At the Library: a Briefly Vocal Minority 283
By the way, if you're wondering why you should care about Holland, Michigan: this is going to happen at your local library -- and other public institutions -- soon. It probably has already happened at your local schools. The Holland area is fairly conservative, so it's been at the forefront, but the issue will work its way around the country (and in fact the world) in due time.
Before I describe what happened at the board meeting Tuesday evening, I should put the meeting itself into context.
A small but vocal minority has been pushing for library filters since late last year. At that time, the effort was begun by the American Family Association, with the Family Research Council and a local group stepping in to do the heavy lifting.
The FRC is still playing the dominant role. In fact, Tuesday night, the AFA representative actively distanced the organization from the issue, probably because it has earned its reputation as an extremist group.
Since February, the push has been for communication with the library board: "community input" has been big. Since all board meetings legally must be open to the public anyway, it's never been entirely clear to me what the problem was. The board did form a committee, which met on several occasions with filtering supporters -- the few who showed up -- and educated themselves about their options.
But the pro-filter crowd and the media have been attacking the library for not doing more to engage the community in dialogue. In one recent headline, the city's Mayor, formerly anti-filter, was described as "ripping [the library board's lack of] public input." Ouch.
In fact, the FRC representative Tuesday night apologized at length for the pressure tactics -- even though, in most of the media reports I've seen, her comments were relatively mild.
Just a week ago, she was quoted as saying she:
"...doesn't think a Sept. 12 forum will be sufficient to solicit public input, with attendance limited to 200 people and less than two hours set aside for public comment.
"She said those restrictions will limit the amount of input the board can receive."
That's been the concern all these months; that's what's been keeping the library board awake worrying. Every board meeting has been completely open to the public, and the only issue was how many people the fire marshal would allow in, and how long the community would be allowed to outpour its concerns.
In fact, when the meeting started -- the one and only meeting that's been publicized as a forum for the airing of Holland's views -- fewer than 45 people showed.
Some more trickled in, some trickled back out later after less than two hours of public comment. A total of just over 60 people showed up, about half of whom spoke (excluding the boardmembers and the media, including the toddlers, not that the toddlers did much of the speaking).
The Family Research Council's representative saved her statements for late in the meeting, telling her group's supporters how important it was that they came out, and to hang in there because they were only at the halfway point. Her closing comments were encouragement to those supporters: "we're getting closer and closer, glory God, we will not quit until we get this thing right ... c'mon you people, there's two more hours, get up here and talk for yourselves."
As if that was the signal to wind things down, only a few more people stood to speak. There was a period of questions, which took a while because the lawyer fielded most of them, and then the meeting adjourned almost an hour ahead of schedule.
Three thousand people in the Holland area get the FRC's newsletters; roughly 1% bothered to come.
Why the lack of interest?
Part of the reason, to be sure, is that Holland is sick of the issue; they went through a long campaign early this year.
But another part is that blocking software is not nearly as popular as the vocal minority would have us believe. An AP article "Most parents shun net filters" suggests that just one parent in three uses censorware.
And even that seems large, to some. The latest issue of the American Family Association Journal has an article titled "Low percentage of Christians using Internet filtering shows ignorance of the dangers." They claim that "Seven out of 10 Christians have Internet access -- but only one out of 10 has filtered Internet access."
(Keep in mind, too, that when the AFA says "Christians," they mean conservative Christians, presumably more likely to use censorware.)
Parents simply have better choices when it comes to protecting their children. Education and communication are the most effective tools (the only effective ones, I would argue, in many cases). And they're cheaper too: at least, a library in Hudsonville, near Holland, recently spent $20,000 on card-based censorware (not including maintenance fees) for four computers. The city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, just voted to spend $85,000.
And it takes a sneaky kid about ten seconds to completely bypass the $20,000 system. I know; I did it myself, and spent a while browsing a completely unfiltered internet.
But it's political pressure that installs such systems, not necessarily actual demand. Holland's library has taken a great deal of heat for not holding meetings which only a tiny fraction of the community seems interested in. Of course it's easy to use hindsight, but it's my guess that holding the meetings earlier and more often would have taken the lid off the child-size pressure cooker; everyone would have felt better. That's something to consider for the next community faced with this issue.
And speaking of demand, only about 100 patrons at Hudsonville have signed up for the internet cards. The system was installed under pressure from local conservative organizations; others, like that in Grand Rapids, will be installed thanks to a new Michigan law.
That law, Public Act 212, takes effect in our fair state on October1 and in effect, according to the Holland library's lawyer, makes it illegal for minors to use the internet. It demands that terminals for those 17 and under be "restricted from receiving" material "harmful to minors" (that's the underage equivalent of illegal obscenity). No software can guarantee such a restriction, of course, unless it executes the shutdown command.
In fact, it was recommended that the adults' terminals be not only shielded for privacy, but placed so that no minor might walk by and catch a glimpse of something harmful.
So the line seems pretty clearly drawn. How it will play out in reality remains to be seen.
You've probably figured out by now that I'm opposed to blocking software. Before the end of the month, I'll look at what alternatives a library might adopt -- too late for Michigan libraries, but perhaps not too late for yours. There are many choices to be made between the simplistic extremes of "filters" and "nofilters," some of which protect our right to free expression more than others.
Unfortunately, you won't see such alternatives in the traditional media. When filter supporter Tish Fackler pulled out her air filters, she gave a little laugh and said "looks like I'm going to be on TV tonight." Then she held up her meaningless props and delivered the soundbite that was on TV that night. I'll try to keep it a little more real than that.
Check out those baned books! (Score:2)
I've read about half of the books in the top 20 list. Of thsoe I've read, I've seen some of the worst books human kind has ever come up with, books that I didn't enjoy but saw no reason to ban, and books that were The best classics humankind has ever written. Of the rest, from the titles I can say that to me 3/4ths of those left will be in the first catagory, and most of the rest in the second. However I won't say which because this is IMHO, and you should form your own.
Seems to be a slightly different situation now... (Score:2)
If this is truly the case, then a huge amount of my beef is gone -- the library is not censoring the network feed to adults. Yes, it's questionable that should children's feeds be censored, but in this country, you don't gain full rights until you turn 18, I see no big problem from censoring *some* of the terminals resereved for minors' use in a public institution from materials that can be deamed harmful. However, this requires that the censorware installed is doing an adequet job - which we here have covered in very much ongoing detail.
What I think overall the law (as I remember it when it came into play) does is that as long as a library does install censorware software on computers that are accessible by children, regardless of how good/poor the block list is, or how easy/hard it is to get around it, then they are removed from any libilty that may occur if the censorware fails in either blocking a site or bypassing the filter. In other words, the library because the ISP, and is not responsible for content that bypasses the general filters. AND this shifts responsibilty to the censorware makers; if little Johnny catches a glipse of something that he shouldn't have looked at, and his parents see him, they can only blame the censorware software, as the library did all they could within practical reason. Of course, IANAL, I dunno if the law explicitly or implies that this is the case, but again, there's only so much they can do.
