Slashdot Mirror
Interview: Anti-Censorware Activists Answer
1) Censorship: problem or symptom?
by Signal 11
I believe censorship is a result of various groups / countries
wanting to protect their cultural identity (which
includes their social taboos). The second thing I want to put
forward is the fact that the internet is a
culture-neutral medium - it breaks down the traditional geographical
barriers that seperate us from other
countries. Witness cultural exchange programs, founded under the
premise that communication ==
exchange of ideas. That generally promotes a "blending effect" (for
lack of a better description) between
cultures.
My question is simple: in light of this, attacking censorware is only attacking the symptom, not the cause. What solutions do you believe are reasonable for accomodating the concerns of these groups? Going one step further, should they be accomodated?
Jim:
You're correct that censorware is only a symptom there is a reason why,
for example, every year librarians and others "celebrate" Banned Books Week but I'm
not certain that I agree with the premise that the Internet is a
culture-neutral medium, particularly in the context of a censorship discussion.
To some cultures, whether national or here in the U.S., every advance in technology has been a threat. Planes, trains and automobiles have changed many cultures, and so has or will the Internet. In many nations, the Internet itself is a threat, which is why some try to keep it out completely, or to allow it only under highly controlled circumstances. A content-free Internet would be culturally neutral, but an Internet which includes hundreds of sites about The Satanic Verses can hardly be considered neutral to many in Tehran or Islamabad.
In the context of the Internet, any attempt to accommodate a particular group is fraught with danger. (Some) parents were concerned with what their kids might be exposed to, so censorware was developed for home use. But the moralists were not satisfied, so laws like the CDA were enacted. When it was struck down, in part because censorware was touted as a less restrictive alternative, legislators pounced and introduced legislation (still pending) requiring the use of censorware in certain schools and libraries, not just for children, but for adults as well. And of course, as discussed in YRO, there are renewed multinational efforts to revitalize and impose PICS.
History has shown that it is a fundamental mistake to believe that censors can be accommodated. If one wants to preserve a cultural identity, the way to do it is to inculcate the positive values of that identity, not to pretend that other cultures do not exist.
2) What can we do?
by Ex-NT-User
It seems the majority of governments that are instituting censorship
legislation are doing this "behind their
populations backs". And certainly without majority support of the
people they govern over. Mailing/calling
our representatives doesn't seem to help much since they just blow
us off for special interest groups.
So what can we as individuals do prevent this? What other avenues can we take?
Irene:
I think one of the problems is that many politicians see the people on the
Net as being a special interest group, so which special interest group
should they listen to? Some politicians, for example, claim that people on
the Net don't care about protecting children - you'd think no-one on the
Net had kids if you didn't know better.
The problem of changing such perceptions is exacerbated by the tendency of people on the Net to do anything they can by email and not being willing to devote a little time to understanding the political processes involved.
So there's not just a question of what individuals can do, but what they shouldn't do. Here's some examples to explain what I mean from the recent anti-censorship campaign in Australia...
Some people set up email lists to automatically send the same message to all Australian politicians - it sounded like a great idea and heaps of well-intentioned people used these. The problem was, apparently, that many people sent rude, abusive emails. This is not the way to get one's point across and encourages the view that people on the Net are different from "ordinary" people. At the same time, the politicians who were already opposing the Bill received messages abusing them. Unfortunately, this encourages them to say "why bother?" - why shouldn't they support the pro-censorship lobby who quite likely aren't rude and say thank you?
During the campaign here, I rang the offices of my "representatives" who happened to be members of the opposition party just to say thanks for opposing the Bill. The staffers who answered the phone practically fell over themselves thanking me for bothering to call - they were so, so tired of the abusive emails and calls from people who hadn't even bothered to check what their policy was.
At one stage in the campaign here, it was reported that filter rules had been added to the Parliamentary email system, to give politicians the option of filtering anything about the Net censorship Bill into a separate folder. They were receiving too much email, which was interfering, apparently, with their ability to find email on other topics.
Another issue is that computers make it arguably too easy to just copy and paste texts that the cyber-liberties groups issue as suggestions, or that someone else has written. Standard texts are generally given little credence by politicians - they see it as just part of a campaign, too easy, from someone who doesn't care enough to bother writing their own views.
As well, there's the problem that many people don't even know what's going on. They don't read the newspapers regularly, certainly not the IT sections, and in Australia the TV news didn't mention the Bill until -after- the Senate approved it. Talk to people "in the streets" and you're likely to find even though they're not on the Net yet, they comprehend well enough to know the proposed legislation is silly, but hadn't heard about it. The spam problem has also made it quite difficult to get alerts out to a large portion of the Net community - those who don't subscribe to anti-censorshiop news/mail lists but who would be horrified to know what's happening in the halls of Parliaments.
So I think there's probably more don'ts than dos:
- discourage people from bulk emailing politicians,
- Discourage use of standard texts - and spend time writing in your own words,
- write snail mail or send faxes or phone up - in that order - don't email,
- ask for an opportunity to meet to discuss the matter - you've more chance of succeeding with this if your letter makes clear that you can provide useful information and are capable of rational, not emotional, discussion,
- find out what your representatives' views are before you contact them, or
ask, or say something like "if you believe .... then....", don't assume
what they know or think,
- respond to government inquiries, Senate Committee inquiries and the like. Don't leave this just to organisations and don't just write saying basically "I agree with [insert cyber-liberties group name]'s submission". Regrettably, this immediately marks you as just part of a "special interest" group,
- send thank you letters, or call to say thanks, when appropriate,
- talk to people off the Net about the Net - this is really important in terms of offsetting the power of the traditional media and the scare stories they love to distribute,
- write to newspaper/magazine editors etc when you see Net scare stories, and also write to them about why sensible stories are relegated to IT section (this happens in Australia more often than not, where they're mostly only seen by the already converted),
- read up on how to lobby politicians - there are books about this as well as Net resources such as:
USA: http://www.neosoft.com/vtw/cda-lobby.html
Another idea is the "Adopt a Politician" efforts that have been undertaken in some areas. Individuals offer to help a politician learn about a particular Net issue - or the Net in general - before the next round of silly legislation hits their desk. Of course, not all politicians want to learn, but some do.
And:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead.
3) Free speech in other countries
by /
As more countries' citizens get exposed to the internet and to the
ideas of unbridled free expression, do you
see further local pushes to enshrine free-speech protections in
their charters or constitutions? Or do you see
technology being harnessed to keep the masses in check as it has
or
millennia?
Irene:
I'd like to think the former, but I fear the latter's more likely.
Speaking from an Australian perspective, I think mere access to the Net has changed a lot of peoples' views about the supposed merits of censorship. When people see the potential for being jailed for saying something on a mailing list that they can say without fear off-line, what censorship is suddenly looks entirely different. No longer is it something that only applies to film distributors, publishers and the like.
Knowledge that people in other countries aren't subject to the same level of censorship can certainly encourage and bolster opposition to it. We had a case, http://rene.efa.org.au/censor/rabelais.html, in Australia recently where the student editors of a university journal were prosecuted for publishing an article called "The Art of Shoplifting". The judge said something like "nowhere in the world" would they be allowed to publish it. Someone on the Net knew that wasn't correct and drew relevant information to the defence team's attention which helped in their decision to appeal. Although they lost the appeal, a lot of attention was drawn to the case, surprisingly even in the traditional media - it seemed everyone was opposed to the prosecution. Eventually the prosecution dropped the charges. The law's still in place, but maybe the politicians etc who called for the students' scalps so to speak will think twice in future. I think the Net made a difference in this case in several ways - easier access to relevant information and knowledgeable people overseas and as a medium for communicating what was happening.
In short, it's becoming much more difficult for governments to justify their policies by saying "nowhere in the world" etc because ordinary individuals can more easily find out it isn't true. Not only that, they can read about, and discuss, why other countries have different policies and make up their own minds about what's best.
That is, of course, frightening to governments, so there's undoubtedly a severe risk of "technology being harnessed to keep the masses in check as it has for millennia". Many people saying no to censorship is the only thing that's even likely to stop it happening.
The question is, who'll win the race? Censorware developers claiming to have the "perfect" censorware seeking government contracts and/or industry contracts "encouraged" by government? Or increasing numbers of people on the Net getting informed and deciding to make their views known to politicians?
The "Internet industry's" reaction to government demands for censorship can also present problems as we're seeing in Australia right now. Government enacts legislation saying ISPs must block sites on government demand or face large fines. The Internet Industry Association (IIA) comes up with a way around the technical problems for them, that will make their life easier. IIA represents 60 of the some 700 ISPs in Australia but their recently approved Code of Practice for ISPs is now effectively law applicable to all ISPs.
The IIA Code requires that ISPs "provide for use, at a charge determined by the ISP, an Approved Filter" to each customer. So we're going to have users paying for censorware whether they want it or not. The IIA says that some ISPs will provide it for free, but the censorware vendors obviously won't give it to ISPs free. Even if the ISPs don't charge for it separately, they'll include the cost in Net access fees. There's no requirement for ISPs to offer users their choice of censorware, or provide any warnings as to the shortcomings of the filter, yet IIA claims this forced provision of censorware "empowers" the user.
Although users don't have to install or use the censorware, there's several potential censorship problems and I'll mention just one here.
ISPs complain about "clueless" requests for technical help from users. I've no doubt they do get such calls and that they take up a lot of their time. But what will happen when they start getting calls from those people who want to install the censorware (I assume there'll be some) but who have problems doing so? It will be an extremely undesirable outcome of the law if the ISPs incorporate censorware in their registration process/disk so it's automatically installed on a user's computers with the defaults set to block=on. Many people won't want to use censorware and a lot of these programs are very difficult to uninstall. Will ISPs themselves know how to do that, or give any sort of priority to customers trying to get rid of something the government requires the ISPs to provide? Will the censorware block access to the few (if any) web pages around that explain how to remove it? This scenario may not happen, but it's certainly possible some ISPs could do this. As it is, many people don't know the questions they should ask before opening an account with an ISP and this Code seems likely to make the problem worse for unknowledgeable people.
