Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Federally Mandated Censorware Up For Vote 210

Posted by CmdrTaco from the slashdot-will-be-the-third-site-censored dept.
An anonymous reader wrote in to say that "CNN is reporting on a federal plan that has been attached to an appropriations bill which would require that public schools and libraries institute censorware or lose government funding. It could be voted on as early as this week. Check out the article."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Federally Mandated Censorware Up For Vote More

Federally Mandated Censorware Up For Vote

Comments Filter:

  • Tax revenues (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You know, if the federal government didn't take [steal] so much tax money, they wouldn't be able to usurp so much power. It seems like we always hear arguments about cutting/not cutting taxes for economic reasons, but never any mention about what income taxes have done for the feds: allow them to exercise much more power than the constitution provides for by utilizing a nonsense "interstate commerce" argument. Can you find anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that grants the congress the power to censure school libraries?

  • Re:good idea (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well, here's the problem with this argument. I do want me tax dollars spent on it, and I also want the government to do my job as a parent. So, I guess its up to the elected officials to try to figure things out, afterall, thats what they're elected for.

    Like a school I should not have to worry about "bad" things happening to my children at a library. I live in a small upper/middle class town in New England and just last year there were 2 cases of a man exposing himself in the public library (Which does have internet connections). Since finding this out I haven't gone back there.

    Small children are routinely dropped off for book readings/story telling sessions in which they are pretty much left on there own for an hour or so except for the 1 or 2 people who are running it.

    Personally I think that the amount of 'research' at the lower grade levels that is done on the internet is terrible. For those that don't know what to look for its far more the misinformation superhighway than it is the information. At least books have gone through some sort of editing process and if nothing else will teach you decent grammar. The internet has become the 'easy way out' for doing school work and the way i see it will result in nothing except creating an even lazier generation that we current have. Fear that! Feel free to moderate down to -1000

  • I'm getting tired (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    of how "For the Children" is the Root Password for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Somehow, if you mutter that magic phrase in passing, you can ignore the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and legal precedence, pushing your own viewpoint upon everyone else. I'd like to see an end to laws like this, and now view "For the Children" as a red flag, uttered by someone announcing yet another assault upon my rights and privacy.

  • Re:Tacking stuff onto bills (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I am not a PoliSci student or anything like that, so as far as I know that might be ok, but from a layman's view stuff like this sounds utterly rediculous! If a new law or etc cannot be passed by standing on it's own merits, it shouldn't be passed at all.

    Welcome to the desert of the real.

  • Whatever happened to... (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Whatever happened to teachers getting off of their chairs and checking on students. Is it that hard to walk around the room and just look at the monitor. I don't know about you all but I can spy naked bodies from accross the room and I bet the teacher can to. Human monitoring of this in my opinion would be far more effective than software. All software does is inhibit research ability. There are always tons of sights that those crappy peices of software will miss, but they always seem to pick up the valueable research sights. Teachers could esily distinguish between the two.

  • why? (Score:2)

    by jafac ( 1449 )
    I really don't understand why public grade schools and libraries NEED to have internet access?

    I mean, yeah, I've been on the internet since 94 or thereabouts, back when it was just the internet, and it was still largely a tool of universities, and geeks, and the large computer firms were just getting started with putting up their own web pages. There was a LOT of good stuff on line, and from what I understand, back then, most of the pr0n was on usenet anyway.

    The internet of that era was a tool of learning, of knowledge.

    But the internet has changed, no doubt about it. It is a totally different animal than it was. Even though almost all of the old resources are still available, the most constructive bit is the clean parts of usenet, and email. The Web itself, is a huge waste of time as far as education goes. It's all corporatized, buy this, rent that, be part of my little plan to take over the world, download my web doohickey, etc. I don't think it has any place in education or the library. Except for email. Maybe connect these guys, but low-bandwidth, and shut off the web ports. Leave the censorship to parents and home computer systems. Yeah, there's a lot of neat stuff out there, but I just don't see it as all that important to anyone but Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, and AOL. Putting school computers online just legitimizes the idea that public school merely indoctrinates our young into the American culture of consumerism. Gag.
  • Great, open source censorware - first thing it will block is Microsoft's site, of course, then any of Microsoft's partners, or any MS Fan site, MSNBC, NBC, Intuit, (ironically) Corel, then we have to ban all of Microsoft's stooges, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, and even Apple because Microsoft "owns" them too, (according to some /. poster I bantered with last week), then pretty much any company that doesn't provide source code, hardware companies with closed specs, then any server served with IIS, any server that serves non-standards-compliant HTML, any server that serves HTML not optimized for Mozilla's special features (c'mon, work with me here), but MOST IMPORTANTLY; goatse, any site containint the text: GRITS, Natalie Portman, bird, penis, penis-bird, Ogg, Sig11, or any site using a numeral 5 instead of the letter "S".

    Of course, we'll all still be able to see our boobies.
  • Subject: HR4577 & net filters

    Representative (or Senator):
    It has been brought to my attention that hr4577, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, TITLE VI--Children's Internet Protection, contains language which would require schools to use filtering/blocking software on their systems.

    While I applaud efforts to prevent children from accessing inappropriate material on the internet, I strongly feel that automated filters and blocking software is not the way to do it.

    This software is often haphazard, at best, letting through much material that would certainly be deemed "inappropriate," and at the same time blocking legitimate material.

    For instance, most filters will block sites containing information about chicken breast recipes, breast cancer information, Anne Sexton, or "Superbowl XXX" simply because words or subwords may contain characters on the "blocklist."

    For more real-world examples, please see http://www.dfn.org/Alerts/contest.htm

    In addition, most of these filters can be disabled by computer-savvy children in the schools.

    Filtering software may seem like an easy solution to this problem, but it's too easy - it just doesn't work.

    I urge you to oppose this part of HR4577, and educate your colleagues about the unintended side effects of filtering software.

    For more information, you may wish to read http://www.peacefire.org/info/blocking-software-fa q.html

    Sincerely,
    -Eric Sandeen

    ---

  • idiocy (Score:2)

    by PD ( 9577 )
    Public Libraries are expected to kiss up to the government to avoid losing their funding which has been shrinking all along? That's absolutely bizzarre. The libraries should turn this around and tell the federal government that they will remove *all* their computers unless their budgets for regular old fashioned books is restored to reasonable levels. Politicians are so eager to point at libraries as bastions of evil. They get to spend money to win a shallow moral victory and the libraries get screwed in the end.
  • I work for a large school district in Texas. We've seen this crap coming and unfortunately implemented the Bess filter software by N2H2. They made me do it kicking and screaming. Then they put me in charge of it to rub salt into the wound.
    ------------------------------------------ -------------

  • Introduced in the Senate by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rick Santorum, R-Pa., the plan is attached to an appropriations bill that could get a final vote this week. Reps. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., and Charles Pickering, R-Miss., are behind the effort in the House.

    (Thanks to CNN for actually providing the names of the oathbreakers.)

    None of these four bastards should ever be allowed to serve in public office again. For that matter, they shouldn't even show their faces in public anymore.

    C'mon, voting it down is just the first step. Ostracising the assholes who start this shit should be next. Legislators need to FEAR the wrath of the public whenever they attack the Constitution. Make no mistake: if you are an American, then those 4 people are your enemies.


