Cingular Filtering Porn From Wireless Web?

Atryn writes: "Cingular Wireless is reportedly blocking its customers from accessing 'objectionable material" via the Wireless Web.' The spokesman mentioned in the story disclaims knowledge of any blocking -- can any Cingular customers reading this confirm it?

So?

[neksys]

Unless you're looking at ascii porn [spacebarcowboy.com], who does this affect? doesn't the Cingular network support primarily text-based devices? I apologize if my understanding of this is incorrect.

The FCC probably requires them to.

[Dr. Zowie]

Ham packet radio and even CB are subjected to the FCC's rather stringent requirements against profanity and obscenity. I remember this being a big deal when I daydreamed about setting up a packet-radio ISP link in the early 1990s -- even sort-of-innocuous newsfroups like rec.nude could get you into trouble. I'm not sure what's different now with 802.11b.

280 words you can't say

[ka9dgx]

My understanding is that at least one of the wireless carriers has a list of 280 words you can't send via wireless. (Unless it's pay based, then they don't care). They fear that they might offend someone, and have a class action lawsuit brought against them.

Don't even think of saying "redneck"... it's offensive.

I've seen the future, it's not free, open 802.11b, it's people using WAP phones playing games, paying 20 cents to get the high score on a round of a trivia game, ending up huge phone bills. Just think AOL before they went flat rate.

There's money in pay per click.

Press SEND to get high kharma (for only 20 cents)
--Mike--

pr0n!=bad for kids

[Sean Clifford]

Okay, gotta sound off.

Why is pr0n 'bad' for kids? When I was a kid, I looked at pr0n out of curiosity of what the big deal was. From puberty on, I looked at pr0n because of raging hormones. I wasn't sexually active as a teen, but sure looked at a lot of pr0n. It didn't turn me into Osama bin Laden.

I just don't understand why Americans get into such a snit over sex and pornography; and yes, it's mostly Americans. Most everywhere else in the world porn and sex aren't that big of a deal.

You can't really censor out pr0n; when I didn't get it from BBSes there was always my dad's magazine collection. It's just not worth the effort, except for stamping out child porn. I mean, really, can anyone demonstrate that pornography is bad for kids?

Re:So?

[ziplux]

That's not the point, the point is Cingular is setting a very dangerous precedent here. They are electing to limit bandwidth not based on the volume of data transfered but on its content. As we know, the consumer drives the market and if consumers want the ISP to filter the Internet WITHOUT their permission then other companies will adopt this policy. Pretty soon there will be no other option for people that want their Internet in its original unfiltered state.

Re:Well...

[shepd]

>You LEASE access to the ISP's equipment

Back in the "bad old days" you leased the phone from Bell. You still lease phone lines from the phone company.

Did/does Bell block you from phoning 900 numbers?

Did/does Bell block you from phoning _any_ numbers?

If Bell did block you from certain phone numbers, was it because you were breaking the law in some way?

If not, did you sue?

Now you see where we're heading with this.

Heck, does the airline say how you have to sit in their seats on the plane?

Does the bus driver tell you not to stand up on your leased seat on the bus?

Does a nightclub owner tell you how to dance?

Apart from safety/legal restrictions, no. If there's any other restrictions (like no torn jeans at a club) you are politely informed prior to entering the club that it isn't acceptable.

>If you don't like it, get another ISP, but ultimately that's the way it works.

Normally when you are discriminated against due to your thoughts clashing with those of another without prior warning or them having a good solid legal reason to stop you from accesing/doing certain things, the lessor may be on the hook for a lawsuit.

Depends where you are and how severely they decide to restrict you.

EG: If you leased an apartment and decide to bring a leather sofa in it and the landlord stopped you, it had either better be in the lease agreements (specifically) or be a fire hazard, because otherwise its expected you can put furniture in an apartment.

Now, if you decided to bring a box of bongs in the apartment the landlord would have good reason to stop you.

Since most pornography is legal in the USA I don't see how the phone/cable company has a right to censor unless they wrote "We will censor anything we want, such as pornography, at any time" into your agreement.

This IS Censorship

[MaxPower2263]

This absolutely IS censorship. Just because it is a company and not the government...that doesn't change what it is.

"If you don't like the agreement, find another provider. It's their bandwidth."

There are two problems with this. First, most people with Cingular have signed some sort of contract. They don't have the option to leave, unless they pay some big fine, for something that wasn't in the contract when they signed. Second, the users pay for the bandwidth. If the phones run at 14.4 K, Cingular should have provisioned for users using 14.4 K. You can use up just as much bandwidth at amazon.com as you can at xxx.com over a 14.4 connection.

Finally, you all have forgotten the most important issue. If a company like Cingular starts censoring what people can see over their phones using bandwidth that they bought and people let it happen, it opens the door for other types of censorship. This is just like opening the can of worms (not like it hasn't been opened before but....)

pron!=bad, sex!=bad

[Sean Clifford]

To me - and many others - sex is not an expression of mutual love between two people. It's two (or more!) people having fun, enjoying the sexual experience together. This is exactly the problem I have with this "morality" business. What sex means to you and what it means to me are quite different. I do not want your view of sex foisted upon me, nor should my view get forced on anyone else. This is why freedom of expression exists.

Why must entertainment have redeeming social qualities? Does "The Terminator" have redeeming social qualities? Entertainment comes in many different forms; if you don't find pornography entertaining, don't watch it. But don't interfere with the right of others to do so.

The objection to pornography on the grounds that it objectifies people as sexual objects is ridiculous. People lust after other people, regardless of whether or not they're acting in a skin flick. Whether you see other people selfishly as only objects of sexual desire says more about a person's lack of character than it does of the pornography industry. I'm quite able to have non-sexual interactions with other people - that consists of most of my interaction with other people. Can I have a strong non-sexual relationship with someone I'm attracted to? Sure. Can I have a strong relationship with someone I'm NOT sexually attracted to. Yup.

As to the question of why I'd look at pictures of sex when I can have sex - well, I wouldn't. When I can have sex, I have sex. When I can't have sex, I don't have sex. I think that's true of most people.

Regarding a partner. First, you assume I'm straight, and yes it's a correct assumption. No, I'm not married and have no desire to get married; I don't believe in the institution of marriage.

Yes, I've had loving, intimate relationships that have lasted longer than most marriages. Nor do I believe that intimate relationships must necessarily be sexually monogamous; that depends on how you and your partner feel about it.

Do I find my girlfriend sexy and think she's great? Sure. Just because I look at pornography or have sex with other women doesn't mean that I don't love her and find her satisfying. Just because you love steak doesn't mean that you won't eat chicken. Sex is an appetite. By the same standard, I don't get bent out of shape when she looks at pornography or has sex with other people.

Obviously, I don't subscribe to the puritanical view of sex that you describe. I just don't find pornography self-degradating or degradating of others. The reason that women are viewed as objects aren't because people lust after them after seeing pornography; it's because Western culture has historically treated them as property at worst and second-class citizens at best.

As to the right to do stuff: yes, it's my right to view porn. And yes, just because I can do something doesn't mean that I should. For example, just because I have unfiltered internet access at work and CAN view porn at work doesn't mean that I should view porn at work. I don't. Of course, that's not what you meant. But I can't think of another context where I'd find it wrong to look at porn.