Filter Battle Returning to Holland

You may recall our series on the battle over censorware in the libraries surrounding the Slashdot Geek Compound in Holland, Michigan. In the final piece, I wrote: "This isn't the end, though. It's just the beginning." Well, the pro-filtering groups have been busy almost since the day they lost the vote, and will almost certainly put the same issue up for a vote again this year, probably on the November ballot. Here's the first news worthy of a heads-up: old, flawed censorware (SmartFilter) is being repackaged with a new name and some card-based hardware that can assign different patrons different settings. Its presentation last night was well-received, and local groups seem to be ready to adopt the system. Last time the Censorware Project checked out this product, it had recently modified its database to allow children to read "How To Have Sex With A Horse."

Anxious to implement?

[scribblej]

Well, I read the review of the software, and I have to wonder why anyone would want to implement it. I mean, for crying out loud, they don't even know how much porn it lets get through! They do know for sure it blocks one out of about every 20 legitimate sites.

To me, that sounds more like a good way to cripple your browser, than a good way to protect your children.

There's something else fundamentally wrong with censorware -- which is this: Even if it did a good job of blocking web sites, we all know (c'mon, you know it too!) the best, most accessable porn isn't on the web -- it's on usenet! I have yet to hear of a censoring program that blocks usenet access.

Or, for that matter, censorware that can block the various EXE porn-clients available. Really, I haven't heard of any kind of censorware that's actually worth using.

When I have children, I'll count on teaching them what's right and what's wrong, rather than trying to police them with vaporware.

Easy for me to say, I know.

They'll just borrow a friend's card

[Cerlyn]

Yes, it has a photo ID, but can it see faces? The system itself uses a magnetic strip. If the librarian doesn't see you swipe the card, they don't know whose card it is.

Also note: "Huisman said that in Hudsonville, the top two levels of access are restricted for all minors. About 100 cards are currently issued to patrons, who have been charged $3." So, there still is censorship.

Re:They'll just borrow a friend's card

[chaobell]

And hell, if the librarian is having a busy day, feeling a bit harassed, and not paying full attention to what he/she's doing, even that could slip by if the guy looks even vaguely like the picture on the card.

If Porn Ye Seek, Porn Ye Shall Find

[The-Bus]

I'm all for controlling porn at libraries, to an extent. Eventhough some libraries carry Madonna's Sex book, this really shouldn't be a conversation among a group of pre-teens:

Pre-Teen #1: Man, you know what I could use right now? Access to hard-core porn!
Pre-Teen #2: Let's just go to the John Quincy Adams City Library! You can look for 'young hot teenz' and I'll check out what's new at the Stile Project.
Pre-Teen #1: Word! (or similar "youth slang" used to convey agreement)

Now, let's get something clear. I have nothing against porn per se, or 12-year olds accessing pornographic material. What I have a problem with is libraries being used for this purpose. I mean, c'mon! The library is a place for education! They should follow the example of universities, who provide internet access to their students. No university students would dare use the Internet for non-educational purposes. I would scoff at the idea of students using an educational tool to access adult material, or trade illegal music and programs online, or...

Hey... wait a minute... Ok, that argument holds no water. Well, let's blockquote the article:

Boyle said LibraryGuardian costs the Hudsonville library just over $20,000 for its seven terminals.

Now that I have a problem with. I don't know the state of Michigan's libraries, but in MY home state, I'd be pretty angry if $20,000 of the library system's meager budget went to buy something used only to block certain Internet sites. Wouldn't it be more productive to hire more staff (part-time), or buy more computers, or, and now this is a wacky idea... buy books with that $20,000? What a total waste of money.

Declared unconstitutional by circuit judge in VA

[Anonymous Coward]

A very similar case was declared unconstitutional by the Federal Circuit Court in Loudon County, VA. Judge Brinkema ruled that the installation of censorware is unconstitutional restriction of free speech. Obviously, her decision is binding only on the courts below her, but it's a good precedent. Her ruling was worded very strongly against mandatory censorware, she said it was fundamentally against the constitution to limit the types of content that people can access, especially given the poor accuracy of the current generation of products. I don't have a link, but search Wired for Brinkema or Loudon or something and it'll come up. DaveTD02 (my login isn't working today, ugg)

Quick to cry victory

[nlvp]

The gent in the article claims that it "immediately stopped the problems they were having". Of course it did - they just changed the path of least resistance.

It's like the corset analogy. If a large individual wears a corset to get thinner, it doesn't make them thinner, it just makes them bulge in other places. If you cut off internet access to porn sites, illegal sites, or whatever the kids choose to look at, then they either get around your censorship or they go somewhere that's not censored. In other words, they're all surfing porn in the cybercafe around the corner, or in the safety of their own bedrooms, rather than in the library in question.

Re:Anxious to implement?

[Sodium Attack]

There are some (don't recall which) filters which block usenet, but they go overboard--generally doing it on a by-group basis. I remember reading about one which had the entire rec.games.* blocked for children as "gambling", including such depraved groups as rec.games.chess.analysis. (Insert your own "Sicilian Dragon" joke here.)

Re:Declared unconstitutional by circuit judge in V

[Sodium Attack]

IIRC, in that case the library in question put censorware on all terminals. Many libraries are now putting censorware on all-but-one terminals, with the idea that that satisfies constitutional restrictions, and AFAIK that has not yet been challenged in the courts.