CIPA Before The Supreme Court 209
Jim Tyre pointed out the excellent collection of links on censorware.net to coverage of yesterday's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court about the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), as promised by this story last month. There's also a link to the place where transcripts of the oral arguments will show up about three weeks from now.
Gotta protect the internet (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Gotta protect the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a parent, your kid's probably caught you having sex. It hasn't warped them. But you can imagine the problems your kid would have after seeing a killing.
Which brings up the whole point of parental responsability - parents today are too lazy, self-centered, or unaware, and let their kids see over 7,000 violent acts (including rape, murder, etc.) on Tv and at the movies, before they are 18.
So, the real solution would be for parents to sit down with their kids and watch the same shows they watch, surf the net with them, and discuss what they (the kids) see.
A more logical (and effective) choice than CIPA would be to unplug the television.
The CIPA is a sham (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The CIPA is a sham (Score:2, Interesting)
But it creates liability on the providers for knowingly allowing minors access to pornography, which is something that lacked before.
It should be just as illegal to allow kids to download a bukkake mpeg off the internet as it is to rent one at the local video store.
Re:The CIPA is a sham (Score:2)
Re:The CIPA is a sham (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The CIPA is a sham (Score:2, Interesting)
That's it, problem solved. If it's safe, it applies for a
Re:The CIPA is a sham (Score:2)
Also, if little DoogieH. wants to learn about astrophysics, who will make a site for it in the .kids.us domain?
The .kids.us is opt-out, the .xxx is opt in.
Child porn should be legal (Score:1, Funny)
There you go, there's the "con" argument in a nutshell.
This type of legislation would be irrelevant if people werent such a bunch of douchebags.
Re:Child porn should be legal (Score:3, Interesting)
Child porn is not free speech because it violates the rights of the child.
That's not a common argument against photoshopping (Score:3, Interesting)
By that notion, something like a Final Fantasy-style kiddie porn movie would not be illegal as no actual child was involved. The usual arguments quoted is: KP promotes more KP, or that the burden of proof is too heavy (prove that this is *not* a photoshopped picture).
By the way, here it's illegal to give the appearance of being underaged. This goes both by having people above legal age play younger, drawings, photoshop cut-togethers, whatever. Probably means something like Lolita (the remake, with the older stand-in) is illegal here, if you follow the letter of the law.
Kjella
Um, wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
There you go, there's the "con" argument in a nutshell.
Wrong.
The "con" argument, in a nutshell, is that although child pr0n is illegal and undesirable, no filters are perfect and will completely block it out - rather, they're MORE likely to block out things that are not pr0n... i.e. the National Organization for Women's Breast Cancer site. Planned Parenthood's Condom use site. Perdue's Breasts 'n Thighs informational site. They're less likely to block out the billion pr0n usenet posts from anon.pinet.fi
Just as it has been said that our justice system is based on the premise that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison 1 innocent man, it is better to allow access to 100 pr0n sites than to censor a truly informational and useful site.
That's the "con" argument. I'm not for child pr0n, but I'm even more not for censorship and you deciding what my child should be allowed to see. :)
-T
CIPA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CIPA -- Wrong. The issue is funding, not speech (Score:2)
In short, while the speech is allowed on the Internet, the government is not required to use tax dollars to provide you with a way to get it. (This analysis would be different if the government was the only way to access the Internet, but thankfully that's not true, at least in the U.S.)
Re:CIPA -- Wrong. The issue is funding, not speech (Score:2)
Re:CIPA -- Wrong. The issue is funding, not speech (Score:2)
Now, if the situation was one where the act singled out speech that was narrowly addressed to library patrons (e.g., criticism of libraries or something), the Court would be very suspicious because then the act would be preventing the speech from reaching all or nearly all of its intended audience, which looks a lot more like censorship.
Re:CIPA -- Wrong. The issue is funding, not speech (Score:2)
Re:CIPA -- Wrong. The issue is funding, not speech (Score:2)
In the end, libraries are a discretionary service provided with taxpayer funds and the Constitution and courts give pretty broad deference to the legislative arm of government to decide spending issues. I'm not saying it always a good thing (it certainly would be nice if the courts could strike down pork barrel spending -- "Your honor, why are you striking down my important study on the mysterious number of socks lost every year in dryers?" "Because its stupid. Next case."), but its pretty much the way it is.
Re:CIPA -- Wrong. The issue is funding, not speech (Score:2)
Re:CIPA -- Wrong. The issue is funding, not speech (Score:2)
Re:CIPA -- Wrong. The issue is funding, not speech (Score:2)
Re:CIPA -- Wrong. The issue is funding, not speech (Score:2)
Re:CIPA -- Wrong. The issue is funding, not speech (Score:2)
Not only that, but it's fairly easier to filter them out, if you were so inclined. I still think filtering is wrong, but that's becuase I had no internet acess but that at school for some time, and trying to get past such fun categories as "Non-Traditional Religions", "Political Groups", "Drugs", "Advocacy Groups", "Sex" (Not pornography, "Sex"), "Hacking" (it actually calls it that), or "Illegal/Questionable"..
Re:CIPA (Score:2)
Re:CIPA (Score:2)
Re:CIPA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:CIPA (Score:3, Interesting)
You're missing the point. Kiddie porn would be on the internet, and the internet is not supposed to be censored. Killing people/other terroist actions are still very much illegal and so is having sex with a minor. Building a website telling people how to make a bomb isn't illegal.
Re:CIPA (Score:2)
Re:CIPA (Score:2)
Censorship is useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you be happy having your children (if you have any) seeing people having sex on the street? No? Why not? Aren't you "shield[ing them] from the truth and reality"?
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:2)
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:2)
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather they see sex on the street than killings on the street. We don't prevent kids from seeing over 7,000 violent acts on TV by the time they're adults (including rape and murder).
Actually, this (sex on the street) happened on time ... a couple parked their convertible, with the top down, in front of my sisters' place, and started screwing. It was lunch time, and my niece came in and told us about it. We went outside and looked, and the couple only a pair of socks between them.
Was my niece traumatized? No, she couldn't stop laughing about it. I'm sure that if it had been a killing, it would have had a much worse effect.
So what did we (the adults) do? Told them to get a motel room (after we stopped laughing).
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:2)
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:2)
Ohmigod, you're right! I hadn't thought of that! I'll go poke their eyes out.
Inappropriate response, no? That's _exactly_ what CIPA does.
-T
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:3, Interesting)
Compared to some of the things legally allowed on the streets [fxi.org.za], what harm is a little sex?
The United States is founded on the idea that the most hate filled, selfish, racist, sexist, asshole is free to collect up few hundred friends and march through the streets to spread their message of hate. I just fail to see public copulation as beign nearly has harmful to kids.
My biggest concern would be for the poor couple. Wouldn't the asphalt be a bit... chafing?
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:2)
Truth and reality... What truth do you speak of? Do you realize that we have the power to _change_ and _define_ what reality is for our children? Why does that reality have to include child pornography, rape, torture, and other mind pollutants?
If you don't have children of your own, then I can understand why you have your view point. If you're still in school, then even more I can understand that you speak of the theory of censorship, not how certain things can rot out one's mind. Do you know what evil is? Imagine what you think evil is and multiply times 1,000. You're still not even close. I can't tell you what it is, but your journey through life will reveal it to you in many ways. I don't want my children subjected to that.
Our children are our future, so let's teach them right. Don't listen to the ACLU - they're hell bent on undoing anything that is good and pure in America. Yes, that includes the minds of our children. Take a good look through their site and see if you disagree. I'll be surprised if it doesn't turn your stomach some of the things they support.
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:2)
Yes, the ACLU has every right to express their opinions. Just as I have every right to disagree with them and put their opinions down.
I'm not going to sit silently while they wave their arms and call attention to their disgusting positions.
I'm standing up for what _I_ believe in, and that's all. Don't expect me to hold someone's hand while they disparage what I believe in and attempt to make my beliefs an impossible reality.
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:2)
I used to think that there should be no compromises when it comes to our civil liberties. Probably a lot of people don't get what I'm trying to say (I noticed I have a few freaks now on my user page, LOL!) but whatever. Arguments like this are bound to be polarized.
I don't understand why it has to be all liberties or no liberties. I believe that times have changed and the landscape of our society is a much different one than it was say 10 years ago. As a result, what used to be effective may not be today. Take for example people's selfish attitudes. How many people would rather take a chance of running you over than stop for 10 seconds and let you cross in front of them?
Common sense is a thing of the past. You now have people blatantly taking advantage of the system. People profiling other people and digging through law books figuring out just what they can get away with.
The legal system is the new central nervous system for the country. If it's not a law, then it doesn't matter because being "good" isn't important. Being on the right side of the law is all that we are _required_ to do. If you happen to live in a town or city where this isn't true, then great for you. That's all I've been seeing, though. Or maybe the bit of news I listen to is enough to bring my outlook down this much.
So what other option do we have than to mandate certain core values through law? Can you honestly say you want things to stay the way they are or get worse for a few more generations? Or can we make some changes to get everyone back on track and thinking along the same lines once again? If our society erodes any more, I fear that future grassroots movements to improve our quality of living will be squashed due to absurd laws being passed today.
Re:Censorship is useless (Score:2)
That's like saying "life sucks, get used to it". I'd rather improve the quality of life for my children.
Even if your children grew up in a world without evil, somebody else's children will invent some new shit to throw at them.
True. That's why saying "parents should decide what's best for their children" isn't good enough. Someone else's parents will inevitably think the beating someone else up is okay, porn is okay, etc...
Trust me, I know that the world is not perfect and that my child will find that out sooner or later. But why fill their minds with trash before they've barely learned to read? Why do people pretend there's a Santa Claus? He's not real, tell the kid. Because the child should get to _be_ a child. It's going to form how they think and act the rest of their lives. They can think with pure hearts or polluted hearts.
Ask yourself one more thing: if we don't try and clean our environment (or at least stop it from getting decayed and decadent), how the hell is the world going to get any better? Right now I see a country full of stressed out and unhappy, but "free" people. What good is free if you can't enjoy it? What is your opinion of other humans in general if you know the world is full of whackos and psychos, etc.. who all have their right to spread their filth? Will you begin to shut out everyone because they might be sick?
Food for thought.
Censoring children from the real world = bad idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether it be censorship on the internet or parental censorship of a pr0n mag, I think censorship to "protect" our children is a bad idea. Hurts more than it helps.
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:5, Insightful)
Life should be nothing but minivans and soccer games at this point. They're children, let them be children.
Some social worker showed up in my daughters 2nd grade class talking about homosexuality and how it should be accepted and all of that crap. It's all way above their heads and not something they need to be concerned about.
I agree with you to a point, but if you dont place limits, you wind up with kindergarten teachers indoctrinating children to their world views. I have no problem discussing anything with my kids when they ask. I do have a problem with some stranger forcing them into discussions that they dont need to have, or want to have.
The *parents* should be the ones who decide what a child is exposed to. And I think its unfair that we're dumping the weight of the world onto 7 year old shoulders. Let them just be kids. There'll plenty of time to learn about war, sex, violence, and so on.
Mod, erm, parent up. (Score:2)
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:2)
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather than suggesting that parents be parents and set rules and limitations for their child, lets step aside and allow the child to run the show.
I've seen what that leads to. Some friends of the family had a daughter who was given EVERYTHING she wanted. Today, at 24, she refuses to hold down a job, is heavy into drug and alcohol abuse, and expects her father to provide for her and her 2 illegimate children. And heaven help him if she doesn't get it NOW!
Let children be children, yes, but let parents be parents! Parents are supposed to set limits on children. Bad shit happens when children are allowed to set the rules.
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:2)
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:3, Insightful)
That only works until they turn into a teenager. Then you have a problem on your hands far worse than any child that watches the news, trusts you, etc. If you're lucky they won't break the law just in spite of you.
Bad things also happen when parents are not responsible guardians and guiding friends. When you are the "parent" in a position of authority, where your children are told to be seen and not heard, you lose a bond between you that could prevent almost all the problems we encounter with teens and young adults acting irresponsibly.
Or at least that's my opinion. But YMMV.
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:2)
As for the parent child bond - being a parent is much more important than being a "friend". If you as a parent act in a way to promote trust and respect your children will come to you for help.
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:2)
What I am talking about is more related to their lives after they turn 18. Children are almost never educated about the real world we toss them into when they turn 18, yet we expect them to be responsible, etc.
When I was 16 I had my own car, made my own meals, drove myself to school. I had a parent around the house 2 days a week. A cupboard full of alcohol and a room full of marijuana. I completed highschool, taking AP courses with a 3.1x GPA or some shit. I smoked with my friends only after those AP tests and only a couple times a week or during the summer. And right after highschool I got a job and started my career in the tech sector.
Now I have no faith in capitalism, the US gov't or its people or most parents. But that's probably because of the weed.
What am I saying? I don't know. Freedom and education is better than law?
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, rules enforced, but not brutally enforced, and explained in a reasonable manner will be respected. (Usually. Children are different from each other.) And if the rules are respected, then the teenager will argue against them rather than just flout them. This can be exhausting, and occasionally enlightening. But it doesn't result in the dire consequences that you are dreading.
The important thing is that the children must respect the rules, but this sure doesn't mean that they must live in fear of parental abuse. Respect means respect. Fear means fear. They aren't the same concept at all. One can both fear and respect something, e.g., nuclear radiation. One can fear something without respect, e.g. an abusive authority figure. And one can respect without fear, e.g., an elegant mathematical proof. The rules should be respected with the fear that is traceable to an understanding of logical consequences. If you tell a child to not stick his hand in a fire, the rule can be respected because of the undesireability of the logical consequences.
Now it's true that when children are young, it can be difficult to explain the reasons
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:2)
You obvioulsy have no children. I consider my self an open minded person, but I censor lots of things when it comes to my kids. Violent movies, pornography, movies and books with adult themes that they wouldn't understand. I also don't let them play on the highway - no matter how much they think it would be an enriching experience.
Children are happier, and grow up more confident if their parents set firm, fair rules and limits. Does this mean I pretend that sex and violence doesn't exist? No. The evening news, books, the birth of a cousin, all can prompt kids to ask questions that I answer with information appropriate to their age.
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:3, Informative)
How would you feel if your child was talking with their friends about homosexuality and decided they wanted to be gay? What reasons are there not to be? This is one topic that I think needs a lot more discussion, not less.
And censorship is always wrong, in any case. No amount of censorship hid the real world from me. But it did make me far less trusting towards most adults. Tradition is one thing, but attempting to force your system of beliefs on your kids is something completely different. It'll bite you in the ass one of these days. It bit my parents.
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:2)
I doubt very much that anyone has ever decided to be gay. Experiment maybe, but it would be like deciding you like tomatoes - either you do or you don't. The idea that being exposed to the idea of honosexuality could in any way make any sort of permanent change in a person is ludicrous.
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:2)
That said, it appears to be possible to torture people sufficiently to, at least temporarily, override their (appearantly) built-in preferences. In either direction...(check out the conditioning that the Spartan Hoplites went through).
But simple images won't determine things. Ideas may be contagious, but not to that degree. (Even low-level brain-washing doesn't change the sexual orientation, though, as I indicated earlier, more "rigorous" brain-washing procedures can do so. With a fair amount of success for at least a short period of time...if there was a follow-up study, then I'm not aware of it. The original study was about conditioning prisoners in, I believe, California.)
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:2)
The *parents* should be the ones who decide what a child is exposed to. And I think its unfair that we're dumping the weight of the world onto 7 year old shoulders. Let them just be kids. There'll plenty of time to learn about war, sex, violence, and so on.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The parents should be the ones who decide what a child is exposed to.
Not the government. Glad you're against CIPA, too.
;)
-T
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:2)
What the real problem is, is that adults find really horrible things entertaining (World's Scariest Animal Attacks III) that are NOT like real life. (Or at least, I've never been attacked by anything more fierce than a mosquito) It's the media we need to protect the kids from, not real life.
Your real fear is that we're protecting them from their own emotions, and I fear that too.
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:2)
Let me tell you something: kids aren't "little adults". Their brains are simply not developed to the point that yours and mine are. They're incapable of reasoning the same as a full grown human.
Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:1)
I took it up with the teacher, and she started in on the whole "well its part of the culture they grow up in" liberal shmeal.
I'm against censorship on paper, but people push things too far.
How about parents raise their children... (Score:4, Interesting)
Naw, that would make sense, better to have a third party to blame/sue when your child turns out to be a mass murderer/cult wacko.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about parents raise their children... (Score:2)
When was the last time Congress ever voted to give anybody more power other than to themselves?
They occasionally pass pieces of legislation that give the president authorization to conduct "police actions" instead of a real declaration of war, but that's more a matter of "Congress avoiding blame" than "Congress giving up power."
They occasionally pass new campaign finance "reform" laws, but all they do is funnel money to the two major parties and special interest lobbyists, effectively giving more power to the people that put them in power to begin with, so that doesn't really count either.
There was that "new" constitutional amendment saying that Congressional raises don't go into effect until the next term, but the vast majority of Congressional elections are won by the incumbents. A calculated risk at best.
Of course Congress wouldn't vote to give up any of the power they've collected for themselves. Why would they? Who's going to stop them?
The same goes for the federal government in general. Could you see something like the Eleventh Amendment getting proposed in this day and age?
bah [friendsforamerica.com]
Re:How about parents raise their children... (Score:2)
Put Congress into the electricity business, putting them in control of guaranteed loans.
"Voting rights act?"
New voters grateful to the incumbents that passed it. Nothing like it got passed until the minorities started to form clear electorate majorities.
"Motor voter bill?"
If it is a federal measure (which I doubt), legislation would increase the number of "registered voters" without increasing the actual number of voters. Also requires people to register even if they are deliberately not registered.
Censorship (Score:1, Redundant)
It's too easy to abuse this law (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's too easy to abuse this law (Score:2)
Next you'll say it's wrong for an adult to look at their naked child.
Soon, they will pass laws that it is illegal to be born naked!
Nudity is only notable in that it is a purely learned sensitivity. I imagine it is too much to ask you to get over it?
Re:It's too easy to abuse this law (Score:2)
Don't laugh ... people have been arrested because they took baby pictures of their kids in the raw, and some store clerk called the cops because it "might be kiddie porn".
These same people probably think that any sex outside of marriage is wrong, too. When it comes to neurosis/hang-ups like this, people tend to have more than one...
Parents and others need to swallow their pride (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want legislation to protect children then you people need to swallow your pride, fear, and anger and treat everyone fairly.
You have not done so.
Nobody owes you peace of mind. You are not entitled to it anymore than anyone else in this world. You have a responsibility to resist the temptation to use every sledgehammer approach you can think of to get what you want.
Extreme statements like, "Do everything possible to _____" might make great news media drama for morons who still get their news from television, but all it really does is make you look stupid, hostile, irresponsible to make even Ulysses S. Grant blush, and downright hatefully dangerous.
Well said! (Score:2)
my little brother (Score:1, Troll)
I have to say that as much as I don't like the limitations on freedom, anything to protect children is a good thing. The people out there are evil and sophisticated and we have to do everything in our power to stop them.
Re:my little brother (Score:3, Funny)
But look I can still get lollipops any day of the week.
Re:my little brother (Score:3, Insightful)
1. what software is installed on the computer. Chat clients can be configured to log sessions to disk. The parents could then have read the logs and realized what type of situation the child was getting themselves in.
2. what the children are doing on the computer. Placeing computer equipment in a public place in the house, instead of having a "computer room" allows parents to monitor what their children are doing on the computer. Some people think that kids need their own computer. This can be done, but the way a friend of mine handles it is to not allow external access from the kids computer. If the children need to do research, they can do it on the one computer in the house that can go on the internet, and save their research on a shared drive.
3. communication. Parents need to warn their children about what issues they may encounter on the web. What parent waits until their kid touches a hot stove before telling them it can burn them? So why wait until they get into a potentially dangerous situation before warning them of the dangers they can encounter on the net?
These are the things I plan on doing as my children get old enough to begin using the internet. I would like to see what other ideas people have.
A better solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Increased monitoring is a better solution because it would allow legitimate research to continue, and wouldn't allow a particular company to dictate what is allowed and what isn't. As we have seen, much of the censorware on the market is overly restrictive, and in my opinion, biased. They restrict anonymous browsing, and, who know what spyware could be embedded in their products.
Re:A better solution (Score:4, Insightful)
But cruz, you might say, what if they were looking at hate speech or something that isn't easily identifiable by someone just walking by the computer? Well, I say to that, that kind of stuff shouldn't be censored anyway. If it's text, it pretty much should be allowed to be viewed. (Okay, I know, 15 ACs will reply to this with good reasons why some text shouldn't be allowed to be viewed in a library... flame away...)
Re:A better solution (Score:2)
Don't forget that means the public (including kids) will be "monitoring" what anyone (including adults) are doing on the computer. That includes accidental or intentional visits to goatse. I'd suggest putting them in a public area, but facing the screens / placing dividers so that the screen contents aren't "broadcast" to the entire room.
-
A double-edged sword... (Score:4, Insightful)
And even if they didn't care, it's more than I'd like to know. For instance when I was abroad I was at this webcafe, and the line was basicly right behind the machines. Without looking at the screen in particular, I still saw the large "GayChat" logo in the corner of one of the screens. Not that I have anything against that, but I really don't feel the need to know anything about strangers sexlife.
Granted, I don't give a flying fuck because I can surf for that at home, but not everyone can that. But given that filters aren't perfect, I do understand that having a "human" filter is used. But it's certainly not perfect either.
Kjella
Re:A double-edged sword... (Score:2)
Good point, but small screens in a public area are not too bad (tough to read text without being right in front)... also, what about turning on the 'images off by default' option in the browser, and any images you want (including those GayChat logos) you have to manually load? Thus, the pr0n images would either not show, or if they were loaded, they'd be really obvious.
-T
Start with the parents... (Score:4, Interesting)
The best way to handle questionable content is for parents to take an active role in their kids' upbringing, and teach them how to handle material that they will unquestionably come across online.
Making the Information Superhighway safe for kids (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no substitute for parental supervision. I'd tell parents:
You bought the computer for your child. You paid for the internet service. You brought the big scary electronic world into your house and set your child in front of it. It's not the government's job to make it safe for your kid.
The real consideration (Score:2)
"Hmmm... How do I rule on this so that *I* can still view porn?"
The best filter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The best filter (Score:2, Interesting)
Stuff like this isn't done in the open unless by the hard core addict.
A kid or some teen isn't going to do that in public while supervised by parents / administrators.
robi
Re:The best filter (Score:2)
That just means that when an anyone accidentally or intentionally goes to goatse that you are putting it in view of the kids. Creating a "public disturbance" just draws the kids' attention to it. The screens should be arranged to minimize "incidental" viewing. That also makes it better for someone who wants to write personal e-mail or research medical information etc.
-
That's pretty cool! (Score:1)
Khalid
I’d comment on the oral arguments link… (Score:5, Funny)
If you believe in censorship shut the f*ck up (Score:2, Flamebait)
The simple fact is porn is only easy to come by when you look for it. Just like in the real world, any responsible parent/teacher should supervise their children regardless of whether they are watching TV, using the Internet or walking down the street.
It is common sense. We don't need new laws for the Internet, we need to educate judges on how to apply the old ones, because they work just fine.
Re:If you believe in censorship shut the f*ck up (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? Type in the name of any popular video game, as if you were looking for cheats or walkthroughs. Pretend you're 8 and searching for Pokemon.
Or pretend you're a little girl searching for songs from her favorite boy band.
How many clicks does it take until you see the first pornographic banner?
Re:If you believe in censorship shut the f*ck up (Score:2)
From "Naked Boobies" to "Midgets Fucking Dogs" (Score:2)
Either you've never surfed for porn or you're hiding something, because 90% of the porno websites I've visited usually offer various links for different tastes, including: Teen, Ebony, Gay, Anal, Japanese, Mature, Midget Fucking, Dog Fucking, etc. I don't know about you, but it's almost seems impossible to only surf tasteful porn without being bombarded with some seriously henious shit.
Fortunately, Most 10-12 year olds will probably laugh at people fucking dogs, but there will be some (I remember growing up with fucked up kids) who's interest might be piqued. Some of those kids will have grown up to be dog fuckers anyway, but would ALL of those kids have grown up to be dog fuckers if they hadn't been exposed to it at a vulnerable age? Obviously not...
Most kids are more impressionable the younger they get while other kids will always be inpressionable well into thier adult years. So far, we've been talking about 10-12 year olds. I remember being interested in sex when I was 5-6 (I knew what a dick and a cunt was...) So who's to say that 7-10 year olds AREN'T looking at porn (when they can get away with it). If they're surfing the same porn sites I'm surfing, I'm pretty sure they've been exposed to a lot. By the time a kid is 12, he knows that dog fucking is pretty fucked up. At 7-9, I'm not so sure.
A kid at that age will pretty much do any stupid thing if it interests them and they can get away with it.
So, Do you want to keep making stupid blanket statements?
OR
Are you willing to ask tough questions, investigate carefully, and accept the answers even if you don't like the answers?
Oh yeah, if I believe in censoring *my* kids, should I shut the fuck up, or does that just apply to gov't censorship?
Re:If you believe in censorship shut the f*ck up (Score:2)
I know people who are this stupid and stupider.
They listened to MY work! (Score:4, Informative)
See also Bennett Haselton's comments on the hijacking [sethf.com] and Jonathan Wallace's comments [sethf.com]]
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)
I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering [sethf.com] efforts in anticensorware work [sethf.com] as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:
Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.
Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.
Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.
As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.
This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:
BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php [sethf.com]
BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php [sethf.com]
SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translatorse stevils.php [sethf.com]
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/great
The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php [sethf.com]
-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com [sethf.com]u its/19HACK.html [nytimes.com]
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/ [sethf.com]
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/ [sethf.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circ
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901
some fresh air (Score:2)
i see all the high and mighty negative indignations here, and i have a small notation for all of you huffing and puffing over this:
it is an opt in system, not an opt out system.
see?
so it in no way forces any of us, or anyone else, into a smaller shoebox
i mean, freedom and democracy, hurray hurray!
but: save your fire and brimstone for the real fights, because there are some big ones looming, capice? (ashcroft's follies maybe?)
again, there's nothing to fight over here folks, move along. you've been baited and hooked. chill everyone, we're a little too trigger happy for our own good.
Slate (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, probably the best recap isn't mentioned in the list. Take a look at Dahlia Lithwick's analysis on Slate:
The Supreme Court finds a library porn filter it can love. [msn.com].
Re:Slate (Score:2)
Won't someone PLEASE.... (Score:2)
What I think people are missing (Score:4, Interesting)
And if libraries refuse, if they leave some computers unfiltered, they lose federal funding. I spend a lot of time in libraries, and see a lot of people getting their internet access from such public terminals. Would <i>you</i> settle for filtered access only? Do you think others should just because they don't have money to spare for a fast computer and high-speed connection?
As far as child-rearing is concerned, libraries aren't baby-sitters. If parents don't trust their kids unattended in libraries, then they shouldn't leave their kids unattended in libraries. Or they should teach their kids and trust their kids to do what is right when left alone.
Censorware - a primer for non-techies (Score:2)
Free speech? We don't have free speech. (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre, because it'd likely do harm.
Why should people be able to download porn (which is, AFAIK, restricted by age in most states) in a public place, such as a library?
Frankly, I'm all for filtering such things. If you want to wank it, buy your own computer, or start a Library of Porn. (Hmm, new Slashdot measurement? LoP?)
The problem, of course, is that filtering software blows chunks. First of all, it will never be able to block all of the porn all of the time. Second, it's an easy matter for some nutjob on the extreme left, right or even center, to add a bunch of sites that he or she doesn't find acceptable to the list - pages about Republicans, Democrats, the Green Party, et cetera. Now *that* damages the idea of free speech.
The idea of free speech, as set down in the Constitution, means I can't have a certain acquaintance of mine placed up against a wall and shot every time he spews idiocy such as "Bush is evil! Oil oil oil! Waaaaaaah!" Okay, sure, sometimes I'd really like to see him shipped to Siberia.. But I think we can all generally agree on the fact that people aren't shipped to Siberia for not referring to elected officials as 'our beloved leader!' is a *good* thing.
And that's what 'Freedom of Speech' means. The right to have dissenting opinions. It doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want, whenever you want. It doesn't mean you have a divine-given right to browse porn in a library.
It means the country won't turn into a Nazi Germany. A Soviet Union. A North Korea. An Iraq.
Filtering systems being installed in libraries, while at first glance, a noble idea - are simply a dangerous thing lurking under the surface. It'd be far too easy to block access to dissenting opinions due to the general craptitude of filtering software.
Re:I plan on distributing pr0n... (Score:2)
Is there a +1 flaimbait? Cause that's some damn good flaimbait.
Re:Future Links (Score:2)
But the censorware won't allow anyone at the library to look at the links because of the word "oral".