Of course, as mentioned before, it comes down to the quality of censorware used. IMHO, it is possible to write good censorware that uses a combination of black lists, acceptable sites, and PICS ratings, with an OSS-like list of blocking rules, that allows children to read information on AIDS and breast cancer, but blocks them from the redlight districts, to a reasonably good extent. AFAIK, none of them are currently 'good' enough by our (/.) standards, and I dunno of any open source one. One thing that would be interesting to have is one that is content *and* PICS aware: if the censorware sees certains words, but the sight reports back as less severe than what the filter makes out, the PICS rating should overrule, given the stipulation that a misleading PICS rating can be subject to civil crimes.
Re:Can't be helped... (Score:2)
Actually, many libraries do stock penthouse/playboy...
--
This is such bullshit. (Score:2)
Now, the pro-filter camp would argue that the way around that problem is for children to have separate access to the library's resources, perhaps in the form of different library cards which entail filtering, etc. This is not much better. Now we're talking about the same problems as general filtering, only applied specifically to children whose parents have chosen it, as opposed to everyone. That way, see, we shouldn't care. Because as long as our access to information isn't affected, why should we care, right?
Well, here's my thought (and get ready for some controversy). I want your child to have access to information on breast cancer. That's right! I don't give a damn whether or not you think it's obscene, and I don't care whether you have to stand there and make sure he doesn't accidentally pull some porn. IMO, you should be teaching your child your values and turning him loose to stick to them or not, as he chooses. If you're even halfway decent at the whole parenting thing, you'll have little to worry about.
But perhaps even more than that, I don't want you to put filters in our public libraries. If that means you have to supervise your children, so be it. It's not even a matter of my not wanting to raise your children, or caring whether you raise them yourself or not. It's just that I have this idea (call me a romantic) of the public library as a place of knowledge and understanding, a place dedicated to the spread of information and ideas. Filtering software in a library is, IMO, profane.
I want to live in a world where people are open-minded and accepting of each other's ideas and opinions. I want to live in a world where knowledge flows like wine, to be drunk deeply of by any who would, and where none (including parents) think well of withholding the cup for fear it might contain a speck of dirt. Unfortunately, I'm something of a realist, and I know that such a world is unlikely at best. But I'll be damned if I'm going to quietly allow some paranoid fools corrupt one of the few purely good institutions we've built.
Re:Old School Edorsed Censorware with Issues (Score:2)
Great next to last paragraph! (Score:2)
Unlawful carnal knowledge.
Got one wrong, the other is different (Score:2)
Read it online [genesis.net.au]
{yes, we're quoting Bible verses on
You have an excellent point. (Score:2)
In the Chicago area anyway, parents have had their children taken away and placed in foster care by the DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) for as little as leaving them at home alone while they ran down to the corner store for a few groceries (well, sometimes it was a trip to the local liquor store).
There's not much (IMHO) difference between children at home alone and leaving them at the library. They can get into trouble in both places. The difference with the library is that these idiots think that the librarians are on patrol watching to ensure that the kiddies aren't getting into things they shouldn't. Wonder how attentive these adults are when they're at home with their kids? Are they sure they aren't getting into Daddy's cache of Playboys in the nightstand drawer?
If I were a librarian, there'd be a highly visible sign at the library entrance stating that childrens' access to the Internet accessible computers is to be supervised by their parents. The parents of any little ones found to be surfing without supervision would be receiving a phone call and getting an earful. One wonders what these parents would be doing if their little boy or girl was abducted from the library? (I'd be more worried about that happening than anything they would run across on the Internet.)
--
Re:The obvious answer (Score:2)
Oh, yes! That's what librarians are for: watching other people while they surf the internet.
What B.S. Unless the libraries want to hire a dedicated person to do this I can't see the use in making it the library's responsibility to monitor internet access. (And it'd take a damned dedicated person to do that all day -- I can't think of anything more boring.)
Don't any parents raise their own children anymore?
--
Clairification of definitions. (Score:2)
I hear people bitch and moan every week here about this person said that people from india are this, or some other thing that upsets their PC'ness but get their jollies in bashing the Christians (as they are the evil destruction on this planet! They opress all of us! I can't sacrifice goats on school grounds because of them!, and countless other bullshit spewed by these self proclaimed radicals)
99% of all Christians are calm and quiet masses that dont complain about your blue hair and pentagram earrings while wearing a EAT SHIT t-shirt. We complain about the lack of respect to people in general we get and see projected to others. (that eat shit t-shirt, How many children and women saw that? I'd rather have you physically abuse my child instead, that way they understand what kind of self centered moron would wear that... as for the hair and piercing every member of the body? cool, go for it... it entertains me
I am a Christian, and Proud of that. But I am getting mad. If you bitch about other treading on your beliefs, then you have NO right to tread on me! So flame on you radicals.Moderate this down to a troll (I know it will be!) but This Christian, (WHO IS AGAINST CENSORWARE BTW!) is sick of reading about the "evil Christians" that are trying to take away our rights!
Flakey crust (Score:2)
Re:1 in 3? (Score:2)
Re:Almost... (Score:2)
I don't see how we can have it both ways. Either parents are ultimately responsible for their childrens' education, or they are not.
If they are responsible, then it's not a Bad Thing for lazy parents' children to get inferior educations.
If the parents are not responsible for their child's education, then parents don't have the power or the right to sign a waiver.
---
The obvious answer (Score:2)
"Those 18 and under may not use the Internet without adult supervision, preferably that of their parent or guardian?"
No, I guess it's too obvious for the corporacracy to accept.
Parenting (Score:2)
Re:Can't be helped... (Score:2)
The fact is that children are subordniate to their parents. If a parent wishes the kid to have access then the kid should have it. If not, then not.
This does not justify filtering, though. As has been pointed out, there are several solutions. One is to require a parent to be present in the library. Another--IMHO the best--is simply to turn the monitors towards the librarians. Solves the problem quite cheaply.
Re:Almost... (Score:2)
And why should any course require use of the net? Read Silicon Snake Oil and Stoll's other book for explanations of why education needs to get rid of its tech fascination and get back to teaching.
Re:Non-draconian filtering (Score:2)
Furnishing the child with information in the three example cases you use would more than likely fall under the category of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which (I believe) is a crime in all states. (Yes, I AM saying they should not have access to that information anonymously - they are not adults.)
