Slashdot Mirror
Elizabeth Dole Calls for Library Net Filtering
A Big Gnu Thrush writes "This Wired article discusses Presidential candidate Elizabeth Dole's "technology platform," which includes a call to withhold funds from public libraries which don't filter Internet content. Finally someone with the guts to put a lid on these hothouses of porn. "
Thanks liz. I'm glad somebody thought of the children *cough cough*
No it isn't.
Distribution of the publication as a whole has not been stoped. Merely one channel on distribution.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Goodness its dangerous to encourage one's beliefs anymore, isn't it?
...this you will hear. No, I'm not pushing a Bible into your lap, its something to think about. It's what this page is supposed to be about... different ideas and such, not making everyone conform to YOUR porn pushing ideals OR MY Christians ones.
Oh wait, that's only if you're a moralist. Now, if you are gay, or a minority, then pushing your agenda and moral standards is peachy.
No, we as Christians should not be allowed to force morality upon anyone. That is true. You can't change someone's heart by legislation. The whole point of Christianity is that God changes people, people can't change people.
It's very popular and acceptable to flame anyone making a stand for their beliefs, as long as their beliefs are in line with the Religious Right or other "bible thumping mindless sheep" such as myself.
But in light of all of that, I think the porn industry should regulate itself. I don't know, create some kind of "we are the elite porn site, we regulate ourself" stamp of approval. A very far off dream, I know, especially for an industry whose favored way to attract new customers is similar to that of a drug dealer. (get it for free at first, get addicted, start to pay...)
But for all of the Pro-porn/anti-moral-lusers talk I've seen on here today... can you tell me one place that porn has ever helped someone? Did you ever hear someone say:
"You know, my life was in shambles, my wife was ready to leave me, my kids hated me... then I came across porn and my life has been so wonderful ever since!"
s/porn/Jesus Christ/
----- if ($anyone_cares) {print "Just Another Perl Newbie"}
warn "Just Another Perl User" if $anyone_cares;
. . . wanted homosexuals stoned to death, along with adulterous women. He didn't want us to eat pork, either. Jesus was into tolerance -- as in "Go, and sin no more" -- but you and the rest of the thugs who call themselves "Christians" these days aren't much interested in what Jesus said, as far as I can tell. One of the very few areas where Jesus was more strict than the OT was divorce: He was against it, unconditionally. Modern evangelical US protestants think divorce is permissible, of course. Undesirable maybe, but certainly permissible.
Don't just talk about the Bible, read it.
. . . whom Christians serve
Most Christians serve political Ayatollahs like Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson. The Bible is just an excuse, and an empty symbol.
I think you folks have a very skewed idea of what Christianity is and who Christians are.
I pay close attention to the Christian right, along with the Aryan Nation crowd and all the rest. Sporadically violent fringe lunatics make me nervous, and I feel better if I know what they're up to.
I can't tolerate things that are wrong (sinful), but I can still love those who do wrong.
You should've put "wrong" in quotes, because your twisted notion of "wrong" has nothing to do with community standards in the United States, nor very damn much to do with Christ's teachings either (whence most of those community standards came, by the way). Don't give us this bullshit about "loving the sinner but hating the sin", either. Nobody believes that hypocritical nonsense. I've seen enough "Christian" literature to know the truth: You people are bigots. You hate everybody but your own little group, and you'd throw us all in prison if you could.
"I like you, but I don't like some of the things you do."
Crap. Are all "Christians" pathological liars? Sometimes I get that impression. "Christians" don't want to "help" gays, not even by their own insane definition of "help". They want to deny gays their plain rights under the Constitution. They want to physically "punish" gays and throw them in prison. Some have advocated concentration camps (I am NOT making this up). Most advocate Chairman Mao-style reeducation. Predictably enough, you're speaking in very vague terms about the details of your "intolerance"; would you care to clarify? What are the details, please? Who's your role model, Mao or Hitler? Be specific.
You've benefitted enormously from tolerance yourself, by the way. You are a clearly irrational member of a lunatic fringe cult, yet you're allowed to practice your odd rituals and profess your bizarre beliefs entirely unmolested. But we're not going to take orders from you. Why should we? The world is full of nut cults. One's as good as the next. What makes yours so special? Nothing at all, so don't go demanding any special privileges that the Hare Krishnas don't get. Enjoy your little hobby in peace, but leave the rest of us alone.
As for your unwillingness to "tolerate" that which the voices in your head call "sinful", you can talk all you like, but if you try to implement your holy intolerance you stand a fair chance of being thrown in jail for aggravated assault, homicide, or whatever. And rightly so. When you stop talking and start acting, you'll be just one more common criminal. Every common criminal has an excuse and a sad story. Every rapist or murderer claims his victim made him do it. It won't help you any more than it helps them.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
What part of "in whole or in part" don't you understand?
Totally true. The sad fact is that this country still has too many Puritanical, Bible-thumping, uptight people. Sex is so taboo, like it's dirty to them. The sad fact is that many of these same people are sexual deviants and perverts. Heck, they are just as likely to pick up a whore and cheat on their wives. F 'em all......
Once this country comes to grips with human sexuality, we might actually be a better society....
Which minority is that then?
Those of us who understand that censorship is a fundamentally Bad Thing, and that the ends never justify the means. (Most /.ers fall into this category.)
Whenever I hear some1 forget the last point, or assume that their ends are so ideal that means become irrelevant, well.. all I can think is "you poor sorry mindless bastard".
I agree wholeheartedly on the "principle" point you make as well, BTW.
-----
".sig,
Thanks.
ufdraco
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>I think you know very well what I meant. Kids shouldn't be watching sex acts online. That's not the way to learn about sex. Pleasejust address the point and leave the smart-aleck remarks behind.
I addressed the point, that it's not for you to tell me how to live my life. As long as I'm not hurting you or yours, my life is my business. Maybe you just didn't understand.
>I think you also know very well that education is a continual process. Telling a kid once not to go near something does not mean he's learned not to. For awhile you have to be there to reinforce the message, and no parent can do that 24-7. Society as a whole must bear a part of that.
Not even prison inmates are controlled 24-7. Do you ish to restrain your child even more than inmates at Attica? I don't. I want ot raise my children the way that I was raised. I was instructed as to what the rules were. I was expected to abide by them 90% of the time I did. When I didn't I faced the music.
Society wasn't my parent, my mother and father were.
>And I suppose that if a truck is bearing down on them while you happen to be walking along my sidewalk, you'll just let them get splattered.
I'm not going ot trade places with them, if that's what you mean. I'd yell "Hey Kid! Get outta the street!"
>Gosh, isn't it nice to know that you are not responsible. I hope you can sleep well at night.
I wouldn't sleep at all if I were to die trying to save the kids that were playing in traffic because their parents were incompetent
>Maybe my neighbor is "inept" at raising his kids and doesn't feed them. You'd just let them starve.
No, I'd call CYS and get the kids out of there.
> I'd take them in and feed them.
Then the next day, when they're hungry again? And the day after that? And so on?
LK
Ok. Let us say they don't. What has changed? There is still a maximum amount that the library is willing to pay for bandwidth--that's how budgets are made. In the extreme case that they go over budget, they cut the connection. So either way, there is a maximum to the bandwidth transferred.
ufdraco
Obviously, Internet filtering is a touchy subject for a large majority of the net community. But I think if they are going to require filtering in all federally funded orginizations then we should provide the filtering. If schools and librarys have to have filtering it should be available free! If anybody is interested in contributing to this project please email me. you can find out more by checking out HTTP://www.activeguardian.com
Thnaks
True. He can't pull out hundreds of books in a minute. Unfortunately, there doesn't exist ANY filtering software that does filtering properly, and doesn't filter out the legitimate sites, such as breast feeding, breast cancer, etc.
It's even more important to make information on AIDS (blocked by many filters), sexual abuse and recovery, Buddhism (I wouldn't be surprised if this was blocked by the Christian fundamental filters.)
In short, it's not that we want children to be able to randomly chance upon the vast quantities of porn available on the internet, rather, we don't want to limit choices to a close-minded person's view of what's right.
I thought we were discussing censorship as a verb. You are refering to the noun portion of the definition.
By your screwed up thinking the only library in the country that doesn't censor is the Library of Congress....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>See a pattern yet? Or do you plan to argue that these strip joints are visited by "children" and should be shut down?
A few misguided individuals aren't indicative of the entire group. Timothy McVeigh was in the Army, does that mean that all men discharged from the army are terrorists?
I'm a republican with about 3gb of porn in my collection. My gun collection is impressive too.
LK
. . . keep the ACLU out of it. Let people think for themselves and raise their own children.
In other words, you want LOCAL governments to engage in censorship. As if there were "good" censorship and "bad" censorship. The ACLU wants nobody to engage in censorship -- not the feds, not Fort Dodge IA, nobody. You want local tyrrany; Libby Dole wants federal tyranny; in my book, you're pretty much equal. The Constitution seems to agree with my view, though with a big enough majority you could probably get that changed.
Hooray for the ACLU, and to hell with all tyrants everywhere.
But I wouldn't tell you what to do, because it would set the precedent that you could tell me what to do.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that you have no problem at all with telling me what to do, if I happen to live in your community. Sure, that's a lot better than you coming to Cambridge and getting on my case in my community, and it's arguable that if I don't like the way Fort Dodge works, I don't have to live there (not that you necessarily live there, but we may as well both use the same examples). By the same token, though, you can leave the USA, too, if you don't like things there (this is a not-so-gentle hint to all the Christians out there, by the way). One could argue that all tax-paying citizens have an equal claim not to be pushed around by the community, be it a national community or a local one.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
So now no Yahoo in libraries, that's what we need.
matguy
Net. Admin.
matguy(.com)
Kids have a right to privacy too.
:-) section), so, given this caveat, it can be argued that there be two sets of systems- one filtered, intended for children, and one for the adult side of the library- but even this is flawed.
Actually, hasn't the Supreme Court ruled on this? Children are (despite evidence to the contrary) not fully "citizens". (Sarcasm implied- is there an emoticon for this?)
I find the argument about abused children trying to find help online an interesting issue- considering that my finer half has lived through this (and I live with many of the scars). My wife is extremely protective of her children and agonizes over "normal" disciplinary action since she's taken a stand to break the cycle (IMHO she's done a very good job despite terrible things done to her by her first set of in-laws... Not that her current set of in-laws treat her much better).
So, the argument for some shielding is logical, but how much is enough? How much is too much?
In some ways a child's library card already limits a child's selection of books to borrow (though a child may browse and read, in the library, anything from the "adult"
As a parent, the one thing I want to be able to do with my children is TRUST them to consider their own integrity- physical, emotional and intellectual. If you teach your children properly it is possible to trust them- but you must also teach them WHY some of the material out there is not as interesting as they're being told...
(I would not want to view a porn site and find photos of my oldest daughter. Would you?)
What I want to instill is WHY there is little value to porn (or bomb-building, or whatnot).
The arguments that we need to keep bomb-building and hate sites away from our children sounds good- but I'd rather my children know about these and realize why they aren't a healthy diet for the mind. I also want my children (when old enough, though, WHEN is "old enough"? It varies from day to day!) to see this so they can build their own immunities- at least once.
As for tracking and reporting browsing behavior- perhaps it can be handled more generally. It also allows parents an ability to review the progress of their children (and to know where they are going).
Don't forget, though, that (IMHO) abusers are also controlling/domineering and will not allow much access to communications channels they don't control (which is why schools are supposed to keep an eye on things).
We should bring back house calls - when doctors could evaluate these risks...
-soup (GNUrd, Speaker to Machines) "Laugh at yourself- Why should everyone else have all the fun?" -Romanchek's 6th Ru
>(although Bob Dole was a Grade-A war hero, POW, and so forth)
I believe this is partially incorrect, that Dole was never a POW. He served in Italy, where his right arm was wounded to the point that he was honorably discharged, and he still suffers from that injury. (All this from memory, so there's a good possibility it's not fully correct.)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
This filtering issue goes much deeper than just trying to block access to porn. It's members of the Christian right declaring that they have the monopoly on morality and that we had better listen. I wish Christians would stop being Christians and start being Americans.
In reality most porn sites are more goofy than they are offensive. If you really want to see some of the more offensive sites on the net you should look at some of the outrageous lengths that the anti-gay or anti-abortion sites go to. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the old www.godhatesfags.com web site, and their are plenty of other ones just as violent if not worse.
My point is that what the Christians really object to are "new morality" memes seeping into peoples minds. It's not this "save the children" crusade. If they want to fight this fight then we need to take the filtering to next level and start filtering out Christian content as well.
Christian content and porn content serve the same purpose to distract people from real life and real problems. Both web sites just want to sell you a new lifestyle. They aren't so different both just wanna make a buck.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Get off your high horse. Just because you forgot to buy a pack of trojans the ONE time you got lucky doesn't make your opinion any more valuable or relevant here.
And for your land mine analogy, I should be able to plant land mines on MY property if I want to. Teach your kids not to tresspass you dumb prick.
>You can't stop everything, but at least you can make it more difficult to accidentally trip across this stuff.
It's not accidents that they're trying to prevent. If you kid types "www.wefu*ksluts.com" into the web browser it's not an accident. That kid is looking to see some porn, if they want to see it they will see it.