The Australian government has, for the moment anyway, dropped its requirement that ISPs block overseas content at the server level, probably because of a combination of massive public opposition and the industry etc pointing out that it's not "technically and commercially feasible" at present. Some of the censorware vendors tell the government it is and/or soon will be. Government mandated provision of censorware to every Australian Internet user will certainly place a great deal of extra money in the pockets of censorware suppliers - money that may well be used for developing censorware more suitable for installation on ISPs servers or backbones. I don't think the threat of censorship facilitated by technology is over in Australia yet, it may just be on hold. The Code of Practice ISPs have to comply with by law can be changed quite easily.
So, looking at the Australian experience for example, it's difficult to say whether access to the Net will lead to further local pushes to enshrine free-speech protections in law, or whether technology will be harnessed to keep the masses in check. There are numerous governments far more repressive than Australia's and technology being harnessed is obviously more of a threat in countries that don't claim to be democratic. One thing I am sure of is that anyone who promotes the development of censorware as a means of staving of government censorship either has rocks in their head, or doesn't know how repressive some governments can be. If you build tools that facilitate censorship, some governments will use them.
4) A proposal
by dclydew
It is obvious that "censorware" is a fatally flawed tool. Using
technical solutions for social issues doesn't
work. However, it's also clear that many parents don't want a T-1
full of porn available to their child every
Monday through Friday. So I'd like feedback on the following
proposal:
In areas where minors have access to public internet services (school/libraries), they would be given an account. This account would be accessible via a smart "library" card. The account is identified by account# only. These account#'s are logged along with sites that are visited by minor. At the request of a parent/gaurdian, a report can be generated so that they can determine if their child is acting within the acceptable boundaries set by the family unit. No one else would be permitted to use this reporting tool. This takes censorship out of the hands of everyone except the people legally responsible for the minor.
I belive that this approach removes all unnecessary layers of argument and leaves us with one question:
Should anyone (parents/gaurdians included) have the right to control what their child sees/hears/views for entertainment/etc. ?
This question obviously has a precedence: Children under 18 are not permitted to purchase pornography, tobacco, etc. However, a parent could permit their child to have such things. Perhaps by purchasing the items for the minor.
Please give me your thoughts....
Jim:
To be honest, my first thought is Orwell's 1984, or perhaps even
some of David Brin's writings. You've just made it legal for the
government to keep tabs on every Internet site visited by every minor, so
long as the minor is using a government machine (public schools and
libraries are a part of the government). Those who know me know that I'm
not ultra-paranoid about government, but giving this much data to the
government frightens me. I recognize that your intent is that the data
only be made available to the parent or legal guardian, but can you think
of a meaningful guarantee that it can't be misused? As I write
this, I can't. (I suppose a script could be written which would
automatically encrypt the data only to the parent's PGP public key or
similar, but I'm thinking in terms of what would work for the vast
majority, not just a fairly small minority.)
Now suppose, hypothetically, that rock-solid guarantees could be made. Where, and how, do you draw the age line? The actual age of majority differs somewhat among the states, but let's assume it is 18. Should a 17 year old be scrutinized as closely as a 9 year old? What if the 9 year old is particularly mature, the 17 year old particularly immature? And by the way, some states grant far more independent rights to minors than do most states or the federal government. For example, in California and Florida, a first trimester pregnant 14 year old has exactly the same right to an abortion as does a first trimester pregnant 30 year old no parental consent or judicial approval is required. (The U.S. Constitution sets minimum standards for individual rights; the states can not drop below the federal minimums, but they can, and some do, recognize more rights as a matter of independent state law.) If a 14 year old California girl has a right to an abortion without parental consent, would you give the parent access to the log of abortion-related web sites the girl has visited?
Then one gets to discrimination based on medium. In most public libraries, an unattended 15 year old can pull any book he or she wants off the shelves and read it cover to cover without the parent ever knowing. Should the rules be different if the text of that same book happens to be on the Internet?
Parents have the right, perhaps even the duty, to raise their children as best they can, to try to instill in them a moral code, whatever that code might be. If the parents choose to home school, that is their right, but if the parents let their children go out into the world, as most do, they do so knowing full well that their children will see/hear/read/do things which the parents will never know about, hoping that the children's upbringing will serve them well. Why should exposure to the Internet be different from everything else to which the minor is exposed?
Incidentally, proposals like yours have been considered and rejected both by pro-censorship types and by anti-censorship types. The pros don't want anyone, and particularly not minors, to have access to certain kinds of information. The antis don't want government assisting restrictive parents. What the so-called silent majority would say is anyone's guess.
5) Rhetoric of anti-censorship
by H3lldr0p
What arguments have you used to try and persuade people that
censorware is not an acceptable answer to
whatever problem they are currently having with the world at large?
I ask for two reasons. I have been a fan of Bradbury for some time and will always suggest that everybody needs to read _Fahrenheit 451_, but I have also recently read Ken Burke's "Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle.'" He argues therein that _Mein Kamf_ should not be censored on the grounds that history might repeat itself if we are unaware of what has gone on before.
Jim:
As a preliminary note, I am not familiar with Burke's work, but absolutely
I oppose censoring Mein Kampf, or any other work I find extremely
distasteful. And I say this as a Jewish person who had a number of
ancestors exterminated in the Holocaust.
What works? One thing I've learned in more than twenty years as a lawyer is that you have to tailor your approach, consistent with that which is verifiably true, to your intended audience, while (hopefully) adding in something new and unexpected. For example, in our early reports, we at The Censorware Project stressed what we sometimes call collateral damage or overblocking -- wrongful bans of innocuous and valuable sites. This emphasis worked fabulously in our early reports, such as our first report on X-Stop in October 1997. Not only did the usual suspects take notice, but groups such as Filtering Facts and Family Friendly Libraries, which previously had specifically endorsed X-Stop, abandoned it like rats fleeing a sinking ship.
But while the point remains as valid today as it was then, more people have heard it before and say, in effect, "tell me something new." So in our most recent report on Bess, done about five months ago, we did exactly that, in part because a major focus of Bess is schools instead of public libraries.
In K-12 schools, you would think that the primary focus would be on blocking hard core sex sites, so we opened some eyes when we reported, based on our tests of real proxies actually in use in a number of schools, that Bess did not block HardCoreSex.com, as well as lots of other porn sites, most of which were not new - and we did not spend a great deal of time searching extensively for unblocked porn sites. In other words, while showing plenty of examples of the usual overblocking, we added in the new (for our reports) element of meaningful underblocking, a more attention-getting point to those who don't care about overblocking, because "It's for the children."
Not coincidentally, our Bess report was released on the day of the IPO of N2H2, Inc., the company which makes Bess. The stock price plummeted on the first day, and continued to do so for a good long while after, though it has since rallied. Whether there was a cause and effect is an exercise I will leave to market analysts and Slashdot readers.
One point which has to be emphasized, particularly if addressing a new product: there is no magic bullet, nor will there be absent a quantum leap in artificial intelligence technology. Each new product, and even each new release of an existing product, comes to the market with an almost teflon-like quality, magically cleansed of the foibles of its predecessors, because so many want to believe that censorware can do what the vendors claim it can do. It isn't so.
6) How much is too much?
by zantispam
I for one dislike censorship in all of it's forms. However, does
government demand it?
Let me explain a bit...
Ok, here in the US, we have a right to free speech. Conversely, we have no right to be heard. What this means is that it's theoretically ok for me to say "I think that Clinton is a green donkey!". It also means that no one has to hear what I just said. Whether it be a function of censorship, or just because most people think I'm nuts, my view has not been heard. Nowhere am I guaranteed this right.
The problem with this is that it makes censorchip `legal', in a way. The [insert favorite agency to pick on here] can choose not to grant my right to be heard, and that's (unjustly, IMHO) ok.
My question is: Does government, in any form, require censorship to function? Put another way, do we necessarily have to give up our right to be heard by choosing to live in any type of society? Put a third way, is the right to be heard equal to the right to privacy (unlawful search and siezure).
Jim:
An important distinction needs to be made here, and that is where
you want to be heard. If you want me to hear you while I am in my private
home, you can't barge into my home, uninvited, in order to make sure that I
hear you. Similarly, if a parent chooses to use censorware on their home
computer in an attempt to protect or isolate a child, you can't force your
Internet speech onto that home computer.
But while "censorship" can be used with a broader meaning, your reference to a favorite agency leads me to believe that you are talking about censorship by the government. If that is the case, then your premise is largely incorrect. There is a substantial body of case law dealing with so-called public forums, and their offshoot, limited public forums. There are exceptions to every rule (I did say that I'm a lawyer, didn't I?), but generally speaking, if the government makes available a public forum, it can not deny your right to be heard based on the content of your speech, so long as the speech itself is not unlawful (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is the usual example). A public library is not constitutionally required to offer any Internet connections at all, but if it does provide access, it cannot discriminate based on the desirability of the speech, particularly with adult listeners. As a private citizen, I can decide that I only want to "hear" comments on slashdot which are scored 3 or better, but the government cannot decide that for me.
Of course, while I may have a right to have my lawful Internet speech heard in a wired library, this does not mean that I have a right to equal time with cnn.com. If their site gets more views than mine, c'est la vie.
You might be able to tell that I've been struggling a bit with your question, and it just occurred why - you really aren't talking about censorship at all if, at long last, I'm getting the question. In the narrow sense, it is censorship if the government prevents or deters me from speaking or you from hearing me. In a broader sense, it is censorship if any third person (or software imposed by a third person) prevents or deters me from speaking or you from hearing me. But it is not censorship at all, using any common meaning of the word, if I decide, of my own volition, that I simply do not want to hear what you have to say. Contrary to what at least one person has written, censorware opponents do not want to force anyone to read that which they do not want to read. Sorting information, deciding what is important to us, what is not, is something we do constantly, on and off of the Internet.