Filtering/censorship is NOT a bad thing. Parents have a responsibility to (dare I say it?) *shield* their children about some things until they are old enough to deal with them maturely. I for one plan on withholding information about all of the topics you mention above for as long as I can. And no, I'm not in any way hurting my children by doing this. In fact, not only am I not taking anything away, but I am *giving* them their childhood back - an invaluable gift which today's society is all too ready to take away by forcing an adult knowledge of sex, etc. on even the youngest.
It is my solemn responsibility to care for those children and instill good morals and Truth into them in the short time I can. ("Truth", not "truth", because absolute Truth must exist in order for any logic or reason to exist.) And yes, that means it's my responsibilty as a father to teach (not just tell) my children NOT to have premarital sex of any kind. (Gasp!) Not only because it's morally wrong, but also because it's really, really dangerous - there are ~2 dozen STDs today, up from 2 thirty years ago. Half are incurable. Take just one of the incurables, HPV: The NIH and CDC have both testified before Congress that condoms are absolutely ineffective in preventing its spread, and it is provably the direct cause of 90% of cervical cancer in the US, which killed 5000 women last year. The disease's long-term effects on men are less understood, but it is highly correlated with penile cancer.
Turning kids loose into an environment that encourages them to play in the snake pit that is today's sexual playground is worse than irresponsible - it is and should be criminal.
Apprpriate censorship is a valid, measured, and necessary response to the dangers that an unfiltered Internet poses to children. If you don't agree this is necessary, then you either have no children yourself, or have given insufficient thought to your responsibilities as a parent.
(And no, I don't have a filter on my computers at home now, primarily because there is no good, affordable, non-OS-dependent, single point filter that can work with a cable modem - so the computers are and will remain, sadly, completely off-limits to the children. They're really not missing much, though...)
Re:Non-draconian filtering (Score:2)
Actually, my advice very much *will* be to marry a virgin. There is nothing wrong or even weird about being a virgin at marriage, nor is there a shortage of available (and desirable) virgins - maybe you should check out the phenomenal growth and success of new pledge campaigns like "True Love Waits" before assuming everyone will jump into the sack at the first opportunity.
Finally, there is no potential damage my advice could cause, for the very simple reason that it is that very advice that will ensure that they are sexually well-balanced or "definitly hetero mono" as you put it. (If one believes in marriage, then both "hetero" and "mono" are presuppositions, since it is flat impossible to have a marriage without *both*: marriage is by its very *definition* a pledged monogamous relationship between a man and a woman! Yes, that means that "gay marriage" is indeed an oxymoron. Reality's tough sometimes.)
children ARE people (Score:2)
We are not forgetting that children are people, nor are we assuming that parents are all sheep. We are asserting that parents (or legal guardians) bear the primary responsibility for raising and educating children. And because parents and legal guardians bear this responsibility, they ought to (1) have say in what children are or are not exposed to and (2) bear the brunt of the consequences of the children's behavior.
In other words, if a child goes down to the library to surf porn, the parent and only the parent is responsible for the actions of the child. The library should not be held liable for what a child looks at and neither should the ISP. If the parent wants to sue somebody because he or she didn't want his or her child to see pictures of naked people, the only person deserving of the law suit is the person who raised the child to look at dirty pictures (the parent).
Because its the best of bad situation. As bad a s some parents are (and certainly not all parents are bad) it would be far worse to give the right for some other body the right to rescind the responsibilities and rights of parenthood (with exceptions for exceptional situations like incidents involving child abuse). I'd rather have the current load of bad parents anyday then live in a society that can take children away from parents at will.
BZZT. Wrong answer. And intentionally inflamatory to boot. The above reason might very well be why Marxists refer to Christians as sheep, but it certainly isn't why Jesus refered to his followers as sheep.
And contrary to popular opinion (of both Christians and non-Christians), the teachings of Jesus do encourage a person to think for his or her self. In most (unfortunately no all) variants of Christianity, the ability to think for one's self is the basis on which doctrines surrounding the existence of an individual's conscience are based.
It is only the twisted teachings of people in power that wish to stay in power more than they want to preach the truth that teach their followers otherwise.
have a day,
-l
Re:children ARE people (Score:2)
This is one of the more fightening assertions I have seen on /.
Evolution might very well be natural (but so are cannabalism, incest, rape, unnecessary violence, and many other things that many people don't think are 'good'), but I for one do not think it is 'good,' let alone the 'ultimate good.'
My opinion is that evolution, like most processes of nature, has no bearing to ethics.
Re:Some children must be sacrificed (Score:2)
Well, I'm sure that the Pope had some sort of inetllectual justification for having clothes and/or fig leaves painted over certain parts of the naked human bodies that Michaelangelo painted all over the Sistine Chapel. I can't imagine that his justification was anything short of the naked portrayal of the human body being sinful.
Then, of course, many Christian movements teach the doctrine of Original Sin (or worse, the sects that are theological descendents of John Calvin believe that some folks are born simply to burn forever in hell). The doctrine of original sin says pretty much that we all are born evil.
Of course some sects (especially liberal Protestant ones, don't believe in the doctrine of Original Sin, and others (such as the Orthdox Church) have a view of sin that is quite different from the western view. So as always, your milage may vary...
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Right on! If I give my children a 'moral' upbringing only by sheltering them from 'imorality,' I can only protect them to the point that I can control their environment.
But if I spend time to help my children understand right and wrong and what makes something right and what makes something wrong, I will give my child the ability to protect themselves.
The key is encouraging children to develop deep understanding. I cringe when I ask my daughter why something is wrong and she says 'because you said so, Dad.' That tells me that she doesn't understand and is only complying with my wishes. I'd much prefer her to think something is right that I think is wrong and have her be able to defend her opinion then simply do what I want her to.
regards,
-l
dead on! (Score:2)
I bow to your greater insight.
#1 is a no-brainer (Score:2)
Between efforts such as Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org] and the Christian Classics Ethereal Library [ccel.org], and countless other sites that provide resources not previously available to most libraries, it is fairly evident that internet access greatly enhances the purpose of the public library.
Another situation is finding which books to look up. Your average Librarian will be clueless when asked which of the 50 books on C++ is best for a beginner, but searching on google for the C++ faq will provide several good answers almost immediately.
The other questions do merit thought.
No thanks. (Score:2)
I'd rather not. I think the greens are currently the only hope in the US political landscape.
Now, if it were open season on the demopublicans, I might actually start eating meat again...
Re:*sigh* Parents these days... (Score:2)
Not even their parents, more likely some commerical entity with a bizare set of politics.
It's about making libraries, schools, the government and general passers-by on the streets responsible for enforcing some parents' rules for their kids.
At the same time not actually giving much to the institution concerned. e.g. if they use Windows then it is rather important to block sites from where software can be downloaded and installed. (And some people even consider this to be a positive "feature" of Windows.) Also in a school there are plenty of sites which attract children, are unlikly to have any educational value but equally unlikly to appear on any censorware list. (Again fine for kids to use at home but a waste of everyone time and resources in a school.)
t's not the public library's job to enforce your bloody rules
Instead it's up for a public library to enforce their own rules. Rules which make sense to the operation of a library, preventing alien software being installed on their machines is a prefectly reasonable requirement in this case.