Why not have computers with and without filtering software at the libraries?
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
Anyone remember the good old days of Prodigy? I remember when someone mentioned using a "pot" in a recipe within a post, and blammo -- her account was suspended. Content filtering just doesn't work. (Not with keywords at least.) In short, it's not that we want children to be able to randomly chance upon the vast quantities of porn available on the internet, rather, we don't want to limit choices to a close-minded person's view of what's right.
Thank you! You hit the nail on the head. I'd also add that few people anymore are actually smart enough to make this distinction.
Thomas Hobbes may have been right after all: most people want an almighty patrician overseer for their government, one that frees them from the hard task of genuine thought. Even the "Libertarians" fall under this heading I'm afraid.
And Wm. Bennett is a big fan of Mr. Hobbes. Scares the %$#@ out of me..
-----
".sig,
There are more people out there who will support strong encryption and privacy than will support free speech. Take a look at the Slashdot community - a community which is biased towards freedom and privacy. There are few here who would support key escrow or other encryption restrictions, and yet there appear to be many who are willing to abandon freedom of speech.
The meaning of conservatism has been perverted. Conservatives in North America now seek not to maintain the status quo. Conservatives in North America seek to roll back the clock.
yea... we used to have one of thoes in harvard square... he was a hoot... all the goths would stand around and ridicule him but he and his pamphlet pushers (I used to collect them) would be there every saturday night.
favorite line (at the top of his lungs):
OPEN YOUR BIBLES YOU HEEAATHENNNNSS!!!!
man I miss that guy
I should move back to boston just for that.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Great...so if someone, ANYONE wants to research anything controversial, they better find somewhere besides the library, because the last thing we want is for anyone ever to get offended by anything...
When are these people going to learn to shut up?
I personally don't find it all that hard to have an account. For each machine I browse slashdot on, I only have to log in once (assuming I allow the cookie). After that, I can forget it quite easily and always be logged in. And people generally pay more attention to users than ACs. You can also get some responses to questions/comments off-site if your email is available (I've only gotten one--positive at that--so don't worry too much...).
At least that way you have the option.
ufdraco
Personally, I'm an advocate of immorality.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
porn sites have a URL xxx://sleaze.com and make it eazier to filter. Let the sites rate and police themselves. Informational sites about breasts could be weeded out from titilating site. What we have now is akin to having a porn store in Walmart, right in the face of people who don't want to see it. That would never happen and so shouldn't this. We need a change, now.
Libraries will never agree to release information on what people have been reading.
I once discovered a family photograph tucked in a library book -- evidently someone was using it as a book mark. I took it back to the library, and the librarian informed me they couldn't do anything because they destroyed all records of who borrowed what, so nobody could ever be persecuted for what they read.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I am unbelievably happy that a great American like Liz Dole (married to Grade-A war hero Bob Dole), has taken this step to protect out youth from bomb-making plans, satinism, wicca, and pornography.
Why, just the other day I saw a bunch of goth-bomb-throwing-commie punks fornicating (in ungodly, premarital couplings I might add) on a bed of Das Kapital and On the Origin of Species.
Only the saving power of our LORD, Jesus Christ, brought to earth via (dare I say it) his agent, Liz Dole, can save these children from the evil that is the library (Books? For Free? COMMIES!).
And the robot says: "In the begining was man. Man created all things. Man, with his infinite skill, created machines
Some (all?) public libraries carry recent issues of magazines. I reckon that these libraries are pretty picky about the kinds of magazines they carry, and they'd not think for a moment about carrying top-shelf magazines.
Maybe they'd see Internet filtering in the same kind of way - choosing what materiel they want to be available through their systems. Whilst some people are going to scream "free speech", these computers are library resources and the library is free to decide what they get used for.
The flip side of this is that libraries carry literature like Lady Chatterley's Lover. Would materiel like that be filtered by the proposed filtering software?
I think a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I'm glad I'm not the one who has to draw it.
Anybody know the bumper sticker
"Last time politics and religion were mixed people burned at the stake"
So what does that tell you? Does reading "In God we trust" on this countries bills not infringe on Freedom of Religion? If I do not believe in God(which I do not say I do or don't) why should I be forced to read passages praising god on things I use for paying for beer, food and well yeah I could use those small sheets of paper reading "In God we trust" to to to buy PORN?!?!? anybody else see the irony?
I immigrated into the US, not for religious freedom or anything like that. But in Germany the party I voted for was the CDU, Christian Democratic Union (the ruling party for 16 years). Would you believe that they do not advocate stronger support for Christianity in Government and that a good chunk of their voters are not christian?
So just because Liz advocates censorship because of her religious believes it makes her a good candiate? Yes I want to vote for a candiate that will make this country even more sexually repressed. What She wants is to keep information which she deems to be offensive under wraps for people using Libraries? How constitutional. Could you point out the passage in the constitution the reads "you will have to, against all principales of a democracy, life by the standards of a minority to protect another minority?" Start with Libraries and soon we will have a Senate Task force to eradicate none-G rated material on the Internet.
Did anybody ever wonder why the majority (us which are above 18) have to cater to the minority (those below 18) and hide violence from them or sex. People come on, Sex is a normal everyday thing, no other country is so "closed closets" about sex as the US. If you want to worship your religion keep it worshiping and believing in your religion without forcing it upon people like me. And do not force your moral standards on me either, because as an individual it is my choice to accept your religion OR morals and should not be forced to accept them.
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
I'm sure the "Antiporn" group mentioned, along with the multitudes of "think of the children!" groups would be agast if they actually spent time at a library reading the books. There is more stuff in your public library that could be "harmful to children" than most people realize. Shoot, if we're worried about harming the children's delicate sensiblities, we should keep them out of school entirely. After all, nothing good can come from letting people think on their own...
Just my $0.02
I read the internet for the articles.
Education, not censorship, is our best weapon against the ills of the world.
--
While I'm not talking about your circumstance perticualarly (your childeren are very young, barly to the age of being able to make complete cause and effect conclusions) I bet if you let a school aged kid eat icecream all day they would be sick as a dog a few times and eventually learn the lesson. Now I'm not quite sure why they havn't learned about poison ivy yet. I mean it only took me one or two times, the pain is just not worth it. But if one sees fit to only explain to children concepts and not to let them find out the stupidity of it for themselves, the are goint to get nowhere. Children are naturally rebellious explaniations do nothing. Libraries have had a long term commitment to not censor. I mean they might not have a subscription to playboy or anything, but thats more a matter of legality as you really can't leave such items out in public. Do you take your kids to the movie rental place and let them pickout whatever they want. As you should watch your kids in regular society, libraries don't have to be the exception (I do believe school libraries should offer some filtering simply because parents have no means of control). You know what annoys me most.. I really wanted libby as pres. too.. now I'm gonna have to rethink that idea. :(
If this means less government spending then it means less taxes which is good enough for me. Buy your own computer if you want to see what you want on the web. Internet connections in libraries are not meant for fooling around-people pay for them too. I'm tired of some people who want to censor everything but I'm ALSO tired of people who want taxpayers to PAY for abortions, porn, free needles for drug users etc etc
---
To some extent, you're talking apples and oranges. This is a college library that you are talking about, and "Pornoman" is legally an adult, whereas the issue in question is how to keep kids from viewing porn in public libraries. From a practical standpoint, it is probably easier for a librarian to tap the shoulder of a kid viewing Internet porn and tell them to leave, than it is to tap the shoulder of a corresponding adult. Also, it is legally much easier, I suspect, to make rules about what content a kid is allowed to access versus what an adult is allowed to access. There is already precedent for barring kids from engaging in conduct considered harmful to them, but conduct that adults are allowed to engage in; kids are not allowed to smoke, drink, and AFAIK, they are not allowed to view printed porn. AFAIK, adults legally have the right to view porn themselves, at least when they are by themselves or with others who are viewing the porn with them. My point is that it is probably much easier to take action against "Pornokid" than "Pornoman".
As is already painful obvious from what I've said above, I am not a lawyer.
http://www.doonesbury.com/dailydose/strips/1999/05 /db990524.html
Second wife of a failed presidential candidate. Work with the Amer. Red Cross. Politicially appointed officeholder of ineffective federal agencies.
Great qualifications to be a VP.
--I hate people when they're not polite -"Psycho Killer", Talking Heads
Wow, I love their porn cam... is that live?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/blurb/xxx.jpg
I quote from the Wired article: "Federal tax dollars should never be used to poison our children or provide free pornography for adults," Dole said during a visit to a library in Bellevue, Washington. This is an example of go-nowhere rhetoric designed to inflame jingoistic NIMBYs into passing a lot of ineffective, poorly reasoned legislation that has absolutely no hope of achieving any of the goals I think Mrs. Dole, in her infinite wisdom, has decided are important for our country. Here's the reality, folks. Most porn sites will make you pay to see the really racy stuff. Other than that, you get more skin at the beach or public pool. I don't know many kids who are a) Impressionable enough to be 'poisoned' by sexual images. and b) own a credit card that can be used to gain access to a porn site. What seems to have been missed is that PORN SITES ARE NOT FREE!!! If an adult wants to go to a public library and PAY to see porn, then so be it. I *know* that porn is not easy to 'stumble' on to. If you claim to have 'stumbled' on to a porn site, gimme a break. Come clean, you were looking for it, and you know it. What is the most important thing about this is that Liddy Dole cares nothing for your kids and what they can and cannot see in the library. She wants to be President. She said those things to garner support from culturally conservative people who have some other really awful ideas. I can't believe that a single slashdotter actually believes that Liddy Dole stands for anything other than herself, lining her pocketbook, and being president. She did a terrible job as President of the Red Cross, and would make an awful President.
Yes, personally I'm very offended by lycos' advertisment of porn sites? What corperate idiot decided to link to that meta-dog site in the first place? Anybody up for an email campain against lycos? (I used to accually respect lycos believe it or not)
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Since I'm a republican, I guess I'll throw my hat into the ring.
>>Republicans tend to have a similar view for economic policies, but are very socially conservative. They are typically anti-abortion, pro-drug laws, pro-gun rights, pro-death penalty, and anti-porn. I think a majority are also unsupportive of homosexual rights and extremely free speech (supporting measures such as banning flag burning, etc). Many are extremely religious and try to force it on others.
You're pretty much on the mark, but I'll try to further refine a couple of your points. Republicans are Anti-porn in the hands of children. Republicans are not "unsupportive of homosexual rights". We don't believe that there is such a thing. There are no more "homosexual rights" than there are "heterosexual rights".
>>Exactly. Sex is a perfectly natural act, as nudity is a perfectly natural state. I find it highly confusing that people attack the porn industry so readily, yet balk at the idea of attacking violent movies and TV shows. In my mind, showing violence is a lot worse than showing people having sex.
Both activities are perfectly natural. We've got genitals for participating in sexual activity and procreation. We have fingernails, and ribcages because no matter how "enlightened" we think we've become we're still just animals and violencs is just another part of life for us.
LK
"1. I don't think it is unreasonable to attempt to limit the use of a scare public resource to activities which are beneficial to the community."
:-)"
Then support things like time limits and the like, that _actually_ deal with the issue of fair allocation of scarce resources. Censorship is _never_ about scarcity. Censorship does not address this concern.
"I (personally, as an individual with an opinion and a vote - not a veto) don't consider free access to porn an acceptable use for public money."
And I, personally, don't see capital punishment as an acceptable use for public money. I also don't see the implementation of censorship as an acceptable use for public money. The _lack_ of censorship does NOT have an impact on the amount of money spent. The same amount of money is going to be spent whether the user is downloading porn or doing bible research. However, both of my examples above _do_ have an associated increase in financial costs borne by the taxpayers.
"2. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to do whatever you like in your own home. I just don't want to pay for it."
What anyone does in their own home was NEVER at issue here.
"3. I'm not proposing myself as the censor. You'd probably be better at it
Perhaps. But only because I'd be bound _not_ to censor.
"4. I understand the technical limitations of filtering software. I was talking on an philosophical level."
The technical limitations are FUNDAMENTAL limitations of any system of censorship, whether implemented by software, or by human intervention. There have been many attempts, in many parts of the world to define effectively pornography and obscenity. I'm not aware of any such appropriate definition.
Sorry I take that back.. lets not have an email campain.. apparently ftpsearch.com isn't owned or operated by lycos it simply redirects to ftpsearch.lycos.com and open up porn windows while its at it.. They are probably making good money doing this... does anyone know of the legality concerning such actions, as they are using lycos's content to make money for themselves?
1. I don't think it is unreasonable to attempt to limit the use of a scare public resource to activities which are beneficial to the community.
:-)
To take this to another level, should I be allowed to stroll into a public library and play network games all day? Perhaps, so long as there is sufficient slack capacity in the system. Suppose 20 of my friends come with me and we all do the same. Should the taxpayer fork out to provide this service?
I'm not arguing about the porn/free speech thing, I'm arguing about scare resources and what is an acceptable use for them.
I (personally, as an individual with an opinion and a vote - not a veto) don't consider free access to porn an acceptable use for public money.
2. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to do whatever you like in your own home. I just don't want to pay for it.
3. I'm not proposing myself as the censor. You'd probably be better at it
4. I understand the technical limitations of filtering software. I was talking on an philosophical level.
Go read this thread, then come back if you have any questions.
