Checking Out Library Censorship 235
This provision ought to be called "The Local Net Censorship Act" -- and it's close to becoming law. Lawmakers in both the House and the Senate approved a final version late last week, agreeing on a compromise approach containing elements of separate plans passed in the two chambers earlier this year. It would require all schools and libraries to install filtering software regulating the content available to any computers purchased with Federal money, blocking child pornography, obscenity and materials deemed harmful to minors. Schools and libraries would also be required to develop Net use policies that address minors' online access to "inappropriate" materials.
Much of the tech culture was asleep at the switch when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed, giving corporations unprecedented control of American intellectual property, and is now paying for its apathy. This law could increase liability for schools and libraries, give local politicians and religious crazies a significant new weapon to ban access in public institutions to material they consider offensive or inappropriate.
Representatives are already lining up to lengthen the list of sites and subjects considered "inappropriate." Sen. John McCain of Arizona is pushing his own filtering provision in the Senate, where an amendment by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has just added the further requirement that communities be able to provide input about blocking other "inappropriate" Web sites that mention bomb-making, drugs or other topics.
As most of the people reading this know, blocking and filtering programs are arbitrary and wildly ineffective. While savvy users can easily bypass them, these filters hide from most users vast amounts of legitimate information along with so-called "offensive" content. This law is a license for every political interest group to keep subjects they don't like out of local libraries and schools. The victims would be kids with nowhere but libraries to go for Net access. Most filtering programs are censorship technology, pure and simple, but at the same time less effective than simple adult or parental supervision. They are not justified by any meaningful statistics regarding children and the Internet -- perhaps because there really aren't any.
Instead of tying the hands of educators and librarians, government should be doing everything possible to ensure that as many kids as possible have free access to the Net and the Web, because it will be vital to their social, educational and economic opportunities. Laws like this demonstrate how profoundly and dangerously ignorant of technology most of our elected leaders are, and how vulnerable to their ignorance the tech culture is.
The National Education Association is fighting the law -- the still nameless legislation is attached to legislation funding the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments. The American Library Association is in on the fight, too, since the bill would for the first time force public libraries to follow the same access policies as schools. But hardly anyone in Congress will dare defend "pornography" and "offensive" material.
"For a library, it's a different ball game," a spokeswoman for the ALA told The New York Times. "If you have to filter any machine a child may use, in a library, you'd have to filter every computer. It disregards age-appropriate levels." This means older children, teenagers and adults would be arbitrarily censored by any local community that didn't like a particular kind of Web site or subject matter, from abortion information to anything resembling sexual imagery. And kids in schools would be subject to even more controlled than they already are.
Libraries -- and local communities -- already have the freedom to establish controls ranging from increased supervision to some kinds of filtering if they wish. Most libraries and schools also have the ability to block sites if they are deemed dangerous and offensive. There is absolutely no reason for Congress to make censorship technology universal and required by law. The federal provision would further complicate Net access issues for libraries, since their environments are less controlled than a public school. Libraries are open to all ages, including adults -- who have a First Amendment right to access a broader range of materials on the Net than the proposed congressional filtering arrangement would allow. Libraries also fear that the law would expose libraries to a wave of new lawsuits demanding they filter -- in accordance with federal law -- any site that could be considered "inappropriate" or "offensive" by any elements of any local community. Passage of this law would force local libraries to radically increase filtering of the Net.
Most of us don't need to go to the library for Net access, but millions of people -- mostly kids -- do. They are entitled to some kinds of First Amendment protection as well as we are. This is a dangerous law, one which injects federal moral guardians directly into the issue of Net access. History tell us this is an awful idea. If you're in the mood to contact your local congressman or woman, this is a great reason to do it. For further information, you can also contact the National Education Association and the American Library Association.
Note: If you're looking for factual evidence to help bolster your arguments against the encroachment of filters, jamie also suggests checking out The Censorware Project, Peacefire and the GLAAD report on filter discrimination.
Don't take my pr0n! (Score:1)
On the serious side, though, I really do think this is disturbing, but, really, if you are relying on a public institution for net access, you really can't complain (e.g., you can't sue anyone if you get Debian Linux and it erases all your important customer data. Why? Because it's free). Now, if there was a law forcing all private ISPs to block certain content from their users, depending on what local governments say, then I would be worried.
Re:Don't take my pr0n! (Score:1)
Oh really? Well, then, I think I'll just go down to the local Air Force Base and fly me an F-16. What? You mean I can't take it? But my taxes helped pay for it!
Taxes don't mean shit when it comes to you having a say in things. Your tax bracket, on the other hand, means a lot.
Re:Oh please (Score:1)
First Amedment, anyone? (Score:2)
I think what makes me angry about this is that its an attempt to help kids through a kind of deception. This pulling the wool over their eyes and trying to pretend that this stuff doesn't exist is no substitute for talking to them about it. While I recognize the right for parents to put filtering software on their computers, I think it's bad parenting--a copout.
And I know what people are going to say: do I really want my kids to see the All Anal Action at allanalaction.com? Well, no, not particularly, but I think it's healthier for them if they know they can talk to you about it rather than discovering it somewhere else and immediately realizing that this is Naughty Stuff.
--
Re:Suggested readings... (Score:1)
Off course, I am sure one could argue that pr0n movies have an art and culture of their own, but that's another story, and not one for teenagers. So to me, it's ok to remove that from the libraries shelves or routing tables.
However, I see very few other examples where books or magazines should be fitered or banned from a library. Even Mein Kampf should be allowed. If you're afraid teenagers might be mistaken by some ideological or chemistry books and start bumbing the White House, then drop a note or glue a sticker on those books with some other advisory readings, or organize some seminars about the Marx/Lenin/Mussolini/Hitl*r/Kadafi/DeGaulle/Mahatm a/Jesus ideologies.
Feel free to play the Devil's advocates and find one book that should be banned from a library. As a librarian, you might know very interesting and pertinent examples and I would be happy if you could share them with us.
IMO, even the Jehova's Witnesses' Book of Creation should be found in a library, at leats in the section Humor & Science-Fiction...
Re:Slippery Slopes. (Score:2)
The government can't censor sites, meaning they can't prohibit you from viewing sites on your own computer with your own Internet connection, alone in your home.
They CAN however, within full right of law and Constitution, decide not to present it to you in the libraries and schools. If you can say "Keep religion out of the schools!" why can't they say "Keep porn sites out of the schools!" ?
The government is not obligated to provide you with media, it's only obligated not to prevent you from accessing it on your own (provided that you're over 18 of course)
This is no great conspiracy. If they meant to censor opinions they didn't like, or even anti-government preachings, they would have to censor them from the net itself, and prevent them from reaching homes, not libraries and schools.
Re:Restrict access (Score:1)
Take your own advice? Where did I say it was OK for kids to access porn? Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Nowhere! Wow, interesting concept.
I said: Stop kids from accessing porn when they ACTUALLY attempt to. Not when they sit down at a computer to research, Type in: "Pornography and the Internet" or "Breast reduction" and can't access any sites. The list software is NOT open. NO ONE, except the Co., knows what is being blocked. Would you like the same being put on your newspaper? I doubt it. Hold the same standards for all mediums.