    ---
  • Well, it's legal because congress can pass any laws they like. They are congress, after all -- they are in charge of making the laws, and it's up to the executive and judicial to enforce and rule on them.

    There have been several attempts to make rules within congress that limit bills in their scope, but they've been consistently beaten. I believe that some states DO have rules within their own legislatures regarding riders and such so that you can't tack on completely new subjects to a bill.

    This is also why the line-item veto has been so strongly favored -- traditionally the Republicans have supported the presidential line-item veto, because it can be used to reign in pork-barrell spending in appropriations bills, but they have strangely stopped their support of it with a Democrat in office, which is a shame. With line-item veto, Clinton could pass the bill and simply cross out the part about library filters. As it is, the government is close to another shutdown, though, so vetoing it would have a large effect...

    I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
    Q.Tell me what the trail was.
  • This is a clear call for open source censorware. It doesn't even need to be very effective. Something that would use a list of blocked sites, and a list of words that will cause pages to be blocked might be a good place to start. Another mode should just use a list of permitted sited. These should be files in clear text, perhaps zipped or gzipped (if so, you need to include an editor, though). The idea is to start off with something basic, that would be a basically agreed upon "starting point", and to allow customization as desired (or decided upon by a vote of local supporters). This would allow each site to be as bigotted or loose as they decided to be.

    I don't know much about browsers, but it sounds (to me) like something that could be put together quickly by someone who did.

    Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
  • I don't want you subsidizing my kids! Reread the post!!! As it stands right now, your property taxes are going to subsidize those who have children of school age. Get the government out of schools and you only have to pay for it if you send a child to school (or donate to an education charity, scholarship, etc).
  • If you employ anybody, you benefit from state sponsored education.

    Last time I hired someone, they had been homeschooled and received a degree from a private university.

    Maybe you are a selfish g-dammned lout of a parent, but every other parent that I know of has their children's education as their Number One Priority. They WILL NOT forgo their child's education if the state ceases it's redistribution of wealth from the child-less to the child-blessed. Maybe that's what you would do, but it's insulting to say that others would do the same.

    Now, it *is* desirable for society if every one is educated, just as it is desirable for everyone to be well fed. But just as the government does not mandate that all children be fed from state-run grocery stores, neither do children need to be educated in state-run schools. For those that need assistant, there are other avenues for help. Those who can't afford food can receive food stamps. Those that can't afford an education could get educational assistance.

    It's amazing that even with food vastly more vital than education, no one is clamouring for a state monopoly on grocery stores.
  • The solution is simple. You just have to know what the real problem is. The problem is *not* censorware. If you deny me the right to create, distribute and market censorware, then you are 100% opposed to liberty, freedom, sharing, and all the rest that slashdotters are supposedly for.

    Instead, the problem is the government monopoly over education. We don't need autarchs forcing parents to send their children to state run political indoctrination centers. Privatize the schools and libraries. I want more from freedom than just free software. I want the freedom to choose my own school, and not to be taxed for a school I did not choose. Then I can choose a school based on my needs, wants and beliefs, instead having my needs, wants and beliefs determined for me by majority vote.

    I could choose a school that didn't have censorware. Or if I wanted, I could choose one that did. But the choice should be mine, since it's my life, and my child's life, and not Algor's or Dubya's.
  • ASU? You mean Arizona State University? I run one of the computer labs there. Not only is there no cursed censorware on our systems, but we aren't allowed to stop customers from going to any sites they might want to. I think this is great. I'm not into pr0n myself, but I'll be damned if I think the government or some other "authority" has the right to tell anyone whether they can look at it.

    Lee Reynolds
  • Politicians point at libraries as bastions of evil? Bastions of knowledge is what they are. If they see knowledge as evil then maybe its time for a recall election if not a good old fashioned lynching.

    Lee Reynolds
  • The right and left would not team up like this unless both had something to fear from this legislation, which makes me wonder what it is. Sounds to me like both sides knows that neither would be in control of what "harmful content" gets censored. Laws like the CDA got passed because it gave the governement the power to define exactly what was "harmful to children" and what wasn't.

    I'll be so glad when the day comes that all this bullshit is laid to rest. Porn doesn't hurt kids, it just offends the sensibilities of the superstitious. I think that within a couple of generations all this will simply evaporate. At least that is what I hope for. The internet offers for the first time in history the possibility of a truly free society. A society where information, knowledge, and ideas, including offensive or controversial ones, are freely and easily available to all. A time when all sides of any story are laid out on the table instead of being overtly or covertly censored by those in power on both the right and the left. I'm looking forward to this coming to pass and I'll fight anyone who tries to thwart it.

    Lee Reynolds
  • Don't you know, THEY want to be the ones who define what gets filtered. Many of the censorware companies are tied to conservative religous organizations. Go to www.peacefire.org to get the whole story.

    Lee Reynolds
  • The democrats are for things like the CDA which gives them the power to define exactly what is and what is not "harmful to minors." The replicans are simply getting in on the game with legislation which will give them that power. Its the same old bullshit with rival political factions working to control what information is available to the rest of us. Anyone who would try to censor what you see isn't doing it because information you find would be harmful to you, but because it would be harmful to their own position for you to see it. Obscuring the truth is a very old pastime for any political or social or religious group.

    Lee Reynolds
  • (am I feeding the trolls?)

    ...so why don't we just gouge out our eyes since they too can be used to view child pornography?

    And despite what you may think, obscenity is not illegal. Thank god! The definition of what is obscene or offensive varies from person to person. If you were to follow some strict rule as to what was obscene (and be perfectly fair about it), most if not all religious scriptures would be considered obscene.

  • This is one reason why Congress attempted to grant the President the power to 'line-item veto' specific parts of legislation in 1996. The Supreme Court, however, struck it down in 1998, saying that Congress just can't hand over powers to the President through a simple law - it requires an amendment to the Constitution.

    The process of using federal dollars to implement national policy at the state level is old hat, though. A couple of past examples were when the mandatory drinking age was raised to 21 and the speed limit was issued (in both cases Congress would withhold highway $$$ until states complied).
  • Looks to me like a DENY table will work.

    Any sites found by a court of competent jusridiction to meet the terms of the Act can be added to the DENY tables; obviously censorship restraint does require judicial review.
  • This may be a dumb question, but if your state is concerned about federal control, why doesn't your state raise its taxes and pay for 100% of its own schools' budgets? I don't mean this sarcastically, it just makes me wonder how things got the way they are in the first place.

  • Well, technically, you can do just about any illegal act you want to, you just have to face the consequences afterwards.

    What bothers me about this bill is that they're trying to pre-emptively prevent people from breaking the law. That means that the usual roles of a Judge (interpretation of the law, use of discretion because of circumstances, etc...) are put in the hands of the blocked-list creators. And on top of that, they're often wrong.
    --

  • Actually, adults are NOT allowed to view obscene materials [cornell.edu] or child pornography [cornell.edu]. The legal definition of obscene doesn't include run-of-the-mill pornography.

    Yes, I believe you're correct in your interpretation of (ii), but it's still almost vague about adults, and most parts of the U.S.C. like to clarify everything possible.
    --

  • See my post [slashdot.org] during that story. The "common carrier" thing is really two distinct concepts in two very separate parts of the law.

    The FCC common carrier is more like "basic infrastructure such as telegraph cables or radio airwaves that should be regulated by the FCC to benifit society in general".