BTW, why should 10-year-old Joe's geocities website be assumed adult when he doesn't know what 'adult' even is to rate his site? Why should i and everyone else with a non-adult website have to go through and add your rating to every single page, then re-upload them all, to state the obvious (i.e. no adult content)? Are you willing to foot the bill for all that? ;)
-----
kernel: lp0: using parport0 (polling).
kernel: lp0 off-line
kernel: lp0 out of paper
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
I'm all for filtering as an additional service that libraries may want to offer the parents of their younger patrons, if it encourages library use. But just because you assume that pleasure is not a good enough reason for an adult to look at internet pornography, it doesn't mean there aren't other, more legitimate reasons. Maybe I'm writing a book about the depiction of violence against women in porn; I can't very well do that without looking at some of it. There should always be unfiltered workstations available.
The same goes for other controversial topics, like abortion, birth control, and hate speech.
If some hate group is organizing in my town, I want to know what the group is saying to its audience.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The largest problem with what Mrs. Dole is asking for is the fact that she wants libraries to censor both children and adults.
...am I obsolete already?).
:-) some of my thoughts, of which (I am sure) many will disagree, and here is the key to civilization:
Agreed. *THIS* is a problem. Of course, Libraries are already segregated by age - at least in terms of what a person may borrow (I'm using the NY Public Library as a model here...
A library, however, is a public space. My main argument is that there is little/no reason for filtering AS LONG AS A BROWSER REALIZES THAT THIS IS BEING DONE IN A PUBLIC PLACE AND PRIVACY IS NOT POSSIBLE. If an activity belongs in a bedroom, well, don't view the streaming video in the library unless you don't mind having all of your neighbors watching over your shoulder. This is the core of my "position" (albeit non-missionary).
OK, so I'm a "compassionate" conservative. Folks who have raised children through to adulthood will tend in this direction- though is it mainly to protect one's own bloodline? BTSOOM! But I want my children to succeed...
A teen-age daughter wears out her father when she's dating since she always seems to pick a boyfriend 3 (or more) steps below her on the evolutionary ladder. Mothers constantly fret that they haven't set aside enough money to bail out their teen-age sons...
So, with that background provided, let's wade on in...
Values are important- but I don't want my children to automatically salute an authority figure and I'd like them to think for themselves. That doesn't stop me from wanting to implant certain (survival linked) prejudices:
Race is irrelevant. I someone else can put up with me, I can put up with them, regardless of race, color, creed, whatever. Discovering that one's spouse's ex-in-laws instilled a sense of racism in one's stepchildren is an appalling thing to experience.
Drugs (whose truth on the web?) - Hey, I was introduced to MJ in college 25+ years ago. It was interesting. Once. Maybe I'm wired funny but it wasn't all _that_ interesting. I guess I needed to get a life that I hated.
Sex can kill, these days. Granted, it can be argued that diseases won't jump between species (my daughter's boyfriends and her) but the reality is, for a father, far more frightening. Additionally, unless one's spouse is interested in knowing about differing positions there's not much point. Why bother? Porn isn't all that harmful except that it often gives the wrong message, like "When she says NO it really means YES"- and one doesn't want to hear about your daughter being date-raped by a guy who's viewed the same material YOU like.
Bombs can be considered evolution in action. It's also stupid. Knowledge is fine but it is illegal to act on it. A lot of things are that way. In all seriousness, sure, bomb-making information isn't all _that_ harmful since many of the idiots who'll act on it will blow themselves up- or get caught and then executed.
Violence is an ambiguous item. There are times where violence is called for- after all, War has existed (and been tolerated by God) because it performed a useful function (if you've looked at history, it has tended to take down corrupt leaderships). In this day of a more unified world we no longer have it as a useful check-and-balance. Likewise, on an individual basis, it could be argued that duelling should never have been outlawed (though it should be confined to principals and not use seconds). Duelling could function as another check-and-balance against corruption on an individual level and has the side effect of rendering politeness as an evolutionary advantage.
So, I've exposed (not XXX-posed
Tolerance is required. Approval is NOT required.
I tolerate people with other opinions and lifestyles; I am no more required to approve their lifestyles than they are of mine. Don't try too hard to sell me (which is an expression of intolerance) any more than I'll try to sell you.
No matter how much I'd like things to be different they won't be.
The bottom line? A library is a public place. There should be no privacy there. There should also be no censorship, either. There are many who would restrict our sources of information, but we must keep them open. Libraries tie us together as a civilization since they maintain the inventory of human knowledge- even if some of that knowledge is ugly.
Knowledge is power. Power provides freedom to choose.
Don't forget that politicians would love us all to be illiterate- then we could be more easily manipulated.
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who DO study history will be able to recognize that they are repeating it- even if they can't do anything about it.
-soup (GNUrd, Speaker to Machines) "Laugh at yourself- Why should everyone else have all the fun?" -Romanchek's 6th Ru
"You can't legislate morality. And unlike the response that said, "Morality is a personal trait, not a template with which to make law." I do believe that law must derive from morality. Would you like to live under the rule of immoral laws?"
/. Christian reader who supports the separation of Church and State.
I would certainly not wish to live under immoral laws. However, I find amoral or at least secular laws to be significantly preferable to laws based on one religion.
"at least [Christians] have a motive for trying to do more than meet their own selfish ambitions."
As do many conscientious Muslims, atheists and agnostics. Christians do not have a monopoly on the moral high ground.
"I'd prefer it if schools and libraries and other places I fund through my taxes were trying to help me in my efforts to raise my kids morally, rather than hinder me."
Providing information, showing the good and bad of mankind can not hinder your efforts to raise your kids morally. The only way that people can learn to run their lives morally is to see what is moral and what is immoral. If you insist that the government should protect your children through censorship, _you_ are hindering _my_ attempts to raise my kids morally.
"What do you all have against teaching children to focus on thoughts that are righteous and pure, and trying to protect them from what is impure?"
Censorship does not protect kids from what is impure. The only thing that can protect kids from that which is impure is critical thinking. If you are unable to teach your kids to deal in a moral manner with impure things, your kids will not deal in a moral manner with impure things.
Another
Don't let your kids leave the house if you don't want them exposed to anything outside your control.
-- $SIGNATURE
Even if the information is "wrong" people should have access to it. I believe people are not just things than you can input to, but that the inputted information also can be processed within that person. That is to say, people have a mind of their own and we should let them decide what is "wrong" information and what is not.
The most important issue here is who the heck should decide if something is "wrong" or not. Yes, with certain things you can say that this is right and that is wrong, for example a hypothesis regarding a chemical experiment. But when it comes to different ideologies, there is no single way to say that this is wrong and that is right. I believe in capitalism and I do not think communism is the way to go, but look at U.S., and all the problems it has. Obviously it does not utilize the 'ideal ideology'. Communism is a great idea, that no person is worth more than another, and that therefore no one should have more than anyone else. Problem is that it doesn't work in Real Life. If we let people read whatever they want, and let them make their own decisions, someone might just get a bright idea of how to merge the best of communism with the best of capitalism, or any other ideology for that matter, and that would be a really great thing, right? This of course requires that there is an open debate in society and freedom of speech. Something that can not be found in neither China nor USA.
OK, OK, 50 states. I'm not from that side of the swamp, alright?
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
I can't imagine the Court will reverse itself, so Libby and the GOP can try all they want.
Put aside considerations of "self-control" and "pornography" for a moment, and think about ex-offenders trying to cope with the trauma of prison rape upon release. Most don't have computers but can get access to the supportive community and information they need to begin treatment and recovery through computers at public libraries. The prison-rape support sites that I know of all have graphic letters from inmates describing rapes (www.spr.org, for example). No non-human filter will be able to tell that the user is seeking therapy and not sexual titilation (again, putting that issue aside).
These sites also use the letters from raped inmates to spread awareness about what happens in our contries prisons and jails. It's how I first became informed about the issue. Informing the public about the issue is a major concern...but what if they are politely filtered from every public library? This was just one of many points that convinced the Supreme Court to strike previous net-censorship laws.
This is all just to say that while kids do need protecting, and the government *may* have some good ideas about how to help, this is not one of them.
I wasn't planning to respond to this post, I think it pretty much scuttles itself quite well without additional torpedos, but I find it extremely intersting how the idea of "if you don't have children your ideas and opinions can and do not matter" is used as a rational argument. Ludicrious. And it doesn't even matter the subject in question; guns, sex, books or the weather, appearently if you've not had a child you've not been "living it" so to speak, and so you can't speak. Interesting; guess I better go out and get some girl pregnant so I can figure it all out and then rightfully participate in the democratic process!!
"Get out of my way! Can't you see I'm trying to save the world!!" -Xion
Shouting loud loses face. Unfortunately, staying silent doesn't change laws (or keep them the same as the case may be). So what's the solution?....VOTE FOR ME. I don't see any other way around it. I'll accept the burden of the presidency, with a heavy heart, but always willing to help out when I can. No need to thank me. :)
"Get out of my way! Can't you see I'm trying to save the world!!" -Xion
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF YOU HOT STUDS AND LUCIOUS BABES OUT THERE, BUT I DO HAVE CHILDREN, AND I'VE SEEN WHAT PORNOGRAPHY DOES TO KIDS.
Hey, I experienced it first hand, so if you're going to tell me I'm degenerate because I was watching the playboy channel when I was 8 years old, save your breath.
And geez, did you ever go to a library? Did you see a bunch of young kids there, who weren't there with their parents? 9 out of 10 kids don't want to go to the library, and the other one isn't going to care about porn anyway.
"Let's hang out at the library after school and look at porn!"
OK. You Defenders can start sending me your hate mail now. Just remember that I don't give a rat's a$$ about your opinion unless you've had children of your own.
If it weren't for the endearing nature of your post, the rat's a$$ would have been spared on you, be sure.
Troll Like a Champion Today
Ah, but a few individuals are indicative of the entire group, when those individuals are the leadership of the group.
Why are Republicans in favor of the Ten Commandments being hung in all public schools? Because the Religious Right asked them to. Less than 5% of the group, but they hold enough key positions to be very influential. Mayor Giuliani or whatever the hell his name is is being groomed as a presidential candidate in 2004 or 2008, hence his Senate race in 2000. That's another very influential position. Only a few people, sure, but they're enough to swing the entire party to a certain position if they choose.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
Small doses of censorship are fine and peachy, good stopgaps for the underlying problems that we are afraid to face. We'll take our doses of it like sour medicine and smile at the end when we can look and say "there! we did something...and all for the children"...but the doses accumulate faster than one might think, and where before it was just a small poem torn up, a small idea thrown out, those words, those concepts, they collectively become a larger and larger chain to bind us all into a slavery of unthought. It starts and continues in small doses like this, stopgaps politicians use to get elected, to stay in office, to fool you; be wary of the small doses, for unlike other toxins, these doses of bitter poison will never flush out of the system with time alone.
Some may say that my post is completely off-subject, that blocking child access to library porn has nothing to do with censorship or slavery. As I say, small doses.
"Get out of my way! Can't you see I'm trying to save the world!!" -Xion
Why isn't this against the library policy, and why doesn't the librarian kick these people out? It doesn't take government coersion or fancy software to protect your kids, just a realization of what is and is not allowed in a public place and enforcement of that in the case someone is stupid enough to break the mores.
I assume your library would kick someone out who brought in a bunch of porn magazines, spread them around the table, and stared at them. But if they're in the guy's breifcase and he doesn't remove them (or sit staring into the briefcase) then what's the problem? [The analogy: not looking using the library's computer]
-----
kernel: lp0: using parport0 (polling).
kernel: lp0 off-line
kernel: lp0 out of paper
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
Posted by Talancc:
As everyone knows that censorship in public locations is going to happen whether we like it or not, we have to take a look at the other side of the coin. As a student worker in the library here at college, I have a chance to debate this out with those who see what needs to be done on a frequent basis. First you have to limit (on at least one machine in the public domain) the porn. Unfortunately, this means that anyone trying to find information on health related issues such as breast cancer are also going to be limited. We need to find a way to create a filtering system that doesn't hurt the ones we are trying to protect from the people who will put anything in a meta tag to get their pages listed a bazillion times in a search engine. There has to be a way to stop the insanity before we just say, "Sorry kids, you can't use this powerful tool because it isn't made for children." I guess I won't forget to teach my little girl that the old fashioned books still work, just in case they decide to pull the plug from our children's experience with the internet and the world of information that most libraries couldn't think of holding in one place.
Posted by Solar Jetman:
In theory, any and all tyranny in a democracy is the "tyranny of the majority" -- where 52% of the population pass laws that oppress the other 48% of the population. To avoid that, democracies have constitutions, telling them what they can and cannot do, regardless of what the people happen to think. Thus, whether a government action supported by a majority is justified depends upon whether it is constitutional. Is such a federal mandate constitutional? No -- libraries are run by the states/local governments. Such a state/local decision IS constitutional and justified, because the government is simply deciding how to run its own institution. A library could (if the people voted to make it so) keep out every book with the phrase "First Amendment" in it, and it would be constitutional (though absurd and bad for library attendance).
As soon as the government starts telling ME that I can't look at porn AT HOME, that's when we're talking about tyranny.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>>Kids don't need to be watching people copulating online.