Re:Got one wrong, the other is different (Score:2)
Interesting how the incest part of this is seen as more shocking than the drunken rape part.
Re:Kinda sad. (Score:2)
I suspect such scientifically acurate material would cause lots of problems, the "Bonobos" are rather less politcally correct than the "Birds and Bees".
Re:*sigh* Parents these days... (Score:2)
Maybe children actually need to be protected from these kind of people.
If they were to stand up and say "we are going to tell you what to read/view/think because we know better than you" they would be laughed at. But angle it as "protecting the children"
The difference betwween a "nutter" and a "political lobbiest"
Re:It's about intent. (Score:2)
Assuming that it is in the filter in the first place...
(Which is why a
Setting up such a domain wouldn't be hard. But pornographers would want to get the banner ads hits which result from mistypings also the current censorware produces wouldn't want their business killed.
Re:It's not the librarians' job to censor your kid (Score:2)
Problem is that censorship tend to work not on if something is good or bad but more on if something is or isn't politically correct.
History gives plenty of examples of what happens when something bad is politically correct (especially when it's supporters end up in government.)
Still others believe that there is a very clear distinction between ideas that are right and morally uplifting, and ideas that are wrong and morally corrupting, and wish to ensure that society has the benefit of their perception. They believe that certain individuals, certain institutions, even society itself, will be endangered if particular ideas are disseminated without restriction.
Such people also believe that it is vitally important to protect the people/institutions/etc which may be affected. Can't slaughter sacred cows even if the beef would keep people from starving
Censors often don?t consider is that, if they succeed in suppressing the ideas they don?t like today, others may use that precedent to suppress the ideas they do like tomorrow.
Also they tend to assume that there is no "price" associated with the censorship. Some of the side effects of censorship being rather unpleasent, e.g. parts of world which censor "porn" tend to have more sexual assaults.
Re:Christianity and Filtering (Score:2)
The even funnier thing is that The Bible would probably be blocked by quite a bit of such software.
Re:Can't be helped... (Score:2)
But will the people puting together such software even know about such software... Also how can they bar the really frobidden stuff, since the index for that is recursive.
Re:Do something about it. (Score:2)
What makes you think that "Mike" would agree with any human censors definition of what to show to young "stupid people"?
Re:Non-draconian filtering (Score:2)
So what happens if they end up not only with an STD but married to the person who gave it them? The advice you are giving is half baked (literally) it only makes sense to tell them "Marry another virgin". (Let alone all potential damage your advice could do if your children are not definitly hetero mono in the first place.)
Re:Non-draconian filtering (Score:2)
Problem is that a large proportion of it is prefectly ok for kids to view at home. (Plenty of stuff even specifically amied at children is inappropriate for access on a school computer.) Thus unlikely to be covered by any commercial package. Also some of the things blocked for political reasons do have educational usage. e.g. to show what an unpleasent organisation looks like or how one can pretend to be something else.
Also most current software cannot tell the difference between a nasty organisation, someone reporting that organisation and someone poking fun at that organisation.
Re:The truly scary part... (Score:2)
AFAIK such companies blocking unfavourable reviews is not uncommon. The sort of people who produce this kind of software often do not appear to be the most pleasent (see the "SolidOak" archive on peacefire).
The NOW example is interesting since whilst the site dosn't have porn it does contain (politically correct) hate speach.
Re:The truly scary part... (Score:2)
Well peacefire does contain information on subverting censorware, which appears to infuriate the produces (especially how trivial some of the workarounds are). Interestingly enough the only especially offensive material on peacefire are copies of emails written by the boss of a company which makes censorware.
Re:This isn't about... (Score:2)
Specifically anything the producers don't find politically correct. Definitly including and critque of the software and it's effectivness.
Re:BS (Score:2)
Wow they got the programs to work that well? IME flipping a coin (or having software decide on the basis of
Maybe they ignored false positives...
Re:Almost... (Score:2)
There are already mechanisms in place for handling a parent absenting a child from school, simply use them.
Re:certain psuedo-christians hate the body, and ar (Score:2)
The injustice you do to yourselves by not saying "These people do not speak for me or represent me".
Re:Censorware == transfer of responsibility. (Score:2)
Except that a boiler plate licence will say that no matter what happens you can't sue them.
Re:Holland Michigan Censorware Debate (Score:2)
And what happens when you get a parent who considers the software itself harmful?
Re:Old School Edorsed Censorware with Issues (Score:2)
They will end up being aware of it, but only after the company has already got their paws on the money. The EULA means they can't sue (with UCITA making things even worst for customers). But they can't simply dump it without looking complete fools.
Re:Not an issue of freedom... (Score:2)
Note that in virtually all cases it's actually a minority who will enguage in this kind of behaviour
Re:Why bother with software? (Score:2)
Rather, it's the fear of public shame. Somebody looking at goat porn in the library is quite likely to get publicly embarrassed by somebody.
If the law is the problem... (Score:2)
Yes, it would seem the law makes it illegal to offer Internet access to children. So... sue libraries to make it so. That's what's needed to drive the point: escalate it to it's ridicule consequences.
Re:This should be (and is) a local issue (Score:2)
Remember, banned books week is September 23-30.
http://www.ala.org/news/announcements/bbw2000.htm
Re:Outside the scope of libraries (Score:2)
You're already dealing with it. Libraries can't afford to buy every book out there. You have to make due with what they don't have. Is that censorship? Libraries are already carrying videos and DVDs, but you're not going to find them carrying hardcore porn in most cases. Is that a problem? Libraries have to make a call about what they can deal with and what they can't. Turning T1 lines into pornpipes is not a good use of resources.
Outside the scope of libraries (Score:2)
Thank you. (Score:2)
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
Re:So what? It's Europe. (Score:2)
//rdj
P.S. Holland, Michigan is quite american...
Re:In defense of filterng (Score:2)
not in the netherlands. you have to know what you buy, right? sometimes there's transparent cellophane though (to keep the free CDs from falling out)
>It is also on the higher shelves, so that little hands cannot reach it.
for playboy, penthouse etc. I have to bend down in most local bookstores. any kid over 10cm high can reach them. not like they can't see breasts anywhere else..
I really don't understand the sexual hangups that seem to prevail in the US. they strike me as really old-fashioned, and quite ridiculous. but each to his own I guess.
//rdj
certain psuedo-christians hate the body, and art (Score:2)
No Christian will ever tell you that the human body, God's creation, is inheritly sinful. We're not talking about tasteful portrayals of the human body, we're talking about hardcore porn. Big difference.