    The DMCA/Copyright common carrier is something like "a system that blindly passes on information in such quantities that it's not practical to weed out the copyrighted works".

    Close, but not the same. It was ruled that the FCC shouldn't regulate ISP's. ISP's can still pass on copyrighted info.
    --

  • Was such a thing included in this bill?

    Sec 602(a)(5)(B) says that school must block all illegal pornography. Sec 602(a)(5)(H) says that if they go above and beyond that in any way, that they have to "ensure the ready availability to the public of information on such policy and on its policy".

    Doesn't that mean that anything that's blocked (that's not strictly illegal) has to be disclosed? Not 100%, but close enough?
    --

  • Well, DMCA says that ISP's aren't required to block copyrighted material (implied: because it's impossible). It's not a huge leap to say determine that it's impractical for ISP's to block illegal content, and then that it's not practical for libraries to block illegal content unless the government is going to provide salaries for one librarian per computer so that little Johny will have his eyes covered whenever he accesses a page with illegal content on it.

    But maybe that's too big of a leap, I don't know.
    --

  • Censorship is allowed when the censored materials fall under the legal definition of obscene or are otherwise declared illegal (eg. child porn).

    As I read the bill, it says nothing about looking at playboy.com in the library.
    --

  • So instead of the core question being "who's standards do we apply when we block porn" (since they only include material that is illegal anywhere in the US), the central question is "do the library computers count as common carriers like ISP's are"?

    There's no law that requires libraries to prevent children from trading copyrighted material on the internet. There's nothing that says that libraries have to have software that pre-emptively prevents children from making death threats against the president. So why is there such a law for porn?
    --

  • Actually, your idea is not as crazy as it sounds. The key point people need to notice is that censorware is a placebo that dose not solve the major problems people want solved. Specifically, people do not want the back ground changed to porn and do not want kids to notice someone else watching porn. Censorware blocks such a small precentage of sites that it totally fails at these goals. The real solution is based around you grandmother idea. Specifically, the threat of getting caught.

    First, you need to ask yourself "dose this library have a problem?" (i.e. do lots of people currently watch porn here) There are two solutions depending on your answer:

    (no) Congradulations, you have no problem at all. You should move your computers to a high traffic area with little privacy to discurage porn view, but that's about all you need to do.

    (yes) Ok, you need to do a little more work. First, DO NOT INSTALL CENSORWARE. You want to catch these people.. not make them better at hiding. You need to set up a system where the most recent images from the netscape cache directories are displayed on a system which only the librarians see. Now, when a librarian notices a porn picture they can go for a walk and stop the person. The advantage here is that they will catch porn the person left in open netscape windows or on the desktop.. somehting no censorware can hope to prevent.
  • I've wondered if it would be a good idea to add a law so that any representative/senator who proposes a bill that gets passed, an is later found to be unconstitutional, gets a "strike" against them. Then, after enough "strikes", that person is kicked out of the office, and further banned from politics.

    Maybe then some of them would think the constitution isn't just something to try and get around in whatever way they can.

    Of course, it would probably just result in them repealing the Bill of Rights. (After all, there's not a chance it would get passed today.) Freedom is a great buzzword, but too much of a pain to actually ENFORCE, it seems.
    ---
  • > > [...will block...] {I} material that is obscene; and (II) child pornography; and
    > > (ii) [...makes sure the censorware is on while minors are using the PCs...]
    > Why the (ii)? Are adults allowed to see child porn on school computers?

    For that matter, "Why the (II)? Doesn't child porn fall under obscenity laws to begin with?"

    Welcome to the world of politics. Where anyone who stands up in Congress and questions the intent of (i)(II) gets branded as "opposing measures to block child pornography", and anyone who questions the intent of (ii) gets branded as "exposing your kids to child pornography".

    Remember, this is the "Children's Internet Protection" measure. Anyone who opposes it must be against children, and is a bad person.

    The only way we'll see freedom of expression in this country is if someone introduces the text of the First Amendment as the "Protection of Big-Eyed Kids, Cute Fluffy Kittens and Frisky Puppies Act".

  • speaking from experience these filters block everything. we couldnt lookup std's because of course the query had the extremely dirty word "sex" in it. I can see a system for elementary schools where only approved sites are browsable, and one in middle school where "naughty" sites are blocked. but come on dudes, in highschool? if they honestly think that their little pos filter will stop us from finding what we want they are wrong. I also honestly know of any highschool student that would look up pornography on the schools computers. First of all there are way too many people around, second of all why would you do it at school? do it at home for the love of god. A bill # or text of entire legislition would be nice to point this out to my senators and mr clinton / (gore/bush).

    P.S. if your school has a gay filter like my school download CGIProxy, enable encoded url's, and make a regexp to remove META tags, upload to some server and volia! unfiltered net access.
    (Example: http://www.mbrez.com/anon/nph-proxy.cgi/687474703a 2f2f7777772e736c617368646f742e6f72672f") . It can't search the query for bad content, the page will not have any rsca ratings.
  • This is also why the line-item veto has been so strongly favored -- traditionally the Republicans have supported the presidential line-item veto, because it can be used to reign in pork-barrell spending in appropriations bills, but they have strangely stopped their support of it with a Democrat in office, which is a shame.

    This is not true. Most Republicans continued to support the line-item veto after Clinton was elected. Clinton supported it for obvious reasons, but many Democrats opposed it. As I recall, it was actually passed but the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional a few years ago.

  • Actually, there was some constitutionality to the 55MPH speed limit, at least on US Highways and Interstate Highways. The interstate commerce clause can come into effect then. However, the feds should not have been able to mandate any limits on state highways.
  • ...the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits slavery within the borders of the US. But can't this sort of rigorous parental control be understood as a form of slavery? Girls who have the biological power to get pregnant are denied the right to an abortion without their parents' approval in many states...

    I don't think that requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion can be considered rigorous parental control. Parents have the right (and duty) to keep abreast of what their children are doing, and to essentially dictate how the child lives and what he/she does (within reason, of course). I find it ironic that the issue of parental responsibility as it relates to abortion is popping up once again in a censorware thread.

    As far as the issue of censorware in libraries is concerned, why not assign everyone with a library card a login, and apply censorware based on that? Let the parent of a minor decide whether or not censorware should be applied to the child's account. Just because a family can't afford a computer and internet access doesn't mean that they should have to live with absurd rules forced upon them by an ignorant government (or ignorant population, as the case may be).
  • Email is almost completely ignored, you'll have to lick a stamp or pick up the phone to get heard.
  • Congratulations! This whole seperation of church and state nonsense has gone on too long. Philips is the love child of Buchanan and Browne.
  • As a progessive lefty I think the consensus would be not to block any religious site, while the right has an interest to keep Jesus (or whichever religion the group is part of) on top of the crowd as not to question/empty the pews.

    Actually the only contemporary group I can think of that would actually want all religious sites blocked are radicals like CSICOP. Their mailing list has group attempts of letter writing to networks that do air anything that goes remotely questions scientific materialism by threating boycotts. I definatly see them as a very conservative group, not liberal in any way.