Adults don't "NEED" to be watching people compulating online either.
>>Parents can't monitor their children 24-7.
Then they should TEACH them what the rules are. My step-dad had the playboy channel when I was 9 years old. My parents sat me down and explained to me that I was not to watch it. I didn't.
>>Society has a responsibility to pick up the slack.
I'm not responsible for anyone else's ineptness.
>>Personally I think the Fed should leave it up to local communities to decide for themselves, but they should restrict other entities (the ACLU springs to mind) from inhibiting those community's decisions on the matter. More local autonomy, less gov't control, no special interest group interference.
Even though I don't always agree with them the ACLU exists to make sure that the government (at all levels) obeys their own laws. If the constitution says that the government can't do something, it's up to the citizens and groups like the ACLU, the NRA, the JPFO and others to make sure that the government follows it's own rules. Otherwise we have a facist police state. Sure maybe kids in a facist police state can't look at porn, but I'd rather live in a free society and accept the respobsibility of teaching my kids better.
>>Parents should be the ones raising their children, and I'm all for empowering them to do that better. I am not an advocate of Big Government, but I am an advocate of family and morals.
Your morals may not be mine, and mine may not be yours. If you force your morals upon me, what is to stop me from doing the same to you?
LK
Here's my helpful hint: Look around before you jump to comment--I wrote my post about 10 hours before you did, so you really have no excuse for missing it. If you are having trouble seeing everbody's comments because you can't tell what is relevant or not, use nested mode instead of threaded...it's higher bandwidth perhaps, but you never risk missing something b/c you didn't click on something relevant--it's less work too. YMMV.
ufdraco
I have noted a trend of similar parental behavior in situations of this sort. The availability of pornography to his children has, like the screaming majority of other plaintiffs, enabled him to communicate far above and beyond normal volumes while simultaneously removing his desire to contaminate his arguments with facts or logic. It's an amazing problem, really, and for the sake of parents everywhere, I hope our nation's libraries get a good working-over by Czarina Dole.
Shoot, if we're worried about harming the children's delicate sensiblities [...]
Interjection: my mother runs a computer program at an elementary school, including lots of internet stuff with fifth- and sixth-graders (~11-12 years old) -- just about the age where "inappropriate material" is most worrisome: old enough to be interested in looking for it and young enough that there is actually (arguably) some harm that it could do to them.
This is how she handles the issue: she tells them, point blank, "Don't do anything in here that you wouldn't want to show and explain to: (1) me, (2) the Principal, and (3) your mother." There's a very strongly-implied "...because that's exactly what's going to happen if I catch you" hanging from the end of that. As far as I know, she hasn't had any "incidents", so apparently the combination of showing a little respect for their judgement and making them imagine the embarrassment that they would be in for actually works.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Is there any serious problem with embedding standardized, descriptive information in digital media (web pages, images, digital video, HDTV, digital audio). All of these formats could easily carry "fields" which describe what the media contains (which would be useful aside from censorship) as well as "fields" appropriate for censorship use. You could imagine a quite objective (and possibly detailed) set of fields describing aspects of the content (eg: adult language, levels of nudity, etc.) which everyone would be expected to embed in the media. Media which doesn't include the info can be blocked. The info can be "audited" on a random basis or by anybody in the world who notices that it does not follow the guidelines.
For censorship, this provides an objective (and fine grained) description of the content and allows the consumers (or their parents/school) to decide where to draw the line. It also is trivial to implement using computers (except for analog media) and includes a nice auditing system where any person can notice if some media has been mis-labeled.
For other uses, this can be quite valuable. If I am doing a study on tree leaves, I can search the web for images which have a field describing the image subject as a tree leaf. If I want all audio clips of Linus Torvalds, I can search for exactly that by reading the headers of all the audio clips I find. Search engines would actually find what you want, and not only for text, but any media.
This seems like such an obvious solution. Is there any serious problem with this? Is anyone implementing anything like this?
These are two separate quotes you (I presume, they were both ACs who sounded the same) made in this thread. I'll discuss them together.
Tell me, where should a child learn about sex? Behind the barn with that kid Jimmy down the street who stole his dad's Playboy? I've read several of your comments, and I don't see any solutions, just aimless whining about problems. I'd rather teach my kid that there's nothing wrong with sex per se, and hope that they're somewhat "normal," in that they could be gay, straight, bi, or a nun/priest, so long as they weren't a rapist or into anything truly harmful.
Parents can't monitor their children 24-7. Society has a responsibility to pick up the slack.
It takes a village, huh? Bullshit. Childhood is a part of life, and life means living. Childhood is not a prison with safety-padded bars. You teach your child as much as you can, but you have to teach them to explore and to learn on their own.
I broke my arm as a child, doing something I shouldn't have. Had my parents warned me not to? Certainly. Did I do it anyway, first chance I got? Damn straight. My own son is the same way, he just broke his leg doing something just as stupid. And he's being punished for it - by being in a cast for six weeks, being in considerable pain, and having to explain very fully and explicitly what he was trying to do and why. Did I know he would try it? Yup. I hadn't planned on him breaking his leg of course, and I was as scared as any parent when he did it - but you know, I wouldn't change what I did regardless. I see classmates of my son who don't have the sense God gave a mongoose because their parents shield them from everything. By contrast my son is a stubborn, intelligent, willful boy who won't take anyone's word for it "just because;" he'll try it himself. That doesn't mean he'll run out in front of a truck because he won't listen when I tell him that would be a bad idea; he can work out for himself that he'd be killed.
I'd say it's better to teach my children to be brave, smart, curious, and careful. Explore where you can, but look before you leap. Don't take anyone's word for it that something's wrong - but don't dismiss things out of hand, either. It all boils down to one thing - Go anywhere, do anything, try any experience. After you've considered the possibilities and judged the risks.
If my child is playing in the street - he won't be, he's got more sense, without 24/7 monitoring - and you walk by, certainly I hope you'll tell him to get out of the street, and I hope you'll tell me about it. But don't tell me how I raise my son.
Parents should be the ones raising their children. Period. Don't "empower" me, don't monitor me or my children, and you can take your "morals" (a nice, kind word for self-rightous interference in matters that don't concern you) and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. And if you're not sure where that is, there are a lot of internet sites happy to show you a close-up view.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
Seriously, though, if the display tubes in the library are large ...
Librarians have already considered this and shot it down. While it discourages some people from viewing objectionable material, it doesn't discourage all people. Those who aren't easily embarassed keep right on viewing objectionable material, but now everyone - small children included - will be able to see it. some librarians hzve noted that exhibitionistic patrons actually seemed to enjoy viewing objectionable material more if they knew that everyone else knew they were looking at it.
Let's keep it that way- leave it an open channel for information in print
I seriously doubt that any of the libraries you patronize have subscriptions to Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc. They could easily afford to. I don't doubt that such magazines would have a higher readership than "Photography Today" or "The New Yorker". The only possible explanation for their failure to provide such materials is censorship.
I don't want my money to go toward providing porn to my kids or yours. Why do you want to use your money (yes I realize it is just as much yours as mine) to supply porn to my kids?
Porn isn't supplied to the kids or to the adults (in libraries I have seen which carried Playboy, for instance - though I don't consider Playboy porn - Hustler, OTOH...) - it is the access to it that is supplied.
If we allow the removal of access to porn, what's not to say we will remove the access to, for example, the text of the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>Only a few people,sure, but they're enough to swing the entire party to a certain position if they choose.
Not at all. The left wing, country club republicans have been trying for years to get us to drop the anti-abortion plank from the party platform.
LK
As a registered Democrat who agrees with you, what'll we do? Take over the Libertarians? (Don't laugh -- a kid from Finland is taking over the world as we speak.)
---- "When I grow up, I'll know far less"
What's the harm in actually teaching our children what's bad, and what they probably should stay away from, instead of trying to put a clamshell over them and hope that nothing ever gets through?
I keep poisonous household chemicals in a cabinet with a "child-proof" latch. Applying your reasoning to this situation would suggest that I should let my kids have access to these poisons and teach them not to drink them. I'm not going to take the chance that my kids might ignore me. Ultimately, they'll be old enough to get through the child-proof latch, but by then they'll be old enough to understand exactly what poison is and what it can do.
I feel the same thing applies to knowledge about the world around us. My *%@^ inlaws told my son about tornadoes, and now we have to hold him at night anytime there's a windstorm while he cries about "tomatoes". He was too young for that knowledge.
It's censorship straight from the definition, your morality crusade aside:
censor n : a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence or to watch
theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene or
politically unacceptable v 1: forbid the public distribution of; as of movies or newspapers [syn:
ban] 2: subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This magazine is censored by the
government"
What is a greater cost to society? Handing out clean needles to people, or years and years of HIV/AIDS treatment? People think that giving people needles will 'send the wrong message', or make it seem like we condone the illegal drug use... this is total bullshit. They're going to do it whether they have clean needles or not. Show some compassion, and take the opportunity to educate these people while they are picking up their needles.
If you don't like porn and you stumble into a porn site, you will just leave. If you don't know if you like porn and you stumble into a porn site, you will look around, decide whether you like it or not, and either leave or stay based on that decision. If you know you like porn, then you won't mind stumbling into a porn site anyway. I don't see the problem except that some people are too immature to deal with accidentally catching a glimpse of something they don't like. Their immediate solution is to not let anybody look at that because it offends them. I think these people need to grow up and realize that the world does not revolve around them and their beliefs. Other people have to tolerate accidentally running into religious sites and other potentially disagreeable sites, so why should porn sites be any different?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
(from the US Constitution: http://tucson.com/Constitution/cns2/cns253.htm)
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 - BILL, EX POST FACTO No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
That having been said, I agree with your assertion that this is a bad -- in fact, probably unconstitutional -- law, as it ties together prior censorship by public entities with funding constraints. Although the Federal Government has used defunding threats in the past to progmulate de facto national standards (e.g. using the threat of highway funds withholding to force states to keep their drinking ages at 21), various Circuit Courts have held that the InterState Commerce clause (which the Supreme Court has upheld as one of the powers of Congress) *cannot* be overly extended. (The case of which I am thinking concerned Congress using that clause to establish "gun-free" zones around public schools; a circuit court (Ninth?) held that that use of the InterState Commerce clause was unconstitutional.)
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
All non-seniors do is look at pornography? They don't have e-mail too? Or games? Since when is an old lady's e-mail more important than pornography? I never heard of that law.
which are something PHB-types can understand. Pay phones can be used for all kinds of "bad things" like: calling 1-900 sex numbers, making drug deals, making obscene or prank phone calls, etc... the point is, we have laws to deal with the people who cause trouble for others. We don't try to prevent the "bad things" by blocking certain numbers, or monitoring phone calls, or having security guards watch over public phone users. There is no reason to have a different set of rules for the same content carried over different communications media.
Lets make a deal. If you can tell us what "thoughts that are righteous and pure" includes and does not include in a way that each and every /.er agrees with, then we'll all agree that we should teach children to focus on those things.
And I'll have you know up front that I consider sex and human sexuality to be right (if not righteous) and pure and that I consider censorship to be "impure" and definitely not righteous. We've already seen posts from /.ers who disagree with me on this. Therefore, we can see that it's impossible to empirically define "righteous and pure".
I have nothing against teaching my children to focus on "righteous and pure" ideals, but that includes protecting them from people who think that sex is somehow "dirty" and that anything related to sex should be hidden from their eyes and ears.
Man, when I was younger, I would have loved to have had that info...damn.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
So let me understand this, I can't go to the
periodical section and pick up a copy of.. let's
say "Hustler". I think we would all agree that
"Hustler" really does not belong at a public
library. If you want to read(ahem) Hustler, there
are places to get it.
Normally when the topic of filtering access comes
up. People normally fear (with good reason), that
the filtering of legitimate sites is soon to
follow. Sites that may promote the Gay Community,
or sites that discuss teen pregnacy, or STD's.
I don't think this will happen, why? because you
can find that content on the bookshelves in the
library.
I know it's really sheik to love linux, damn the
man, and be a libertarian (I agree with all:), but
let's not loose focus. I personally wouldn't want to see my daughter's concentration on research be broken by the bozo next to her cursing over loosing his adult check passwd.
Just my thoughts.
Awesome!
Policies on adult material vary from one library system to another, but in general there is a distinction drawn between adult and obscene. For example, most major libraries do carry Playboy because, whatever one may think of the photographic content, the magazine does have articles and editorial content and does not meet the common legal definition of obscenity (appealing only to a prurient interest) in most parts of the US.
An important concept in all obscenity laws is the notion of community standards for acceptability. What is considered obscene in one community may be considered perfectly acceptable elsewhere. This is where Ms. Dole's plan deviates from prior legal practice, by setting a national standard. Libraries often use their own community's standard for "obscene" to decide what is and is not in their collection.
Incidentally, my wife happens to be a strong free-speech advocate (as am I). In her selection of what A-V titles to carry, she makes a point of keeping a broad-spectrum collection, especially in the areas of politics and religion. She has in the collection hundreds of videotapes which she personally finds objectionable from religious grounds, but which she believes others have a right to see if they wish to do so.
