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!
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
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.
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
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?