That is entirely different from someone else, and particularly the government, blocking you from information which you do want to read.
7) censorship, apathy, and the general population
by Requiem
How can we attempt to show the general population that censorship
is
not a good thing? It seems that
people accept the spoonfed excuse of "it's for your own good"; how
can we get people to think critically
about the situation and come to their own conclusions?
Irene:
I'm not at all sure that people do accept "it's for your own good". In my
experience, people in favour of censorship are usually worried about the
effect seeing or knowing something will have on _other_ people. They're
usually quite confident of their own ability to critically analyse
information and decide for themselves whether or not it's a good idea to
act on it, and of their own ability to control their own children (usually
anyway). It's what other people, or other people's children, will do that
worries them.
Try reversing that - saying to such people that _other_ people approve of censorship because they're worried about that person's inability to cope with information and you could have quite an interesting conversation. This won't work with everyone, but it will make some people start to think about their assumptions.
The American Library Association's site contains some useful information about motivations for censorship and tactics.
One thing that can make people start to question the merits of censorship is to make them aware of what's censored. The problem with censorship is most people have no idea - they never see what's censored - so they assume it's really really bad stuff (whatever that is in their view).
The banning of the shoplifting article I mentioned earlier was quite useful in this regard in Australia. Although it was banned in print, someone put it on the Web. A lot of people who read it couldn't believe there were laws that could put people in jail for distributing it - they saw it as intended humour, satire (not the best literary work but all the same). The law was made to look more ridiculous when one of the judges included the whole article in his decision upholding the ban on it. The Court decision, including the article, was published on the Web.
The Net's very helpful in this regard. When, say, a film's banned or cut, one can usually find a detailed review of it, or people overseas talking about in newsgroups or wherever. Governments' claims that banning is necessary to protect society etc. sound very silly when it's known that the film was released uncut in numerous other countries and there's no reports of any harm being caused.
It only takes a few examples of what's banned outright, or cut from films, to make some people start questioning their previous certainty that "government knows best."
With regard to the people who believe studies have proven that viewing something causes violence or whatever, about the only thing you can do is to learn about the research and studies for yourself so you can speak knowledgeably and argue about it if necessary. A section of my web site contains useful information and links in this regard.
8) Legal question.
by Weezul
Frequently censorware seems to target anti-censorship
(sites/people)
as much as they target porn (this was
especially a problem in Australia). What can be done about this?
Are there laws in the U.S. or Australia that would allow people who censor anti-censorship sites to be sued?
Irene:
I don't know of any Australian anti-censorship sites targeted by
censorware. If you have details I'd be interested in hearing about it.
In Australia, it's doubtful such sites/people would have much redress other than defamation, and proof of damage would be difficult. Same applies to ordinary user sites. A business blocked by censorware could consider an action for defamation, or deceptive business practices under the Trade Practices Act.
Jim:
Targeting anti-censorship sites is a problem here in the U.S. as well
(Irene has answered about Australia). The
Censorware Project, Peacefire
and The Ethical Spectacle are among
many anti-censorship sites which have been banned at various times by the
censorware makers. (Interestingly, pro-censorware/censorship sites such as
Filtering Facts and The American Family Association have been
blacklisted as well.)
There is no specific law which would allow the owner of a blocked anti-censorship site to sue the censorware maker. Censorship, in the legal sense, involves state action, but there is no state action involved in the mere fact that a censorware vendor has added an anti-censorship site to its blacklist. However, there are at least three instances in which the owner of a wrongfully blocked site might be able to sue a censorware vendor or user.
First, if the censorware is being used in a public institution such as a public library, the site owner may well have standing to sue the institution for blocking the constitutionally protected speech at the site. In the Loudoun County, Virginia Public Library lawsuit, the action was commenced by library patrons, but the ACLU intervened on behalf of content providers whose sites were blocked in the library. The Library Board tried to argue that the providers had no standing to intervene, but the Court disagreed.
Second, one needs to look at the blocking category being used to block the site. The ACLU, for example, has been blocked by some vendors under the category "activist" or similar. Certainly I don't condone such blacklisting, but the categorization is factually correct. On the other hand, suppose that the site is miscategorized by the censorware vendor as a porn site instead of an activist one. (If you think that is ludicrous, read a mini-essay I wrote earlier this year.) Some have posited that the censorware vendor might be liable for libel. I would not bring such an action I defend those sued for libel, regardless of whether I agree with their particular speech but I do expect that the owner of some site wrongfully blocked as a porn site will test the waters.
Third, under either federal law or the laws of various states, there may be a claim for consumer fraud or false and misleading advertising if the vendor bans sites under incorrect categories. Most of the vendors have wonderful sounding statements on their sites about how carefully they make their lists and check them twice, but virtually every serious investigation of censorware has shown such statements to be utterly false. In some states, a remedy under this theory may be available only to customers who purchased the censorware in reliance on the false representations, but in other states, such as mine (California), virtually any member of the public could bring such an action.
----------
Next week we have *two* interviews to celebrate the year's end: First, L0pht Heavy Industries, with answers Friday. And in a separate "bonus" interview post Monday we'll be collecting questions for Jon "Maddog" Hall about Linux in the next century; Jon's answers will run Saturday (for obvious symbolic reasons). Enjoy!
MEEPT!!!!! would like to instruct his recently graduated student friends who are about to get married in the art of raising children. There are several crucial points to remember:
MEEPT!!!!! hopes this has been a valuable lesson. To summarize, "Trust the government. Follow their lead, and live pure lives."
MEEPT!!!!!
Surely there is a dividing line somewhere between what is and is not allowable.
I believe there is a basic flaw in most of the arguments presented by those who wish to allow censoring, and even by those who oppose it.
I live in Canada, and there is currently a debate about what's called the Young Offender's Act(YOA). It basically allows pretty much any crime commited by a minor to go unpunished. Obviously this system is fatally flawed. More than one kid has commited rape/murder/fraud/what-have-you, and gotten away with it.
How is this issue and censorship related? It is all based in how we view the children. In Canada, under the YOA, we basically say that children don't know what they're doing - they have no will of their own, and they are therefore excused of any crime they DO happen to commit. Censors seem to feel the same way, in a sense. Children don't know what they're seeing is "bad", so we must "protect" them.
I can't say that what I think is popular opinion, but I really think we should ask the kids. Any minor who I've talked to agrees that the YOA should be banished. Likewise, any minor that I've talked to thinks the net should be uncensored. And I've talked to pre-pubescent males who have(as of yet) no interest in porn.
Society(at least over here, in North America) treats pretty much anybody under 18 years old as non-sentient. I'm serious about that. NON-SENTIENT. We treat them like they have no will, no mind, no capacity for decision-making. To be able to make a good decision, all that's required is knowledge and experience. While minors may be lacking in experience, it is US who have denied them knowledge.
Dave B. Harris
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
A couple months ago I had a discussion with Warren, the owner of a local bar and grille, who was interested in setting up an Internet terminal in his establishment. For him decent censorware is a necessity.
Warren is not necessarily someone who wants to censor people. However he has to consider the plusses and minuses of an Internet terminal with regard to his business.
It's not unlikely that someone will leave a screenful of porn for the next family to use the terminal to see. This would upset customers and lose him business. He understands that censorware is not fool-proof but it will help, and also offer him some legal protection as well. The city of Jacksonville is rather conservative when it comes to sex and I'm not entirely sure that he couldn't be prosecuted here for displaying pornography in a public place.
In a case like this his options are censoring the Internet or NO Internet. What options am I missing?
numb
Is there really a need to invent and use words like "censorware"? Then, why not say textware, mathware, commware, mailware, systemware, webware, graphware, moneyware...
"who supports websites with bomb making plans?"
I do...
There are plenty of people across this planet who are fighting for their freedom across this planet, who need this information to dethrone their oppressors...
Do you think bomb making plans should be censored? Many high school chemistry books describe how gunpowder is made (mix saltpeter, charcoal, and sulphur - let's censor /. for publishing this post). I have a "Naval Ordnance Guide", published by the U.S Navy in the 1920s, which I bought at a used books store, containing detailed instructions on the manufacture of all explosives used by the U.S. Navy in 1920. Let's abolish used books stores, only stores which sell new, pre-censored books should be allowed.
Now suppose, hypothetically, that rock-solid guarantees could be made. Where, and how, do you draw the age line? The actual age of majority differs somewhat among the states, but let's assume it is 18. Should a 17 year old be scrutinized as closely as a 9 year old?
Yes, they should! What is this, a new country called "internetland"? We still live in a country where it is illegal for a 9 year old OR a 17 year old to buy pornography from the magazine rack at a store, but they can go home and download it for free. But then the censorship paranoia freaks yell "freedom of speech! what if they're looking for information about abortion and get blocked?" Then the "censorware" is not doing it's job.
Censorware when done right should impose the same level of censorship that we apply to everyday life. You can go to a library and with enough searching find books on abortion, sexual problems, even steamy novels for housewives- but you won't find the latest issue of Hustler.
But because the internet is different, we shouldn't prevent our children from finding this crap, we should be watching over their shoulder 24/7. Believe me, I was a kid once too- and that's not something I would have done when mom was watching. You can't watch kids all the time.
What if the 9 year old is particularly mature, the 17 year old particularly immature?
Age laws draw no distinction on maturity. Maturity is not exactly something you can prove easily, like your birthday. It is the exception and not the rule that a 9 year old would be mature enough to look at hardcore porn, smoke cigarettes, and drink alcohol. For that reason, the age to smoke/buy porn is 18, and the drinking age is 21.
Before anyone says anything about how the age requirements should be lower for any of this stuff, that is not relevant to this discussion. Take it up with the laws that exist already.