Other librarians in the area run the gamut from free-speech advocates to those who would censor even literary classics. There is a Library Bill of Rights (put out by the American Library Association, I think) that lists among its tenets the right of any patron to access any material, and the right to privacy of that material from government review. This does not mean that children can view bestiality at the library, but it does mean that your local sheriff cannot get the "goods" on you and harass or arrest you just for reading about illegal drugs.
In many areas, librarians are on the front lines in the battle to preserve free speech.
"I personally think all political parties should be banned. Let the candidates run on their own agenda, not a parties. Then we might get some people in office who are actually concerned with whats going on."
Exactly. People think that the US has never had an independent president, but that's not true: George Washington was very anti-political party. And with good reason. People end up forgetting what they really believe in and joining the party line just because it gives them a better chance of being elected. Political parties have certainly contributed to the "dualism" in US politics. Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican. People seem incapable of grasping the possibility of a third, or *gasp* a fourth, possibility. There are many voters who don't even understand or care about the issues. They just go and vote for whomever is running for their party. Completely mindless.
Why do we need political parties at all?
I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
This first comment may see rather harsh but... Ok, so what's going to stop homeless and internetless people from going to the library and surfing the porn sights because they have no other way to do so? They have nothing else to do, so they could be spending a LOT of time at libraries researching porn.
And the children, the net is FULL of porn. Yesterday (at work) I was looking for a file that I knew the name of, but the server was down. So i got to ftpsearch.com Oh boy was that a mistake. Up pops a few extra windows, I figure just advertisements so I ignore them. Then I finish what I was looking for and try to close the ads. Once I closed the first, 3 more windows opened up, all on porn sites! Then as I closed them, they reopened. I ended up giving the computer a boot cause I'm at work, and I can't let this stuff be seen on my computer.
Its one thing to keep people from seeing what they want, but if this happens to a child, then what?
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Unfortunately, filtering software is only as good as the broad category definitions it uses, and the people employed to apply those definitions and categorize the Internet. No matter how "precise" the definitions are, it's not clear what is porn and what is not. Most professional filtering software companies don't even try. They'll have a category for web sites that are "related to sex" or that "show nudity or explicit speech". But there are lots of sites related to sex education that might fall into these categories, or famous literature, or other types of information. The filtering companies sometimes attempt to make exceptions (like sex ed sites) but the software can never be perfect because the decisions are so subjective. IMHO they are only truly useful for companies who wish to monitor Internet-related nonproductivity and they have no place in a public instititution such as a library.
But to be fair and democratic about it, I think individual communities should decide whether they want their libraries to be "filtered" if they feel it's necessary. Perhaps federal funds could even help libraries implement filters if the citizens want that. But it is bullsh** for the federal government to quietly usurp that decision-making power by withholding needed technology funds to communities with different values.
Is this porn?
What about this?
Should children be protected from this?
Sorry, no person, company or software can answer these questions. The "protect the children" legislative push is just political posturing to get votes from the seemingly uneducated masses.
Um, hold on a second here. Hasn't many cases of internet filtering just ended up in courts and knocked down because it was shown there was more than just porn censorship going on. And since when was porn "wrong"? It's not an illegal business in the United States last time I checked. It is illegal for minors to view it, but under the current setup the viewers end up with it anyways. So filtering sucks anyhow.
Anyways, I dont want my government and my money mandating filtering. Even the HS I went to wasn't this bad.
dieman
-- dieman - Scott Dier
Please check out the Thomas Register (where many bills can be viewed). Check specifically H.R. 1501 and the specific Amendment (Title XIV) that:
...and this is retroactive, which means that the libraries must refund the discounts received during this past calendar year I believe.
So if anyone in your library finds information on breats feeding, breast cancer, Dick Simon Trucking, or whatever else, your library will be poor. That's how I view it.
Please write your congress persons. Check out Vote Smart for a place to start for contact information.
Also check out the American Libraries Association (ALA). They have a Legislative Issues page which says that a Senate committee even already approved the bill.
Let's stop this madness and educate the lawmakers that any limits to information should be evaluated by the local communities and NOT be federally mandated, especially on such misinformation.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
I completely agree, except that the top level domain should be .xxx instead of the protocol name (xxx://)
.com, .org., and .net? I had ONE company mail me something about getting a .cc address, and that is it. I thought that these competing registrars were all going to have their own TLD - .web, .inc, .dot, .slash, etc. (or would that be .etc ? :) )
Any site with porn should be required to have a http://www.nakedhumans.xxx type address.
With all these new so-called competitors to NSI for registering domain names, why are we still seing nothing but
The problem is just not that simple. Personally I agree with you to a point (no ppl shouldnt be reading Hustler at the public library). The probelms arise when we actaully get to the point of implementing a system like this and we answer the really big question....WHO decides what is *bad* and what is *good*? The librarian (heh if youve ever talked to one about this issue youll realize that you might as well not do it at all)? The president? Or (heaven help us) software? Filtering net content with software just does not work very well. Weve been down this road befor. And think about it : do you really want your civil liberties in the hands of a *software company*?
What is being propossed here is nothing more than bookburning revisited. Its sad that we as a people still allow things like this to happen under the guise of public safety.
nothing, nothing at all...
or at least nothing has been proven. as far as i know there has been no study, no reports, no edivence [sp] that the Colmbine shootings, and p0rn are linked in some way.
this wish to "Filter" or censer the internet, seems like how every new media is censered. ie print is the "freest" media, and tv the least.
as long as us geek's, nerd, etc... let them, [ presidential hopeful's, do gooders, your parents, my parents, girl friends... etc... ] they will try to control us, by defining what is "real" [ that which you can think, how you can act, and whome you should love, etc... ].
goddess, politics sickens me...
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
I add two more: *cough* *cough*
The United States of America, the worlds greatest democracy! Hooray! I think it is weird that China, you know that big, communist country over to the east with loads of people in it, filters Internet content. And now, Uncle Sam won't even let his own children read what texts they want? Isn't that what libraries are for? It's just like the days of the black-listing of the communists, when people couldn't read whatever they wanted. Who knows what they'll be filetering away this time? I'm sure glad I don't live in one of the great 52 states, and that I don't have to rely on a library for connecting to the Internet. Worlds greatest democracy... *Shaking my head*
The Republican party today is all for greater regulation- social control regulation, that is. Companies and gun lobbies, forget it- they can do whatever they want. Have a ounce of MJ and get thrown in jail for years. (Oh, the jail's overcrowded? Might as well release this armed robber- he's much less a threat to society.) Better create a Constitutional amendment just to ban a form of free speech, censor that Internet and keep gays in the closet while we're at it.
Sorry for the rant- this registered Republican has to blow off steam once in a while. It's too bad there's no party for socially liberal, fiscally conservative voters. (Yes, I know about the Libertarians, but they go too far. There are some things the Federal government should do, and the Libertarians as a whole aren't really willing to admit it.)
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
The problem is, as you state, who is it that gets to draw the line?
My opinion on this is that for adults, no one should draw the line, there should be no restrictions AT ALL concerning what adults may read, hear, view, etc.
And as far as children go, the ones who should draw the line are the parents, not the government, not their church, not their next door neighbors.
The solution to the problem of how to deal with any kind of information availablity is the requirement of personal responsibility. If some adult, for example wants to read, whatever, information about making bombs, for example, so be it. If they choose to make them and use them, they should then be held responsible for the results, period, end of story, no babysitting, no mollycoddling, just appropriate punishment. In the case of children, if a parent chooses to allow the child access to such information, again, so be it. If the child then applies that knowledge, then the parents should be held responsible for the results of those actions, or if the child is past the age of about 10-12 or so, then the responsiblity should be applied to parent AND child.
The problems that are so harped upon in this country are not caused by guns, or bombs, or porn, or drugs, or whatever the flavor of the week is this time. The problems in this country are caused by the attitude that "It's not my fault, someone (or something) else made me do it!".
If we really want these problems to go away (to the degree that is possible to do so), we need to quit wasting our time and money trying to control the behaviour of people, and apply it to enforcing the requirement of personal responsibility, through education, and appropriate repercussions. Any other attitude is only going to make the problem worse.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
The largest problem with what Mrs. Dole is asking for is the fact that she wants libraries to censor both children and adults. Let's take a couple of your comments, for instance:
I would not want to view a porn site and find photos of my oldest daughter. Would you?
If I happened upon photos of my oldest daughter on a porn site, providing she was of legal age, I would think nothing of it, and move on to another picture, or another site. Why? Because she would legally be an adult, who has made the decision to allow herself to be photographed nude, perhaps even having sex. I don't find depictions of nudity or sexual acts to be offensive, providing those acts are consensual and are between legal age adults - even if the act did involve my daughter. To think otherwise would be hypocritical.
What I want to instill is WHY there is little value to porn (or bomb-building, or whatnot).
Instilling values into your children is a good thing. One should also instill the concepts of logical and rational thought into them as well. This would allow them to see that there is value in these things:
Porn - Alternative sexual "positions" may be learned from porn. Porn tends to also teach that masturbation is OK, that both men AND women do it (from talking with various female friends, most learned masturbation late in life), and that it is a healthy alternative to sex (which might cut down on teen pregnancy - this has yet to be studied, I think).
Bombs - Learning how to build a bomb, and having the knowledge afterward, can give a person the sense of how to do things the right way, the first time (because when building a bomb, if you do it wrong the first time, there is usually NO SECOND CHANCE).
Drugs - What is needed here is a little honesty on drugs. I think parents are afraid that thier kids might get the truth about drugs from research on the internet.
Violence - Knowing about violence, and about the detrimental effects of violence, can help prepare a kid should he witness it (ie, the kid won't become catatonic).
Above all, these things shouldn't be left to the kid - the parents need to talk to thier kids about these things openly, without reserve (I find it amusing that parents would find it difficult to talk about sex to thier kids - like it was a dirty thing to do or something)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
The relevant quote from the article is below:
Well, I can't seem to get the link to copy into this post. Try:
http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi-bin/texis.
Or look for the article titled "Dole is upbeat despite trailing in polls, money, attention" at the Seattle Times Archives. The article is dated June 29, 1999.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
I love the scene in The People vs. Larry Flynt where Flynt asks which is obsene, a woman's body or a dead corpse (which nobody is too concerned about a child seeing).
Personally, I consider neither obscene - they would both be human bodies. I would consider obscene to be:
A dead woman's corpse being raped...
Now that would be pretty obscene.
However - some might consider otherwise. If that is the case, I would not dare impose my definition of obscenity onto them, just as much as I would not want them to impose thier definition on me.
Life is not a one way street...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Actually, the best filtering is to ensure there is NO expectation of privacy; If a librarian (coordinator/whatnow) is walking around and there is no way for a browsing user to "hide" the contents of the screen, there should be little difficulty. Additionally, for all users, how's about recording sites visited through the library system's firewall? Like a libary card would help them record what kind of material you are reading (assuming anybody is interested) a children's account would be associated with their parent's card, so the parent would get notification of material the children have accessed (if you're really paranoid).
Filtering should NOT be necessary- since, once you start filtering, where do you stop? China, for instance, finds political discourse offensive.
The First Amendment is not so much a right to speak as a right to hear other voices. While *I* would not be happy if my children read some of the material on the web (heck, there's stuff out there *I* don't even want to see, but it's sometimes helpful to trip over it on occasion as a booster for immunities) I would like to know where my son (and, someday, my daughter) have been reading, since it'll give me an idea of what I'm missing as a parent.
Perhaps the search for "easy, simple" solutions is wrong. Who ever said parenthood is easy?
Politics is the effort to sell easy, simple solutions- but there are none. Human nature implies a huge "gray zone", though there are some things that we must accept as minimums just to work together.
Laws are needed to constrain behavior- they should not be constraining thought.
Seriously, though, if the display tubes in the library are large (heck, just put monitor repeaters where others in the library can see, with enough defocussing to make text unreadable) and in a central place where people usually walk through (not some dingy back room) the community will correct itself. If you're determined to cruis porn, well, why shouldn't your neighbors know? The Library is a _public_ place! Let's keep it that way- leave it an open channel for information in print and otherwise...
-soup (GNUrd, Speaker to Machines) "Laugh at yourself- Why should everyone else have all the fun?" -Romanchek's 6th Ru
This is something I have difficulty figuring out. What is the logical argument against people being able to see pictures of other people without clothes on when the other people agreed to be photographed in such a state?
I also don't understand how it becomes the responsability of national government to decide what I can use my town's public internet connectivity for. I would think that would be a responsibility of me, and maybe my parents as I'm under 18 years of age. I could see an argument for letting the town's government or the library staff restrict what was accessible, but not a verry good argument.
I don't know of a single scientific study that showed harmful effects as the result of viewing "Pornograhic Materials". I would think that such viewing would actualy have benificial effects in that the viewer would gain knowledge.
If children are too young to have such info, then they are too young to access the 'net unsupervised anyway!
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
We must support Gore! I know he is realy confused about computers but at least he's not Republican. We cannot go back to being a nation that has a Conservative Govenrnment that feels responsable to force morrality on it's people. And by the way this does affect the way other nations enforce policies. If the US goes conservative so will other nations, because we have very strong political influance.