You are wrong. Go find you some pictures by an art photgrapher named Jock Sturges. Books of his work are available in book stores, sometimes, in some locales. He does nudes. His photos are very good, very beautiful, far from indecent or prurient; by comparison, Milo's Venus and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel are, relatively speaking, practically lewd. If you find Sturges's photos pornographic then clearly you are insane.
Next sniff around the net in a search engine and check out how the so-called "christian" right has relentlessly hounded this guy over those books of photos for the last decade or so.
If you want to defend Christianity, by telling me that the "christian" right of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Donald Wildmon's American Family Association does not in any comprehensible way represent anything which any sensible reader of the New Testament can label "Christianity," then I suppose I can, with certain reservations, accept that argument.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Must be nice to have had a parent who would talk to you about stuff like that or anything for that matter. I first learned about the Second and First World Wars, and incidentally a few other real important facts my Dad-n-Mom couldn't be bothered to tell me about, off the shelves of the Clearwater, Florida and Dunedin, Florida public libraries.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:It's about intent. (Score:2)
There is no perfect filtering system, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to develop one that is workable.
Maybe not, neither does it mean we should bother to use internet filtering at all, any more than I should attach anti-aircraft missiles to my car, "just in case."
Anyway, Chrissake, if you yourself can put up with slashdot enough to actually post here, with that fucking goatse.cx picture popping up all the time, then how can you expect us to take you seriously when you whine over a mere porno repeating web page? Next you'll be insisting on installing some kind of expensive and stupid atomic-powered somethingware (emits ghostly blue light, occasionally buzzes and snaps like a Georgia skeeter zapper) down at the city park because this one time once you happened to step in some dog shit.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
cite John (Score:2)
new testimate references
...pure art. Here's that wonderful New Testament reference to stoning re adultery.
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world...
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Recursive poetry (Score:2)
i bought a wooden whistle
but it wooden whistle
so i bought a steel whistle
and it steel wooden whistle.
thank you.
OK, so how is this relevant to "library internet filtering"? I'm not saying that it is irrelevant, far be it from me to be so judgmental especially of a poet, I actually just want to hear your specific explanation, or someone's, of how it is. Come on, you can do it! Entertain me, I insist!
There is, when ya consider it, that definite link there in the frustrated struggle for self expression your sad song so plaintively sung, and "steel" suggests the substance of that cage (defective, leaky! impotent! yet which deforms like the Sung woman's foot-bindings...) in which the spirit of information, which wants so to be free, instead flutters away its sad imprisonment...
no wait the other way it's the controlled lockstep of the air, the desired, managed, mechanical industrial cyclical throb of the sequential compression and rarefaction of air, that's the thing the overmastering would-be whistleblower from above, maybe that's what he wants, but the law of chaos, the force of independence, ensures that that is the one thing he God damn well won't get! No, first cage us in your tedious rules and passwords, we hax0r em you betcha! then next you pushy lusers fortify your rules with iron laws, still no way you sorryass "leaders" that you'll impell us to sing your tune for you, basta!
let my phonemes go, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Good solution, but expensive (Score:2)
Any other issues with this solution that I missed?
Would you want to have been treated that way by your local public library when you were seventeen, or fourteen, or whenever?
Would you have deserved it?
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Censorware == transfer of responsibility. (Score:2)
Ah, the old notion of CYA. What Censorware will allow the libraries to do is to transfer blame to the censorware vendors (as long as the license agreements warrants this). They can say, "Hey, we installed 'sufficient' safeguards for the purposes of filtering that which some may find objectionable, so it's not our fault." This may be important for a small community library, who can ill-afford lawsuits.
However, what I am worried about, and no doubt others are as well, is that this will place power upon the censorware companies to restrict research into areas that they, not the libraries deem objectionable. What's wrong with requiring parental signatures for children? This way, the parents can choose to monitor their childrens' access or not, instead of having a "blanket coverage" for everyone. Alternatively, they can have 2 types of terminals, one censored, available to all, and the other uncensored, available only after a legally responsible party for the user (either the adult user or the juveniles' parent) has absolved all responsibility for the library regarding content online. If the second type of the terminals (uncut and raw) are in an access-controlled room, there really shouldn't be any problems.
Any comments?
--
Re:Censorware == transfer of responsibility. (Score:2)
Heh. I do personally know a head librarian in a county library in Michigan. It might be interesting to try it :-)
--
Re:Christianity and Filtering (Score:2)
Of course, that ignores the fact that it's unfair to punish women just because men can't control themselves.
--
Re:If they passed it, how long would it be... (Score:2)
"How to access the site www.somesite.org at the library" (where somesite.org is wrongfully blocked of course
Now, on the bottom of the page, you put some sentence like "Warning. By following these instructions, you have bypassed the filters. I take no responsibility if you would accidentaly access www.playboy.com as a result of this"
So, all you did was to tell the public how to acess your completely innocent site.
Holland Michigan Censorware Debate (Score:2)
I think the debate is over. The answer is:
Have two accounts, one for adults and one for children. The childrens account has censorware to avoid deliberate or unintential viewing of porn, etc. (whitehouse.com would leave those kiddies thinking Clinton was having an intern frenzy.) The adult system does not. Anyone under 18 needs parental permission to use the adult settings, this could be blanket permission like an "adult" library card or temporary supervision by an applicable adult.
As for it "not being my job to raise someone elses kids", that is true, but it is also not your job to make it more difficult for them to raise their kids themselves. It is also your moral obligation to stop someone from doing something wrong if it is within your power, like stopping a 10 year old from viewing porn on the computer next to yours at the library. This is not you "raising someones kids for them" this is you being a good neighbor and a good citizen.
I find it very interesting that the average slashdot user thinks that it is someones moral obligation to report, and fix if possible, the bugs in code that they discover but that this obligation does not carry over from cyberspace to meatspace. I stepped in gum coming back from lunch today. Should I have cleaned it up so someone else didn't have to step in it after I did? Yeah probably. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we stopped being so apathetic and started making differences in the small things we notice that are wrong? Definitely. Will we? No because that would mean being selfless for a few seconds.
Hey, it's political censorship (Score:2)
So, the Democratic sites can't be blocked, neither can the Greens, nor the Communist Party, USA (I presume they still exist) or even the Ku Klux Klan.
It's not that I want or expect my child to join any of those organised (or disorganised) parties, but I very much want her to see what opinions are out there, and decide for herself.
If your censorware blocks my child's access to any political site, well, people, we have a Federal case.
Pr0n, The Internet, and The Library (Score:2)
Back in my day, the day of 56K modems on win95 machines at the library, we didn't need no stikin' web browser to look up our porn, no sir, we did it the good ol' fashioned way. IRC, and FTP. by god, what more do you need!!! It took a bit of knowledge and skill to get porn, we had to "hack" their system to give us access to the file manager (3.1 Machine) and disable some startup files to give us access to the floppy, but goddammit, I wouldn't be the 1337 4@X0r that I am today with out it.
