hang here to be win compatible\n");
-- WINE source code
Libraries are not there to babysit anyone. Common sense or no, it is none of their business.
Before I was able to afford my own computer and internet access after college, I paid a fee and used the local library's computers. Just because I could not, or would not, pay for my own access doesn't mean that they have a right suddenly to regulate all information i get there based on what they feel is in my best interest. Some ppl here seem to think that the library is for intellectual, erudite pursuits, but if you look at the collection of books in most local libraries you will find many books that are not very erudite. A good library has books which its patrons wish to read, not just what they should read. Why should the webpages available from library computers be any different?
Personally, i do look up medical information on the web, AND IN LIBRARY BOOKS. I do not use it to substitute for a doctor. Before a surgery I looked up what the doctor said was the problem and was able to not only confirm what he had told me but also to understand how he had come to that conclusion. I felt much better about the surgery which did solve the problem.
I did the same after another doctor visit and after reading several articles and not improving after a week, decided to get a second opinion. My doctor in that case got angry and refused even to recommend another for a second opinion. I am glad I saw someone else. Following the second doctor's advice, I quickly got better.
It is not always possible to ask all of my questions to the doctor when I am there. I think of things later, or just want to find out more. There are a lot of sites with solid information on the web.
Free Health Clinic's indeed! It is my body, my brain, and I will do as I please within the bounds of the law. The point of all of this is that the US Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court says that libraries cannot censor adult access to the web!
I bet you would not like my opinion on what people should not read any more than i like yours. That is one reason the US Constitution has a bill of rights.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
As far as I can tell, those who engage in censorship (even parents, but that's a different story) are either cowards who fear the truth, or idiots who think that they can actually accomplish something useful by censorship (or more likely, they are both).
I don't remember who said it, but I love the phrase: 'I hate everything you say, but I will fight for your right to say it'. I despise xianity and bible, I think they are total mind rot -- but I believe nobody has any business telling others what to look at, or not to look at. Since the library is a public facility, they should not censor content for anyone -- the only people who have business censoring content for kids, are their parents (and even then it's ethically questionable)
That being said, bible IS one of the most offensive books I have ever read (yes, I read all of it).
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
Naturally, when your 16 year old daughter is visiting lot's of sites about birth control you're going to want to have a sit-down with her. The thing is, you should have that talk with her anyways.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
This report was truly well researched and eye opening. As a fairly
liberal person and a college student, I have always been opposed to
censorship in any form. Censorship of the Internet seems to me to be
the most insidious form of censorship possible since it limits the
absolutely magical thing about the Internet, free flow of ideas without
national borders or monetary exchange.
I believe that your report will go a long way to reassure zealots that
students in school are extremely restrained, even inhibited. Anyone who
thinks about the matter for more than a few moments must realize that
this would be the case, no student wants to be caught with sallacious
materials on their screen.
Truly the Internet has a great deal of lousy content and even some
criminal content, but the potential for unfettered information gathering
is unprecedented. I think that we should be far more worried about the
corporate influence on the internet and students' viewing of banner ads
than we should about the inadvertent or intentional viewing of
pornography.
Finally, should we force searches of backpacks for copies of The
Anarchist's Cookbook or Playboy? Should we monitor notes passed in
class for sexual content and innuendo? Or should we teach students
about beauty, science, knowledge, and community, and trust them to push
the back button when they stumble upon the slums of the Internet.
Thank you for bringing this issue to the forefront, a perfect example of
the immense positive potential of the Internet.