School shooters are examples of what has happened to the youth of today. They are growning exponentially more self-aware and more freethinking than any generation prior. And yet, the fist has been closing tighter. And yet...you want to stop children like that from finding information about things?
And I LOVED the part about kids being less mature. It was quite funny. You must mean those mature adults who rape and beat women? Or shoot gays? Or drink all day and suck off our welfare system? Or commit perjury and get away with it. DAMN. Being older really does make one mature. NAH...it just makes them more solid...more concrete in nature and beliefs. Which, to normal people can be a good thing...to some.. Nope.
Re:Not to start a flame war but... (Score:1)
Also, content filtering where a librarian sits down and has to decide how to split their budget between which periodicals and book to purchase is different than a situation where providing filtering software is incrementally more expensive than not filtering. In the former case, they need to decide what is the most worthwile use of limited funds. In the latter, the only decision is whether to spend money on internet access or not. So, they could buy Penthouse and Hustler. But then they would have less money for Time or the local paper or all those offbeat trade and science journals. Also, libraries probably consider buying Penthouse and Hustler a risky investment. Either horny teens would steal the pictures or the morally uptight would vandalize them-- rendering that expense a complete waste of those funds.
With the case of internet access, you are not subsidizing hate speech nor porn when taxpayer money is used to provide internet access at libraries and schools. The incremental expense of viewing those pages as opposed to pages that your biases agree with is zero (increased bandwidth and workstation usage demands aside). The total cost of the computers and software does not change based on the content of the pages viewed. The total cost to taxpayers is actually increased when ineffective filtering software must be purchased and installed. This money is truly wasted since it does not achieve its stated goals and has numerous inappropriate side effects. Insult is added to this injury by the fact that most filtering software keeps its list of filtered sites secret, so they are not open for public review even by the public which is paying for them, and in the case of public schools and libraries, has every right to review the decisions about what was deemed appropriate content.
Finally, your optimism that filtering software will be improved because the size of the user base is improved is an unfounded assumption. Just look at any Microsoft product!
Re:OK...but is this really an issue? (Score:1)
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:2)
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:1)
That would be the best of both worlds. I'll further add: every public library MUST have at least as many unfiltered computers as filtered ones.
Of course, we are talking Common Sense, a thing which will be outlawed by Constitutional amendment if GWB, Falwell et al get their way. Sigh.
Thank God I live elsewhere. Flying back home in, uh, 5 hours. B'bye. ;)
"Standing up to an evil system [pcshop.com.br] is exhilarating." --Richard Stallman
Oh grow up! (Score:1)
You shouldn't expect a public library to give you internet access to anything they wouldn't ever allow as a book acquisition at that library.
Local community standards rule public libraries, and that's a good thing (assuming you think having local _communities_ is a good thing).
Grow up, all of you!
Re:Congress shall pass no law (Score:1)
The land of the Free (Score:2)
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:1)
I disagree. They are not shutting these sites down, and they are not trying to stop you from using your own computer to get at them. If they were, for example, requiring all ISP's to install these filters, that would be censorship.
Gay opinion is not the same thing as gay porn
I never said it was. I was just mirroring the sarcastic tone of your post with hyperbole of my own. :)
"Educationally valid" is a hard thing to define, and I don't want someone's appointed censors to define it for everyone else.
Every parent who sends their kids to school is letting others (teachers, administrators, school boards, etc.) decide what their children should be taught. That is what educators do. That which they do not decide to teach, whatever it is, they have passively decided to "censor".
The hysteria and hypersensitivity about censorship which saturates our culture is a good thing in many ways... I wish we were all as militant about the other 9 "Bill of Rights" amendments. At the same time, we need to be careful not to de-value those rights by playing the "liberty" card every time we think we might be getting shafted over something. As long as the government does not restrict what I can read at home, and what I can say at a political rally, then I don't see what they do within the walls of the library as a threat to the First Amendment.
Re:I don't believe this crap. (Score:1)
If that's the case, I wish we had a president like Clinton when I was in school.
Federal Funds (Score:5)
As this issue has come up in our local library, where I maintain the publicly available PC's, it appears that there may be an easy solution. Any legislation of this kind will only be able to restrict the use of systems purchased with federal money. Simply donate a pc to your local library with the express wish that it not be filtered. You may have to spring for seperate Internet access as well, since many libraries have their internal networks and net access funded with federal money. I believe that may libraries would find the donation of a PC with Linux installed and some minimum maintenance to be valued more highly a simple email to your local congress critter alone.
We have two systems for Internet access; one windows box with NetNanny for filtering and one Linux system that is not filtered. Our library policy is that children under 12 may only use the filtered box, and young adults may use the unfiltered machine if they have parential consent. A further note is that state law prohibits the display of "obscene" material in a public place, so that we may ask a patron to not view such material at the library. This lets patrons visit sites for information (GBL sites, abortion, et. al.) why still giving us the power to not have Playboy or www.whitehouse.com on public display.
One side note here is that NetNanny is one of the only filtering programs for Windows that releases the blocked site list and allows the user to alter it. This gives the knowledgeable sysadmin some leeway. If someone knows of useable Linux filtering software, please let me know.
Slippery Slopes. (Score:3)
It won't stop here, you know. The bill calls for the restriction of "objectionable" content. Objectionable is a fairly broad word; it can mean anything from hardcore sex to an opinion you don't agree with. Do we really need to give the government that kind of power?
What about large organizations? The GOP, Nike, and lots of other bodies of people no doubt have large lists of things that they find "objectionable." What happens when they can dictate what sites get filtered due to "objectionable" content?
This particular battle may already be lost. It might not be possible to turn back the tide and make the Web available to everyone in its raw, uncensored form. If that is the case, then we need to start planning now for the day when opinions that you and I hold valuable are banned, when it is no longer possible for anyone to access the Web and see what someone else thinks is questionable or objectionable.
Samizdat may be the only way to go on this. We will each of us be a lone voice crying in the desert, but better that than to be gagged in public view.
BINGO. (Score:1)
Yes, kids often act before they understand, but isn't that exactly want a kid does? Honest and forthright education seems to be the way we handle this, at least until we approch the sex thing.
But no, when we "adults" "find out" we freak. And, we demonize it as parents, as role models, as social phenomina, authority figures, and government. How dare our precious little childern engage in such filthy thoughts, and deeds.
Before you know it, sex is firmly implanted as an "evil" and unacceptable act. Yet a biological absolute. The fundimental conflict screws 'em up for life.
Break a kid's leg and we're outraged. Pulverize a fundimental part the human mental architecture, and that's not just OK, its mandated by socity.
It's mutilation, pure and simple.
BTW, I don't subscribe to child porn and other forms of sexual exploitation. I do think criminalizing it in young minds is exploitation. Exploitation is wrong, regardless of who's doing it.
If im not mistaken (Score:2)
Re:It's NOT a good thing (Score:1)
Re:What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:2)
Does that mean we'll see Ron Jeremy and Traci Lords on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
Monitoring not blocking (Score:1)
Re:It's a good thing (Score:2)
This is actually a good thing because at school, we are not allowed to go online because the teachers are afraid we're going to look at porn.
You don't have to take this, eh. Go write your local elected officials and then write a press release for the local paper asking why you're not allowed to use equipment that's been paid for by taxpayers for the purpose of futhering your education.
Students have "accidentally" went to porn sites and I, as a student am VERY afraid I'll search for something and the result is a porn site because I may get disaplined.
Again, you shouldn't even have to surf with someone looking at you. The librarians aren't allowed to read over your shoulders, are they? Illustrate this double standard to the people in power and more importantly the press, asking why people in power aren't doing something about it. You'll see results.
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:1)
By that argument, porn sites should be not only be accessable on publicly owned clients, but should also be hosted on publicly owned servers.
Sorry but your comparison does not apply. Even when the government owns the park, you are still using your own resources (your ears) to access the information.
Speaking in public places and distributing with publicly-owned resources do not correlate... one is a right, the other is a subsidy.
This correlates much more closely to showing rough-sex pornos and snuff films on PBS.
Re:Federal Funds (Score:1)
Neither Playboy nor whitehouse.com are obscene. The porn available in adult book stores is not obscene either. "Obscenity" has a rather complicated definition involving contempary community standards and such, but it boils down to: sex with animals, sex involving violence and sex involving human waste products. All of which are readily available on the Internet of course, because they are legal in other jurisdictions.
--
Re:Why does Congress keep trying this? (Score:1)
But this case is different. I expect this law to pass, because it isn't censorship. It doesn't prevent anybody from accessing any sites in their own home with their own computer on their own 'net connection. All it says is the government isn't gonna pay taxdollars to provide libraries and schools with computers that will allow children to access explicit material. This is perfectly reasonable, and as I have already pointed out, it's nothing new. Libraries don't currently spend government funds to buy Hustler and Playboy, do you call that Censorship?
Re:Restrict access and a suggestion (Score:2)
Aside from the wheelchair accesable part, I don't really see your point here. If you're at the library, you should have your library card. Adult card = adult machines, no problem with denial of service. As for having to stand, get real. My library has six machines, and everytime I'm there there are 6 machines taken and between 5 and 15 people waiting. Making people stand forces them to do things that need to be done and get out of people's way. I would never spend my afternoon at the library reading /. but if there's something I need to find out, I can.
Have you ever actually seen a wheelchair restricted person ask the librarian about use of the computer? If so, what happened?
Another idea apart from physically restricting computers would be to have the filterware suspended by a valid adult library card number. An even better idea would be for the tech types who care so much about this issue :
1) Stop screaming "luddite" and "censorware" for a moment.
2) Listen to the actual mainstream concerns that are being eased by this "solution".
3) Come up with a technological solution which addresses these concerns while reducing or eliminating the problems with current filterware models.
4) Present your model to the moderates on both sides of the issue. (And while /. tends to flame moderates as though they were the thralls of the other side, I think you will find many moderates on this issue out in the real world.)
5) Smile at a job well done.
Of course for this to work, you would need to find people who can program or at least direct other programmers intelligently, who care about this issue but are not fanatical. If any such people exist, let me know and I will give my preliminary thoughts on an effective "librarynet".
-Kahuna Burger
Re:It's a good thing (Score:2)
The solution to this sort of problem isn't to talk to elected officials about freedom-- it's to talk to your teachers and your school board. Explain to them the advantages the internet would bring to you, maybe make some suggestions for supervised web access. Hey, they might turn out to be be reasonable people who are just underinformed. Who knows.
Oh, I forgot, high school students don't have the same rights as the rest of us. That's a good way to have responsible young adults. That student has EVERY RIGHT to go to his elected representatives if the school isn't responding or is acting in an inappropriate manner. You can explain until the cows come home, but if you're going to get expelled for getting forwarded off a bad link, it's not going to do you any good.
This attitude really bothered me when I was in high school. Of course, I didn't get searched at the door with a metal detector, either - although if they had done that, I would have screamed about that, too.
Fact is, that's not the way it works. Teachers _do_ have the right to look over students' shoulders -- because students can, and will, abuse the resources
We're not talking about abuse of resources, unless it's an abuse by the school. We're talking about a bunch of computers with internet access that can't be used because of incompetent teachers. That's a waste of taxpayer money, and the taxpayers should know about it. Teach kids to use resources responsibly - it should be obvious if the kids are looking at pr0n as opposed to looking for real material, and no, a banner ad doesn't count.
Library "X "Files (Score:1)
These books had an X written on the spine above the Dewey Decimal number. They were adults only books. I had to reshelve the books in the stacks, and at slow times I would stop and read. The "X" on the spine was helpful in pointing me to the most interesting works.
The X book I remember best was James Joyce's Ulysses, which had recently been made legal in a court case. After a few browsing sessions I realized this was a serious book. So I made a momentous decision: I stole the book and brought it home to read. (Since I could not legally check it out.)
Revisiting the same library years later, I discovered that the stacks are no longer segregated and there are no more X-rated books. I think the perceived threat of the written word has lessened, to be replaced by dirty pictures and web sites.
The library still has a childrens section. Perhaps no one without an adult libary card should be allowed to browse the computers. I think the age for adult cards is around 12-14, which seems like an appropriate age to read James Joyce's Ulysses.
I don't believe this crap. (Score:1)
Re:Not to start a flame war but... (Score:1)
Imposing your morals on others is a very sad thing indeed...because you see, I in turn will impose my beliefs onto you..and you really wouldn't want that, now would you? Didn't think so.
Re:A Slippery Slope (Score:1)
I know! I know! (Score:3)
Re:What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:1)
The issue is not as straightforward as it might seem. Do you really think that government money should sponsor anyone who publishes a book, no matter what their views are? There is a difference between the freedom of expression and priviliged access.
While I do not think that legislating the use of filtering programs is a good solution as these programs are expensive and ineffective, the problem is quite real. The goverment should not expadite access to the materials deemed inappropriate for minors (or adults for that matter, say information on bomb-making).
We need a more rational and pragmatic approach to these problems. Ideology only goes so far.
Re:lowest possible denominator? (Score:1)
Personally, I believe nothing will ever replace a parent being involved with their kid's life and censoring the information for themselves. I understand why they are doing this. In the long run this will save some communities from lawsuits because person A was able to view subject B at place C. At least you didn't put words in my mouth.
Federal, no...local, yes (Score:4)
Keep the control at the local and parental level. Keep the federal government the hell out of it.
Almost, but not exactly, something unlike a fr0st p1st.
Re:Is this really so bad? (Score:1)
Parental monitoring of a child to the degree necessitated by your suggestion seems to me to be more draconian than filtering objectionable material from the library/schools computers.
Is it really so bad to tell a grown man he can only have milk because the baby can't chew steak?
Perhaps you are suggesting we give the baby the choice to eat steak so the man, too, can eat it? Should we lay the steak-knife by the plate and let the baby choose whether or not to use it?
Re:Won't work - (Score:1)
As you put it,
Software can't "know" and judge an idea as well as people can.
I would argue that in that at least the software has a defined set of rules and isn't arbitrary about it's enforcement.
What it really comes down to is, why can't we let people regulate what they see themselves?
*sigh*
Some links don't work (Score:2)
Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
Choosing for your own children (Score:2)
My local library has a children's section, which has censorware installed. All of the other computers, AFAIK, are open.
Why do people who find something offensive assume that everyone does, or that it's universally considered bad? I guess it just happens that some of the more easily offended types have a lot of political power. There is no need to censor the web in libraries... people become very upset when you mention banning books, and react as if it's a quaint thing that real people don't do anymore. They react to censoring the web as a necessity, though. From where does this disparity come? Are people that afraid of technology? Do they really not get it?
Libraries are already "censored" (Score:4)
If such magazines were on the shelves, then I might find the filtering software to be something of a hypocracy. I don't see everyone yelling "Censorship!" because the libraries don't carry such magazines.
The trick obviously will be for them to be careful about what they filter. Filtering programs don't do a good job at keeping out nudity while at the same time allowing information about breast cancer to get through. Of course someone somewhere will filter out things that they deem inappropriate. Abortion issues? Gun control?
A Sad Day (Score:2)
You are a parent. As a parent you have responsibilities. Your responsibilites are to teach your children what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. If you don't do that, then it is your fault. Just because technology makes this type of 'immoral' information easily available, does not mean that it can't be blocked by teaching a child what is right and wrong. Instead of taking up this problem and solving it yourself by teaching your child, you wimp out and call on Big Brother to do it for you.
It won't work. A child needs a parent to tell them what is right and wrong. Blocking it just makes them angry because they can't find information that is OK, because their parents never told them it was wrong.
Instead of teaching your child to become a better person, you are castrating all of society by your lazyness.
Re:What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:2)
Or, in a perfectly ironic world, George "Bush".
Katz is hitting the nail on the head here (Score:2)
Re:Me first (Score:2)
You were fine up until now. I don't know anything about you, your background, what you have learned or not learned in life. And neither do you about me and my education.
Of course classes in civics, sociology, philosophy and ethics teach varying views of different cultures and peoples. There are commonalities which are accepted by most which would apply here.
"If you think that what passes for the current mainstream American ethics is the pinnacle of human thought, think again."
Further, at no point did I make any statements to the affect that this involved the teaching "ethics" involved any particular school of thought.
*Most* culture, religions, etc. teach simple codes of conduct which would apply in most societies.
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:3)
That's actually a great idea. No, REALLY. If it comes down to the old "As long as you're under my roof..." type situation, I say tell the Federal Govt. to Fsck off, and seek sponsorship. A small brass plate on the top of the monitor saying "This computer courtesy of X-corp", and a sign in front saying "Internet access courtesy of SBC" wouldn't be too offensive. Companies like the one I'm working at are getting rid of older computers all the time (A bunch of 166's are just fine for browsing/research) and the Govt. would be powerless to say anything about how these are used. Just a thought.
Re:A Slippery Slope (Score:2)
I have heard too many people who are in charge of their local legislation demand restrictions that I disagree with to be willing to even consider a federal set of standards. Or even a federal rule that can be interpreted more loosely, community by community.
You would (I hope) be shocked by some of the things that communities will do to rationalise their opinions. They know that they disapprove of something, and so they find a way or a reason or a loophole that will allow them to make that thing illegal in their small area. People didn't come to America originally to advocate religious freedom; they came to a new world to practice their own religion and teach it to their children without interference. The origional colonies were incredibly segregated by religious beliefs. This this is irrelevant? You're wrong. The U.S. today continues to be a fractious bag of different religious, moral, ethical, and cultural beliefs, and everyone seems to think that having the right to their beliefs means that everyone else has to respect those specific beliefs by not making you face any others. If you want the right to choose for yourself, you have to give that right to others, too.
The media is very slanted, this is very true. You can't always get all the "truth" you want, but there is very little information that is actually restricted. (Though I agree that too much of it is avoided and more of it is forcibly promoted.) These things, though, usually come because you're listening to a slanted source (and all sources are slanted, just different directions and for different reasons.) If you want to go out and find information, you should be able to. You are able to if you put some effort into it. For the time being. Let us each make as informed a decision as we are capable of, and leave it at that. Let me restrict my own kids-- you and your morals, you stay away from them.
Heard of inter-library loans? (Score:3)
This is not the same as actively censoring all access to such material, nor is it even remotely the same as federally mandated censorship.
In addition, one can get nearly every book or magazine ever printed at your local library by making use of inter-library loans. This is where you go to the librarian, request a search for a book or document, and request that it (or a copy) be sent to your local library. It may take two or four weeks for the material to arrive, but arrive it will. So even if the local community library will not keep The Happy Hooker or Huckleberry Finn on their shelves, you can request it and, after a short wait, still pick up a copy there and read it.
Think of the internet as the world's most effecient inter-library loan system. This legislation wants to do something unprecendented: mandate exactly what libraries can and cannot share with one another, as well as what they can and cannot put on their shelves. And they want to do so at the least competent level of government: the federal level.
Re:Yes it is (Score:2)
Re:Not to start a flame war but... (Score:2)
If I want to look at pictures of nekkid people at the library, they have many art books with all sorts of nude and erotic photograpsh, paintings, and drawings; including things as explicit as Madonna's Sex. They also have numerous erotic novels, like Belinda and The Story of O. All of these are right out on the shelves with all the other books.
It's there, if you care to look. Most libraries have Mein Kampf. OK, I'm invoking Godwin's Law; but I can't think of a more appropriate example to refute the poster's claim."The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Re:Community Censorware? (Score:2)
The problem, of course, is that you presuppose that all people have the same values, that is, same ideas about what is "bad". This is not even close to true. If you are willing to block sites that somebody, or a bunch of somebodies, thought to be "bad", you might as well switch off the web.
And I am not even talking about the problems of deciding moral issues by majority vote.
Kaa
Re:I don't believe this crap. (Score:2)
Communism, Marxism, Fascism, Pseudo-Theocratic Republicanism, Quasi-Socialist Democratism. The source of human rights atrocities is the desire to eliminate dissent. Any set of ideas can be warped to justify the use of force and we all know that a lie repeated enough times eventually becomes the truth. This becomes even easier when the messenger brings an "absolute truth" to enlighten the masses.
In a world without hope, anyone can become a savior.
But this stuff already exists in libraries (Score:3)
I remember the case of a photographer - sadly I cant remember his name - but he produced a book of his work photographing pierced and tattooed bodyparts (for lack of a better word). This was widely available across the UK until the police started raiding libraries to recover copies of it.
I'm sure this sort of material is not isolated and whilst your average small library might not keep much in this line, i'm sure city libraries must keep a reasonable collection of material which censorware would block (assuming it works properly).
I think by far the best principle is just to not put computers in hidden away corners and keep them out in the open. There was a student at an english university barred from using the computers after being caught hands-on in the library, and i'm sure the detterant is enough to stop almost anyone.
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:2)
Read the Fourteenth Amendment. "No state shall make or enforce and law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."
That makes it pretty clear that the Constitution applies to state laws. The Supreme Court has upheld this time after time.
---
Re:What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:2)
One day the schools will finally stop teaching chemistry, physics, and general mathematics. You'll go to public school for 12 years and learn nothing but altered histories and the words to the Star Strangled Banter.
*cough* 1984 *cough*
Teach your kids at home or make sure they at least get encouragement to think for themselves. I'm waiting for people to start dissing Organic Chem in school because you could make drugs using the reactions and techniques you learn. We won't go near learning anything about fractional distilling! :)
Actual text of the bill. (Score:3)
As usual, Slashdot comments are heavy on hyperbole, light on fact. To help swing the balance towards rationality, here are some links to the actual bill that (I think) Katz is referring to.
Amendment 3610 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator McCain [loc.gov]
Vote 149 - amendment agreed to [senate.gov]
Amendment 3635 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator Santorum [loc.gov]
Vote 150 - amendment agreed to [senate.gov]
Some discussion in the Senate about the two amendments [loc.gov] (search for "Internet")
I think this is the final version:
H.R. 4577, TITLE VI--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION [loc.gov]
Full text of H.R. 4577--FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill [loc.gov]
Vote 273 in the House - passed [143.231.123.93]
Vote 171 in the Senate - passed [senate.gov]
--Chouser
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:3)
Local governments do not have the right to override constitutionally protected freedoms. A city can't decide to ignore freedom of speech any more then they can force everyone to follow the same religion, or forcing a minority to be slaves.
And preventing people from reading/hearing the speech is the same thing as preventing people from presenting those ideas in the first place.
---
A Slippery Slope (Score:3)
Ah... there are "some topics" that are just not appropriate for kids. This is something I don't think anyone will argue with. The question, however, is which topics are inappropriate for kids. The majority of the country believes that homosexuality is a sin. Are sites advocating tolerance and equity for gays "inappropriate" for children?
When we start using loose language ("inappropriate topics") we open the door for a wide interpretation of that language. I'd rather have the choice of not letting my kid use the public library computer (or of designating a kind of filter for him to use there) than to have the Kansas board of ed and all like thinkers potentially filter the "controversial theory" of evolution one day because they think it could be construed as inappropriate material for children.
Be careful when you say that the need for effective filters is obvious. The issue isn't the fact that the filters don't work well; the issue is that someone else is deciding what is and isn't appropriate for my child (and myself!) to have access to. Even if the morality being applied is that of the public consensus, that's not okay with me. Porn we can probably all agree is inappropriate to children. Abortion information and freedom of choice? Tolerance of people who are homosexual, who have different religious beliefs, who are of a different socio-economic class? My opinions (and morals) differ in many places with the consensus of this country. Be careful not to open a door you'll find hard to close.
The Issue (Score:3)
1) How much libraries and schools should "protect" our children, and
2) Should censorware be used to do this protection
Now, in my mind, item 1 is open for discussion, as there will be good and valid arguments on both sides, and it an important issue.
However, item 2 has nothing substantial to recommend it. Censorware will do nothing that a lab monitor couldn't do - a lab monitor could keep children off the adult computers, and, at a glance, make sure that children aren't looking at porn or anything. Censorware could and would block helpful information while allowing "harmful" information, and could also be programmed per a political or religious agenda, as Katz's article mentioned. Censorware just does a bad job of censoring, all around. A human, library lab censor, would do a better job.
Remember, that I am not taking a stand, in this post, on library censorship at all. I am saying that censorware is the worst possible way you could filter information for those not yet ready to encounter it.
wish
---
Give 'em hell (Score:4)
I would suggest telling your representive that you oppose filtering on the grounds that, dispite what the marketing departments have said, the filtering is 1) Poorly implimented, and many times restricts access to legitiment information, such as university studies on Health, Sex, and STD's. 2) Filters most sites dealing with legitiment Gay, Lesbian Bi-sexual issues. (Although if you elected a republican into office you may as well leave that part off).
You may also wish to detail that most filtering companies consider the lists of sites they filter to be a trade secret, and that they are slow to fix incorrect filtered sites.
We've got an election comming up people. Let's get moving on this.
The Problem With Censorware (Score:2)
I don't understand why in this greatest of nations, where we presumably protect the interchange of ideas and expression, that we are afraid to let people make their own minds up.
And please don't tell me we are doing this for the children. Most parents don't know what their kids are doing. I don't need someone else telling me how to take care of my children. Don't violate my rights to "protect" me.
Government no, parents yes.... (Score:2)
-={(Astynax)}=-
Re:this may be offensive but.... (Score:2)
The point of a public library is to keep information free. The internet is just an extension of that. If you only want to read, and not have 'surfers' in your way, there's borders you can go to.
--
Re:What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:5)
Do we need to create separate childrens' libraries, so there IS someplace that I, as a parent, can send my children without worrying that they'll see (insert favorite porn site here)?
If your kids have a favorite porn site, you're in trouble already! *kidding*
These are public libraries, funded by yours and my tax dollars. Ergo, they are bound not by the standards of a few, but by the constitution (in the USA, anyhow). Ironically, most of the libraries in Canada don't use filtering software, at least not on the East Coast - and we don't have a consitution per se. (The charter of rights and freedoms is close, but most people couldn't even tell you who wrote it let alone what's on it). Common sense, people.
You are free to start a privately funded library for kids if you want, hell, fill it with religious propaganda-of-choice if you're paying for running it. Public libraries are different.
Something else people are missing is that most 10 year olds aren't that interested in pr0n. Sex, maybe, but that's not a problem, that's healthy. It's not until you get hormones into the mix a couple years later, and by that point, most of 'em are probably playing around anyhow, geeks or no. Unless of course, you as a parent have imparted your moral values to them, in which case, they'll make up their own minds. God forbid.
The irony is that you can get GRAPHIC depictions of violence anywhere, yet this isn't seen as a problem, but looking at n3kk1d breasts is. Go figure.
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:2)
Government censorship is a First Amendment issue. This seems to me like a really blatant example of government censorship.
Gay opinion is not the same thing as gay porn (except to the people who wish to suppress gay opinion). If my kids (very hypothetical) or anyone else's wanted to research opinions on (for example) same-sex marriage and found nothing from organizations who favor it, might they conclude there was no significant support for it? If they read convincing arguments "anti", and no convincing arguments "pro", whose side might they take on this issue?
I think this is such an excellent example of how this kind of censorship is political censorship (and may even be intended as such) and also how censorware will hurt people.
"Educationally valid" is a hard thing to define, and I don't want someone's appointed censors to define it for everyone else.
Anyway, why aren't these geniuses doing something about email spam? Oooh I'm trolling now ... never mind.
__________
Re:Oh grow up! (Score:2)
This is about blocking things which do not deserve to be blocked. And every filtering program does it. There is none of significant quality to be used at a public level...there are standards you know? You wouldnt want superlow grade steel to be used to build your library? So why settle for shitty filtering software.
Why does Congress keep trying this? (Score:2)
IIRC, laws that Congress makes are continually ruled unconstitutional for exactly the reasons mentioned above - they use a vague definition of "obscene" and "inappropriate", they don't allow any facility for age-appropriate filtering, and they don't take local community standards into account. It seems like every few years Congress tries the same damn thing, rather than trying to pass a law that would at least be constitutional (although still wrong, IMHO).
This law strikes me as election-year politicking rather than a real legislative proposal. This way congressmen from conservative districts can get some good press for voting in favor, congressmen from liberal districts can get good press for voting against, the rights of the citizenry will be somewhat trampled until the law is thrown out, and we'll try again in a couple years.
Not to start an abortion flamefest, but this cycle also happens with abortion laws. Laws are passed that don't allow consideration of the mother's health, the legislature (usually this is at the state level) knows that a similar law has already been thrown out, they get the credit from their conservative constituents, the law gets challenged and thrown out, and so on.
We really need a way to discourage lawmakers from monkeying with the laws just to make political hay. I don't have any great suggestions in that regard, though.
My Experiences with this subject (Score:4)
The solution I came up with (which worked very well for our small population) was to keep a log of sites visited. Every couple of days I would scan the list of sites. Didn't take too long, as the "inappropriate" sites tended to jump off the list. A few banned accounts and everyone stayed in line.
Naturally, that solution would not work for a school with say, six thousand students surfing every day (we had 80), which brings up the main point. No cookie cutter solution can possibly address all the scenarios for different schools and libraries. Each place will need to come up with their own solution to what most people will agree is a legitimate problem/concern. Easy examples: should a kindergarten only school have an internet as open as a high school? How about vocational schools (with many adult students)?
If Congress really wants to be helpful about this, let them require that such issues be addressed in each library and school's technology plan, but leave the implementation up to the local level where the administrators and communtity might *gasp* actually know what is needed at that specific locale and for that specific audience.
Re:What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:2)
Re:lowest possible denominator? (Score:2)
In a community that has a mix of social/political groups, I have seen and heard requests and demands to supress just about every viewpoint. Fashion magazines because they exploit women and have ads for appearl made with fur and/or leather. Liberal magazines that are to the left of the old American Opinion. New Farm becasue it is against mega-agribiz, and thus is a Communist tool. Chemistry & Industry because it has ads from agrichem businesses that are exploiting the famer and ruining the ecosystem. Christian nudists that want the library to carry naturalist magazines, other Christians and "Womans' Lib" groups that want the library to stop getting fashion magazines because of all the skin being shown. People who like wine/beer and were allowed small tastes when childern (as in Europe) face off against teatotallers who want to get rid of the magazines about wine and beer. People who think that Buddists, Jains, and Mormons are bad, false religions and allowing mention of them would lead children and simple folk astray; don't even think about Shinto and Wiccan. (and if you think that's weird, a several-years-ago edition of MS Encarta omitted almost every one of those religions because "they're controversial and not part of the US culture.")
The lowest common denominator is almost a non-pass filter. You can set guidelines and access control for children; for the Web this may mean a subnet with a "whire list" filter. Blacklists don't work, they miss sites and are slow to keep up with changes. Naughty word blocking isn't smart enough, if nothing else creative spelling and foreign words.
Won't work - (Score:4)
Re:Me first (Score:2)
Admit it. Its' an exagerration used to make an issue seem larger than it actually is, that the Internet is "vital" to a continued existance. Because if that is the case, there are many people I know who have no interest in the Internet whose lives will be alarmingly cut short.
There are no studies which prove a person is better or not with or without the Internet. None.
Further, you make the statement that "People using the net at libraries aren't using it to study computing, or networking." Where did you get this from? The top of your head? How do you know what people are using Internet access at the libraries for?
This statement by Katz is unfounded, emotional, handwringing. Not much different than your confused, tantrum of a response.
Re:It's a good thing (Score:2)
I am offended by the word "nigger". Let's say I am a librarian and I don't want that word in my library. What books do I get rid of? Try Huckleberry Finn, one of the greatest American novels. (This really happens.)
Or let's say I'm a conservative Christian who thinks that witches are real and evil. You know what books I would ban? Harry Potter. The Wizard of Oz.
The dictionary has offensive words in it. Some people want to ban it. Seriously.
Or...let's say you're offended by this story. A powerful pious king (and Peeping Tom) sees a beautiful married woman naked, bathing. He starts lusting after her. He wants her bad. So he murders her husband, then he marries her. And he is never punished by God or by man. But everyone knows he did it. You think that's a story kids should read? Well, that story is in the Bible. The king is David. Should we ban the Bible?
Once you start banning offensive things, you start down a road where someone else determines what you see, hear, read and, ultimately, what you think. That is no one's responsibility (or business) but yours.
What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:5)
This law is a license for every political interest group to keep subjects they don't like out of local libraries and schools. The victims would be kids with nowhere but libraries to go for Net access.
Bingo. Or, the disadvanges, or the mass of americans that don't have access to computers. I'm wondering why the lobby groups for the poor (are there those in the USA? Or do you have to be a representable minority? *sarcasm*) aren't freaking out, because they will be disproportionaly affected by this bill. Alternate names for this bill have been suggested already, but how about "Let's censor poor electorate, oh wait, they don't vote anyhow!" -> boy, I'd love to see online voting happen. Maybe a few terms of WWF representatives in Washington put some good 'n proper fear into elected officials, just like the old days (tm).
If you don't want your kids being exposed to pr0n, they shouldn't be in a library unsurpervised, unless they started censoring books since I was a library rat. There's lots of good stuff if you know where to look :).
Today's pr0n, tomorrow's Michelangelo!
Re:What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:2)
Re:It's a freakin' Library! (Score:2)
I think the main concern is that filtering software is sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Should kids be seeing porn in the library? No. Should adults? Probably not in a library (couldn't sexual harassment laws be used in this situation if a library patron or employee finds it offensive?).
What should be done is that libraries should adopt a rule system where viewing of porn can lead to the loss of the privelege (yes privelege, you aren't unconditionally guaranteed the ability to use the computers in a library) of using the computers. Why do we need software? Most libraries I've been to have the computers in publically viewable areas, if someone complains action should be taken.
I think that who uses the computers can be done in a similar manner. Give those with research needs priority access. Maybe this means signing a log saying what your need is. Then if people want to do other stuff they can whenever there are free computers. Or maybe set up a couple of extra computers for general use, you sign in and get a 1/2 hour.
In the end I think people will do the job better and more fairly than any filtering software available. So let's give free internet access with conduct rules. As long as the rules are enforced the problem should solve itself
Re:A Slippery Slope (Score:2)
It depends. Is he doing a project for school on cults or canabalistic tribes encountered by colonists? Did he ask me why there are kids in his class who aren't allowed to read Harry Potter? No, I don't want my kids exposed to violence, to pornography, to drugs and to all sorts of things. But I don't want you to decide for me which things those are. Maybe you'll decide he shouldn't know about human sacrifice or cannibalism (as you suggested) and won't be able to get material to do a research project for school on those things. I did a project when I was in Jr. High that I remember well. It was on the holocaust. There were photos of nudity, extreme violence, and people being cannibalized and used for parts; their hair woven into cloth, their fat made into soap, their skin stretched into lampshades. Would you have a law passed that bans all nude photos, restricts all references to violence and the mistreatment of humans, and so forth so I could not have learned what I did by doing that project?
It's obvious that you don't think that religion is irrelevant, but you seem to be missing my point: if you have different religious, social, ethical, moral whatever values, you have a right to teach them to your kids. Not to mine. If I wanted to be able to expose my kids to pornography, to teach him how to kill a person with his bare hands, that homosexuality is acceptable or that it isn't, or that I believe in Mohammed instead of Jesus, I should have the right to. Just because you think something is wrong for children doesn't mean that there has to be a blanket law. You worry about your own children. Once you start worrying about mine, too, you have to start worrying about whether I'm going to enforce one of my beliefs on you. Once we start making blanket laws about morality and applying them to everyone, it has the potential to get majorly out of hand. A slippery slope.
Re:Libraries are already "censored" (Score:2)
Well, the big deal is that libraries are controlled locally. Communities develop their own standards for their libraries. Some communities may feel more strongly about free speech issues than others. The federal government has no business mandating filtering software.
It's a freakin' Library! (Score:2)
Um, no, they don't. The First Amendment gives you the right to say anything, not to see anything. All those websties are well within their First Amendment rights to post anything they want, but the libraries aren't obligated to display it. It's like demanding that they stock copies of Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, Swank, etc., and crying out "First Amendment!" and "Censorship!" if they don't.
The government isn't at all obligated to present this information, legally speaking. So with that understood, we can discuss what they should do, not what they are legally required to do. Should they grant people compete, unrestricted access to the Internet in libraries?
I'm a huge advocate of free speech and I'm very anti-censorship, but I say Hell No. Can you picture 12-year-olds downloading porn in a library? It would be horrible. Picture library workstations flooded with local teenagers downloading porn, or even game sites, and the adults wanting to do research suddenly being crowded out. Now picture the alternative. You want to do some legitimate 'net research about sexuality or AIDS, and you can't access it. This kind of sucks, but it's nowhere near as bad as its alternative. Find another net connection. Get one at home, or at a college, or whatever. The libraries aren't obligated to provide you with unrestricted free Internet service, and I don't think they should.
Re:I don't believe this crap. (Score:2)
Is it really Luddism that is driving this? Seems to me it is a special cocktail of puratanism and ignorance.
Re:I don't believe this crap. (Score:2)
Which was ironically, written in a library on a rented typewriter. Would all local jurisdictions approve of writing controversial books on library resources?
LetterJ
Me first (Score:3)
If you are looking for another Jon Katz article with wild statements, over generalized statements and no factual data, you have come to the right place.
"Instead of tying the hands of educators and librarians, government should be doing everything possible to ensure that as many kids as possible have free access to the Net and the Web.."
We do. It is called the Universal Access Fee (federal tax) which I pay every month on my two phone lines. It was setup to subsidize Internet access to schools some time ago. At least I hope it was. I have not seen any numbers which show monies have actually been distributed to schools by the federal government.
"..because it will be vital to their social,
educational and economic opportunities."
Point of contention. Produce facts, studies, etc. which prove that having Internet access actually produces a better adjusted, educated, economically viable citizen. I contend this is your opinion fostered by the "Digital Divide" crowd. It would be far better to train young people on hardware, operating systems, coding, applications and ethics before throwing them into the maelstrom of the Internet - my opinion.
"Most of us don't need to go to the library for Net access, but millions of people -- mostly kids -- do"
Sorry, Jon. I am not accepting your statements as fact. Journalists learn how to make statements stick which involve numbers with the simple phrase, "According to ____, in 199____, over ____ of children depended upon libraries and schools for access to the Internet". Please present factual data to back up your sweeping generalizations.
Unlike many detractors, I could do a better job at this than you are currently. You know how to contact me. In the meantime, the University of Missouri has an excellent Journalism program you might want to investigate.
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:3)
The government could just as easilly pull funding for those computers and connections entirely, and nothing in the constitution would stop them.
This is an argument about what is right, not what is legal. Filtering software greatly reduces the usefulness of a web terminal, and expanding federal control of local libraries is a Bad Thing.
Re:Federal Funds (Score:2)
One side note here is that NetNanny is one of the only filtering programs for Windows that releases the blocked site list and allows the user to alter it. This gives the knowledgeable sysadmin some leeway. If someone knows of useable Linux filtering software, please let me know.
Squid [squid-cache.org] is not only a great caching proxy server for Linux, it also offers very powerful access controls. More info on various ways of using them, including people who distribute editable porn blocking lists for Squid, can be found in the Squid FAQ [squid-cache.org].
----
Re:I don't believe this crap. (Score:2)
What coctail? Aren't these just synonyms?
Re:I don't believe this crap. (Score:2)
Time to reread Fareheit 451 [amazon.co.uk].
Posting the link to the UK edition 'cause it has better cover art ;-)
Suggested readings... (Score:3)
In Europe, they calls those politicians fascist.
In the States, how are they called again? Somehow, puritan comes to mind...
Re:Me first (Score:2)
In the past couple of years, there have been a number of persons who have decided that not enough people have access to the Internet due to their economic situation. These people have claimed there is a "Digital Divide" between the haves and the havenots.
*One* of the arguments regarding the supposed Digital Divide is that persons without access to the Internet will be passed up for better jobs in the new economy based upon technology and internet-related employment.
The conclusion has been that Internet will supposedly somehow propel someone without prior experience into a better career in the IT field.
Mr. Katz, based upon his past writings and his conclusion in this article that Internet access is "vital" subscribes to this groundless falacy. Vital as in air, water, and food?
Whose ethics? Have you ever taken an ethics class in college? Or maybe a debate or philosophy class? Did you ever have any type of class that was perhaps called civics before? You know, like classes which encourage civil behavior and mature discourse rather than groundless statements, bland banalities, and anecdotal rhetoric?
Re:Community Censorware? (Score:2)
Either you'll have to make a so long list of categories that most people won't bother, or the same problems appear.
Hate? Would Qur'anic passages where Muhammad rants against Jews be included there? What about wartime propaganda documents? What about a "I-hate-all-blondes-cause-my-girlfriend-just-dump
Sex? What to a European is beach holidays pictures is sex to an American (topless women on the beach? and some are actually nekkid? horrors...) And what about naked breasts of brown people from New Guinea?
Violence? Heh. What to an American is a mild and funny thing, to a European is unacceptably depraved depiction of violence...
Kaa
What Next, Books? (Score:2)
I would sooner limit web sites to limited "reasearch only" e.g. news services (CNN, AP...), encyclopedias, etc...than having full access and being dependent on a filter program, most of which as we have seen are awful. Have policies that these computers are only to check certain sites and nothing else. Not only does this take care of the "offensive" part, it also ensures the computers aren't being used inappropriatly (like someone checking hotmail when someone else has to look up something).
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Re:What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:2)
1 Million? Hah, try 14 million. Every monday and thursday 14 million people tune in to watch the Rock 'Layeth the Smacketh down' on someone's Candy Ass. And the WWF is trying to get that demographic (18-24 yr old Males) to vote, not to vote FOR someone, just to Vote. And if those 14 million people get off of their asses and all write in 'The Rock' or 'Mick Foley', we WILL have some WWF candidates in there.