Yes sir, nothing like the smell of banned websites. Let's just put them up there with the banned books. My question is who filters the filters? Why are we letting someone else decide what is and is not appropiate for our viewing pleasure? I am not advocating porn all around, but let's get real here. Any kid who has spent any time on a computer can get around any filter. Problem is most public libraries still confrom to the old lab usage. Let's keep the computers locked in a seperate room. How about putting the computers in the main part of the library? No one and I mean no one looks at porn where someone can see them. Computer usage should be a privilege, screw around and you will have the privilege removed, and that fact will be recorded on your library card. This is assuming we can hook up the computer to a card reader.
I ask because I think so, but I'm not sure.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Yes, it's not an oxymoron. I happen to be both without any cognitive dissonance. There are two key things to realize here. One is that, as John Stuart Mill says, there should only be laws restricting things that a societal consensus believes to be harmful to others. The other is that as Christians our first priority should be changing the hearts and minds of others (i.e. building consenus), not making laws. For instance, on the abortion issue, our priorities should be (a) trying to build a national consensus that abortion really does kill an unborn human and that it's not right and (b) offering as much support to unwed mothers as we can, be it prenatal care, adoption services, whatever.
So what does this mean for censorship? I don't believe in censorship of any sort for adults. Well, ok, we should censor subliminal messages -- if you want to try and manipulate me, I want to know about it -- and you should be liable afterwards in a court of law for any slander or libel you commit. But I do believe there are some things we should censor/forbid for children, especially young children. Pornography and drugs come to mind. Children simply do not have the wisdom to make informed decisions for themselves on tricky issues such as these. Pornography and drugs -- alchohol, cigarettes, and illegal varieties -- are extremely dangerous for young minds because the pleasure is immediate, but the dangers are far from obvious. I want as much of a chance as possible to educate my children on the dangers before they even have a chance to be exposed. Even so, friends, school-mates, and society in general will probably see to it that they'll both have seen porno and been offered drugs by the time they're 15 or 16. But hopefully by then I'll have had enough time to educate them on the dangers so that they know what to do. If not, then I'll be in big trouble when they move out on their own :^(
But I certainly don't want to have my kids exposed to porno because some wacko is downloading it in a public area of my local library. Moreover, while I will try to be there to do the educating and censoring myself, I'd like to believe that public institutions such as libraries and schools would, if not help me out, at least not work against me. My suggestion to libraries would be to have a public computer area where porno was not allowed and a private, uncensored area. And as far as implementing the no-porno area, I would discourage the use of filtering software -- which as many others have stated filters out useful information such as breast cancer research -- and encourage a policy of revoking/suspending a patron's access should they attempt to view material determined by a librarian to be pornographic while they are in the no-porno area.
GNU and Linux -- Oh no, Mr. Bill!
If you want to do that, fine. Then censor all of the hates sites, all of the anti-government sites, and everything that offends everyone. Granted I could do searches for that at home (not that any of those topics interest me), but not everyone can. So they go to the library. But remember to filter it so that no one feels that their rights are impeded, and their money wasted when they have to use a computer with a filter set to someone Age 8.
There's several arguments here. It's not just a case of the ALL-CENSORSHIP-IS-BAD people against the WE-NEED-TO-PROTECT-OUR-CHILDREN people.
A Public Library is paid for by the taxpayer (ie ME). I don't want my money spent on providing free porn for adolescents. If they want porn, they should not be able to get it at a public library at my expense.
I don't believe that the internet should be censored, but I don't for one second believe that everything on the internet is benign. If people want to access the whole of the internet, they should be prepared to pay for it.
I don't think that it is likely that any censoring software out there can filter out potentially dangerous political ideas, whereas filtering out porn is slightly easier. There is no place for the former in a democratic society, while there is a place for the latter.
There should definitely be internet access in public libraries. I'd much rather see a censored internet than no internet at all.
> "I'll make a counter-challenge to anyone to defend the right to do that--let's see if we can find a slash-dotter who will to stick up for the greedy capitalists preying on our sex drives!"
:P) to mind...
It's called advertising. If you want to see those famous "greedy capitalists" in action, "preying on your sex drive", just watch a few beer commercials. The phrase 'swimsuit model' comes (spelled correctly
I counter-counter-challenge you to name a catagory of products NOT advestised w/ appeals to the sex drive !
--- This comment best viewed with a computer --
--- "Komm liebes Kind, geh mit mir Ein ganz schoenes spiele, spiel ich mit dir" -- Goete
Or were you hoping for a knee-jerk government power-grab solution?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Oh, I know. Whilst a democracy is supposed to be run by the majority, it's really run by who can shout the loudest. So when are we going to start shouting?
If you're worried about your kid viewing pornography, tell him about the consequences of unsafe sex, objectizing women, and remind him of any moral code that your family might adhere to on the matter. If you're worried about violence, teach gun safety. And teach the consequences of violence. Make it personal. Introduce him to some victims. Show him what it looks like when a person's face gets shot off. I guarantee you that will have a lasting impression.
Keeping people in darkness doesn't help them. They'll go behind your back and then they'll just be getting a one-sided view of things. By forbidding it, you make it even more likely that they'll take an interest in it -- kids are like that. But by letting them explore -- kids' minds are built to explore and learn -- and by not making a big deal about it, they're more likely to come to their own decision about it, which if you've raised them well, will probably coincide with your own. I had access to pornography and violent media when I was a kid. I looked at some of it. It wasn't a big deal. I didn't turn into a sex maniac, I can see the value in waiting until marriage before sex, I'm not a violent psychotic, etc. But who knows what would've happened if I lived in a domineering family that tried to dictate my thoughts and beliefs? I might easily have rebelled in quite the opposite manner.
If I want to teach my kid something, I'll present my view and the opposing view. If I just present one side of things, then he'll get the impression I'm trying to snow him. Kids aren't stupid.
On the other hand, present one point of view enough and you may get a nicely brainwashed kid. I've seen it happen. Personally, raising a kid to be a little copy of me without any free will or capacity for independent or critical thought isn't the reason why I'd raise a kid. But lots of people seem to be into that.
As someone else said, I find it ironic that it's the strongest backers of this kind of thing are conservatives; you'd think that they'd be as far away as possible from the government controlling information sources. But of course, those conservatives who back this sort of thing are the type of people who want to blame society's ills on convenient abstractions like "pornography" or "the movie industry", etc. (can we say "Columbine"?) without taking any personal responsibility for raising their own children. Usually while reviling "liberals" for doing the same thing (blaming others rather than themselves for social issues). It's that kind of thing that gives the Republican party a bad name, which is shameful, since I know plenty of reasonable conservatives who aren't bent on controlling other people's beliefs.
Those people act on fear. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred, hatred leads to suffering. :) They fear that kids will mindlessly emulate anything they see. They fear that they can't control their children. The only thing it proves is that their value system or their parenting is so weak that it can't stand the light of day, all opposing viewpoints must be hidden for it to prevail.
Finally, let me just say that anyone who thinks that pornography turns people immoral is, IMHO, pretty whacked. Whatever morals or lack thereof one might have are likely already present. It's like blaming school killings on wearing trechcoats. If I put on a trenchcoat, it doesn't make me a killer.
Oh man, that would cost millions of dollars and cost hundreds of lives....
Ugh...
Hey, you know what? It really isn't a problem...
Almost everyone holds the position that we should keep young kids away from porn - that's not much of a position to hold. She's just reaching out to an american culture confused by school shootings and finger pointing. It's akin to saying 'I think murder is wrong' - everyone agrees, but it's a pointless position to run with.
The problem with her solution is that almost every system out there, if not _every_ system out there, doesn't block porn - it blocks 'content harmful to minors', which includes any educational sex sites, most fringe religions, and any site the filtering company has a vendetta against. Libraries are supposed to be where you can learn about anything and everything, not where you can just learn about happy fuzzy Christian values.
-- Scream, Dracula, Scream!
As an administrator of a system that "censors" information from the internet in a "Public" k-12 school I can tell you that some sort of regulation has to be in place or ELSE! Parents will sue in a heart beat. Libraries are in the same boat. Lets face it, in an enviroment that or people waiting to find somthing to sue over we have to do what we can. We do not block "educational" stuff and if something is blocked and there is a question as to why or if it should be then a Parent/Teacher counsel decides. Siding on the conservative side dosn't hurt anyones education or research. People researched for years before the internet was here.
Whilst some people are going to scream "free speech", these computers are library resources and the library is free to decide what they get used for.
Sorry, try again. Libraries that are funded/run by US governments are beholden to the constitution; Federal ones by the first ammendment, and state/local ones by the first ammendment via the fourteenth. The whole point of a constitutional democracy is to have the government not be free to do whatever it likes. If you're into that sort of thing, then hop on over to Australia, where their consitution doesn't protect civil rights.
The original rationale behind allowing libraries to ban objectionable books was that the amount of money available for purchasing books is scarce. Because a library cannot own all books, there is some leeway granted in determining which books are to be carried.
Bandwith, however, is not scarce under the current scheme of non-hourly rates. As such, there is no independent and clear government purpose in regulating which speech can be heard and such filters are therefore unconstitutional. This is independent of the fact that dumbing down adult speech to protect minors is not exactly constitutional either.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
In a democracy, you let whoever gets the most votes run the show, no matter what their beliefs are.
You can't say "Christianity is a minority belief, so Christians shouldn't be in office" any more than you can say "The country is predominantly white, so only whites should run for office". If you find someone's beliefs objectionable then just don't vote for them :-) but they have as much right to campaign on a platform built on those beliefs as you would to campaign on a platform built on yours.
I would define censorship as an by the government to limit access to information.
All censorship is bad
That's an extreme position, and it merits extreme counterexamples:
- child pornography
- step-by-step instructions for making crystal meth
- exhortations to murder abortionists
- military secrets (like how to shoot down Stealth aircraft)
Should the government permit me to create a web page that includes the following?
- A schedule showing when your wife / girlfriend / mother / daughter is home alone
- A map showing how to get to their house
- A VRML walkthrough of their house
- Detailed instructions for defeating any security system on the house
- Faked nude or lingerie shots of the victim
- Detailed statements, purportedly from the victim, describing their rape fantasies
You may believe that one or two of these examples may not merit censorship. But if you believe that NONE of these should be censored, I certainly don't want you around MY children.
Granted that some things should be censored, the debate boils down to where to draw the line, and that's a tricky proposition.
I am praying, however, that we will finally get a president elected who will bring some concept of integrity and morality into the Whitehouse.
I think this would be a wonderful thing.
I just pray we don't get someone who feels that their sense of morality applies to the citizenship. Morality is a personal trait, not a template with which to make law.
It's a shame, really. I can look past all manner of foibles, but it simply goes against my principles to cast a vote for someone who comes out in favor of mandatory censorship.
If she had tried a different tack, perhaps saying: "I propose we set aside N dollars with which to assist libraries that wish to install and support filtering technologies," I probably would not have been bothered in the slightest. But extorting the installation of filtering with federal funds?
Sorry, that's not the kind of behavior I expect in a leader. Abusing my tax money to further an extremist moral crusade is just plain out of the question. It's utterly inappropriate.
I'd challenge anyone to argue with that point, but since I probalby won't revisit this page, there's really no reason.
Since you're not interested in hearing any one else's opinion, I guess censorship wouldn't have much effect on you anyway, would it?
Parents should be the ones raising their children. Period.
Not true. There are many unfit parents on the planet.
Most are in the DECENT to GREAT range, however several never should have been allowed to reproduce.
I don't mean the obvious cases (child molesters, abusers, etc.) either. I also mean parents that raise children that have no respect for others.
We, society, have to deal with these psychos when they are full-grown. If the parents aren't going to teach their kids right from wrong, you are out of your mind to think society should stand quietly by and let these kids turn into monsters.
As for the porn issue in and of itself, I'm torn. I saw hundreds of porno mags and tapes while I was growing up due to the fact that my friend's dad owned a XXX book store.
I turned out relatively OK, although I am admittedly a bit of a pervert. My friend, however, is honestly fucked up in the head when it comes to sexual issues.
Was it the porn? Who knows. I don't think it was, but then again, what else would I think?
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
It isn't the porn filtering that bothers me, it's the federally-imposed filtering of a public information source. The companies who write filtering software have proven time and time again that they don't just filter porn - they filter educational information about birth control and human sexuality, discussion sites that they don't like the tone of, and even sites which are anti-filtering software. It's that last one that really bugs me - it doesn't bother me a whole lot if my local community filters porn in the library, but don't take away my access to sites just because they threaten Net Nanny's profits.
Also, that was a really cheap shot about homeless people. Don't you think they have more important things to worry about than surfing for porn? All the homeless people I've run into in a library were there because it was warm and indoors, not because it was a porn-haven. We might as well say: "people that post to Slashdot must have nothing else to do, so they are probably all researching porn at work (or school) right now".
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Well, you guys in the US really need a good
filtering system to protect your kids from
all the christian zealots like the one above.
Want to do something lots of people
won't like? Find something similiar that
people will like.
Start taking away property from drug dealers
before they go to trial. The people will yell
"yeah get em, those sorry bastards are killing our kids!".
Wait a few years, start taking property for other
reasons. Ooops, to late to complain. You asked
for it!
Bring lawsuits against tobacco companies. If that
works, go after other industries.
This crap works people. It's just easy meat.