KEEP PORN IN THE LIBRARY!
Just don't make it easy to get to. Education and hormonal satisfaction all at the same time!.
i was in a rural town, 56k is still the fastest thing they've got
try for the middle ground (Score:2)
While I understand this viewpoint, I think it puts things into a false dicotomy. If I had children I would want two things that sometimes conflict. One is to give the child a certain amount of independance and allow him/her to learn things that they might not be comfortable talking to me about yet. (sex, sexual orientation, domestic violence, breast cancer, who knows). The other is to protect said child from encountering things that they are not emotionally ready for but would be unlikely to be able to discuss with me. (eroticised violence or violent erotica, humiliation porn, pedophilia, again, who knows.)
For these two goals, the library is a good compromise. A child can find a great deal of information, but is unlikely to happen upon violent porn when looking for Our Bodies Our Selves. (my previous attempts to point out the differences between "the nudes in the library" and the fringes of porn on the internet have been largly unsuccessful, so I won't harp on it here.)
Now say I as a parent see the internet. I see the same pontential for my first goal, but not the second. But I know that the internet is not a force of nature, but a bunch of bits brought to me by my computer. Someone tells me that they can take out those bits I worry the most about, but leave the potential for exploration.
Saying yes to this, in these circumstances, is not evil, its not using the internet as a babysitter, its not bad parenting. It may be uninformed parenting, but it is persuing a legitamate goal.
On that note, I was pleased to see an agnowledgement in the main article that there is room for discussion between the programs you choose to call censorware and a completely open internet. I'd love to see some viable conversation about real options for parents without being interupted by screams of "pornographer" or "censor" from either side.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:It's about intent. (Score:2)
AUUGHH. I use that site to check my pop account from work sometimes. Talk about potential for embarrassment!
More to the point, thank you for bringing this up. I'm really sick of things like the parent post where people attack anyone's wish to have filtering software. The truth is, a lot of time it IS about protection from unintended viewing (it would be if I had kids) or it IS about giving responsibility in a safe environment instead of a dicotomy between complete supervision and complete lack of guidence. Sometimes its about wishing that you could look up a sexual orientation issue on the internet without wading through all the porn hits you get on some search engines.
There are lots of reasons the average parent would be attracted to filterware. Why do we have to assume that anyone who disagrees with us is evil and wrong? Maybe people of good consience who are equally educated can still disagree.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:Terror campaign? (Score:2)
Not that I am supporting the orignial poster here, but your statement lays out the error in this entire "Must protect the children" arguement. As a parent, you cannot always be with your children. This is very true.
To get money, we have to go to a place we call workplace where no kids are allowed and we cannot be with you all the time. That's why we let those nice people at the daycare centre to take care of you during the day. It doesn't mean we don't love you.
It is your responsibility to make sure that your children are properly supervised. Day care center.. Babysitter.. whatever. You put your child in the care of someone you presumably trust (if you don't trust them, why are you leaving your child with them? Find someone you do trust.) It now becomes that person or organization's job to monitor the child's activty. It is not the library's responsibility, it is not the ISP's responsibility, it is yours, or your designee's (who we assume agreed to take on this responsibility). The arguement that "We can't be with our children all the time" doesn't really hold. If you can't be with your child, then someone you trust should be. Now, after a certain point we let children be by themselves... presumably this is because we now trust them to be their own care provider/supervisor. If, at that point you still don't feel that your child is capable of not reading p0rn in the damn library, then the problem is either with the values the child holds (instilled either by you or your trusted alternates), or with the child's lack of maturity (in which case, they obviously still need supervision. I bet a week or two of total supervison would cure most 16 year olds of their inability to control themselves.) In neither case is the problem with the library's lack of filtering software.
Almost... (Score:3)
I'd word it more like this:
This allows a slacker parent's authority to be overriden if necessary (but the one doing the overriding assumes responsibility), and still disclaims an ISP's responsibility for the actions of users it cannot feasibly control.
Opinions?
----------
Re:1 in 3? (Score:3)
They are drawing the number from censorware distribution. Quite a lot of PCs and Internet offers recently come with censorware bundled, preloaded, installed (whatever).
It is usually unused. Reason is very simple - parents who actually know how to use it do not use it. But the overall figures of censorware distribution have reached insane values. Hence this statistic.
Norwegian libraries (Score:3)
Not that the adult section had anything pornographic, but it did have some mature subjectmatters (like war, death etc etc), while the children section had stuff more geared towards kids (there is a difference between a history book written for fifth graders and a history book written for college students).
close, but no cigar (Score:3)
Personally I'd word the policy something like this:
have a day,
-l
Words of wisdom from men wiser than me. (Score:3)
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
-- On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
[F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
-- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Every man -- in the development of his own personality -- has the right to form his own beliefs and opinions. Hence, suppression of belief, opinion and expression is an affront to the dignity of man, a negation of man's essential nature.
-- Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, Thomas Emerson
Indeed, perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.
-- Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr., American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. Janet Reno (No. 98-5591)
A skillful leader does not use force.
A skillful fighter does not feel anger.
A skillful master does not engage the opponent.
A skillful employer remains low.
Tao Te Ching
Anger and venom cannot stop these attempts. Only reasoning in the proper manner can.
----
Re:Can't be helped... (Score:3)
Banned Books Week:
http://www.ala.org/bbooks/ [ala.org]
Hey, banned books week begins one week from now!
This issue has nothing to do with filtering out access to DeCSS. Don't be rediculous. But as you pointed out, as it stands (pre-appeal and overturn of the DMCA), software (even if is considered speech) that violates DMCA is not protected by the first amendment.
However,
THIS [loc.gov] seems to be ok to put in libraries. Funny how that works.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3)
>
> The key is encouraging children to develop deep understanding. I cringe when I ask my daughter why something is wrong and she says 'because you said so, Dad.'
Thank you for doing more good in five minutes than these filter-felchers will accomplish in their lifetimes.
I'm gonna shamelessly karma-whore, despite the karma kap, by quoting myself from an earlier Holland Library discussion:
Quoth Tackhead in this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/02/23/10172 33&cid=122 [slashdot.org]
Re:Can't be helped... (Score:3)
I worked at a library, we allowed children to view playboy when they asked for it. I had a parent try to get me fired once because I didn't do anything about her children reading playboy, but that's not my responsibility and all of the librarians agreed with me.
The fact is that children are subordniate to their parents. If a parent wishes the kid to have access then the kid should have it. If not, then not.