And by the way, some states grant far more independent rights to minors than do most states or the federal government. For example, in California and Florida, a first trimester pregnant 14 year old has exactly the same right to an abortion as does a first trimester pregnant 30 year old no parental consent or judicial approval is required. (The U.S. Constitution sets minimum standards for individual rights; the states can not drop below the federal minimums, but they can, and some do, recognize more rights as a matter of independent state law.) If a 14 year old California girl has a right to an abortion without parental consent, would you give the parent access to the log of abortion-related web sites the girl has visited?
Yes! and in all 50 states, it is STILL illegal for a 14 year old to buy hardcore pornography! However, it is NOT illegal for minors to look at information about abortion. Since you're trying to say that censorware lumps all this information in to one category, we should just do the same?
Honestly, just listen to what you're saying. Since we don't agree with the laws, we shouldn't apply them to the internet? Most of these proposals aim to bring the internet to parity with existing laws. Free information is great and everything, but there are limits imposed in the "real" world that don't exist on the internet. Yeah, I know it's great. I still wouldn't want my kids looking at porn that they shouldn't be seeing. Most of the stuff in this article was pure FUD... "censorware doesn't work, so we should get rid of it." What about censorware that TRULY WORKS? "But that will never happen!" Bullshit. Anything is possible, and the software that is out there is getting better. I'm not trying to say I agree that the censorware out there is good enough, it's not. But there will be a day when it is, and I'll be there to buy a copy to put on my kid's iMac.
Well, the child censorship issue was addressed a few times in this article. It seems that a great amount of parents restrict online surfing. Most parents prevent kids from looking at inappropriate sites is by getting protection software, or using ISPs built in ones (like AOL... if you want to call it an ISP). This usually does not work because its like a broad sword... it blocks what you don't want them to see, but they also block a vast amount of sites that aren't rated with their rated system, or they block out sites with key words, which doesn't work either. Now, the programs which are active in the background seem like a simple solution. These programs just basically track the usage of the people on the computer, but no one knows that this is active. Although, the problem with this is that some parents don't know how to install software, and if they tried it might be apparent to a teenager. Well, this is somewhat offtopic, but basically i'm saying that these background child censorship programs work better than the ones that restrict access.
That book is full of sex and violence. You can find incest, genocide, and drunkenness there. The logo printed on the cover represents an instrument of death by torture. Obviously unfit for any person to read!
the point is that even if i may never use those plans, knowledge is something that should be shared freely. Why curtail it ?
If you try to block knowledge it inevitably leaks out and bites you in the rear end anyway..anyone can invent or reinvent a bomb (witness the USA/USSR hydrogen bomb race - 2 seperate teams came up with roughly the same ideas on manufacturing it with no shared knowledge).
And why should a book like Mein Kampf be censored ? I've read it (and have a copy i picked up at a book fair) and its relatively harmless.
Publication of information on how to commit crimes, or even advocating their commission (Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 1969) is 100% legal in meatspace. Therefore, it should be legal in cyberspace as well. (As if anyone could really stop me from spamming "The Terrorists Handbook" to Usenet in order to make sure tens of thousands of people get to DL copies.)
a)Distinguish between a lurid sexual fantasy in Nancy Friday's "Men In Love", which most assuredly WAS in my local library when I was an impressionable little hatchling, and a lurid sexual fantasy in "Letters To Penthouse", which wasn't. (Please note that 'Men In Love' used every four-letter and slang term imaginable, no cute euphemisms like 'her sex' or 'cupids battering ram' here!)
b)Distinguish between Nazi propaganda posted on an 'Aryan Nations' site, and the same propaganda posted on something like Nizkor.
When you have answered, you may claim censorware is viable. Not until.
Why?
Well, because saying that certain types of content are "wrong" and certain types are "right" opens a pandora's box of problems. Sure, most rational people will agree that it's wrong to build bombs and kill people. I'm at the head of the list. But, while I'll certainly never BUILD ONE, I do (to a limited extent) know how to do it. The fact is, most people are well adjusted enough to have that kind of knowledge and not apply it. Same thing with knowledge of virus writing. You think that your idolized kernel hackers couldn't do some really destructive stuff if they wanted to? Same thing with knowledge of the human body. You think that someone trained in martial arts couldn't kill a room full of people before they get overpowered?
The fact is, people DO know how to do hideous things. The stable ones just DON'T DO THEM. I like to think I'm a pretty stable guy. Just because I could shoot a hunting partner rather than a deer doesn't mean I'm going to. Just because I could cut the fuel line to your car and let the ignition spark blow it to hell doesn't mean I'm going to.
So, since people don't do these hideous things, you ask, why should they know how to at all? Well, ya never know where knowledge can be applied. Hey, I agree that building bombs is wrong, but surely you don't think it's wrong to understand the principles of combustion that make your car drivable. Surely you don't think building demolition crews should be jailed.
Now, my problem with censoring damn near anything other than kiddie porn and death threats is that somewhere, someone would be speaking for me, and deciding what I'm stable enough to handle, and what my moral judgements should be. Sure, I feel there's a line between allowable and not allowable. But not everyone is gonna agree with it. Pedophiles and criminals sure won't. Neither will the Christian Coalition. I fall somewhere in the middle.
But to make some universal judgement that applies to EVERYONE - and make no mistake, that's what censorware does - is NOT right. Nobody has the right to dictate what I may or may not learn, or may or may not know. What I'm allowed to DO is within the scope of the law. But my KNOWLEDGE itself does NOT affect anyone but ME, unless I chose to apply it in a stupid and illegal manor. If I were to bomb a building, I hope I'd be fried for it. Bombers (in my opinion) deserve that. But just because I know how to pack a pipe bomb doesn't mean I should be jailed - because I've NEVER built one, and NEVER done anything remotely illegal with the knowledge of how to.
Sure, you can go ahead and censor bomb building instructions. But then wouldn't instructions for making gun powder be wrong too? And while we're on the subject, why should pages on explosive reactions be allowed at all? Terrorists and teenagers could use them to kill people. Hrm... you know, we ought to give a good deal of thought to pressurized reactions of any sort. You can create enough pressure to blow up bottles without explosives of any type. And exploding glass is bad news. Never mind that this will upset tons of hobbyists that build model rockets and cars. It can be used to kill people, so make it illegal. Ya know, for THAT matter, alcohol kills people. Lots of 'em. Lets ban microbrew instructions - they're used to make poison. Hell, so are cigarettes. Growing tobacco is wrong. And the list can go on and on.
I know this rambled. To summarize: Yes, there's a dividing line - but it varries from person to person, and the simple fact is, there is nobody qualified to tell EVERYONE where they should draw that line. Except God. But that's a whole separate can of worms
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Visit the secure anti-censorship proxy at https://lm.lcs.mit.edu.
[
Live free or die. Die we will.
For example, let's say I'm anti-guns. Therefore, sites that list information on how to purchase guns are, in my view, sites that need to be censored, so that my children cannot see them.
However, to a member of the NRA, that site is probably bookmarked, and would likely (and rightly) get very upset that it was censored by censor-ware.
EVERYONE on the face of this planet is going to have their own viewpoint on what is censorable material and what isn't. What gives the people who created the software the right to determine what should be filtered out and what shouldn't?
Someday, we'll look back at this, laugh nervously, and move on to another topic.
In areas where minors have access to public internet services (school/libraries), they would be given an account. This account would be accessible via a smart "library" card. The account is identified by account# only. These account#'s are logged along with sites that are visited by minor. At the request of a parent/gaurdian, a report can be generated so that they can determine if their child is acting within the acceptable boundaries set by the family unit.
There's a big difference between restricting and monitoring access. Whether or not you're for censorship, it's far far worse to monitor everything a kid does. What if they went to a gay teens site? Kids might not have the right to see certain things (in some countries), but that doesn't mean that parents have the right to know everything the kid did.
pouring hot grits down Natalie Portmans pants
>You can go to amazon.com and order "The Anarchists Cookbook", and probably quite a lot of other 'seditious' works. Bomb making is basic chemistry.
Of course, that's not a terribly good example, since the stuff in the Anarchist's Cookbook is almost totally worthless for doing anything anarchistic. Sure, the ways they tell you how to do stuff works, but they tell you the very worst, slowest, most impractical, etc. etc. ways to do it.
If you weren't 14, I'd tell you to pull that stick out of your ass, and come call me a faggot to my face... I hate to break the news to you, but people who speak well are NOT all small and weak... and you just found one who's got a temper, too.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Stupid wanker. Get back to class or I'll beat you in PhysEd next period.
Is there any compelling reason for such laws? What are, exactly, the intrinsic dangers that may afflict a minor - of any age - who has access to pornography? I agree that the internet should obey the same laws that are applied anywhere else. But are these laws just or reasonable? What is the danger in a child seeing a vagina in Hustler, and why is it not dangerous to see the same thing in a medical book?
Perhaps what is needed is a clear distinction between "customs" and "morals". These concepts are often used in an almost indistinguishable way, but they are different. A "custom" is something that is accepted by most people in a given society, for a certain place and time. For instance, it is not a proper custom these days to wear jeans at a formal event, but it's certainly not immoral to do so. On the other hand, clothes that are the normal custom to wear at a beach today would be totally unacceptable 100 years ago at the same place.
I think almost all the laws existing today that refer to sex and pornography are obsolete, they impose the customs of days gone by. These rules should *never* have been made into law to begin with, and most of them aren't even conforming to the customs of many modern societies. We should make an effort to abolish these laws, instead of enforcing them at the internet.
The key things about censorware are choice and competition. To begin with, personal Internet services don't come, by default, "blocked" with filtering software. The user, most often a parent or guardian, has to make the choice to install and configure such software. Minors, unfortunately, do not have the "right" to access any information as they please on the Internet or through other mediums. Some movies are forbidden (without explicit parental permission), some TV shows are aired late at night (after bedtimes), and printed pornography is certainly off-limits (in special rooms of video stores, not accessable without ID).