Kintanon
Re:Libraries are already "censored" (Score:3)
This is far different than filtering web sites. Books and other print publications do not arrive by the truckload, for the library staff to sort through and determine what to shelve and what to toss.
Even in a situation where the library has chosen to include particular material, no librarian sits down and reads every single item to determine if there might be a dirty word in it somewhere. If this were the case, no public library would subscribe to any periodical because of the time it would take to determine if the latest issue of Newsweek had a review of some R-rated movie, an article about abortion or favorable comment on homosexuality.
There are many challenges every year from people who want to censor this or that because it is "inappropriate" based on their personal opinion. If libraries only had books that were acceptable to every single one of their potential patrons, they would be very small buildings, indeed.
The vast majority of libraries, and the American Library Association, have long been clear on their position of censorship, or monitoring. Some years ago there was an attempt by the government to use public libraries as a spy network -- tracking who checked out what book. ALA turned them down flat, and refused to even discuss it.
More recently, some libraries have removed Internet access altogether rather than submit to filtering. If the pressure to filter continues, I predict that more public libraries will remove the Internet connections rather than filter, particularly with the wildly inaccurate tools available and the heavy-handed pressure on many subjects that are well-represented in traditional print collections.
Re:Me first (Score:3)
And what in nine hells does the web has to do with hardware, operating systems and coding? The web is an information resource. Having a clue about computers is not necessary to access and use it. You sound like one of those people that believed that one should first be taught programming in Basic before being allowed to use a word processor (anybody remembers mid-to-late 80s?).
And ethics?! Exactly whose ethics are you going to teach?
Kaa
Re:It's a good thing (Score:2)
that's fine, but it seems a ridiculous jump to run screaming to "taxpayers" before talking to the teachers themselves -- who are probably just well meaning, underinformed people who will do the right thing if educated and asked. I'm just suggesting that you might want to give them a chance to figure it out before running to your senator, which would be a tedious, entrenched process at best.
Tedious? All it takes to get a politician to listen to you is a polite, educated, well thought out letter delievered by Registered Mail. I have done this on 3 occasions and each time I've gotten a personal reply back, and on at least one of those occassions, had some effect. If you get your whole class, or even 10 of them to do it, then I guarantee results. (tm)
Having spent 12 wasted years of my life in a school system that sucked, and 6 in post secondary education that wasn't a whole lot better, any teacher with the attitude of not letting kids use the computers won't listen to a rational arguement. YMMV, of course. Definately try talking to your teacher, but it sounds like the individual has tried that. My point is that you're not powerless to act, even if you're living every day in a state-sanctionied training school.
Re:Suggested readings... (Score:2)
First, libraries don't hve unlimited funds, so you get a coarse grained filter based upon the community's nonfiction needs, and popularity of fiction titles. Then, not every popular book actually gets bought. Many libraries refuse to purchase books of questionable taste/decency. I can't think of many libraries I've been in or worked in that carried a copy of the "Illustrated Kama Sutra".
And if by popuar demand, or gift or donation, a library finds itself housing a questionable book, it may end up not in the general circulation. Try putting a copy of the "Anarchist's Cookbook" out, and it'll be stolen. Repeatedly. And many a library kept Madonna's "Sex" book behind the counter and only checked it out for in library use, keeping your library card as collateral.
I'm not saying that libraries should filter their collections, but that many do based on budget constraints. Most people trust their libraries to do this with the community's best interest at heart. But the internet is an entirely different matter.
A sensible compromise can be reached... the library I worked at set up their network so the public access machines in the Children's areas only could access the catalog and local services. To get internet access, you had to use one of the main terminals, which were clearly labeled with warnings that children's usage should be monitored by a parent or guardian. Not that this is a fool proof setup, but in most cases it worked pretty well.
Re:Give 'em hell (Score:2)
We're seeing usernumbers in the 200,000s now - so let's assume that 200,000 logged in people read Slashdot, and that 400,000 more read Slashdot but don't create accounts. Furthermore, let's assume that every reader is a citizen elligible to vote in the US. This is patently absurd, but why not?
If all 600,000 people decide to show their opinions with their votes, then against the total voter turnout for the last presidential election (96,456,345 people) that means that Slashdot as a whole is less than 1% of the total voters. This is even assuming that the voter turn-out doesn't get better, and remains constant. If it gets worse than we might get more of a vote, but still more than likely not enough to actually have an effect on the election. (600,000/96,456,345 is about 0.00622, or 0.622%)
Just voting or just writing politicians isn't going to effect anything. What we need to do is get our opinions heard somehow. Make it sound like we're not just a group of losers who don't wanna lose access to porn. And not just by our representives - if they see that 25% of their voters feel one way, but 75% feel another, guess which way they'll go. We need to win non-geeks onto our side. Find people who needed resources from the library and were denied access because they were filtered. Get letters in the paper.
Your representatives are not going to listen to a group that they feel is unimportant - if we can show them that a large group of people is against censoring the Internet, then we might be able to do something.
Even if there were 10 million people against censorship, all there needs to be are 11 million for it, and we lose. Get people who otherwise wouldn't have an opinion into the act. Just complaining to our representatives won't actually do anything. Make this an important issue to them. Make it an issue for reelection.
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:2)
The sites in question may still publish and still exist and may still be read from a home computer. Their rights are therefore not being violated by anybody.
If I publish a photo book about people having sex with animals, and the library chooses not to put it on their shelves, are they censoring me? I am still free to sell or distribute the book any way I choose. I don't have the right to force them to put my book on their shelves.
This is a case of the what a library does with its resources. There is no room for debate about whether they are allowed to control what they make available... they are. The only debate that matters is whether they should use these filters or not.
While it is entirely constitutional for a library to put CP or netnanny or whatever on their computers, it is also entirely constitutional for us to raise holy hell over it and try to get them to stop.
If this violates any amendment, it violates the 10th. The Federal government ought not dictate content to county libraries. The libraries who take federal subsidies are not in much of a position to gripe, however.
This is why libertarians (and some Republicans) generally oppose federal social programs, even the ones that look like great ideas (in spite of the inevitable cries of, "how could those mean conservatives vote against more funding for public libraries!?"); because once the government is picking up the check, the local governments have to go to the feds, cap in hand, and accept whatever mandates are handed down to them.
Now you see why "big government" bothers conservatives more than "big business". Crap like this... this is why. I'll let Jon Katz furrow his brow and worry about what Ford Motors is up to; I'm far more worried about what the next federal power-grab is going to be.
It's a good thing (Score:3)
This is actually a good thing because at school, we are not allowed to go online because the teachers are afraid we're going to look at porn. With the filters, the teachers may let the students go online to research more without supervision because they don't have to make sure every student is not looking at innappropreate things. Students have "accidentally" went to porn sites and I, as a student am VERY afraid I'll search for something and the result is a porn site because I may get disaplined.
Although this is censorship, it will help students research on the 'net more. Just make sure the filters don't filter out /. :)
Comment removed (Score:3)