Go live in China, fucking NAZI.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
GOP presidential hopeful
(against bush and quayle she has no chance)
---Got Coffee?---
Why did you think the Republicans were against censorship? I have always felt they were very much into censorship. The Republicans try to convince us that they are anti-government. But in reality they aren't, they are just anti-tax. Which is fine, but I think they are actually more pro-government when it comes to personal freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Its kind of a trade off. Less taxes but less individual freedoms.
I personally think all political parties should be banned. Let the candidates run on their own agenda, not a parties. Then we might get some people in office who are actually concerned with whats going on.
Oh Gawd.
Folks, let's get real: Liddy Dole's campaign is engaged in the proverbial downward spiral, and she needs to shore up her popularity with the slackjawed-yokel Bible-thumper crowd to win any GOP primaries at this rate.
So hey, what better way to get the pathetic sheep behind you than to promote "family values" at the expense of a minority (us)?
I'm so sick of hearing "we must protect the children" (from the left and right, thank you very much). Americans (particularly the holy-roller types) really do love big government.. so long as it prosecutes their particular agenda.. and tries to tackle those big bad things like the Internet that they don't understand.
(And oh yeah, the US education system sucks so badly that what "they don't understand" is a fscking lot. But that's another rant.)
Ya wanna protect the children? Fine. Be a better parent. Tell your kids what's out there instead (knowledge is power, not ignorance). But stop asking me to pay for (let alone do) your work.
I feel better now..
-----
".sig,
politicians love it when things get blown out of proportions.
"hi, i'm and i promise to protect your children from the evil corrupting technology known as the inter-net which seeks to turn them into porn-perverts and show them how to make bombs to kill their teachers. vote for me."
why can't we have a politician who isn't actually a complete dumbass when it comes to technology? oh yeah...
I previously sat on a library board and we solved the problem this way. When anyone under age 18 received a library card it was mandatory for their parent/guardian to fill out an internet responsibility statement. "Did the library have the right to terminate the child's usage of the computer for viewing pornographic material ? If not then the parent had the responsibility of supervising the child's surfing." Large print signs were posted to the effect that one complaint about pornographic material was enough to invoke the library's right to decide what was pornographic and what was not. No complaints, no interference. We also kept a list of sites which previously had been found pornographic (not posted but in a binder.) I did see a few people using that binder to explore new sites, and others off-hours surfing but because the policies were clearly posted and immediately enforced, after one year of this system we had only one complaint (from the head of the local ACLU.)
Librarians would never permit 'tailing' someone using a public computer. What patrons read is completely their business. A librarian can monitor it only to the point of guarenteeing everyone else's right to read it as well. No explicit censorship by the librarian is good. Implicit censorship, such as whether to buy a copy of Lady Chatterly's Lover or not is permitted, which is where we took our policy from.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
A couple things
1. The moment you start filtering content, you are liable for that content. You no longer are a common carrier. So if a library has a filtering system in place, they can be sued if a 14 year old gets past it to porn.
2. There is a fundamental rule of nature that no barrier will ever suffice to completely separate a 14 year old male and his porn.
3. There is an argument that has been made (and a Virginia state Delegate from a rural part of the state made it in testimony to the Virginia General Assembly last year) that libraries ALREADY filter content by chosing to stock some books and not choosing to stock others. Librarians are very vulnerable to this argument and in my experience have not made good arguments against it.
4. Virginia has looked into this issue deeply, through the Joint Commission on Technology and Science of the General Assembly. In that Commission's Annual Report for 1999, they addressed this very issue. (Advisory Committee One studied it, I actually was on that committee) The ultimate recommendation was against mandated filtering, and in favor of people under 18 being required to sign Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) to use Internet terminals at libraries. This way, the librarians have grounds to restrict inappropriate or illegal usage by kids under 18. Some libraries in the state have taken it upon themselves to setup separate areas with privacy desks or study carels for adult Internet use. The Commission's final report pretty conclusively posited that filters are simply unworkable in a public library environment because Internet content is changing so quickly and libraries are the public bastion of free speech and expression and are held to a very high free speech standard.
5. Finally, the Courts decided in a Virginia case, Mainstream Loudoun vs. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, that filtering websites at libraries is not a library acquisition decision (as voiced by that Delegate noted above) and that filtering is unconstitutional if it applies unilaterally to both adults and children. Applying the same speech standards to both adults and children online was specifically overruled by the Supreme Court in Reno vs. ACLU (the CDA decision).
So unless Elizabeth Dole will commit to appointing a Federal Judges who see the constitution differently than most, (incuding the Supreme Court) she won't be able to enforce her policy. IMHO.
I think this is just a move to the Right by her in the hopes of winning conservative primary voters. I don't actually think she'll keep this policy all the way through the campaign, and if she makes it past Iowa and New Hampshire, I seriously doubt we'll ever hear it again. It's a political tactic to try to win a conservative voting base among Republican primary voters.
IMHO
The problem here is that many parents in this society do not want to take responsibility for reviewing the Internet content viewed by their children. This would inherently mean that time would need to be alocated for such an activity. Since time is a commodity based on priorities, many parents want the easy way out (i.e., V-chip, censorship, etc.). Libraries are not really the issue here. How many children do you know who actually frequent a public library in search of pornography? Parents need to take a more active role in the development of their children and let them know that there is nothing wrong with the naked human form and that sex can be a beautiful expression of love. There is nothing wrong with love, right? What is wrong is sitting in a darkened room, hidden away from all eyes, sneaking glances at the fat lady biting the horse.
How much effort would it take to tie in a users login account to their history file? Not much, last I checked. How much effort would it take to implement user ID's tied into library cards? A little, granted, and that would take a LITTLE of the freedom associated with libraries away, but cards are usually free anyway. I'm sure even some geeks would volunteer to set up library user logins on whatever network they're using (myself included. I'd be the first in line).
;-)
I am very opposed to censorship. In order to grow as a person, you need the ability to learn, and any restrictions on that learning are restrictions on how you can evolve. I'm not saying if a parent doesn't want their child to look at porn they shouldn't stop them. But I think a large problem is imposing rules without reasoning. If a parent could see that thier son/daughter is going to the library to look at porn, or to print out bomb blueprints, they could DISCUSS that with the child, and why they thought that was wrong. It's an issue of instilling morality rather than imposing it, and that should be in the hands of the parents rather than the government. If you're not willing to take that step, then you shouldn't have become a parent in the first place.
I think you're on to something there. Maybe you should run instead
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
First of all, the argument has nothing to do with porn. The argument is simply about Federal vs. Local control. Libraries should be able to control their own content, not have beaurocrats a thousand miles away threatening to revoke their funding if they don't comply. It's because of this same kind of crap that the drinking age is 21.
Secondly, why is everyone so afraid of children looking at porn? Are we as a people so afraid of the naked body that we have to pretend like it doesn't exist? Or are we afraid that if a child sees a naked woman it will turn him into a drug crazed rapist? I think everyone needs to relax. I love the scene in The People vs. Larry Flynt where Flynt asks which is obsene, a woman's body or a dead corpse (which nobody is too concerned about a child seeing).
Its one thing to keep people from seeing what they want, but if this happens to a child, then what?
Precisely. Then what? Does the kid go off and rape somebody? No. He masterbates to it in the privacy of his own home and nobody gets hurt.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
For the humour-impaired: The above is satire. It is meant to present an extreme view to highlight the problem with censoring "offensive" material: Someone has to decide what is offensive and what is not.
While I'm certainly against religion, and think it's stupid, and even offensive when someone try to convert me, I don't support censoring it. On the other hand I don't support censoring porn either. But if I had to choose between the two, and HAD to censor one of them for to protect kids, it would without a shadow of a doubt be religion that would be censored...
..then read what we are about.
yea, we dont have a chance in hell, but we can try and maybe just maybe we can make a diff. [ or we'll just prove that we dont live in a free / open nation. uh, hmmm i really must stop my rantings...
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
Expecting the government to have the same sense as a parent is NOT CENSORSHIP.
If I send my child to the library, I do not expect the library to have hard core pornagraphy lying around. Nor do I expect my child to be able to access the net at the library to find that pornagraphy. When and where and how my child learns about sex is my responsibility, and I would appreciate any help I could get.
If you want to look at porn, fine. But do it at home.
First of all, this isn't censorship of the internet. Dole isn't saying that porn cannot exist. She is simply stating that it should be blocked from a public library. I don't entirely disagree, but I'm not sure if it's needed since I don't know too many people that are going to check out porn in a crowded library. Secondly, what libertarians are you talking to? There are many things libertarians believe the government should regulate. You shouldn't lump all libertarians into one group; we are all individuals with differing ideas and opinions.
Oh, and as far as keeping gays in the closet, the don't ask/ don't tell policy was Bill Clinton's idea...
Libraries are about allowing access to information. For years, i could not afford to buy books, anything i read was at the library. Some o what i read included "the joy of sex", "sex, a users' manual", "the lord is my shepard, and he knows i am gay", "the tearoom trade", "human sexuality", "the complete history of erotic art", "men in love", my secret garden". All of these books were available for anyone to read. Some were kept behind the desk, but the librarian was supposed to give them to whomever asked. The reason for this was to cut down on theiving. Some sports books and comic books were back there as well IIRC.
However, if I found websites with the same content and viewed them in my public library computer lab, i would be violating the rules and lose my privilege of using the library computers. If they were text only sites, I might get away with reading them, but if the consultant read over my shoulder as the little prick is fond of doing, he would by policy have the right to eject me. Filters would eliminate even text sites that could be read discreetly in the lab.
In my experience, the filters used to control net access tend to filter sex, drugs, and controversial subjects. I really don't think the library is the place to avoid information on controversial subjects. I know of ppl who go to the library and steal books they don't like. In my experience the books were often on homosexuality, abortion rights, and birth control. By enforcing content filtering, we are giving in to that mentality.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
All censorship is bad. I'd challenge anyone to argue with that point, but since I probalby won't revisit this page, there's really no reason.
- big-brother-will-take-care-of-us lamers actually thought about your stance on the issue?
Have any of you we-have-to-protect-our-children-from-naked-people
What's the harm in actually teaching our children what's bad, and what they probably should stay away from, instead of trying to put a clamshell over them and hope that nothing ever gets through? You know what, something eventually will, and they won't be prepared. The argument is complicated further, since children have the same rights that any of us do, and can make their own decisions (that should upset some people). If a child wants to do one thing or the other, and is responsible about it, then there's no problem. The goverment has no right toay what a child can or can't do, and any parent had better take their responsability (not right) to supervise a child very seriously. As a parent it's your job to prepare your child for life, not shelter them from it.
So, if you think porn is bad, then explain to your child and hope they see it your way, because if they don't, you really have no authority to force your views upon them. You might be suprised, children are highly intelligent, and often like to do what's right.
On the point of censorship in general, let me put it this way: Do you think that making laws is going to discourage pornography any more than it has with, say, drugs? No, It's just going to complicate things more. So argue your point, speak intelligently, make informed judgements, and NEVER try to take away another person's freedom, because loss of a freedom for one person will sooner-or-later be a loss for everyone. Democracy is supposed to be founded on the idea that people can collectively make their own decisions -- so why not do this with minimal interference from the goverment? It can be done, and we'd be better off. Legislation is not the answer, but rather communication is.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF YOU HOT STUDS AND LUCIOUS BABES OUT THERE, BUT I DO HAVE CHILDREN, AND I'VE SEEN WHAT PORNOGRAPHY DOES TO KIDS.
Yea, yea... I know what you're going to say. "You have to educate your kids. Filtering is no substitute for education." Sure sounds mighty fine when you say that, with your chest puffed out with pride in being Holy Defender Of Free Speech. I suppose if someone started planting land mines around my house, you'd tell me, "Well, just EDUCATE your children to not STEP on them, you dumb prick!"
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
I know, filtering is a lousy technology, but I think it should be possible to put at least some level of filtering on URL's, like "www.wefu*ksluts.com". You can't stop everything, but at least you can make it more difficult to accidentally trip across this stuff.
Why at the Library? At home, I know what goes on with the computer. I can see a page and know what the difference is between a gang-bang and an article on breast cancer.
You go somewhere else, and there are no rules, no guidelines, noone checking over the shoulder. It's as if the Library had opened a section on Porn, and left all the hard core magazines out on the table for anyone to pick up. Is this really how you want to educate your children?
OK. You Defenders can start sending me your hate mail now. Just remember that I don't give a rat's a$$ about your opinion unless you've had children of your own.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I have a dream. I have a dream that one day, internet users of every bandwidth will see the same bland parabellum. I have dream that they will link hubs together and sing for the joy they have knowing that they've abrogated their rights for the lazy pleasures of not watching or raising their children. I have a dream that one day, some day, we will be able to look to the Chinese and offer to help them with their censorship. My dream is that Americans of every age be freed from the terrible curse of [censored], [censored], [censored], and [censored]! My dream
(This post has been moderated for sarcasm and criticism of President Dole. Do not adjust your internet connection -- we are in complete control.)
-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
First, this is entirely a political move by Dole. She is an odd duck, politically: A conservative female. Being a female she automatically appeals to the liberals. The conservatives are more likely to vote the issues (however stupid or inconsequential) so she has to invoke "Protect The Kids From Porn" war cry to appeal to them.
Second, to those who say this is not censorship: BS. Libraries are public data repositories. When the government causes data to be removed from these repositories, that is, by definition, censorship. End of story.