Internet filtering is a natural extension of this, but is actually more "free" that any of the above initiatives. Why? Well, in all the above cases, limits were set by the government through regulations, threats (to regulate the MPAA and TV networks), and other means. Internet filtering, though, is controlled by parents, who are able to decide, often quite specifically, what gets through and what does not, using lists of sites, keywords, and other means. Parents can even decide to turn filtering off, perhaps at a child's request if a site has been arbitrarily blocked. Filtering software lets parents open up the Internet for their children without worrying (too much) about the sites out there that don't mesh with their values. Like it or lump it, parents do have the ability to control what information their children are allowed access to (up to a certain age); filtering software helps them do this in the least oppressive way possible.
One argument made against filtering software is that it blocks, arbitrarily, many sites that have ideological content that aren't "obscene" or "pornography." There are two ways to look at this. First, this may be desired by some customers, who don't want their children exposed to this material; for better or for worse, it's really their call. The other way is that Acme Internet Filtering's software may be blocking arbitrary sites with which it has qualms; say, for instance, the owner of Acme hates feminism, so all feminist sites are blocked. If the parent's agree with this, that's their prerogative. If not, though, they're free to switch to another company's filtering product that blocks sites that they feel should be blocked or allows more custimization and control over what gets blocked.
Put simply, this software puts power into the hands of parents who, realistically, don't have the time to supervise their children everytime their children go online. It lets them filter sites according to their values rather than an arbitrary government mandate. There's a lot on the Internet a parent might not want their kid seeing; I think we can all agree with that. Properly set-up and configured filtering software should filter exactly that much, according to the parent's prerogative. Fortunately, because we have a free market, filtering companies are competing with one another to see who can best serve their customer, the parent. As time goes by , the filtering industry will only get better in this respect.
In other areas, the issue is a bit more murky. What should be filtered in schools, for example? Some would say "none." To this, I disagree. I think the correct answer should be "only material that could conceiveably be in line with the institution's mission," in this case education. This would permit some level of filtering. Students in schools are rarely left unsupervised; if a student wishes to access a relevant site (by his criteria) that is blocked, it could be "unlocked" by the faculty member supervising. This would permit case-by-case decisions to be made and cause filtering software to only block that which is definitely not in line with the school's mission.
Finally, what about libraries and the like? I believe this is the murkiest issue of all. The purpose of a library is to allow access to information; this pretty much precludes filtering, or does it. I see three solutions for libraries. The first is the status quo: allow children onto the net without filtering software. Trust that the public nature of libraries will keep them from the more obscene sites. To an extent, this self-regulation isn't so bad; who's going to call up "Laviscious Lesbians" when every patron who walks by can see it? A way to modify this might be to require children to have permission from their parents to use library computers; just a note or a card perhaps, nothing elaborate. Of course, there would be children, then, who wouldn't be allowed to access the net at the library. For their sake, filtering software might be put on several computers; perhaps this would placate their parents. Yet, neither of these are satisfactory solutions; they border on the technocratic. I think the status quo is the best; if a parent is so concerned about the things his or her child would be accessing on the Internet at a public library, the parent certainly wouldn't want his or her child accessing many things ont he library's shelves, either. Thus, these children may not even be allowed to visit the libary by themselves, which, again, is their parents' prerogative.
Filtering software isn't bad then, although some implementations of it may be. That's the beauty of it: rather than one "one-size fits all" government mandate we have custom-tailored filtering here in the US. To stretch this metaphor, if the shirt doesn't fit, one can get a new one or go topless (in many localities, haha). To those who think children have the right to access all information as they please, your quarrel is not with filtering software but with the whole concept of a being a minor. Internet filtering is but a small symptom of this. For those who believe that parents have the right to monitor and restrict their children's information access, filtering software seems a logical way to do this.
--Andrew Grossman
We're quite selective (read: hypocritical) about what rights/responsibilities we accord minors. For example, it's unconstitutional to execute a 15-year-old offender (Thompson v. Oklahoma) but it's perfectly constitutional to execute a 16-year-old (Stanford v. Kentucky). But is either allowed to get an abortion without mommy's permission? (No: Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
If a person can be old enough to make rational decisions about murder and be held responsible for them, and yet simultaneously not be old enough to make personal decisions regarding bodily integrity, then we must have an inconsistent system. Surprise: We Do! Hooray!
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
ROBLIMO RIDES CMDRTACOS BALONEY PONEY! AND JON KATZ WATCHES HE IS ALSO JERKING HIS GURKIN!
For a site that is supposedly pro free speech, the arguments it presents are pretty one sided. We never hear from pro-censorship advocates. And whenever someone says something contrary to the /. opinion that post is immediatly moderated down. It'd be nice if some other opinons could actually be heard for once. Perhaps if Microsoft bought slashdot we could finally hear some fair and unbiased news about windows...
Why would a stone state need pants?
My wife is getting ready to fork() a little baby girl, so this question's been on my mind lately. I do not want to rely on some censor's ideas of right and wrong to decide what my daughter should be (dis-)allowed to view. However, as a soon-to-be parent, I feel that it is my moral obligation to steer my child in what I believe to be the right direction.
My solution is this. I've set up a FreeBSD proxy/bastion server for my home's LAN, and blocked all but a select few outgoing ports from the other computers on the network. Then, I installed and configured Squid on the firewall, and set all other computers to load web pages via the central proxy. In short, local users have to use the proxy server to fill web requests.
Once that was finished, I've purposefully not configured any sort of URL blocking whatsoever. My child can view any web page she wants to. However (and she'll know about this from the first day I sit her in front of Netscape), it'll be completely within my parental (and administrative) rights to view the Squid logs at my leisure. I will hold her accountable for viewing site that she knows we don't approve of.
Now, some people will rant against my "censorship". Feel free. However, I also expect to monitor her TV viewing and reading material, as most decent parents do, and I don't see this as one bit different. To paraphrase my dad, she's free to do whatever she wants in her own house, but while she lives under mine, she's going to follow my rules.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
...this would not be a problem.
(Score: -1, Uncomfortably Close to the Truth)
...and the burden of proof is on you to show harm, not on him to show harmlessness. You haven't done that. Care to try?
WELCOME BACK!
Here's one.
Save copies of such tools and send them to people in need (the Web pages themselves may be filtered by censorware).
None, unless its some really really nasty stuff. The reason adults want to protect kids from porn is twofold.
1. They want to maintain the pathetic 'Western/Religious' taboo that will ultimatly be smashed in highschool that sex and anything sex related is bad. Especially the human in it's natural form, the way we were originally
2. They want to avoid embarrassment when there kid asks 'What are those two doing mom?'
------------------------------------
There are things that I don't want my young children encountering without my guidance. But I'm not afraid of having to explain uncomfortable subjects to them. Nor am I afraid to set boundaries for them and tell them what the rules are. I wonder how much of the demand for censorware is from parents who want to feel safe about their children's online experiences without having to take the responsibility themselves. Responsibility for teaching children how to discriminate good ideas from bad doesn't come in a box and you can't put it on your credit card. It is a personal commitment to them as individuals.
I can almost hear the censors asking, "But what about when you aren't home?" That's what I mean about limits and rules. I expect to be able to tell my children how far they can go and then leave them as much freedom as possible within those bounds. For a young child, that takes the form of a rule not to cross the street alone or that the computer goes off at a particular time. For an older child it advances to what are and are not appropriate uses for that computer. I can't always be with my kids. The best thing I can do is teach them well. If I can't teach them to make good decisions when they are living under my roof, what hope is there that they will be able to after they are grown and move out?
There is also the issue of trust. It can be a powerful thing. A child who knows he has your trust has a reason to avoid losing it. A child who has a reason to believe he isn't trusted can't fear losing that trust.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
I was thinking of starting my own mining business.
While I realize I could attend college chemistry courses or just buy pre-made ones, I am a particularly pig-headed self-starter.
On the other hand, I do tend to say things that piss a lot of people off. Particularly intelligent people who don't need the Internet to tell them how to make a bomb. Thus I decide to learn bomb construction techniques in an attempt to recognize the next mailbomb I'm sent.
This is a real-world argument, as police bomb disposal learn how to build bombs so that they know the correct way to disarm them. (I have a relative who is on a bomb squad and told me about it after his courses.)
Knowledge isn't dangerous. It's the misuse of the knowledge that's dangerous. Having knowledge of a "bad thing" can help a good person be prepared to handle "bad things" when they come across them.
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
Seriously, I don't think that means what you think it means. Supporting bomb-making websites is very different from supporting people's rights to view or post bomb-making websites. I'd be just as happy if all the "how to make pipe bombs", "how to make botulinum toxin" and so on sites dropped off the face of the Net - but I'd be very disappointed if someone tried to shut them down.
For one thing, pretty much anything you'd want to censor is available elsewhere, too. Ban plans for homemade bombs? Might as well ban chemistry classes, too.
For another, once you ban one site, you have a precedent for banning others that qualify as "dangerous", "obscene", or whatever, and you may have noticed that the dividing line is subjective. For example, you (seem to) support banning bomb-making websites, and I don't. Where does it stop?
Finally, who's going to enforce it?
Cheers, Matt
The difference here seems to be that most people who read Slashdot are big believers in free speech and anti-censorship. There is no mechanism in place on Slashdot that prevents the posting of an opposing viewpoint.
I've seem many viewpoints that oppose the majority get moderated up rather high because they presented their views in an educated manner.
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
Someone mentioned opposing viewpoints on Slashdot. I would have to say that the parent of this reply is neither pro nor anti, but definitely shows that people can pretty much say anything here. (And that maybe I should raise my threshhold setting to 1 instead.)