If a parent wishes a kid not to have access, the parent should not give the child access, abandoning your child at a library is giving them access to everything in the library. There are many places parent would never think of abandoning their children for hours on end, but for some reason they feel very comfortable leaving their children at a library, if the parent doesn't like what's in the library, that's their problem -- the parent is smart enough to know that they don't know everything that is in the library so they should be smart enough to come to the conclusion that if there is anything they might not want their children to see, they should be with their children, a lot of parents treat the library as a free babysitting service.
require a parent to be present in the library. Another--IMHO the best--is simply to turn the monitors towards the librarians.
I don't think parents should be required to be present, but they should understand that they are responsible for what their child does when unsupervised -- if the child picks up a rock and throws it at a car while unsupervised, it's the parent's fault (well, legally speaking, morally the child is certainly to blame as well), if a child picks up a playboy while unsupervised, it's the parent's fault as well. The problem with turning the monitors towards the librarians is that this would seriously slow down the work that can get done. At the library I worked at there were about 30 computers and two or three librarians on staff, most of the time 15 to 20 computers were in use at once, so either we would need 15 to 20 librarians on staff helping people out, actually, more, since it's faster to find information yourself when you know what you're doing than it is to convey to someone what you're looking for and negotiate with them about whether a match is a good match, or we could have only 3 computers which the librarians could use and have lines a mile long leading to the desk. Neither of these is a good solution. The way libraries currently work is great for everyone except negligent parents.
Re:Can't be helped... (Score:3)
In one case I can think of, one specific major ISP had a no-filtering policy. They'd remove stuff after being notified, but they did nothing proactive. But someone sued them, using the fact that the _issued pro-active usenet cancels for spam_ to try to nail them. So, in fact, WITH a good faith attempt at filtering, the library may MAKE itself liable. By filtering, it is saying it has taken responsibility for content upon itself, and then can be sued when its filtering fails.
"the future is now" (Score:3)
I absolutely love books... spending too much money on books is my favorite hobby. ;-) Especially computer books. But the library doesn't serve my needs adequately anymore. I get so much use out of my books that when I want a new one, I just buy it. The Border's across the street from work fulfills most of my needs, and Amazon.com, the rest.
But wait, this isn't about books... it's about computers. Computers with Internet access will make books obselete, and so I believe that one day public libraries will be little more than rows of blueberry iMacs. County governments will find them more cost effective; the Internet updates itself, for free. No more buying new encyclopedias. Want it on paper? Buy a laser printer too. As I said, I love books, and have bought many books fully knowing that the information contained within was available for free on the 'Net. But the library, as an research tool, shouldn't care about my personal preferences.
Fiction is another thing. Reading a novel online will suck. So the 'Net won't completely destroy the traditional image of the library. But the day will come when you can buy an electronic book reader. I envision them to be about the size of an Etch-a-Sketch, with a super-high resolution LCD that lets you read in the dark without straining your eyes. It will take "book cartridges" about the size of Game Boy games. And libraries will stock these, of course.
Censorship in libraries is a very important thing. Many of you think, "Who cares? I surf the net at home anyway.", but what about those who can't afford a PC, and do their research/newsreading at their local public library? Why should they have their opinions colored by government censorship? And the use of "censoring software" on a PC is stupid. If you don't want a child viewing pornography, use something called adult supervision. Just like the blocking software installed on home PCs, it's just an excuse for lazy parents.
If we let the government censor information today in public libraries, even under the guise of protecting the tender minds of young children, we shouldn't be the least bit surprised when the censorship starts getting worse in the future. I view these as the formative years in the next era of library technology, and we mustn't allow library censorship to shape the future of information access in the US. Everyone has the right to freedom of information, not just those with enough money to buy a personal computer.
Don't ignore these actions. It's wrong. You'll wake up one day, and discover PRC-type censorship everywhere, and wonder where it all started. This is where it started. Here, and now.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Re:Non-draconian filtering (Score:3)
The problem is that the people who want to keep kids from certain information also want to keep certain information from kids. It's not just that they don't want kids to accidentally see naked ladies. It's that they don't want their kids to know about sex, drugs, and differing religions/moralities/etc.
You might want to put some qualifiers on that last part. As is being discussed other places, there are a lot of reasons parents might want to use filtering software. And cut out the "naked ladies" strawman, a casual few minutes of browsing should demonstrate that we aren't just talking about some tasteful nudes out there. There is a legitamate issue even in most parent's minds pitting mature exploration against the wish to protect emotional health.
So lets think about viable options. One good one would be to say "we don't want anything on our computers that would be harmful to minors" then, instead of asking every parent what they think would harm their minors, try to get a professional consensus. Talk to teachers, child psychologists, librarians and parents about what they actually mean when they say "harmful". The professional viewpoint would probably overrule the few wacky fundy parents and in most communities you would end up with a mandate to block pornography (with a priority for eliminating violent and child centered types) and non-professional drug information.
Now, is it possible to implement such a filter? At what success rate? Are we focusing on preventing people from finding information they are looking for or from getting rape fantasy porn when looking for info on preventing date rape? Is this a one size fits all minors, or legal minor vs pre-teen minor?
If the free speechers, the techies and the concerned (some of which may overlap) sat down and had this conversation, instead of both sides assuming that its either unfiltered or christian coalition aproved, we might accomplish something.
-Kahuna Burger
The truly scary part... (Score:3)
Can't be helped... (Score:3)
The potential liability issues for having unrestricted terminals in public places are probably too much for a library admin to bear. Especially in an America where there is truly forbidden information on the Internet (DeCSS code, for example), public institutions will be installing filtering software.
Right or wrong, they will want to protect themselves. Without a good faith attempt at filtering, the library system could be open to lawsuits from irate parents. Some of them will blame the library internet access for every screwed up thing their screwed up kids do. But quality parenting is another discussion.
This isn't about... (Score:3)
What does this say about America? The few that are vocal hold reign over the silent majority. It's been that way since the 70s. We need to make our points clearly heard, and yes that means becoming an activist (much like those trying to install censorship in our libraries).
Non-draconian filtering (Score:3)
The more I saw the temperament of some of my students, the more convinced I was that there really should be some blocking system in place. Despite my frustration at having to work around it sometimes.
What I envisioned was a simple blocking system, maybe not much more sophisticated than a (public) blacklist. If you came up against a block, you could simply call up someone (or call a library aid in the room or something), and say you needed to look at the URL. Give your name and the reason. They'd give you access, and look at the URL too.
What I figured is that embarassment alone might be enough to stop kids from looking at things they shouldn't, and the access would still be available for things they should. Yeah, this makes looking into circumcision and breast cancer and other such things harder (and that's embarassing to some people) but possible.
In short: most anything is accesible, but some (perhaps many) things require easily available permission.
The Minnesota solution works better (Score:4)
In Minnesota it is illegal to view in a public place anything of a prnographic nature.