    I think an extreme far lefty (anarchist-type?) would want no censorship at all, porn and drugs for everyone regardless of age.
  • I don't want my tax dollars going to systems that a) stop me from accessing legal(not obscene) information that may be blocked by filtering software and b) doing your job as a parent.
  • I think the solution would be to ignore the idiots yelling, and just let things go unblocked. Blocking things, no matter the reason, is censorship. As far as not having public schools. Well, you are very short sighted and greedy. Not everyone has as much as you and can afford the expense of a private school. We also all have a responsibility to teach our children, whether they are directly ours or not. Morals should be taught at home, no where else. I'm tired of these mindless parents that think sheltering thier kids from everything is the answer. Maybe the blocks shouldn't be thre just for that reason; to force parents to tlak to their kids about these thinks. the kids are going to see it one way or another, there isn't anything you can do about it. Shielding them from the world will do them no good. maybe once the issue comes up, parents should talk to them about it. But i guess that'd be asking too much.

  • Here's my idea. Hire some old women about the age of your grandmother. Have them sit next to you while you're on the net. Would you go to sexwithmidgets.com with your grandmother sitting next to you? Neither would I.

    It's not censorship. Just think about it. In a public area (libraries, university computer labs, etc), only go to those sites that you would go to sitting next to your grandmother.

    My god that's brilliant! You should run for office. A program like this would not only solve the problem of how to protect the children from all of that evil pr0n, it would also help ease the burden on our Social Security system by acting as an employment program for the elderly.
  • You say "within reason" as if it's obvious that forcing a teenager to go through having a baby is obviously reasonable.

    -----------------------

  • The proper solution to government control of information is to make private options explode via technology.

    The Feds are taking money from public schools? Develop better Internet-delivered home schooling.

    The Feds are taking money from the public libraries? Put more stuff online and make the bricks and mortar libraries obsolete.

    Drive the tyrants insane with an innovative explosion of technical options before it's too late!

  • Damn, somebody mod that post up. That has got to be the most lucid dissection of Congressional politics I've seen in a while. My friend, you are right on the money!

    The sad thing is virtually every piece of legislation in the U.S. Congress is done that way nowadays. It's just unbelivable. And the reasons for it are thus:

    1. Congressional procedures allow bills to easily have unrelated "riders" attached to them designed to either kill the bill entirely or create a "catch-22" as in this case.
    2. The de-facto two party system reduces every political interaction to an "us vs. them" contest, which encourages petty, underhanded tactics, like those described in reason #1.

    Now, don't ask me for a solution, because I don't have one, except perhaps to vote for more independents. And I don't mean so-called "third party" candidates either, I mean true independents who have no party affiliation, and thus are less prone to item #2 listed above.

  • Vote Phillips on November 7 to restore a constitutionally limited gov't.

    Namely a government ruled by the Christian faith. This means that if Phillips becomes President, non-Christians such as myself have a lot to fear. From http://www.phillips2000.com/issues.htm [phillips2000.com] :

    The Christian premises of American jurisprudence will be honored. And there is, of course, no Constitutional barrier to the posting of the Ten Commandments in school classrooms.

    It looks like this guy wants to make all educational institutions in the United States an extension of the Christian Church. Now that's tyranny.

    It gets better: I would veto all funding for so-called "AIDS education" --- which is in fact a system to promote the propagation of homosexual conduct. I'm not gay, but I sure as hell don't want a homophobe as President. Especially a stupid one. The guy thinks that AIDS only effects gays.


    --

  • Feh (Score:2)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 )
    It's just the annual assault on the first ammendment. Five gets you ten on an internet bet that every court in the land smacks this one down just like every previous assault on the first ammendment. I'd like to thank Congress for further pissing away my tax dollars creating and defending this useless shit.
  • This topic has been raging for several years now, and it is not likely to go away. And remember: for every person who claims it is a violation of their First Amendment rights, there is a parent who has the constitutional right to expect that their child won't be exposed to "inappropriate material" at school or at the library.

    There is no such right enumerated in the Constitution. On the contrary, the 1st Amendment can be construed as to forclose the parent's right to censor what the child sees at school, not the other way around.

  • Maybe it's because I've been coding 14 hours a day for the last 8 days, but I swear to god I thought you wrote "sexwithgrandmas.com with your midget sitting next to you."

    I think I need a day off.

  • The issue of how much autonomy states have on issues the federal gov't considers important enough was settled, as the major issue, in the Civil War. The Federal gov't won.

    The victory of the aggressors proved nothing to anyone except those that accept the axiom of might makes right.

  • What this is called is a "rider." Addendums like this are often tagged onto bills for one of two reasons:

    First, suppose that the Republicans front a bill that the Democrats are rabidly against. Democrats can attach a subsection like this (a "rider") to kill support for the whole bill because no one wants the terms of the rider making it into law. So if the Democrats didn't like the bill, they could tack on a rider that says "All left-handed people will pay a tax of 1000 dollars." Which is ridiculous. So of course the whole bill gets dumped because the Republicans don't want to come off as discriminating agains left-handed people.

    Riders can be used another way. Suppose now that the Democrats have a bill which EVERYBODY, including the Republicans want. Now, some Republican attaches a "rider" which contains some provisions that the Democrats would never pass. Because support for the rest of the bill is so overwhelming, it's often passed anyway because the Democrats don't want to sabotage the rest of the bill.

    Hope that clears things up.

  • We all know that filters don't work. It's sad to see things this stupid from as many as four republican chair polishers.

    Istook's chief of staff, John Albaugh. "We have received tremendous support from the public on this. It just seems like it's a no-brainer to the average Joe."

    I agree, no brain. What are they prommising people?

    The opposition does not cheer me much either. Though several inteligent opinions and concerns were raised by many diverse organizations, the democrats can only seem to muster this:

    Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is among the few legislators who have spoken against mandatory filters. His alternative proposal would require only that Internet providers distribute filtering software for free or at cost.

    Doh! It don't work, so it should be free! Great logic. Those chairs must shine and shine.

    Lastly, it seems that the author has forgoten about or knows something I don't know about the line item veto:

    The Clinton administration opposes mandatory Internet filters. But the filters are included in the annual spending bill to finance operations of the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services, and it is unclear if President Clinton would veto the huge spending bill because of his objection to a small part.

    That's it! End of debate. Four people thought this was a good idea, so now it's gonna be a law. Uhhh, what's wrong with this?

  • What's the most effective contraceptive for people over 65?

    Nudity.

  • Sorry, that's part of what I meant as well. I'm afraid I didn't insert the words.

    Of course local people should be able to edit the lists - probably arranged much like bind or the MAPS - you can agree with them, or not. But the list is there. Odds are different communities could make up their own lists and make them public, and you could pick and choose which to use, or just use your own.
    John "Dark Paladin" Hummel

  • Think about it: We all know censorware doesn't work. It's only a matter of time before every state gets successfully sued over it. It will also drive a lot of legitimate users trying to do perfectly innocent things absolutely nuts. Think of the publicity.

    Not to mention, of course, that we'd finally just get it over with. They're going to keep trying to do this until they do it. Maybe it's time we should let them do it and let it fail.

  • That reminds me so much of the cult I grew up in. "someone doesn't like what we're doing, so they're of satan, oh and please send all your money to this address so we can get more hapless suckers"

    didn't wash then and doesn't wash now.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
  • If the public can't police themselves, the government has to do it, I guess.

    which actually brings up the whole gist of this argument. The government is an instrument of the public. Our government is inherently flawed based on that fact alone.

    I'm not worried about censorware in the schools so much as i'm worried about the human behaviour that would even cause someone to think it necessary.