Third, there is already a petition about this over at e-thepeople.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Having lived in Texas for at least 90% of my life, including the this most current governorship of the little Bush, I can fondly say he sucks.
He has done nothing but spout his moral values and insistance that we all abide by them, and accomplished nothing while in office. I am quite aware of the fact that Texas politics are more often than not just used as a springboard, but this makes me sick to my stomache. Ann Richards was smeared because she was divorced and a recovering alcoholic. She, however, was able to show that she cared not only for herself (re:alcoholism), but for her state. At least she got something done.
Bush is just riding poppa's coattails, and has wasted this state's time and money, and I for one am sick of it.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
Why are Americans so fixated on sex? There's a lot of stuff on the net a lot worse than sex that they can ban. Of course the best case would be not to ban anything and let people decide for themselves what is bad, but really... all you hear coming out of congress is sex!
Most libraries I have been to have the computers out in the open. How can someone in their right mind possibly look at porn in a library? Its not like librarians (or anyone else walking by the computer) are blind. I think this is just a "problem" that E. Dole is coming up with the work the voters.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Posted by generic kewl tech reference:
Once again I am reminded why I registered Decline to State.
I can see a presidential election between a man who wants to tell me how many children I can have and a woman who wants to tell me how to raise them.
I take solace in the high probability that Gore advocates environmentalism and Dole advocates censorship for the same reason: to get attention.
When it was Clinton vs. Bush, I had a lesbian friend who voted for Clinton because she thought that he would actually follow through on the promises he made to the gay community, and then felt betrayed when he didn't. I thought this was funny. Of course he lied, he's a politician, that's what we pay them for. Well, that's what they take a quarter of our pay without our permission for, but that's another rant and it's hard enough to keep this one coherent.
What I am upset about is that we as Americans seem all too willing to absolve our responsibilities as parents and let the government dictate what they can see, hear, learn, and know. And no, it's not just the Republicans - anybody remember the CDA ?
Looks like I'm voting for Chthulhu again.
P.S. Feel free to flame me, at least I'll know I made sense.
P.P.S. Anybody wanna bet how many flames I'll get over the spelling of "Chthulhu"?
P.P.P.S. So what does Shrub stand for besides getting elected?
It never fails to amaze me how many knee-jerk reactionists on slashdot latch onto "codewords" such as "censorship" without understanding one bit what any of them truly means...
Nothing of Elizabeth Dole's proposals have argued for the banning of general publication, expression or distribution of pornographic or other questionable materials. What she has proposed, and what I agree with, is that material acquired at public libraries should be acceptable to the public at large.
Nothing in the proposal prevents you from getting your own PRIVATE T1 and downloading hardcore pics all day. I certainly don't want MY HARD-EARNED TAX DOLLARS going to some creepy perverts monopolizing the library bandwidth just so they can get their jollies.
Can you find the latest edition of Hustler in print at the library right now? I don't think so. So why should anyone be able to download it from there? There are some pretty wacky ideas about "liberty" running around the messageboards right now, declaring the threatened existence of the 1st Amendment by this proposal. Get a grip, people, go to your local bookstore (or ISP) and buy (or download) all the objectionable material you want to your heart's content, with your OWN MONEY, NOT THE TAXPAYER'S.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
... this is a complex issue.
You begin your argument by falling into the same unfortunate trap most fiscal conservatives fall into. Under the guise of fiscal responsibility ("I don't want my money..."), you suggest that we should censor the Internet to save tax dollars. This statement is ludicrous, as is pointed out further down the thread, as porn downloaders do not increase the costs of the connection. Further, your response to that criticism was to point out the scarcity of the PCs. That is bunk just the same. Porn downloaders do not increase the scarcity of PCs any more than researchers, game players, or web surfers. There are other means of dealing with these challenges (time limits, etc.) that do not challenge freedom of speech.
You contradict yourself: "I don't believe that the internet should be censored...they should be prepared to pay for it." The fact is, costs (sometimes prohibitive) do constitute a form of censorship. If the government were to begin charging fees for every person attending a demonstration at the Washington memorial ('It's on taxpayer owned land, why should I have to pay for a bunch of malcontents to complain?') - what do you think the effect would be?
You show yourself to be completely out of touch at the end of your article. You suggest that you don't believe there is "any censoring software out there [that] can filter out potentially dangerous political ideas, whereas filtering out porn is slightly easier." Leaving aside technical problems for a moment, let's consider that statement.
You are asserting implicitly here that 'dangerous political ideas' can be easily and objectively separated from 'porn'. I would suggest that this is simply not the case. There have been many influential books which have been attacked as 'smut' or 'porn' when they were initially released. There have been many books that were suppressed ostensibly to protect people from 'smut' and 'porn', while in reality their suppression was used to control the _ideas_ presented. Do you presume to be the one who tells the difference between "Virgin and the Gipsy" and "Hustler"? Can you objectively and completely lay out the rules that seperate pornography from art or any other protected speech?
Which, of course, leads us to the technical aspect. The fundamental problem with filtering software is the fundamental problem with software in general. This is why we don't have artificial intelligence. If we cannot express in clear English the distinctions between pornography and protected speech, we cannot build software that can distinguish between pornography and protected speech. We will end up producing software that filters some protected speech. I find it _vastly_ more offensive that my tax dollars would (and do) go to censoring some protected speech, than that publicly funded institutions choose not to censor pornography.
Elizabeth Dole has simply proven that she's as clueless as her husband ever was. Much as it pains me to say this - Gore is the choice...
If anything, we need more Christians "running the show" as it were. At least then there would be a little backbone and common decency .. Not to say that Christians are perfect, because I know I'm not, but at least they have a motive for trying to do more than meet their own selfish ambitions.
Oh, geez. Translation for those keeping score at home: "Christians are fundamentally better people than everybody else in the world." Those who wonder why Christianity is so oft-maligned these days would do well to examine statements such as this. If your claim is that non-Christians do nothing more than serve their own selfish ambitions, I would be happy to provide several counterexamples.
What do you all have against teaching children to focus on thoughts that are righteous and pure, and trying to protect them from what is impure?
The problem is that there is a group of people that has very definite ideas of what is "righteous and pure" and what is not, and would like very much to see these ideas imposed upon society as a whole. You said it yourself; you can't legislate morality. While it is the duty of every responsible parent to teach their children to be good and moral citizens of the planet, we can't toss around terms like "righteous" as if they have any concrete, set-in-stone meaning.
Getting back to the issue at hand, I don't think that we should be too hard on old Liddy; she is just saying the things that she thinks her base voters want to hear. However, like almost all politicians, she simply fails to understand the technical issues related to this. Filters, by and large, simply don't work very well. Keeping young children away from pornography is certainly a laudable goal, but until somebody comes up with a technically feasible way to do it without infringing on people's liberty, parents and educators are going to have to do the unthinkable and assume some responsibility for their children and students.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Well, you can argue that porn is violent and degrading, but there are women out there who do buy and produce porn, so it's not like, one of those male-oppressive things.
When I was a kid, there was sex all around. I mean, it was so *open*. We'd watch films, get shown books, even from a young age...there's enough sex on TV...certainly when I was a kid, it was thought that educating kids more about the human body was a good thing...videotaping birthings was all the rage. It was like, *so important* to know where babies come from.
I can't speak for Americans, being Cdn, but why do politicians cross their legs and say that all these things are evil? What is so wrong with Jessie Helms (see a book called Close to The Knives) that there's something evil about men loving each other when the US army was invading little island nations and killing people.
Why do people need protecting anyway? Are the American people so afraid of themselves that everyone and everything needs to be locked up, that anything that might offend someone is somehow *evil*...that's Geocities job isn't it?
And I agree, you'd think that the last people to do this would be Republicans...what's there to be so uptight about? Lock up the porn, but don't lock up your guns?
First of all free speech is a constitutional guarantee for the protection of political free speech not the protection of unlimited speech so the argument that this kind of censorship abridges free speech is a specious argument. No, the argument though attractive and sound-byteable is designed to be inflammatory and political ergo the actual quote from the article: ""Federal tax dollars should never be used to poison our children or provide free pornography for adults," Dole said during a visit to a library in Bellevue, Washington." Pretty strong stuff but light on facts or real meaning.
The argument is not about filtering, it's not about anyone one group's definition of "objectionable" - it's about who gets to control the filter. Simply hand over control to some sufficiently motivated group ideology and no one has to individually become involved or even think too much about it. Sure it's a wonderful 90's kind of mind-set: "the children, the children, let's all protect the children". Who could argue with that? Of course keep in mind that the point is not to teach children anything about all of the tragic things that flow out of sexual objectivication no, the point is to someone stamp out something that is immoral, evil, embarassing because you say so or because your community or church leaders say so. Well bully for you - thank G_D there's a beacon in the darkness deciding what we see what we hear what we say and we don't have to dwell on all the messy details. How wonderful that the same organizations that would just as soon terminate all funding for all libraries that don't stock their shelves with lovely tracts "proving" evolution is "just a theory" find it in themselves to actually ask for federal funding. How self righteous.
Hey here's a Conservative idea - why not just provide internet library vouchers for folks to deduct from their tax bills so they can build their own moral fortresses that they send their own offspring to. How about "charter libraries"?
I don't advocate censorship, and I think a public library is an essential part of a community. I do, however, have a problem with the way the web is handled at the moment. Not long ago here in the Seattle area there was a flap about some guy surfing porn sites at a local library in public view of a child waiting to use the computer.
I think a much better solution would be to keep Internet connections available "behind the counter." Better yet, have public cubicles available but filtered, and a second set of private, unfiltered cubicles that can be used by dirty old men, Future Anarchists of America members, teenage girls looking for information on birth control, traveling salesmen checking Hotmail, or people who just don't want someone looking over their shoulder. This is no different from keeping copies of The Joy Of Sex behind the counter.
--
Someone you trust is one of us.
Members of the Republican party running for office never cease to amaze me. They will bend over backwards to appease the right wing, no matter what. I guess this should be expected. It doesn't matter. She won't become president anyway.
Besides, Bob Dole is using Viagra now. She doesn't have time to campaign!
Look, it's imperative that we Protect the Children, right? Since children are the property of their parents (this is a free market economy, my friends), it's up to their parents to decide from what they need to be protected. (Of course, if the parents are deranged or abnormal -- be they atheists, homosexuals, communists, Jews, or simply unwilling to protect their childrens' innocence -- then obviously their children must be protected from them.) Since it's impractical for parents to monitor their children every single moment of their lives, all children must be protected from all things that any parents might find objectionable (not counting atheist parents, of course).
So this library thing is an unmixed blessing. We're Protecting the Children, and if you're opposed to that, then by a simple process of elimination you're obviously trying to Corrupt the Children, and you should be in prison. (In prison, that is, along with all the children being tried and sentenced as adults at the behest of the right wing. Since prisons are a Good Thing and a Positive Moral Influence, it can safely be assumed that the prisons will Preserve the Innocence of these young inmates.)
Okay, now we've disposed of that issue and we can move on to the real meat of the matter: A lot of so-called "civil libertarians" (obviously these people aren't real capital-L Libertarians, because they're atheists etc.), adults should not be subjected to the restrictions that are placed on children, because adults are presumably able to handle things better than kids are. Naturally, it's obvious to any thinking person that Protecting the Children is so important that any sacrifice of the rights of adults is a small price to pay for Preserving the Innocence of Childhood; furthermore, most of those freedoms that you're giving up are not necessary anyway, and no decent person would want them. Still, a lot of people refuse to recognize these obvious facts and another approach is called for. So here it is:
Adults don't exist. There is no such thing as an adult. All this whining liberal babble about the rights of adults vs. those of children is meaningless, because everybody is a child, and therefore everybody's innocence must be preserved at absolutely any cost whatsoever. I can prove this by a simple exercise of inductive reasoning, as follows:
A child is anybody between the ages of -0.75 years and 18 years, right? Right. And as we know, A == A. True is true and false is false; if you are a child, you are a child. Period. Therefore, a child one day old is precisely as much of a child as a child who is 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days old. If either one of those innocent children walks into an R movie and sees a tit, the Precious Irreplaceable Innocence of that child will be hopelessly compromised. But let's stop and think here for a moment: In the case of that second child, what exactly happens to him or her on his or her 18th birthday? Any dramatic changes? No, of course not. S/he is just one day older, that's all. There's nothing magical about that. It's just common sense. So if a child is legally and morally equivalent to a newborn infant one day, and if nothing changes overnight, then that child is still legally and morally equivalent to a newborn infant the next morning! The notion that childhood ends on ones 18th birthday is thereby shown to be an absurdity. The change must be happening later on! But when? The day after one's 18th birthday? No, that can't be true, because the same reasoning applies. And you can take that reasoning and apply it day by day -- or better yet minute by minute -- throughout any given child's life up until the moment he or she dies and is gathered up into the arms of Jesus (unless of course s/he is an atheist or a Jew or a Democrat or something, in which case of course s/he will be deservedly condemned to roast for all eternity in the flames of Hell etc. etc.).
And there you have it: There is no such thing as an "adult". It's an imaginary state of being, and any legal reasoning which takes it into account must be considered null and void. This includes most of the Constitution (not counting the Second Amendment, of course).
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --