Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites 1716
cluge writes "A recent American Rifleman contained small column that said that Symantec's new Internet Security 2004 would block pro gun rights sites (i.e. NRA sites), while not blocking similar anti-gun rights web sites. Being the eternal skeptic, this claim was tested by downloading the trial version and running some tests against it. To my surprise I found the every NRA site was blocked and was in the category 'weapons.' This even included the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. Some sites that were not blocked were notable anti-gun rights sites such as The Brady Campaign, and Good Bye Guns. The only anti-gun rights site that was blocked that I could find was Hand Gun Control's web site." Read on for more.
cluge continues: "My rather informal test still raises the spectre that a large corporate entity may be clandestinely trying to sway you or your child's political views by censoring content from one side of a political debate. This is indeed chilling, especially considering that such software is required to be used in libraries to protect children. Is this political slant common in censorware? Have slashdotters found similar glitches in other 'parental control' software?"
Slashdot has certainly covered censorware before, but reports like this are still valuable as the world evolves.
ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Informative)
The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I hope they prove such suspicions wrong.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Symantec is, or course, a private company, and so may block whatever sites they wish. However, since this type of software is specifed in CIPA, there certainly could be issues there.
ACLU on CIPA [aclu.org]
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Informative)
In point of fact, it is the "left-wing" of American politics which has been the champion of people's rights. "Right-wing" politicians have been on the wrong side of these issues for over thirty years. At least since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And incidentally, the ACLU does fight for the rights of all Americans. They have fought right along side Republicans in the past. Such as when they fought the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law as a violation of the first amendment. Conservatives everywhere had to STFU about the good ol' ACLU on that one. But everyone forgets so quickly. Especially as the ACLU is often at odds with Conservatives...but this is primarily because conservatives are so often at odds with the Bill of Rights. Go figure.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bull. It's been about power, who has it, and who wants it. Left/right wing has meant pretty much nothing in terms of who votes for what bill that infringes civil rights, except that the right wing will tend to fight for freedoms in certain areas that the left wing won't and vice versa. Neither will stand up for something like free speech if that gets in the way of some other agenda.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they may simply disagree with your interpretation as to what the rights of Americans are! *SHOCK*
I very much doubt the people in charge of the ACLU sit in a boardroom going:
ACLU 1: Haha! Now we may destroy the rights of the common man in pursuit of the international communist conspiracy!
ACLU 2: I agree! It's a good thing we don't need to think about actual interpretations of anything and only need to determine what a left wing stereotype would do!
ACLU 1: Yes, the world certainly would be difficult if there were more than two political positions!
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:4, Insightful)
They may disagree with the content of the web sites, but they should defend the rights of those with whom they disagree to have their say--especially when this sort of stupid blocking software is mandated by the government for use in schools and libraries.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
The ACLU is unlikely to see anything wrong with what Symantec is doing. How would forcing Symantec to be more "fair and balanced" support free speech in any conceivable way? Symantec is not the government, and isn't required to support any particular viewpoint. In a free society, you fight back against something like this by providing a competing alternative choice. However, consider that in today's America reading pro-gun sites in school could make your teachers nervous and/or get you suspended or expelled. It's easy to see why there's a lot of paranoia over this issue, and with people getting expelled for writing fictional stories about school shootings, I understand why Symantec chose to block these sites. I don't even think it neccessarily represents their political agenda, but rather the expectations of the user base for this kind of blocking software.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
The ACLU doesn't look at most issues in a case by case basis. They realize that the best way to protect your constitutional rights isn't through the congress or through the executive, but through the court system. Consequently the ACLU isn't looking at issues case by case for what they agree with, they are looking for cases that will make very strong precidents for the future issues they agree with.
Now then, when the Govt required libraries to block access to porn sites in the interest of "protecting our children" the ACLU steped in and helped fight it. Today libraries must be able to remove those blocks at a moments notice should someone have a desire to view those sites who is not a minor.
This is based on previous precidents reguarding obsenity and indecency.
The Symantec system (potentialy) represents a MUCH STRONGER precident beacuse it does not hit those obsenity laws at all. Noone has made an effort to declare handguns or firearms indecent or obscene in their community and consequently this sort of thing provides the ACLU with a great case to overturn laws requireing such a system.
The ACLU will fight this if given the chance, not because of what Symentec is blocking, but because Symentec is blocking ANYTHING.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Informative)
For some real second amendment fun, folks should check out http://www.jpfo.org the guys who had the temerity to place the 1968 Gun Control Act next to a translation of pre-WW2 Nazi-era gun control laws, and let folks see the similarities for themselves. Although the JPFO site doesn't advocate violence, I'm sure the censorware blocks it if they blocked the NRA (and believe me, JPFO & NRA aren't exactly buddies even though they're both "on the same side of the issue"!).
The ACLU is wonderful on freedom of speech, but there are various other rights (not just self-defense, either) they desperately-need to start thinking-about, or they'll continue to be pigeonholed as irrelevant leftists IMO. Economic liberty, for example, should not be just for the rich, and the ACLU could set a few examples to that end almost-effortlessly (while simultaneously tweaking the fans of that "Patriot" act nonsense which is sweeping the USA at the moment).
JMR
Speaking ONLY for Jim Ray and NO other company/individual/entity/etc.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:4, Insightful)
How delightfully manipulative of them. Just because the Nazis had some really nasty and horrible idiology doesn't mean that EVERYTHING they did was bad. They did not stop making regular decisions because it wasn't evil enough.
You could probably find some crazy group that agrees with your opponents in any argument and use the agreement against them, but that is just low.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only willful misreading could get such a meaning out of the 2nd Amendment.
the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'
I'm not sure how deliberate your misreading needs to be. The only real problem is how you reconcile the first part of the sentence with the last, and I don't think the confusing word is well-regulated, or even arms. I think the word you'd have to interpret is "people". I think I'm fairly safe in saying that "the people" in the Constitution is often referring to the country as a whole, not individual citizens.
Consider Amendment V - No person or Amendment VI - the accused. Each time they didn't use a generic "people" because they were giving specific rights to specific people. However, notice Amendment X. Here there are clearly three general layers of government: Federal, States, and "The People".
No body argues that "The People" of the United States should be allowed to own guns, but the amendment doesn't have to be contorted to say that INDIVIDUALS aren't necessarily uniformly given that right.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider Amendment V - No person or Amendment VI - the accused. Each time they didn't use a generic "people" because they were giving specific rights to specific people. However, notice Amendment X. Here there are clearly three general layers of government: Federal, States, and "The People".
No body argues that "The People" of the United States should be allowed to own guns, but the amendment doesn't have to be contorted to say that INDIVIDUALS aren't necessarily uniformly given that right.
"The people" referenced in the 2nd amendment are the same "the people" mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Your interpretation above (that the words "person," and "accused" "gave" specific rights to specific people (btw, the constitution does NOT "give" rights, it GUARANTEES them!)) would suggest that the right to assembly is not, in fact, an individual right, but a collective right.
Imagine being told that "the people" had the right to assemble, but that individual persons (in fact, all of those who make up "the people") were not allowed to attend a political rally.
BTW, the below is my sig and not part of this comment.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the founders simply meant that we should have unfettered access to weapons, everything before the comma is extraneous and misleading. The founders were not idiots, and Jefferson was not an incompetent writer. Every syllable is there for a purpose.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the founders simply meant that we should have unfettered access to weapons, everything before the comma is extraneous and misleading. The founders were not idiots, and Jefferson was not an incompetent writer. Every syllable is there for a purpose.
Not being a fan of guns I hate to point this out but the original poster is correct. What the second ammendment says is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This should be paraphrased as:
"We have to have a well-regulated militia in order to ensure the security of the free State. In order to have a free militia, the government cannot pass laws that infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms."
There are two important parts to understanding this. First the writer(s) are stating that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right. The amendment doesn't grant the right, it recognizes that it already exists. Second, the reason for the pre-amble is that the writer(s) are explaining why it is necessary to explicitly re-state this right. Its almost like they are saying "look, I know this is a bit odd, but we really need to keep the right to bear arms because it is the only way to maintain a well-regulated militia, and we need that to maintain freedom".
Now, I personally disagree with the view being stated in the amendment - I don't think we need individuals bearing arms to keep freedom in the modern world. I am in favor of gun control. But I do believe the second ammendment states that the government cannot pass laws that infringe on the right to bear arms. Therefore I have to reluctantly accept that the second ammendment means what the NRA claims it means.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a page [2asisters.org] I found the other day, that had an interesting analogy in it: examine the sentence
If you believe, as you appear to, that the first bit in the 2nd Amendment implies certain restrictions on how to interpret the second part, then you should also believe that in the sentence above, people will only be allowed to read books if they are members of the well-schooled electorate. No, it's not misleading. It's just misleading you, into believing that Jefferson (no, Madison) intended that private firearm ownership be restricted to some sort of state-controlled militia. I notice that you in no way had any rebuttal to grandparent's point that Please respond -- preferably to the substantive issue, instead of with incorrect grammatical pedantry.Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:4, Insightful)
Updated to modern language: "A strong and vigilant citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The norm at the time being unlicensed ownership and use of firearms, it would be absurd to consider the amendment to be anything but a statement of the
Every other article of the Bill of Rights guarantees an individual freedom. Why would the second amendment be an exception? Indeed, if it were to be interpreted as you say, then isn't it patently obvious and ridiculously superfluous? Of course the
We're dealing with words over two hundred years old. If their meaning is not clear enough after updating to the modern vernacular, one need only consult the context: there would have been no American revolution had there not been a skilled armed citizenry to carry it out.
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:3)
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't find it now, but a few years ago I saw a web site with a photo of a Bill of Rights poster put out by the national-level ACLU. The Amendments were not numbered, and the Second Amendment was not on the poster! And IIRC they had split up one of the longer Amendments (the Fourth?) so
ACLU: NRA vs. NAMBLA (Score:5, Informative)
The ACLU is too busy defending the right to promote child molesting. [aclu-mass.org]
In self-serving fashion, the ACLU notes that the father of the murdered boy -- who is suing NAMBLA -- praises the ACLU for defending NAMBLA
Wired [wired.com] puts a different spin on it:
The ACLU interprets Roe v. Wade as meaning that minors must be allowed to get an abortion, without having to even notify [aclu.org] their parents (much less get their permission), and that taxpayers must subsidize abortions [aclu.org].
But "the people" in the Second Amendment means "the government," because a 30 year old woman is apparently too stupid to weight the risks vs. benefits of owning and/or carrying a firearm for self-protection, and can be denied the right to make that choice.
If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.
Constitutional scholars who have bothered to write about the issue in various law review journals do not agree with the ACLU's position. You can read the law review articles for yourself at the Second Amendment Law Library [guncite.com]. Much better than stuff put out by any pro- or anti-gun special interest group.
In justifying the ACLU's position on gun control, ACLU President Nadine Strossen said that [reason.com]
Statement #47 is VERY misleading (Score:5, Informative)
There are two interpretations of the 2nd amendment: The first says that it is a 'collective' right, that only state militias are given the right to bear arms; The second theory holds that this freedom is extended to individuals. If and when the SCOTUS hears these cases, many legal scholars expect the court hold the "individual rights" theory (please note that every other freedom spelled out in the Bill of Rights is extended to the individual). You probably have already figured out quite obviously that the 5th circuit takes the "individual right" theory and the 9th circuit holds the "collective rights" theory.
Also, Judge Reinhardt from the 9th circuit, one the most liberal judges on the 9th circuit (and perhaps the most liberal judge in the entire country), concedes (and correctly I might add) that ex-military and ex-law enforcement officers are not "super citizens" that are allowed to bear arms while the rest of the country is not.
For you legal eagles out there, here are the cites for the two cases:
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (2002) - this is the 9th circuit case
U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001) - this is the 5th circuit case.
The 9th circuit case is great because there is are EXCELLENT dissertations on both the collective and indivual rights theories. I'm glad things like this are on slashdot, we as geeks need to be more informed at the voting booth. Whatever side you take on this issue, just remember to vote!!
Thanks,
--Matt
Re:ACLU to help out? (Score:3, Insightful)
The armed citizenry exists to provide regulation of the militia, by being able to take up arms against the militia should they run amok. The same applies to the police... how many incidents of frustrated cops going on shooting sprees would we have if they didn't fear that some nearby civilian might have a handgun and intervene?
Whoever is responsible (Score:5, Funny)
The solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't use Symantec Internet Security 2004. It's not a violation of anyone's rights unless it's mandated by the government.
The twist is that federal laws require filtering software on internet connections provided at libraries. The primary purpose of this law is to prevent minors from accessing pornography.
Given that there are relatively few vendors of this sort of software, it is likely that many libraries are using this software. It is also likely that many of these libraries don't have the budget to purchase a competing product. Therefore we can reasonably expect that the government (taxpayer funded libraries) is engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
Consequently, libraries are faced with limited choices. First, they could expend extra money and time to purchase another product - which is resources that could otherwise be spent inproving other services. Second, they could turn off internet access altogether, further limiting the access of poor people to the net. Third, they could face a costly lawsuit. No good can come of this.
Oh shit... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh shit... (Score:5, Funny)
No problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory... (Score:3, Funny)
Disclaimer: I am an avid shooter and a member of the NRA.
Re:Obligatory... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory... (Score:5, Informative)
Go read a basic book on aircraft. Aircraft are presurized by bleeding compressed air from the engines into the cabin (after cooling it first). And how does the air remain fresh ?? BY BLOWING OUT OF THE HUGE HOLES AT THE TAIL-END OF THE AIRCRAFT.
There are ALREADY big holes in the cabin, and you don't see passengers being sucked out do you?
How much difference do you think a 9mm hole or two is going to make to the air pressure?? Even if a window goes, there will NOT much more than a strong draught.
Do you think air-marchals have magic bullets???
Re:Obligatory... (Score:3, Insightful)
The pilots wouldn't black out. The pressurization system can break down without armed assistance, and as such the pilots almost certainly have oxygen. Even in exposure to an instant pure vacuum, a person can remain conscious for at least fifteen seconds, more than enough time to put on a mask. At thirty-whatever-thousand feet with a few small holes in the airplane, they would have plenty of time. And it's unlikely that the pilot and
MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Wrong) (Score:5, Informative)
The noise of air whistling out might be a problem, but the people who just heard muzzle blast inside an enclosed cabin probably wouldn't be able to hear that in time for it to become a big concern either. If it bugs anyone, you can always stuff the hole with a corner of a pillow.
Default action? (Score:4, Insightful)
This stuff stinks (Score:5, Interesting)
Other "nannyware" software in the past has been shown to block access to liberal political sites, now here's one that blocks conservative ones. Maybe this will wake up our elected leaders to the fact that mandating this type of software for libraries and such is bad idea.
I can see parents going to the software store in the future, asking for web filter software and having the retail-droid ask, "Would you like a liberal version or a conservative one?"
Reminds me of a poem (Score:4, Interesting)
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte."
Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
English Translation [remember.org]
Blocking Software is bad for EVERYONE !! (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether you are "pro-gun" or in favor of controls doesn't matter a whit. Hopefully we can ALL agree that, though we may not always agree on each other's ideas, we need to work together to defend our means of expressing them.
Why this is a bad idea for Symantic (Score:5, Insightful)
And (heheheh) if Symantic custmers can't get information on gun safety, only non-Symantic customers will have gun safety.
Re:Why this is a bad idea for Symantic (Score:3, Informative)
Many people give the NRA the image of a bunch of rifle-toting rednecks who like shooting random things for kicks, but I don't believe that to be true.
The NRA certainly fights for 2nd. ammendment freedoms, but many people don't realize that the NRA also provides resources for safety and usage training so that people can be responsible with their freedom to own firearms.
NRA (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're going to block the NRA under weapons, they had better also block the DNR and any hunting group or association.
THIS IS NOT "DEFAULT"! (Score:5, Informative)
Parental Controls are an OPTIONAL part of INSTALLATION! I've never even had it on my computer, which means it's not an issue for anyone who isn't already interested in censoring someone using the computer (kids, etc.). Anyone installing/using the Parental Controls is sure to go through the options (how else can you determine what will be censored?), so this isn't some hidden "default" tactic to fight the NRA. Most parents (you can bet they research this stuff) will want pornography, weapons-promoting sites, etc. blocked, so it makes sense to have them checked by default.
Additionally, the reason the "weapons" filter would block the NRA but not anti-gun sites is simply the reason it exists - it's what parents want blocked - weapons-promoting sites. Symantec isn't just pulling this out of a hat, they're catering to the demands of consumers. This isn't censorship, it's not politically-motivated, and it's not an anti-gun statement by Symantec - it's economics and it's not being foisted on anyone.
Do we block the MPAA? (Score:3, Insightful)
The MPAA promotes a number of things. Among these are vivid depictions of people killing, maiming, and otherwise behaving in an anti-social manner with weapons. I dare say that there have been more murders, mayhem, and such inspired by products of the MPAA than products of the NRA.
Re:THIS IS NOT "DEFAULT"! (Score:4, Insightful)
Symantec makes poor judgment calls (Score:3, Insightful)
Thread summed up. (Top Ten List) (Score:5, Funny)
2. A Few retorts saying that even though Symantec is private, their software is being used in libraries, thereby censoring or applying their views to government funded institutions that are supposed to be neutral.
3. Huge flamewar about how gun control is good or bad.
4. People bitching about the ACLU and whether or not it will defend second ammendment rights and if it's a second ammendment issue or a first ammendement issue.
5. Nobody talking about how they could use a gun to go hunting and get food.
6. I hate Sementec / I love Symantec flamewar, what's the best firewall?.
7. Conservative Bashing / Liberal Bashing / George Bush = Adolf Hitler posts.
8. Are you still reading this list?
9. A LOT of posts about how the US sucks and the Euros and Japanese are doing everyting right with guns, crime, patents, and any other government regulation issues.
10. I have no sig, so I thought I'd make number 10 some kind of question on how to make a recursive post sig. How would it be done?
Why is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a parent, you have 3 choices:
1) Sit down with your child and explain what sites are acceptabe and which are not. Then either monitor their activity or trust them.
2) Assign the responsibilty of deciding which sites are acceptable by purchasing and using filtering software. Just remember that you are not going to agree 100% with the decisions made by any of these software makers as to which content is appropriate and which is not.
3) allow unfiltered, unmonitored access to the internet.
Just my 2 cents
The real problem - lazy parents. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really are pro gun-control you should be able to educate your children as to why you believe what you believe and respond to their questions. If your kid reads a pro gun site and has questions about the 2nd amendment that is the perfect opportunity for you to explain your views.
If you really are pro gun-rights you should be able to educate your children as to why you believe what you believe and respond to their questions. If your kid reads a pro gun control site and has questions about the 2nd amendment that is the perfect opportunity for you to explain your views.
The availibility of information (or misinformation) and viewpoints on the web is supposed to make us think about and challenge our beliefs. If you don't want your children to challenge your beliefs and think for themselves what kind of parents are you?
A non-US view (Score:4, Interesting)
Conversely, the Swiss are armed to the teeth and gun violence there is very rare. It's just that Anglo-Saxons will fight with whatever they've got - fists, knives or firearms - over pretty much any disagreement, but your average European will just make a rude gesture and forget about it.
I'm always amazed by how many posts gun stories attract on Slashdot though!
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux.
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh. Sarcasm aside, NG's got a point. Switching OS's to solve one problem will eventually lead to new problems opening up. I know lot of you would marry Linux given the choice, but the dude wants a simple solution to the particular problem, not a solution that'll be painful for him. If you tell him to switch so he can avoid viruses, then EVERY little problem Linux has will turn into reasons not to use it. As NG pointed out, your games stop working. (Well that's not really true, you can get a lot of Windows games working in Linux, but without trying it first hand I'm not sure how far I'd trust it.) If Linux doesn't have an app (or he can't find it) and he can't do something he could once do in Windows, he's going to turn around and say "why'd I even switch in the first place? All I wanted was an f'in virus scanner!"
Long story short, don't shout Linux every time a Windows user wants to fix a problem. Unless things go just right, you risk making them a Windows user forever. That's what happened to me. Everybody shouted at me about how great Linux is, didn't take me long to go back to Windows 2000. (I do plan on trying again in a year or so.)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sites that are "anti-gun" oriented generally do NOT have much to do with actual guns and their usage (except for statistics regarding fatalities, crime rates), ergo they are not different sides of a coin in the sense that's relevant to censoring the content.
I just get the feeling that people are way too lazy to even try to see rationale between different handling. I doubt Symantec is trying to censor discussion regarding "gun rights" and gun control laws, but rather blocking access to sites that have lots of gun (not gun LAW) content.
Above is just general idea, however, and it is likely that actual distinction between political sites, and gun hobbyist/nut sites is done as inefficiently as distinction between porn sites and sites with non-sexual nudity. But it shouldn't be THAT hard to see why blocking could divide sites, even without company commenting on gun legislation itself.
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, have you actually BEEN to the NRA's website? You're confusing a political organization with a sales & review website. There's approximately two guns I could see on the main page just now, both of which are part of the NRA ILA seal drawing.
The fact remains that this is political favoritism on the part of a corporation. Part of the problem with this that they do NOT state this as such. I plan on teaching my children to shoot starting around age 4, and my wife agrees enthusiastically. Being able to visit the NRA website allows kids to participate in NRA youth programs there, which all emphasize saftey around firearms.
The NRA is a political organization. The only advantage to blocking it is purely political. Even a cursory glance at the site will tell you that.
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think there is a valid arguement that justify having a system with no filtering at all. If you want to argue you should be able to verify your age to a librarian to have controls removed, fine. That still doesn't change the fact that a library has no business placing pornography within easy access to children.
I'm perfectly willing to say the way it's done probably should be adjusted to take into account the rights of adult. It's not even LEGAL for you to show those sites to your own children, so how can you justify a library doing it for you?
Speaking as a junior high teacher, I can safely say it creates an UPROAR when I sent kids to the Onion and they HAPPENED to have an advertisement with a woman in lingerie. I can't control what advertisements show up, and I'd love to have those filtered out for me, even if they site they show up on is perfectly reasonable to go to.
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
But given that libraries cannot generally carry every book, they must make decisions as to what would carry more social value. Thus the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, etc. ar all going to be purchased before Playboys or Penthouses. It's not that Playboys don't belong, it's that they have less value than other alternatives.
Providing access to the Internet is providing access to a wealth of information. Librarians don't have to make a conscious choice for every site. Including all sites is just as easy as including any. It actually takes more effort to filter than simply allow everything, and so the reasons why Playboys are not in libraries is disanalogous to Internet filtering.
What would be more analagous is if a library bought an extremely large encyclopedia, and actively ripped out pages containing offensive content. Most encyclopedias, of course, don't have anything as objectionable as what you can find on the Internet, but the principle is still the same.
protecting children (Score:5, Insightful)
As a parent, I also want add that it is a lot easier to protect my daughter from guns, porn, drugs and whaever other devil that they are likely to conjure up than it is from a system that becomes more and more like a police state.
Why arn't people discussing how to protect thrir kids from that?
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:4, Informative)
Don't get BlackICE Defender.
And I stopped buying Symantec products after they announced product activation. I mean jeez, how much money do they honestly think they're losing in the utilities business? As much as I dislike mcafee, I'll use them as long as they don't have activation.
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is true, I will be advocating a boycott of Symantec on my site. Slashdot it ain't, but it has a considerable number of readers and it's in Symantec's industry, security and privacy.
About your firewall, try Kerio or Sygate.
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Informative)
The author seems to find it double standards that it doesn't also block anti-weapon sites. That argument is plain ridiculous. That's like saying you can't block porn without also blocking anti-porn, and can't block crime sites without also blocking law sites.
No, I don't believe in censorship, but I believe even less in forcing people who voluntarily block something to also blocking something else. That smells badly of censorship too.
--
*Art
Missing the point entirely... (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes right down to it, the NRA and similar websites talk about the same things that that anti-gun sites talk about, i.e., guns and gun rights (gasp!). Thus if they (Symantec) followed their own insanity properly they would also lump anti-gun sites into the "weapons" category. So in the end, this really is a case of blatant anti-gun bias. The filter creators want your children to see anti-gun information even when you've told the filter you want to block "weapons" sites. They've made the political decision for you that it's OK to show your children "weapons" sites as long as they are anti-gun sites.
All I know is, Symantec products are crap, they're implementing activation features, and now this shite. It's the straw that broke this camel's back. I'll never buy or recommend another Symantec product.
Other people have made recommendations for alternatives, but here's mine anyway to help increase the signal-to-noise ratio:
Firewall: Kerio Personal Firewall [kerio.com]
Anti-virus: AVG [grisoft.com]
(Both free for personal use.)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
I could tell you that guns kill people and animals, and that's what they're designed for. Killing people is bad, so guns must be bad, right? Perhaps 20,000 people in any given year die to "gun violence," and if we got rid of guns, then there couldn't be anymore gun violence. I could also insert various statements that might sound true, but with a little investigation (that I'm not going to do for you), you'd find out that they were actually lies.
I could also tell you that in any given year, around four billion bullets are fired in the United States. So, 0.0005% of all bullets fired in the United States kill someone. Lots of criminals use guns to do violence, but overall the number of gun owners who manage to not rob/kill someone grossly outnumber the criminals. Millions of home invasions each year are probably prevented by the homeowner having and knowing how to use a gun (note how there's no way to measure this, but you'll still see statistics about dogs "being just as effective as preventing home invasions" as guns).
I can tell you half of any story, and if it's also impossible for you to check the facts for yourself, you have no other information to go on than what I've given you. You might understand that what you're hearing might not be true, but I can isolate your children and feed them an anti-gun story and win the war in the long run.
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh and there are no linux virus's out there. hmmmm. Linux is not the answer to everything guys.
Yea, i know +5 Flaimbait for being honest and knockin zealots down a peg.
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:3, Insightful)
If it wasn't for idiotic legislature (practically) mandating use of blocking software for libraries, this would be a non-issue. If customers consider specific blocking category is idiotic, they could either send feedback to the c
Re:Hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I second this (Score:3, Informative)
For anti-virus software, have a look at Grisoft AVG [grisoft.com]. It's free for personal use, though yo
No, its *not* (Score:3, Interesting)
No, its not configurable; that's the point.
Good blocking software would allow you to view the list of sites being blocked and then enable individual sites or add your own.
No blocking software does this primarily because the only thing of value this software brings to the table is a list of objectionable sites.
Re:Mixed Emotions (Score:5, Insightful)
Emotions -- Sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't about emotions, yours or anyone else's. This isn't about gun control either. Other posts on this board are pointing to the NRA's activities as though they should matter. Should they? Maybe. I don't know for sure, I'd have to reason that out and it would take more time than I have to write this post.
However, when considering issues of this nature, people need to leave their emotions at the door and consider the basic tenet at work which is, as you stated, free speech.
Remember, free speech does *not* mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater. It does not mean you can threaten anyone's life, at least in the state of California, if it is reasonable to suppose that you may carry out the threat and you have the reasonable ability to do so.
I only point these things out because free speech does not guarantee all speech in all situations. It doesn't guarantee the right of certain organizations to be protected merely by virtue of their having been organized and created. Whatever the average American believes about free speech -- and I am, by the way, a pretty typical American, and durn proud uv it -- it doesn't mean you can say anything you want and, in fact, censorship is a daily, very legal reality in the lives of all Americans and has been for decades, whether they believe they've been able to shout from the rooftops whatever they please or not.
So, should the NRA be censored? At first blush, I would say probably not, but to tell you the truth I really don't know for sure. I'm not big on the NRA, but I'm not particularly opposed to them either. What's important to remember is that this issue *should* be about free speech and not about gun control, people's feelings, or sticking it to whomever whatever respective group feels it should be stuck to.
Re:Maybe it makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the article. The sites blocked include the NRA's lobbying site. That most certainly falls under the category of "advocacy of gun rights". This certainly falls under the umbrella of "view point discrimination" and goverment supported entities, including libraries, have no business using this software.
Furthermore, you unfairly characterize the activities of the NRA. Most of the non-lobbying work of the NRA is promoting the sports of hunting and target shooting. While you may morally object to hunting (as is your right) it is a legal activity virtually everywhere. Target shooting is an internationally recognized sport, and is included in both the summer and winter olympics. The NRA also supports the hobby of collecting guns of historical and cultural interest.
Topics that I have never seen in an NRA publication include: how to illegally acquire a gun, how to convert a gun to automatic operation, how to manufacture illegal ammunition, etc.
Re:Logic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, no-one's ever walked into a school and massacred people with pro-gun rhetoric, either.
-jerdenn
Re:Logic... (Score:3)
Re:NRA deserves a little hubris (Score:3, Insightful)
NRA certified instructors train the police - the NRA has been emphasising safe gun use and responsible ownership for more than a century - the NRA has pushed for laws making the use of a firearm in a crime a mandatory additional sentence - which of these do you disagree with?
Most recently, the NRA is working to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, to deter the criminals (who, by the way, are already carrying concealed weapons, illegally). Th
Re:Keep in mind (Score:3, Insightful)
Banning firearms is pointless, even if you get all the guns off the street you're still going to have people killing eachother using whatever's handy. Going back to the England example, the parliment is now going to ban personal ownership of swords, due to the rising number of murders using those.
Taking awa
Re:Keep in mind (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Keep in mind (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Keep in mind (Score:5, Informative)
scripsit eericson:
Um, the discussion was about murder. So let's look at murder numbers, not total crime. (BTW, Interpol doesn't have anything for England/Wales in 1995 -- they start in 1996 -- so I'm not sure where you got your figures from).
OK... using 1996 and 2001 murders per 100k population (the widest span on which they have data for all these states) -- U.S.: 7.41 to 5.61; Germany: 4.32 to 3.21; France: 4.11 to 3.91; England/Wales: 2.60 to 1.63.
Wow! That's interesting. Every one of these has a decline from 1996 to 2001 -- including England and Wales. In fact, England and Wales, where that handgun ban supposedly made murder rampant, looks like its murder rate is about 30% of the U.S.'s. Fascinating...
Thank $deity we have all those guns here in the States keeping us safe...
Re:Keep in mind (Score:5, Informative)
What kind of bullshit is this?
I grew up in England. I lived there for 23 years. At no point during that time was owning a gun legal, unless you were using it for hunting, and even then, only under very specific rules and regulations.
What kind of crack are you smoking? Where do you get this idea that guns were generally available in England before the late 90s?
Re:Keep in mind (Score:4, Interesting)
If you can give me a few statistics to make me believe that England has a higher homicide rate than DC then I will change my views accordingly. But having lived in London for some time, I am pretty sure that you will not find any such information.
Re:Keep in mind (Score:3, Insightful)
But laws against gun ownership only, by definition, affect people who obey laws.
Criminals do not obey laws. That is, after all, while we call them criminals.
Therefore, all gun "control" does is present criminals with defenseless victims.
I would have thought all this would be obvious to anyone with the slightest int
Re:Keep in mind (Score:3, Insightful)
If just one person (any "individual" of "the People") on a certain two planes had been carrying a gun a couple of years ago, several hundred children would not have lost their parents in a heap of concrete and steel - and we very well would never have gone to war with Iraq.
Any given individual carrying a gun can defend liber
Re:Can We Say Liberals? (Score:4, Insightful)
I just had to comment after all the wackos did. You did an excellent job of rounding up all the libs with that comment. But they still don't get it. Some still think that if you outlaw guns, no one will have them, including bad guys. Ironically, its not that hard to make a home made weapon anyway, especially with lower power (but deadly enough) shells like
People seem to forget that the % of people who die in wars or crime is lower now, than it was before guns. Anyone having a doubt about how you can kill without a gun should go rent Joan of Arc. Quite vivid. If a mugger can't point a gun (loaded or not) then he IS more likely to just slit your throat anyway.
Re:Can We Say Liberals? (Score:3, Insightful)
All I can offer is an opinion, based on being an American, and a former criminal defense investigator. First, the US is no longer the murder capital of the world. Our crime rates compared to the rest of the world are not as high as myth has it, but I can accept that it is higher than many.
The vast majority of crime in the US is n
Re:Quote I heard from somewhere.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's another one along those lines:
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State" - Heinrich HimmlerRe:ooh, chilling indeed. (Score:3)
But perhaps there should be another category, labelled "pacifism" or something, that blocks anti-gun and peace activism sites. Then those people who wish to censor those deviants can use that category, and leave 'weapons' unbanned.
I think you're missing the point, actually. Ascribing some political agenda to some software corporation is ridiculous. They simply reflect desired censorware categories, which they have implemented in orde
Re:What a shame... (Score:4, Informative)
Historically you may have earned the right to carry a gun, but if you feel this has made the US a safer place to live and have children, you might find it interesting to learn that in the US more children are killed by gunfire than in any other western country. In fact, the amount of people killed by gunfire (%) compares favorably to a country in war.
That's pure propaganda. Here are some facts from Guy Smith
A note about suicides, countries make handguns illegal experience no change in suicide rates... people simply find other ways to kill themselves.
I've lived in the USA all of my life and been all over the country. I've never witnessed a shooting, intentional or accidental. I've never known anyone who was killed by a gun. I do have a single aquaintance that was shot in the face with a .22 revolver during a car-jacking, years before I met him, but he was lucky and barely even has a scar.
Here are some more facts.