There, a simple law that covers not just the internet, but all possibal ways to kids to get corruption, and it forces the burdon of not looking at pron where it belongs: The insensitive jerks who view it in public. Want to view porn at home, fine, want to check out playboy from the library? Fine, but you have to keep it concealed until you are at home.
Best of all, this law allows for telling the difference between breast cancer research and porn.
Deep Thoughts (Score:4)
"do it for the children" bullshit (Score:4)
If you're on a debate team, just keep repeating the phrase, "...and our children's children." No one will know (or care) what the fuck you are talking about, but you will win!
--
You don't become a failure until you are content with being one.
Simple Solution (Score:4)
It all centers around the LIBRARY offering the internet service. That's very key.
Have the library specifically re-task their computers that are doing internet access to card-catalogs, office work, whatever. Then, YOU come in -- yes you, the concerned citizen -- YOU offer the computer, YOU offer the internet access, and just LOCATE it at the library. YOU are then offering the public service, not the library.
I had already spoken with my old smalltown local library (when HR4577 was on the agenda to mandate censorware for any library whose computer was purchased with public funds) and they were more than amenable to the idea of circumventing silly censorship statutes in such a manner. (I had told them that I would buy the computer and arrange for free internet access for them, if they agreed to retask the publicly-funded computer elsewhere). Luckily 4577 hasn't seen the light of day yet, so I've yet to have to pony up, but if the time comes, yeah, I'll do it, and so should you.
D
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4)
In the scenario with MY local library, I'm simply donating the funds specifically to cover the services the library is providing. Their blanket insurance policies or whatever will cover them. HR4577 simply mandates "publicly funded", and I'm eliminating that public funding.
Now in my solution to Michigan's problem, the answer is simply to require someone to sign some paperwork (usage agreement, etc., which limits/eliminates liability) before they use the system. If you're a minor, get a parent to sign for you.
The Michigan solution isn't as "neat and tidy" as the HR4577 solution. The HR4577 solution provides a drop-in replacement for the existing computer with no changes necessary, whereas the MI solution will require minors to get approval from their parent first. Personally, I'm not that opposed to the minor having to check with their parents. That's what parents are FOR, right?
D
Let's keep this in perspective... (Score:4)
Besides, Gore and Lieberman have been going on and on and on about how important it is to protect children from these things... but I haven't heard anything about that on this site. Oh, wait, didn't this site endorse Al Gore?
Why is it not considered newsworthy when there is a bipartisan witch hunt [freedomforum.org] accross American culture going on, calling for regulation or at least threatening it, but the library in Holland, Michigan gets mentioned? Is it just snobbery (censoring movies and video games is ok, but censoring the Internet in Libraries isn't) or is it something else?
Damn Straight! (Score:4)
Of course, at the time you had to go to the Librarian for the really interesting materials like X, but the guy down at the 7/11 would happily sell it to you without question. God that guy was great. Got my first Journal of American Live Goat Porn from him...
If they passed it, how long would it be... (Score:4)
I wonder if that would be cause for arrest -- contributing to the delinquincy of a minor? But then again, filters obviously block legitimate sites.
And of course, that assumes that any of the kids would actually need a leaflet.
This should be (and is) a local issue (Score:4)
We may all be geeks here, and we may share attitudes on "censorware" software in our libraries, but it is not our right to dictate whether or not libraries in another community should adopt these policies any more than it is the government's right to do so. By all means, pay attention to this and if you see some items you'd like to bring up with your local library system, PLEASE DO SO.
I personally would prefer that my library go back to having 'adult' and 'child' library cards, with adult cards having access to more mature topics and perhaps an uncensored (but still quite visible to the librarian's desk) feed to the 'Net. If I wanted my child to have access to this stuff, I'd just have to give my consent to the library so that he would be issued an adult card. The only people with censored access are the kids whose parents don't want them to have access. But still, as logical as this sounds to me, I would never try to force this on other communities. It's up to the local community to decide how they want to run their public libraries, not me, not you, and certainly not Slashdot.
Christianity and Filtering (Score:4)
*sigh* Parents these days... (Score:5)
When I was a child, there was this idea that if your parents didn't want you to read X, they told you "You're forbidden to read X", or "I don't want to catch you reading any of that skanky X, you hear me?", or "Our kind of people don't read X" or whatever.
Now putting aside the issue of whether or not these things are effective, there was this idea that parents were responsible for their kids.
Everyone keeps acting like this whole internet filtering thing is about protecting children from being inadvertantly exposed to, er, whatever it is that would be so dreadful for them to be exposed to. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's about keeping kids from seeing what their parents don't want them to see. It's about making libraries, schools, the government and general passers-by on the streets responsible for enforcing some parents' rules for their kids.
Quite aside from the very legitimate and excellent first amendment concerns, I'm getting pretty cheesed off about me and my tax money being expected to contribute to raising some slacker's brat, just because the loser is such a tinhat dictator they've lost all respect of their spawn.
Look, 'rents: it's not the public library's job to enforce your bloody rules. Instilling moral behavior in your kids is your job, and either you feel you've done a sufficiently good job that you can trust them to surf the net alone, or you don't. If you don't, then don't let them go to the library.- ------
---------------------------------------
Re:Non-draconian filtering (Score:5)
Ah, the embarrassment argument. It hinges on the premise that kids wouldn't be embarrassed to ask some random authority-figure adult for permission to legitimate topics. However legitimate topic include information about birth control, abortion, or sexually transmitted disease.
Oh, yeah, right. I can just see some 13yr-old junior high school student telling his librarian "I need to check out this site on gonorrhea, 'cause, um, I have this itch...."
Or, for that matter, a 14yr-old telling a librarian's aid "I need to access this site about Ecstacy side effects, because I think I had this weird reaction."
Or, for that matter, a 15yr-old telling a librarian "I want to access this site which is a support network for homosexuals because I think I might be gay."
The problem is that the people who want to keep kids from certain information also want to keep certain information from kids. It's not just that they don't want kids to accidentally see naked ladies. It's that they don't want their kids to know about sex, drugs, and differing religions/moralities/etc.
The moment you start allowing some filtering, those parents will demand that you start filtering to keep information from kids -- demand that you do their dirty work for them. The only way not to get stuck with that job is to refuse to do any filtering for them at all.- --
-------------------------------------------
Re:Can't be helped... (Score:5)
Libraries have had books and magazines with nudity in them and books and magazines with violent pictures in them, many parents have complained, a few have sued, I don't know of anybody who has won a lawsuit (the library is, afterall, not a babysitting service, though some parents treat it as such).
The Library Bill of Rights, created by the American Library Association states in part:
Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
Why bother with software? (Score:5)
- Turn all computer monitors toward a librarian's desk.
- Keep the desk staffed.
Problem solved, and nobody's spending any additional money at all for the effort.