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
In response to dclydew's eminently sane proposal (to let no one but parents monitor their children's usage), Jim tries to give the final brush-off, by a quick appeal to authority:
Incidentally, proposals like yours have been considered and rejected both by pro-censorship types and by anti-censorship types. The pros don't want anyone, and particularly not minors, to have access to certain kinds of information. The antis don't want government assisting restrictive parents. What the so-called silent majority would say is anyone's guess.
Whoop-de-doo! Far from counting against it, the fact that two extremist camps are against a proposal is often a sign that it's a good proposal.And in this case it is, certainly better than either of the two extremes currently on offer.
In case you missed it, Jim explicitly says that unless you home school, you shouldn't expect to know what your kids are being exposed to. Then he wonders why his ilk are peceived as insensitive to the needs of parents? Amazing.
Jim and his colleagues had better start looking for opportunities to compromise: if it comes down to a choice between two exremist positions, the "so-called slent majority" is going to opt for the one that recognizes the rights of parents, every time.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
Censorware is supposed to block pornography. But that is definitely not all it blocks... Most censorware programs also ban anything "occult", while many extremist sites (kkk, godhatesfags) are accessable. What's so bad about an honest to Goddess religion, while nothing bad is perceived of the kkk???
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
If you disagree with the actions of moderators, you can make a difference - meta moderate, or use your own moderator points to reverse moderations you feel are bad. You don't do this - you gripe about moderators being morons.
There's plenty of real opportunites out there for you to make a difference - or, if you feel that isn't enough, to leave.
Another thing that bothers me about this whole topic: the idea of "karma whoring." You seem to think that people like BOred are posting well-written, well-thought out posts solely to inflate their karma. You are, of course, entirely wrong. Ever consider that these so-called "karma whores" might actually be posting because they want to contribute to the discussion? Are you jealous of correct grammar?
If I turn in a well-written essay for English class, am I "grade whoring?" I guess so - I want a good grade, so I'm willing to do quality work in order to get that grade. If I do exemplary work at my place of employment, am I "salary whoring?" Must be - I want money, so I put in an honest day's work for it.
But that isn't the reason why I write my papers well, or work hard; it's not about the grade or the money, it's about knowing that I can be proud of what I've written or done. Same with posters here - they want to feel pride that they've contributed to a discussion, pride that they're part of a community of intelligent discourse.
You must not feel that pride. You just moan about 'karma whores.' Apparently, polluting the discussion with intelligence and clarity is some kind of breach of etiquette for you.
Unfortunately for parents who like feminism but are against sadomasochistic pr0n, censorware companies DON'T release their lists of blocked sites. And, as has been proved by the studies posted at Censorware.org, unblocking certain categories won't help either because sites are frequently miscategorized.
Marissa
It's too bad you missed out on interviewing Bennett Haselton of Peacefire.
Peacefire is a very unique organization in that it is the only organization fighting online censorship that I know of that is run by and for youth themselves.
The Peacefire web site gives some great information on why government censorship and censorware programs are bad, in a very youth-friendly way. It also gives out info on how to grab the list of sites blocked by much of the censorware and info on how to disable most censorware products.
Bennett, on behalf of all Peacefire members, was also one of the plaintiffs against the original CDA.
I hate censorship in all of it's incarnations. I sometimes see something I don't want to see. I'll simply hit "back" on my browser or close the window. It may linger uncomfortably in my head, but I would rather that than anybody being censored.
Having said that, I believe that you are making the most logical choice.
It has always been my stance that parents should know what their kids are seeing/hearing. If something comes up that you think they don't understand, then explain it to them, rationally, possibly from multiple POVs (the hard topics...).
An example: I just got Pink Floyd's The Wall on DVD (*highly* recommended, the most polished and cool looking DVD I have seen so far). If I had a kid, I wouldn't sit my him/her in front of it and say, "watch."
What if my kid did see it either in my own house or someone else's? I would like to know that, then explain it to them:
"These kids are burning down a school. That's not something you should do, as people will get hurt. In this film, the burning of the school is a metaphor for school system reform."
If they don't understand metaphors, I'll explain that, too.
Kudos to you. You exhibit a genuine interest in actually raising your child as opposed to thinking the school system/government will do it for you. You are taking steps that few parents have the courage or interest to do in order to raise a responsible child. For that, I applaud you.
Some of us -- in my AP Chem class way back -- were so interested in the chemical interactions behind explosives that we looked up the instructions -- in our own textbooks. The teacher was thrilled and helped us make guncotton under supervision.
[It's very easy: equal parts strong nitric acid with strong sulfuric acid, mix with a big wad of cotton, heat, stir, boil off residue. Wash thoroughly to remove acid and then strain to remove all moisture. Pack in small bricks and store in cool, unlit place]
We safely destroyed the stuff after we finished, but it was a great learning experience.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
I have read a fair number of the preceeding post and, quelle suprise, the posts seem to be either in one camp or the other. What I haven't seen anyone pose is; What about personal responsibility? All of those posts in favor of censorship seem to be praising the governments efforts to 'protect' the innocents and the immature. Parents of course look at little Jimmy and Sally and are more than happy to abdicate freedom of expression ....so that they can have more time to watch Sally Jesse or go bowling. After all, teaching kids respect and instilling maturity is much too much like work. Personally, if you desire to use censoring software at home until such time as your child has the maturity and the trustworthiness to be able to decide for him or herself what is worth looking at on the internet, please, feel free. Just keep your fscking censorship laws in the circular file wher they belong.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Purina Troll Chow.
...needs some serious pharmacological help themselves.
Moderators, jack this one up a point or two please...
I've read through all of the comments that have been posted, and it appears there are three primary complaints with current filtering software-
One- It blocks sites that according to the filtering critereon should not be blocked
Two- It often misses sites that according to the critereon should be blocked
Three- The lists of sites that are blocked are not made available to the owners of software
Thus I propose the following-
A filtering tool with the following properties
1) sites are rated in two methods- 1st a web spider that searchs for words that are objectionable, and what not. This is the primary methodolgy used by current 'censorware'.
Then visitors to the site will have displayed a rating mechanism similar to the moderation we currently have on slashdot, where they will be able to select wether the site is filed properly, and what categorys it belongs to.
Both the 'bot rating and human ratings will be displayed, and wheter or not a site has been rated by humans. Sites that have significantly conflicting ratings will be flagged.
A third rating could be done by sending a email to the site maintainer and have them rate their own site...
2) The selection of sites which can be accessed can then be set by the criterion of the user/parents/whatevers choice.
Thus bot ratings would likely be less accurate and more prone to mistakes, but cover a much larger number of sites. The human ratings would likely quickly correct miscategorized bot raters. The owner defined criteria would give insite into intent, etc.
A sister project would be a logging tool that used the filtering tools categories to sort the log, thus inapropriate/unknown sites could be more easily found by the concerned parents.
Incidentily I don't condone a great deal of censorship of the material viewed by minors (and especially adults!), but if its going/got to be done, it should be done right...
Questions, comments? suggestions?
LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@NOSPAM.yahoo.com
(remove NOSPAM...)
PS Since I've been looking for a way to give back to the Open Source community, I guess I could take this on as a project (assuming something like this isn't in the works already...) please email me if you're interested in helping.
Meme theory looks at information as if it were a virus, capable of replicating and infecting others. The theory has its limitations, but is useful in this context.
;-)
A meme can be considered toxic if it causes you to do harm to yourself or others. You are immunized against a toxic meme if you can be exposed to it without acting on it. For instance, most people can be exposed to the potentially toxic bomb-making meme without blowing themselves up.
You can be inoculated against a particular meme by being exposed to a weakened version of it. For instance, you can be inoculated against the pyramid-scheme virus by having someone sit down and explain to you why pyramid schemes don't work.
You can also develop a resistance to a virus by repeated exposure to it. With the pyramid scheme virus, being inundated with pyramid-scheme emails--coupled with losing your shirt a few times--will probably confer immunity.
You can also prevent exposure in the first place. Done on a societal level, this is censorship.
As a society, we have a duty to prevent people from being harmed by toxic memes. The best method is inoculation. Censorship is rarely effective, especially in an electronic age, due to the incredible ease of information transfer. It is almost impossible to prevent someone from being exposed to a certain piece of information. If they haven't been inoculated against it, then they will be much more likely to be susceptible to the meme's toxic effects.
I remember as I was growing up my household had no pornographic materials. The subject was taboo and no one in my immediate family had anything as risque as a Cosmopolitan magazine in their house. Yet I came across my first Playboy magazine before I was eight, and I saw a number of other magazines with harder material long before I hit puberty and I was actually interested in the stuff. As to what impact this had on my character, I refuse to say
The issue is complicated even more by disagreement over the definition of "toxic". A fundamentalist might feel that abortion constitutes a toxic meme, whereas a Pro-choice individual might feel otherwise.
All in all, you might want to minimize exposure to toxic memes for people who are particularly susceptible, but it is foolhardy to suppose that you can prevent ALL exposure. It is better to find ways to reduce the likelihood that they will act on those toxic memes.
The average kid in the U.S.A. watches three thousand hours of TV a year, or some ungodly number like that. (Yep, I made that statistic up, but I'll bet I'm right - within a half an order of magnitude or so...) And how much mental effort does he put into all that watching? Zero, of course! He just clicks the remote-control button, opens wide the floodgates of his eyes, and lets the corporate product flow right into his brain.
Today tens of millions of kids have access to the Internet, which from the read-only browser's point-of-view works the same way, more or less. True, there is the advantage that at least some of the product he ingests is not manufactured by one or another multi-billion-dollar company, and that's good. But still, it's mainly click, download, stare and drool.
But install a copy of some dumbass censorware product on a kid's computer, and everything changes! Not necessarily all for the better; any kid whose parents inflict censorware on him surely has to pick up the big, demoralizing message: "Your own parents don't trust you." But on the plus side, it's a challenge, and if there's one thing our TV-addicted kids need in this country, it's to be challenged.