    FluX
    After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
  • ...I was in the main one downtown a few years back, and the staff had taped cardboard hoods over several of the 'net access machines.

    Mostly, they didn't want kids seeing the homeless people surfing pr0n, which, if I had to guess, was what those machines were used for about 3/4ths of the time -- I saw pr0n on the displays maybe twice, both times when the homeless person's time limit ran out and they got up to leave, with the hardcore scene still on the display.

    The library near my house makes you sign up and get a password (free). They log what you do, and urge anyone seeing something inapproporiate to report same to the front desk immediately. No adult materials allowed, and no hoods on the machines.

    It's a shame, but if they don't limit access to pr0n, some kid will see it and the city will get sued.

    Maybe an alternative is to have a adult area, but that opens up a whole different can of worms. The city already has/had problems with hookers in the library -- an adult area would really exacerbate the situation.

    When you think about it, the libraries were never meant to be porno libraries or hooker hangouts; really a place to quetly research things.

    If the public can't police themselves, the government has to do it, I guess.
  • The victory of the aggressors proved nothing to anyone except those that accept the axiom of might makes right.

    Those who do not accept the axiom tend to be violently killed; therefore, acceptance will provide an evolutionary advantage over those who would simply accept decrees from those in power.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • The Clinton administration opposes mandatory Internet filters. But the filters are included in the annual spending bill to finance operations of the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services, and it is unclear if President Clinton would veto the huge spending bill because of his objection to a small part.

    Why this is the last paragraph in the article when it should be up near the top to make obvious the corruption in government is beyond me... but that's not the main point my my comment. I seem to recall something about a presidential line-item veto, where the president could (IIRC) veto a single line item on a bill. Was that just something that someone was trying to get passed recently? (Which is to say, within the last twelve or so years.) Or is it real? And if so, what would stop Clinton from using it here?

  • Anne Marie writes:
    There is an interesting argument to be made on this point: the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits slavery within the borders of the US. But can't this sort of rigorous parental control be understood as a form of slavery? Girls who have the biological power to get pregnant are denied the right to an abortion without their parents' approval in many states; they are so much chattel to be disposed of by their fathers.
    How immature and selfish of you to even say such things! Parents are legally responsible for their children, no matter what their physical development. If a child breaks something, the parent is legally obligated to pay. If the child steals something, the parent can be held responsible.

    Look, you and your "no-questions-asked-teenage-abortion-rights" ilk have it all backwards, I think. Actually, the problem goes way farther than that.

    Used to be that girls could get married before the age of fifteen. That's right, even the Virgin Mary was probably no older than 14. It was societal convention. In that pre-industrialized world, the education afforded boys by the time they were fifteen was sufficient to make it "out there" and support a family of their own. They didn't need their parents to support them; they could actually do it themselves with what little they knew.

    Boys used to either start their own farm on a parcel given to them by their parents or began a trade practice of their own as a journeyman. Apprenticeship would have been over by the time the boy entered his middle-teen years.

    More importantly, boys were considered "men" legally by their middle teen years. The Jewish Bar-Mitzvah is a party that celebrates the "coming of age" of a boy. After his Bar-Mitzvah, a Jewish boy is, in the eyes of the Jewish community, a man, and he's only 13 years old. The Jewish Bat-Mitzvah is the girls' "coming of age" celebration.

    Today, I think that even the brightest bulb would be hard pressed to make it with such a meager launching pad. Kids, therefore, stay at home longer today than at any other time in the past. They're expected to increase their education through advanced schooling, and their parents are expected to care for them for an extended period of time (legally, to their eightteenth birthday). They stay in their parents care longer, and their parents are morally and, more importantly in this context, legally responsible for them longer than at any other time in the past. We extend childhood more than any other society ever has!

    Premarital sex (fornication?) wasn't as much as a problem then; kids could get married much younger. Teenage pregnancy was expected of married teenage women.

    As long as parents are legally responsible for their children, their wishes and desires carry more weight than the child themselves, as long as the wishes and desires are legal.

    How about this: We don't let kids vote. We don't let them legally smoke or drink. They can't enter into legally binding contracts. They can't sign waivers. They are barely allowed to drive cars. They can't buy firearms. Why do you think all this is? Could it be that we as a society think that children aren't yet able to properly conduct themselves in an increasingly complex and demanding world?

    If you really want kids to be liberated from their parents as pre-adolescents, the answer is easy: return to a pre-industrial agrarian society where the education collected by a thirteen year old is adequate to get along in life. That's all you need to do.

    Jeff

    Jeff

  • Simiilar things happen in the UK, with the county names Essex, Sussex and Middlesex, and the historic region of Wessex. Various regionally named web-sites get blocked for the same reason.

    There was also was a well document issue of people from the town of Scunthorpe having difficulty with AOL.

  • When politics, or religion, try to force their way into 'controlling' some other area of society it never is a good thing. As you say, we all suffer.

    It's just too bad that at the moment the only 'people' that matter are the ones with lots of money and no brain cells. 'We don't want that responsibility!' seems to be the rallying cry. It's sad really. More and more we see the government trying to make parenting easier by removing choices from parents (or just plain removing the responsibilities that a free parent should have). And some people actually seem to enjoy this idea! What an odd world we live in.
  • Every public library I have ever been in has a subscription to either or both playboy and penthouse. Funded with public money. Anyway the issue isn't keep kiddies from viewing pornograpy, its about censorship. Blocking software improperly blocks many many other things than porn, even when there not supposed to. Look at peacefire.org for info on that..but then again, almost anyone reading this sotry has probably read that site at length already. IMHO the only reason that the legeslature is trying this, is because its high profile. These are the same people who probably didn't care about logging in national forests, but were up in arms over flag burning.

  • In spite of the flame I know I'm going to get, here are a few things to ponder...

    First, suppose John Doe enters public library and uses public library's computer to access illicit material (such as child porn, etc.). Now suppose 5-year-old kid sees John Doe John Doe's screen with said illicit images and asks his mom what that is. Mother is outraged. What is the library's legal liability?


    Second, there's a position at the library called "acquisitions head." This person is responsible for making decisions about what and what not to purchase on a daily basis. It's called "selection." It's one major reason many libraries do not carry "Hustler." Censorship? Maybe. Illegal? Absolutely not. Libraries are also constrained by budget. How does this apply to the internet? That's a fuzzy area, but many libraries view the internet as part of their "content," and libraries do review content based on a mix of popularity, quality and community standards.


    Finally, I am personally aware of one library's filtering standards and protocols. This library has the capacity to override blocks and will review blocked sites at patron requests. The system has worked, and is configurable and customizable, and has generally been viewed as a positive thing. It's not about censorship so much as it is about making sure inappropriate material is not made readily available to minors. Is it a perfect system? No. But it has been almost universally well received in the community and has the flexibility to allow humans and human decisions to have the final say.


    This topic has been raging for several years now, and it is not likely to go away. And remember: for every person who claims it is a violation of their First Amendment rights, there is a parent who has the constitutional right to expect that their child won't be exposed to "inappropriate material" at school or at the library. There is no easy answer, but simply viewing filters as "censorware" is far too simplistic.

  • Here's my idea. Hire some old women about the age of your grandmother. Have them sit next to you while you're on the net. Would you go to sexwithmidgets.com with your grandmother sitting next to you? Neither would I.

    No, but you might no go to find information about something like sexually transmitted diseases, either, which is of significantly greater importance than sexwithmidgets.com. The problem with censorware is not just the random blocking of completely innocuous sites, but its inability to distinguish sex for sex's sake and explicit images and text for health's sake. A page might have 'penis' and 'vagina' and 'sex' all over it, but it might also be a very important source of information.

  • I believe that a core agenda of some members of government is to restrict information. It isn't exactly censorship, as the tools they use are necessarily blunt, as much as a general attitude that an excess if information is bad. The most recent example of this behavior is the debates; the candidates did not want to voters to 'get confused' about the core issues, so left out the other candidates for President. It is also instructive to remember that G.W. Bush would have been happier if there weren't any debates at all.

    This concept of To Much Information relates to the Internet in schools. The worst thing about the Internet is not that kids can see naked people, but that kids have access to a huge amount of previously hard to obtain information. If it were about naked people, we would just place the monitors so that grownups can see the screen. But it is not. It is about what we will allow our kids to know. Many groups have spent millions of dollars trying to rid our schools of information that they do not agree with. All that money wasted if the kids can now download a copy of Sex: A Users Manual.

    It gets even more insidious. This bill is an unfonded federal mandate, despite that fact that many members of congress ran on the opposition to this practice. Libraries are now going to have to spend money on Censorware and support personnel. This money will come out of the book budget. Some people will count this bill as a success if it does nothing more than prevent the library from buying the latest Harry Potter book.

    This bill is the latest in a continuing fight between those would want free and clear paths for disseminating information, and those who fear it. It is not only about the funding of libraries, but also the funding or visual and performing art. We can fund a sports stadium with massive amounts of public financing, but just look at the fight that goes on with the National Endowment for the Arts, a pittance in comparison.

  • It goes without saying that this is a bad idea. Doesn't the president have some kind of technology advisor? If so, how in-tune is this person with the ever growing arena of technical advance? ICANN got their technical man. It's time we did too. Maybe we need someone who deals just with computer/internet technology.

    If paper burns at 451 degrees farenheit, at what temperature do floppy disks burn?
  • "Why the (ii)? Are adults allowed to see child porn on school computers?"

    Note that (i) only requires schools to have selected a technology. Without the (ii), they could merely decide which technology would be an appropriate filter and, arguably, not even bother to purchase it. While clearly not in the spirit of (i), it's within the letter of (i).

    So, (ii) makes it clear that, yes, the technology selected must also be implemented and enforced. Also makes sure that the admin can't say, "Huh? We gave it to the librarians to use," and the librarians can't then respond, "Huh? admin gave us this stuff, but don't know what to do with it, " eliminating a potential wall of plausible-deniability.

    And, yes, I think that adults are allowed to access "obscene" material. Remember, this is a measure targeted at preventing minors from accessing the material, not adults. Of course, if said adult accessed hypothetical pr0n while children were watching, that might be a problem.

    This is all speculation, and just my attempt to translate legal-ese to normal-ese. IANAL & IANN (I am not a layer and I am not normal :)
    -----
    D. Fischer
  • I read online about a gentleman going to a site for the popular computer game Deus Ex, named after the legendary latin god of the machine, Deus Ex Machina. The address was http://www.deusex.org. He was at a high school library at the time, however, and the 'sex' in the URL set off an alarm with the librarian. Despite his pleas otherwise, he was kicked out of the library, PERMANENTLY.

    Furthermore, the banning of certain words does nothing to prevent obscene visual or video content. All I can see such a bill accomplishing is a lot more pictures and a lot less words at porn sites, or a sudden proliferation of that annoying hybrid word 'fsuck'.
    ---
  • That "AP" at the beginning means it's an Associated Press story. It has nothing to do with CNN.

    Oh, I thought that AP meant American Press. Just like CNN means Communist News Network and Reuters means We're Foreign And Veddy Proper.

    And, even if it is AP, that means it could have been a reporter from Hoboken, NY, for all we know.

    All the news that's fit to knit ...

  • Why Christians are against it, and you should be (Score:3)

    by bluGill ( 862 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @10:52AM (#701853)

    Has anyone taken a look at a list of banned books lately? Consisently in the top five is the Bible. Christian's want some way to keep their kids from being exposed to evil, but not at the expense of preventing someone interested from reading their religious documents.

    I've read several of the top 10 books, and in my expirence, half are worthless trash that should never have been written, and half are absolute treasures worth being required reading everywhere. Most people agree with that statement, but disagree with the which books belong to each list.

    I still like Minnesota's solution to this problem: it is illegal to view poronographic material in a public place. You can see it at home if you want (I think libraries can have it in a backroom) but you cannot view it in public - which few people would anyway. This nicely side steps the issues like "Is breast cancer research porn or not?" (For most 15 year old males it is, but some have relatives affected by breast cancer it is not)

  • Joe Slashdot's Reaction (Score:3)

    by DragonHawk ( 21256 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @02:28PM (#701854) Homepage Journal
    Why, this is outrageous! It infingines on my Constitutional Rights as an American! I won't stand for it! I'm going to call my Congressman! I'm going to call the ACLU! I'm going to call ...

    *blink*

    ... hey, Eric, is that a new Quake III mod you've got there?

  • You want info, WE GOT INFO (Score:3)

    by blach ( 25515 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @11:49AM (#701855)
    The bill Number is HR4577. It is currently still in the house but on the Senate Calendar.


    The phone number for the congressional switchboard is:


    202-224-3121


    Now use your powers for good and call your Senators and Representatives.

  • Re:Why Christians are against it, and you should b (Score:3)

    by mpe ( 36238 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @11:42AM (#701856)
    Has anyone taken a look at a list of banned books lately? Consisently in the top five is the Bible.

    Not surprising considering we have murder, genocide, (incestuious) rape, etc. That's just in Genesis.

  • Why this is bad.. (Score:3)

    by HydroCarbon10 ( 40784 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @12:40PM (#701857) Journal
    Ok, we probably already know why this is bad, but I'd like to post an experience I've had with being at a school that chooses to implement censorware.

    1. You can't get any real research done. Our censorware is controlled by idiots who block things such as this [addictions.org]. I've also found that many pages relating to theoretical physics are blocked (and I know the content of the blocked pages because of google's cache feature, so I know for a fact that there was no good reason to block the page). I really would have no problem with censorware if it just blocked porn, but it doesn't. The censorware installed here not only censors porn, it censors political ideas. 2600.com is blocked, aclu.org is blocked, as are the web sites of many other political groups.

    2. Because of our censorware people are scared to even use the internet. Every time you hit a blocked page a nice red screen with large white text appears notifying you of this. This tends to scare people, not just because it is an evil red screen, but also because the *wonderful* stigma attached to the internet.

    3. Most of the stuff that *should* be blocked isn't. For example, it took weeks before the *main* back orifice 2000 site was blocked, and all the netbus sites are still accessible (yes, we do play with the censorware, what else is it good for ;-) ).

    4. It's worthless because of open http proxies.

    I think a better solution to the 'problem' would be to *gasp* let people report abuse. It's not too terribly difficult to tell if someone surfing for porn on a terminal sitting in the middle of a library (hint: they're called EYES, use them on occasion). Perhaps the push for censorware is just a way to create a scapegoat, so people can say "See, we installed safeguards to keep you out of that" and no longer bother themselves with doing they're job and *watching* what's going on. Censorware is a quick and easy fix to a problem that really isn't that big, and could easily be fixed if we weren't so lazy here in America.