To be specific, the challenge is, "How can I get around this &^%$#?" I know two kids whose parents installed censorware programs on their PCs, and both of the kids defeated it, all on their own, in a couple of weeks. I was so glad to see it! There's hope for the younger generation yet! And in the process, they both learned far more about their PCs in those two weeks than they had in years of being mere users.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
It's school that blinkers children. It leaves them with a skewed view of the world, where everyone else is the same age as them.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Because to the censor-minded, the material itself they are trying to ban is viewed as toxic. It's completely and utterly absurd in their minds to tell them that they can get a blacklist for their home machine but the public library or school will provide uncensored access. In fact, this is extremely clear if one actually reads their material. They can't ever let the subject of their control escape the blinder-box. View it as trying to ban as much toxic material as possible, everywhere, and it makes a lot more sense. Listen to the "Dr. Laura" radio show at least once. Read some of the Religious Right's material
"Pornography is dangerous, and viewing it (even for a moment) can set off a terrible chain of events."
Think about that - even for a moment. This is a viewpoint which requires an extreme amount of control to enforce. That is what is on the censor side. Do not confuse it with what you think people should be willing to respect.
You quote the mad American Family Association (to be exact, their ISP service, afo.net):
Pornography is dangerous, and viewing it (even for a moment) can set off a terrible chain of events.
Schopenhauer agrees, it is a mistake:
In between, however, in the midst of the tumult, we see the glances of two lovers meet longingly; yet why so secretly, fearfully and stealthily? Because these lovers are the traitors who seek to perpetuate the whole want and drudgery, which would otherwise speedily reach an end; this they wish to frustrate, as others like them have frustrated it before.
And I agree, too, in the interest of eugenics, wouldn't you rather these AFA folks not continue to breed?
afo.net censors all Internet content by strict rules (e.g. no "erotica", no "violence," etc.; I wonder if they carry cnn.net) at the server, a service its subscribers explicitly pay for. To tell you the truth, from a technical point of view, this seems like a pretty good idea to me, more effective than browser-based censorware, so long as I don't have to use their proxy server.
I'd like to brighten your day with a little tid-bit gleaned from their web page, concerning why they censor ALL chat rooms, ALL of usenet, and ALL uncensored bulletin boards, including, presumably, this one:
American Family Online's Chat-Room Policy
It is our policy at American Family Online to block chat rooms. The policy extends to innocuous and Christian chat rooms.
Some true stories:
A 14 year old girl makes an Internet friend in a chat room and discovers this other 14 year old girl shares a common interest in Roller-Blading. After a few months of dialog they agree to meet in a local park to spend the day skating. Unfortunately, the "other" girl was not a girl, it was a guy who kidnapped her and intended to sell her into sex slavery. She was fortunate to escape two weeks later to finish living her life in fear and with the most awful memories. Most kidnap victims are not so fortunate.
A 11 year old boy was also using chat rooms and made friends. Although he did not agree to meet with anyone, he got very interested in guns and bomb making through chat rooms and a year and a half later acted out his frustrations by killing some fellow classmates at his school.
These are extreme cases, but similar activities happen every day because of internet chat rooms and we have not even mentioned the vulgarity, emotional affairs and adultery perpetrated because of chat rooms.
"Vulgarity, emotional affairs and adultery," slashdot to a "t".
I find that second case-history fascinating, the tale of a thirteen-year-old kid somewhere or another who gunned down, or blew up, some of his classmates at school. Now every time some fscked up gun nut in the madhouse of a country goes and blows away a few of his classmates, he becomes the national media's Hero-for-a-Day, right? I mean, you'd have heard about this thirteen-year-old; you'd know his name, you'd know all about him, right? Sure you would. Well, I don't recall hearing about any thirteen-year-old schoolyard assassins, do you? OK, so who is this thirteen-year-old schoolyard gunman, anyway? Hmmm?
Or, I blush to suggest, but, but...could it be that the American Family Association is fibbing? That they made the whole story up? I feel the chill shadow of doubt pass over me; if that's the case, and gosh it seems to be, well...shame, shame!!
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
It just annoys stupid anti-happiness religious nutters and prudes so dry-and-dead below the waist that they fear others gaining what they won't allow themselves. I have no love for those people - if anyone should be censored, their idiot blatherings would be the first on my cutting-room floor.
You've been watching too much late night TV or something....
Yeah, I have a penis. And if I stick it in a woman against her will, that's wrong, no?
The moderation system on Slashdot needs MANY, MANY altruistic moderators, most of whom will rate a site objectively and try to subsume personal bias. Inculcating such a norm into people who have little personal incentive to make such a sacrifice for the community will be quite difficult. It's the tragedy of the commons, a prisoner's dilemma.
I'm revising a paper I've written involving this, by the way, so email me if you're interested.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
SPOILER
Talk about a toxic meme. If Asherah wasn't toxic, I don't know what was. I guess the nam-shub of Enki would be the antitoxin. And the fact that there was a population that was particularly susceptible to Asherah -- namely, those who had never had to think, but rather derived spirituality from Rev. Wayne's Pearly Gates -- confirms that we need antitoxin, fast. Of course, the fact that hackers died mentally from Asherah is interesting -- who should have been LEAST susceptible?
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
The First Post Challenge, The Best Game On The Net!
This Anti- Karma HOWTO document explains how to not impress your fellow slashdotters
by getting low Karma. Although Anti- Karma HOWTO documents are targeted towards
use with the Windows operating system, this one is not dependent on the
OS used to access Slashdot.
This Anti- Karma HOWTO is a joke.
_________________________________________________
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Tips
2.1 Comment Length
2.2 When to Post
2.3 Where to Post
2.4 What to Post - Avoiding Positive Karma
3. Maintenance Information
_________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Your Karma rating on Slashdot lies in the hands of the moderators.
This is your target, and as you'll soon find out it's quite easy to
manipulate and fool them into moderating you down. By following a few
simple guidelines you can soon surpass all the regulars, and eventually
get down there with the best of the first post and off-topic whores.
2. Tips
2.1. Comment Length
Perhaps the best tip in getting moderators to moderate you down deals
with the length of your posts. It's quite simple, always post very
SHORT comments and when possible, MAKE IT IN ALL CAPS. Many moderators equate
this with "Troll" and "Off-Topic", regardless of what you say.
Furthermore, moderators are MUCH less likely to moderate you up or leave
you at 1 if your post is short enough.
Also, use those invalid HTML tags! Nothing makes your post seem like a
wanna be karma whore than lack of whitespace. A really stupid signature
can also help out here. It is also very important to gain all
the credit you can for your trollish behaivor. Please use your account.
The mail only needs to be used once
to gain the password
and if you only "FIRST POST" as AC, your negative karma will never add up.
2.2. When to Post
Timing is everything. Go for the gusto, spend most of your slashdot time
refreshing the main page. If you wait too long to post, almost
no moderator is going to have a chance to moderate it down -- no matter
how bad your post is! As a general rule of thumb, any comment posted
more than 15 minutes after a story is submitted will not be moderated
one way or the other (Trolls: this is your chance!) Open a text editor
and have your first post, rant or other completely off-topic comments
PRE-WRITTEN and copied to the clipboard. This will save valuable seconds
while you race for the prize! Be creative! Dont just tag a line that
says "First Post Dude!" or something lame like that. Look at the true
first post leaders. Mick the First Post Mastah, McDougal the Llama,
Trollmastah, Natalie Portman Guy, and the other regulars. They seem
to have style and are generally much more likely to be moderated down because of it.
2.3. Where to Post
After no extensive lab research in Slashdot moderation, some key
information was made up. Make sure all your posts are not top-level
posts! I cannot stress this enough. Anything posted more than
all the way down, won't get seen, and you'll
waste all your effort. The only exception is replying to the first
batch of comments, since they're sometimes moderated more thoroughly.
A bottom-level post is 16 times more likely to be moderated down than
a reply!
Under current moderation practice, the first two comments are often
marked as "Redundant" if they're not first-posters. Yes, I know
this defies the very meaning of the word redundant, but many (not all)
moderators don't seem to understand what redundant means. Leave this
area alone. People will just ignore it and your post will not be noticed. This happens
so often that one begins to think it's automated. Thus, strive to post
first or second -- all true Anti-Karma whores know that First post is prime
real estate.
2.4. What to Post - Avoiding Positive Karma
While the contents of your post aren't quite as important as comment
length, it does play a large role in the fate of your post. There
are a number of rules to follow when submitting posts to earn that coveted low
Karma:
1) Always take sides. Nothing will get you marked as
"Flamebait" faster than a controversial comment
(ESPECIALLY short to medium length comments, short
posts are generally OK regardless).
Always think you can take the popular side and get
moderated down. For example, it used to be
possible to take a side against Windows, or take
sides against Microsoft. This is no longer the
case - there are too many slashdotters now who
have moderator access and use Windows. Posting
an anti-Windows comment will even get marked as
"Flamebait" faster than a anti-Linux post these
days! Go for it! Slam both sides! a good link for this is
Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator
You should keep the drivel down to 2 paragraphs of less though.
2) Never Stay neutral (a follow up to #1). A good way to
get moderated down in almost any thread is to never summarize
both sides of the issue in one post. Not only are
these posts generally long, but they can even be
moderated up as "Informative"! Similarly, posts
with subjects like "it's all about choice!" seem
to play well with the moderators. Make yours creative.
Use subjects like "OH YOU SUCK" or "I THOUGHT SLASHDOT
WAS FOR X" These will help you on your ride to the bottom.
3) Never come across as insightful. Nothing will make you
appear more insightful than going against the trend
of the first 25 posts or so (this doesn't conflict
with #1, read on). This does mean you have to
take sides. A good subject example of this faked-insight
post is "Missing the point", in which you explain
all the previous posts are overlooking the big picture.
Avoid this at all costs. Also keep you comments as
negative as possible. "I agree" should never appear in your posts.