  • Re:And who picks the sites to be blocked? (Score:3)

    by Flounder ( 42112 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @10:57AM (#701858)
    Actually, MY grandmother ASKED to see where this internet thingy had all the dirty pictures.

    SHUDDER!

    Sorry, no matter how cool your grandmother is, that's just not right!

  • Re:The bill itself (Score:3)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @11:10AM (#701859) Homepage
    From Memoirs v. Massachusetts:
    • as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that

    • (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex;

      (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and

      (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value


    --

  • Re:do something! (Score:3)

    by pigpen_ ( 56028 ) <leklund@tastytronic.net> on Monday October 16, 2000 @11:43AM (#701860) Homepage
    be sure to include the bill information:

    H.R.4577 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 -- Title VI - Children's Internet Protection.

    The text of Title VI is here [loc.gov]

    lukas

  • Re:Huh, what? (Score:3)

    by technos ( 73414 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @11:01AM (#701861) Homepage Journal
    Bingo..

    Most of the filtering software is either too permissive or not permissive enough for the Christian Coalition/AFA. The most permissive censorware doesn't block the references to homosexuality, communism, athiesm, sex, etc, that they want. The more restrictive software labels the Christian Coalition and the AFA a 'hate group' and censors them.

    There doesn't seem to be a happy medium; As soon as the software spectrum shifts so that evil things like 'homosexuality' are blocked, so are they.

  • The letter I sent to my representative (Score:3)

    by cananian ( 73735 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @02:24PM (#701862) Homepage
    This is the letter I sent to my representative -- you may borrow from it, if you like, to help draft yours.

    The chief of staff for Rep. Ernest Istook said his proposed legislation to require mandatory internet filtering in all federally funded schools and libraries "seems like it's a no-brainer to the average Joe". It may be, but the average Joe is wrong.

    Internet filtering is not just ineffective -- see for example the extensive reports written by the Censorware project at http://www.censorware.org/ -- it is opposed to the most fundamental principle of both schools and libraries: education through free access to information. Surely we do not want to force such critical assests as our libraries through *anyone's* sieve, certainly not as undemocratic a sieve as most net filtering products are (net filtering companies usually refuse to disclose even what they are filtering to the public, much less submit their blinders to democratic review). See the results of the censorware projects "Foil the Filters Contest" at http://www.dfn.org/Alerts/contest.htm for an idea of how pernicious this technology can be: every filtering software product which Dick Armey recommends blocks *his own web site* at the House of Representatives because it contains the word "dick". Do we really want such blocks in every school and library in the land?

    Finally, such technological measures are destined to be ineffective to those who really want to access pornography. The losers will be the law-abiding citizen.

    I hope that you will work to defeat this amendment to bill HR4577 and work to convince your fellow legislators that, despite the appearance of being a "no-brainer", this proposed legislation is a danger to the very fabric of our democracy.

    Sincerely,
    C. Scott Ananian
    MIT graduate student.

    Use congress.org [congress.org] to locate and email your representative.

  • assholes who don't know the constitution (Score:3)

    by kevin805 ( 84623 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @08:10PM (#701863) Homepage
    In my extremely arrogant opinion, idiots who throw around terms like "constitutional right" when it isn't a right guaranteed in the constitution should be packed off to China, Cuba, or some other well intentioned utopia.

    What "constitutional right to expect that their child won't be exposed to inappropriate material at school or the library"? What country's constitution are we talking about? The U.S. constitution doesn't contain either of the words "school" or "library".

    If you want to say how things should be, feel free. If you want to make up parts of the constitution that aren't there, expect to be made fun of.

  • Old hat... (Score:3)

    by pongo000 ( 97357 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @10:36AM (#701864)
    CNN is way behind the ball on this one...Applelust had an editorial [applelust.com] on this back in June.

    The underhanded way in which Congress routinely hides laws with far-reaching impact in things like appropriations bills (when was the last time you perused one?) is thoroughly disgusting. It perverts the entire idea of a democracy.

  • Usual censorware arguments don't apply (Score:3)

    by xant ( 99438 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @12:04PM (#701865) Homepage
    A frequently-heard argument when discussing censorware and private organizations is "they're private, they can do whatever they want."

    Folks, this is the US Government mandating censorship. This is unconstitutional and specifically prohibited by law.
    --

  • Huh, what? (Score:3)

    by Xzzy ( 111297 ) <sether@@@tru7h...org> on Monday October 16, 2000 @10:47AM (#701866) Homepage
    Ignoring the obvious problems with this thing congress is attempting, I noticed something else in the article:

    "[...] state chapters of the Christian Coalition and American Family Association [are] opposing the initiative".

    Is it just me, or this interesting? The article reports that these groups are saying this is a "bad way" to educate children about internet usage.

    Again: Huh, what? Isn't this directly against what these groups have sought to achieve in the past? Even in the same article, CNN comments on this:

    "Internet filtering has been a priority of many conservative groups, including Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition and the American Family Association."

    What's going on here? Can anyone maybe offer some insight as to what's going on with these groups to bring about such an apparent turnaround?

    Are they afraid that if one extreme (pornography) gets censored, the the other extreme (conservative views) will get the same treatment? Or is this merely them stating that, while they want sexual content filtered, they do NOT want the government enforcing it?

    If it's the latter that's true, I may alter my view on these people a tad. Not enough to hop in bed with them, but it is an interesting insight.

    If it's the former.. heh.. no comment. :)

  • Re:Censorware (Score:3)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) <jhummel.johnhummel@net> on Monday October 16, 2000 @11:11AM (#701867) Homepage

    Here's what I'd like to see if this law is to become real.

    I don't like censorware - not because I want to surf porn, or because I want my daughter checking out "Naughty schoolboys from lab D" - I don't like censorware for the reason that it contains a list of sites that are "bad for me", but I can't find out what sites are "bad for me" so I can argue the sites that are "good for me" - take the black-listing of the National Organization for Women for having the word breast in it, or sites banned that talk about AIDS prevention because they might say "penis". (Great - I just got Slashdot on the banned list...)

    As part of a greater endeavor, I'd support a blocking/censorware project if it contained these pieces:

    • The program is open-source to save libraries and citizens $$$.
    • The list is published with a list of the site, and why the site is blocked.

    The reasons why to publish the list: This way both the public and the maintainers of the list can debate what sites are blocked and why. (Most of us can agree we wouldn't want Hentai Lovin' as an approved site, but some might argue about The Misanthropic Bitch - and that debate would be healthy for both us and our children.

    And having the project be Open Source would mean that Joe Public could use it at home (yes, give them binaries) and know that little Johnny wasn't going where he wasn't - without fearing that little Jenny is being denied information that they need.

    As always, I'm John "Dark Paladin" Hummel. And that's my opinion.
    John "Dark Paladin" Hummel

  • Re:real slavery (Score:3)

    by JustShootMe ( 122551 ) <rmiller@duskglow.com> on Monday October 16, 2000 @11:59AM (#701868) Homepage Journal

    I don't buy it. To me the "morality" of abortions is a morally hazy thing. If it were me, I wouldn't get one, but I respect that it's enough of a grey area that I would rather err on the side of liberty. Therefore I'm pro-choice.

    I'm not pro-abortion. Just pro choice. I don't believe it's apropriate to filter our view of morality on others - at least until the baby is, by all standards, viable. *all* standards.

    Otherwise, keep your nose out of a woman's choice. If it's not your choice to make, stay the hell out.

    And actually, I'm a man. I'd never ask a woman to get an abortion. And I probably wouldn't stay with a woman who aborted my child. But if I have nothing to do with it, the most I'd do is talk to her as a friend. And I wouldn't begrudge her her choice with her own body.

    Frankly, I'm really tired of religions trying to tell people what to do with themselves. I really wish people would keep their religions to themselves and just love others.

    Flame away. I can take it. I really don't care.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

  • ...NEWS FLASH... (Score:3)

    by Moorlock ( 128824 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @10:42AM (#701869) Homepage
    Washington, DC (GPI) - In a move which left observers stunned, members of Congress today did something mind-numblingly stupid and short-sighted.

    "I'm shocked," said one, "shocked, I say, that for momentary political advantage and the crass pursuit of power, our noble congresspeople would stoop to enacting unwise legislation."

  • Re:idiocy (Score:3)

    by Anne Marie ( 239347 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @11:08AM (#701870)
    Libraries aren't being called bastions of evil -- that's just a red herring of political forces rallying against filters (who have plenty of rational reasons for opposing them, without resorting to fear-mongering -- I should know, since I'm one of them). The real matter is much more sinister:

    What is at stake here is parenting. Do the libraries have the power and right to educate children (or allow children to educate themselves) without first being sifted through parental control? Or must parents be afforded the constitutional power and right to determine what their children know and experience, because they are their children.

    There is an interesting argument to be made on this point: the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits slavery within the borders of the US. But can't this sort of rigorous parental control be understood as a form of slavery? Girls who have the biological power to get pregnant are denied the right to an abortion without their parents' approval in many states; they are so much chattel to be disposed of by their fathers. It harkens back to hundreds of years of legal systems of marriage where the wife was legally indistinguishable from her husband and so couldn't initiate suits in her own name, much less seek divorce or protection from battery.

    Libraries are just a convenient middleman. They don't want controversy -- they just want to pursue knowledge without consequences, consistent with ideals of science and enlightened thought. When politics starts to enter into this quest; when ethics boards get formed and regulations get heaped onto these disinterested parties, all of humankind suffers. All of us: woman, daughter, and child.

  • HO hum, how useless (Score:4)

    by gmhowell ( 26755 ) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Monday October 16, 2000 @11:04AM (#701871) Homepage Journal
    Hey, Slashdot, how about some actual news. Such as, THE BILL NUMBER!! How else am I supposed to call my senator and complain?

    The official /. mantra (I believe begun in earnest during the Hellmouth series): "It's bad, it's bad. Sit here and bitch, don't do anything about it. What would we bitch about?"

  • And who picks the sites to be blocked? (Score:4)

    by Flounder ( 42112 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @09:57AM (#701872)
    At either extreme, you are going to have sites blocked that shouldn't be blocked. The extreme left would love to block any religious web sites, anti-abortion groups, the NRA, and sometimes Slashdot. The extreme right would love to see Planned Parenthood, Gun Control, Inc., the Sierra Club, and somes Slashdot.

    Here's my idea. Hire some old women about the age of your grandmother. Have them sit next to you while you're on the net. Would you go to sexwithmidgets.com with your grandmother sitting next to you? Neither would I.

    It's not censorship. Just think about it. In a public area (libraries, university computer labs, etc), only go to those sites that you would go to sitting next to your grandmother.

  • Re:And who picks the sites to be blocked? (Score:4)

    by Flounder ( 42112 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @02:35PM (#701873)
    I consider myself extreme left, and I wouldn'y want to see any sites blocked.

    Well, I'm as extreme right as you can get. No, Nazi-ism is not the extreme of right wing, anymore than totalitarian-ism is the extreme of left wing.

    But I don't believe what I'm going to say. I agree with you. The first amendment is in place to defend speech that others would deem offensive. Without it, what's to stop a government from eliminating it's detractors. Everybody is offended by something. Eventually, if you talk to everybody, you'll find that there's not one thing in this world that somebody isn't offended by. The government's job is not to protect people from offensive speech, it's to protect offensive speech from people.

    I'm offended by Jon Katz, as are alot of other people here. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have a right to express his viewpoint. Just because it's there doesn't mean that you have to listen to it. There's another channel to watch, another radio station to listen to, another web site to visit.

  • The bill itself (Score:5)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @10:46AM (#701874) Homepage
    The bill number is hr4577, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, TITLE VI--Children's Internet Protection. Check thomas.loc.gov [slashdot.org].

    It's strange that it's so unspecific. Perhaps necessarily so, since no software can guarantee blocking all illegal images, unless it prevents all access.

    • (B) CERTIFICATION- A certification under this subparagraph is a certification that the school, school board, or other authority with responsibility for administration of the school--
      • (i) has selected a technology for its computers with Internet access in order to filter or block Internet access through such computers to-- (I) material that is obscene; and

      • (II) child pornography; and

      (ii) is enforcing a policy to ensure the operation of the technology during any use of such computers by minors.
    Why the (ii)? Are adults allowed to see child porn on school computers?

    And does it mean "block ALL material that's obscene"? Certainly they couldn't expect that... everyone would be in violation. So do they mean "block SOME obscene images"? "Try to get as much as possible"?

    Also note that Playboy doesn't count as obscene or as child porn, so this bill leaves the decision to block sites such as playboy up to the individual libraries. It just says that libraries must block images that everyone has supposedly decided is extremely offensive.
    --

  • do something! (Score:5)

    by pigpen_ ( 56028 ) <leklund@tastytronic.net> on Monday October 16, 2000 @11:18AM (#701875) Homepage
    If all you slashdotters really do believe in the freedom of speech and do not want the federal government censoring our libraries, then do something about it.
    • Step 1 - Find out who your representative [congress.org] is in the House of Representatives
    • Step 2 - call them, write them, email them -- whatever it takes to let them know that you are against censorware in our libraries.
    If you send an email, includes links to censorware.org [censorware.org] and the winner's of the foil the filter contest [dfn.org].
    --
    lukas

  • Censorware (Score:5)

    by kenf ( 75431 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @10:03AM (#701876)
    Maybe we could get a provision included that any censorware that is used to satisfy this law must make public a list of sites blocked, and why.

  • My complaint (Score:5)

    by gunner800 ( 142959 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @10:49AM (#701877) Homepage
    Does it seem tyrannical to anyone else that the federal government taxes states' citizens, then threatens to withhold that tax money if the states don't go along with the federal plan?

    They even do it to bypass Constitutional limits on what the Federal government can do. The states are supposed to be in charge of education, but the Fed can get away with this sort of sh*t in that area because the programs are state run and "federally funded".

    If my state (Oklahoma) wants to install censorware (and it probably does), then the state legislature can pass the damned tax themselves (with voter approval)!


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • Re:And who picks the sites to be blocked? (Score:5)

    by Snocone ( 158524 ) on Monday October 16, 2000 @10:00AM (#701878) Homepage
    Would you go to sexwithmidgets.com with your grandmother sitting next to you?

    Errrrrrrmmmmm...

    Actually, MY grandmother ASKED to see where this internet thingy had all the dirty pictures.

    Depends on how cool your granny is, I guess...

Slashdot Top Deals

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Close