4) Use a Flamebait comment subject. Unless you're Natalie Portman Guy
(Anti-Karma God) and can get low Karma using "xxx Natalie" as your
subject, you'd better follow some guidelines.
Subjects like "This is a crock of shit (TM)" are
generally good if your post is fairly short. Others
that are moderated down included subjects with some
type of quote or cliche (e.g, "Linux Sux",
"Bill Gates Rocks!", or anything cheesy like that)
Another tactic that has recently become useful is
starting your commentary or subject with
"News For Nerds? Stuff that Matters?..". Don't
worry - you will not have to post anything controversial,
moderators will reward your trollish subject regardless of
what you say!
5) Find related sites to the issue at hand and post broken
links as soon as possible (remember, if you don't,
someone else will!). You don't have to go all out,
they can be general links that dont relate to the
article. Links to AOL, Pron or to your own company really
work well, especially if you make the "Spammish" in
their appearance. Things like "Surf the net and make money!
Come to my site at HTTP://Site.com. Also only embed
your links some of the time. Inconsistancy really gets
their panties in a wad. Most moderators will mark it
as "Flamebait". Remember, always have your comments pre-packaged!
without even checking the URLs!
Also, if someone beats you to the first post with a list of
URLs, all is not lost. There's still a wonderful
opportunity for some Karma. An excellent strategy
is to reply with "you idiot, here are the corrected urls", in which you
lie and say the links they gave were wrong, and
you have the correct ones.
6) Allways paste a portion of the sniglet of the article with
a little commentary such as "You Suck" or "KEWL". This will
always show that you didn't even click the real link to the
article and shows all that you just copied and pasted from
the top of the thread.
3. Maintenance Information
If you have any other ideas or tips for this Anti- Karma HOWTO, feel free to
share them and they may be added to this document.
Thanks
3.1 Contributors
Thanks to the creative first posters and all the trolls for their
suggestions to this "Slashdot Anti-Karma HOWTO".
I'm personally of the opinion that not even a childs parents should have the right to censor what information they (the child) has access too. The whole concept that childern need "proctection" from ideas disgusts me, no one was ever harmed by learning something new or even seeing or hearing or reading something offensive or disgusting. The individual who actually does the reading or viewing has simply opened their mind a little more and developed better judgment.
The real target censorship nazi's are trying to protect isn't the childern or innocent members of society, they're protecting themselves. From what are they protecting themselves you ask? Simple, from the childern, from the innoncent members of society. Knowledge is power, and people in power want to keep it under wraps. Parents want to control the way their childern grow up, want to decide when and how they learn about life. Governments want to control what their citizens know. If it's a "democracy" those in power want to keep the voters from knowing their dirty laundry and backroom deals, while at the same time very much want them to know what nasty stuff their opponents have pulled. Despotic governments don't want their citizens to know anything that would make them question the authority of the goverment so they ban books, censor the internet(or block it entirely) and even murder their own citizens to keep them silent.
No matter who is doing it, parents, governments or the media censorship of anyone at all is not only wrong but hypocritical as well. If we are not careful we could all end up living in a "Brave New World" where only one man in civilized society can read Shakespere. The rest of us will be doped up on soma and loaded with subliminal programming.
So I say: Everyone, everywhere of every age, of every race, in every country has the right to have access to anything and everything ever written, filmed, photographed, recorded or scanned.
To answer the obvisious questions, no I don't have kids now, I would like to eventully though. And when I do I will let them read and watch whatever they want, from day 1. Even at 8 years old if they really want to read Mein Kampf while downloading the complete Mapelthorpe(sp?) collection with Debbie Does Dallas on their TV, I won't stop them. I figure if they are old enough to take an interest they are old enough to learn about it, whatever it is they are learning about. Like I said before, knowledge is power and I sure as hell want my (future) kids to be able to kick some ass when they grow up.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
I think your attempt to constantly monitor your child's behaviour is destined to fail. When I was growing up I constantly attempted to avoid being watched by my parents (mainly because they were watching so closely). When I was young my attempts were pathetic - I was constantly getting caught and faced the reprecusions. The end result was natural enough: I learned how to lie, how to sneak out of the house, whose parents would be called, and I discovered how I was being watched. I read up on psychology, read my parents parenting magazines, listened to their conversations, and became exactly what they expected.
Except it was a lie, and I was now good at lying. I got perfect grades in high school(and of course stayed out of trouble in school), behaved perfectly around the house and did everything I could to appease them. My family life was great and I could break their rules at will. In the end I was doing the exact same things my friends with less restrictive parents were doing.
As for your proxy idea I faced something similiar. My father had a habit of using my computer fairly often, and used the history to locate sites he didn't bookmark. Clearing the history constantly is suspicious, so I got an illegal account on a VMS system, opened a telnet connection to the machine, and used the high speed connection to download whatever I located with lynx to the server (the "bad" content on the net was large and always got corrupted over modem transfers anyway). I could then ftp the warez (or whatever else) back to my box once it was renamed. Simple, and anyone raised with BSD could think that up in a second. If your monitoring system is more sophisticated, your childs work around will simply have to be a little more sophisticated (and you will always be at a disadvantage once your kids are older).
The parenting that worked best on me was not the "under my roof" kind (smile, agree, and then break the rule later). They were the rules that made sense because I understood the logic behind them. For instance, I never touched a cigerette because my father detailed the dangers of smoking and told me how it contributed to a family member's death.
your copy of the post I was replying to. You should look into that. If it were me, I'd be annoyed.
"So you think that the Golden Age of pharmacology was when patent medicine shows sold $80 bottles of sugar water to widows, telling them it was "proven to not cause your arthritis to get worse"?"
You seem to be promoting a one-world-law.
While some of us are not totally opposed to that idea, I would love to hear who's system of law (if any) you would propose to use. (Don't even think about suggesting that joke the US Law is.)
I have always had one small problem with semi-anarchist arguements like yours. You say:
How do we choose which laws we need? Do we just vote or something on it? That's probably not a great idea - scare campaigns are easy to run, and, again, like you said:
Does everyone get to choose which laws they follow? The problems with that should be obvious.e-mail-address (MANDATORY): askbill@microsoft.com
This web site was: VIOLENT
The full URL: http://www.microsoft.com
[Block this site]
Please click the button only once...
Computers. You can't live with them, you can't live without them.
So attack the problem directly. I suggest the following.
The aforementioned criteria would allow anyone to use the terminals and view what they wanted, but the only way that someone could leave something "offensive" on screen would be to abandon a key that still contained some (refundable) credit. Why walk away from money? Better still if it did happen and a smart kid stumbled across it, she would grab the card and get it refunded -- completely neglecting to mention the pr0n factor: "I just found it."
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
how come the people who are interviewed by default dont have their emails listed ?
I haven't seen anyone mention RSAC yet. It seems to satisfy many concerns brought up, as well as it's already supported in IE and Netscape.
RSAC allows webmasters to place tags on their pages to rate their use of Language, Nudity, Sex and Violence.
You rate each on a scale of 0 to 4, such as for nudity:
0: None
1: Revealing Attire
2: Partial Nudity
3: Frontal Nudity
4: Provocative frontal nudity
Language, Sex and Violence also have their settings. Parents/cafe owners/whatever can then go into IE and specify what level they consider acceptable. If it's over the rated limit, it asks for a password.
The problem? It's not widely implemented on web sites, and there's no requirement people do it. I own an ISP, and ask that my customers add these tags, and insist that they do if they have any 'adult' content. Nobody has complained so far, and several have commented that they are glad they added them.
As much as I hate the idea of forcing webmasters to do anything, what do you feel about making these slightly more mandatory?
Kevin
There is no dividing line between what is and is not allowable. You can't use simplistic categories to determine what sort of speech should be permitted and what sort of speech should be a criminal offence without hurting innocent people, stifling socially beneficial debate and innovation, and hurting society. And yes, I support websites with bomb making plans.
When I was a 14 year old, I made bombs in the basement. My parents had no problem with this, and neither did the parents of the friends that dropped in to help me. You see, I wasn't engaged in terrorist activities, I was making fireworks. And I wasn't doing anything terribly risky: I learned quite a bit about the safety aspects of what I was doing, and knew what not to attempt.
If I was still pursuing pyrotechnics as a hobby today, then I would certainly be surfing all of the sites with bomb making plans, both to find ideas for new things to try, and to find out what sorts of things to avoid.
So, what if it was illegal to host a web site with "bomb making plans"? Then I suppose that the police would be empowered to shut down sites with information about the art and science of pyrotechnics. People who design and manufacture fireworks, either professionally or as a hobby, would not be permitted to share information with one another over the public internet, and if they did, they might end up in jail. Rocket scientists, and people who design and manufacture explosives for industrial applications, might be similarly affected. And for me, that would be an unacceptable limitation of free speech.
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
Then you're replying to the wrong guy. I didn't write that.
Here, I'll save you the trouble of fumbling through your dictionary. From Mirriam Webster, 10th edition:
First, please read my message (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/12/24/085The first thing you'll notice is the comment to which I was replying. The claim was that anything that cannot be proved harmless must therefore be OK.
The FDA is an example (see above) to counter that claim.
Whoever made the leap from that to accusing me of comparing information to drugs must have been smoking some himself (drugs, not information).
You can go to a library and with enough searching find books on abortion, sexual problems, even steamy novels for housewives- but you won't find the latest issue of Hustler. Bullshit. nichols library, naperville, IL. you can get playboy issues from the periodical desk. there was a court case on this, and the library was allowed to have them available to all patrons. there might be nudie pictures in them thar' pages, but there are also useful interviews with celebrities and public figures (i said PUBLIC, not pubic you pervert!!).
He said Hustler, not Playboy.
If Slashdot has fixed that code, either this comment will (hopefully) disappear, or they won't delete the thread because it's been replied to (in what I hope they consider an intelligent manner).
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age