ACLU And Libraries Challenge CIPA 120
In a nutshell: a few years ago, Congress got the bright idea that libraries and schools ought to have internet connections and computers. You may be aware that for many years, there has been a tax levied on telephone service which goes to the "universal service" fund - this money is supposed to be used to fund telephone service in remote areas of the United States, to ensure that all U.S. citizens have access to a telephone. Alaska is a major beneficiary.
The universal service fund was the natural place to tap to provide funds for discounted internet access to libraries and schools, and it was. Under the new programs, schools and libraries could receives funds to purchase computers and ongoing discounts on internet access charges. The new program was called "E-Rate", and about $5.5 billion has been spent so far, and up to $2.25 billion may be spent each year. My phone bill says that I am being taxed $0.43/month/line for universal service - I'm not certain if this is constant across the United States or not. You can check your local school or library to see if they are receiving funding here.
However, the Federal Government giveth and the Federal Government taketh away. For several years running, conservatives in Congress attempted to add language which would require recipients of this funding to censor their internet access. So, internet=GOOD, uncensored internet=BAD. Senator John McCain spearheaded the drive to impose internet censorship in any institution which accepted the funds or discounts. In December 2000, the language was added to the 2001 omnibus spending bill, which was ten inches thick when Congress finally voted to approve it - thick enough that no one on earth could claim to know what actually was in the spending bill and what was not.
Although there were attempts to make the bill apply only to terminals used by minors, the final bill applies to all terminals used by anyone. The institutions receiving funding are required to block access to (at a minimum) obscene materal, child pornography, and material harmful to minors (when minors are using the terminals). Given the technical limitations of the software, it's impossible for blocking to be limited to those areas listed. Some schools and libraries will choose to reject the funding and find some other way to budget for internet access. Some will accept the funding and the conditions. Talk to your library and find out.
And here we are. The plaintiffs -- libraries and library associations, library patrons, and people who publish content likely to be blocked -- are asserting that Congress has violated several Constitutional rights with the passage of this law. Read the last few pages of either complaint for an explicit listing of their claims. These are hard claims to make - the court system has often upheld Congress' power to put conditions on funding, since after all, the libraries do have the option of declining the funds - perhaps eliminating their internet access - and in that case, they wouldn't be bound by the law's requirement to censor their internet access. Funding for the interstate highway system has been tied to a national speed limit and to a national drinking age, for example.
In other words, this legal challenge is no slam dunk. This is more like a shot from half court with Michael Jordan in your face. The remedy with the greatest chance of success is pushing Congress to reverse itself and make the E-rate funds restriction-free.
If anybody's friend be dead (Score:1)
It's sharpest of the theme
The thinking how they walked alive --
At such and such a time --
Their costume, of a Sunday,
Some manner of the Hair --
A prank nobody knew but them
Lost, in the Sepulchre --
How warm, they were, on such a day,
You almost feel the date --
So short way off it seems --
And now -- they're Centuries from that --
How pleased they were, at what you said --
You try to touch the smile
And dip your fingers in the frost --
When was it -- Can you tell --
You asked the Company to tea --
Acquaintance -- just a few --
And chatted close with this Grand Thing
That don't remember you --
Past Bows, and Invitations --
Past Interview, and Vow --
Past what Ourself can estimate --
That -- makes the Quick of Woe!
--------
Anonymous Emily Dickinson LIVES!
Corporations need to step in (Score:1)
I don't think the ALA and ACLU challenging the CIPA is enough. Sure, these are great organizations, but their priorities are so clearly agains censorship, and that is the basis for their existence, so their challenges seem almost compulsatory. It would lend more credibility to the case against the CIPA to have more politically neutral technology advocates come on board. This should include coroporations (come on Bill, have some balls!), technological literacy groups, and the technology media (yes, that means Slashdot). In the ACLU and ALA, we have great weapons in the battle for continuing freedom of speech/expression, but we're running short of soldiers, and we need to widen the support base. It's not too much to ask for some of these people to at least lend a word in favor of action against the CIPA, and money would help even more. Why should the ALA and ACLU have to fight this alone?
Everything's going to hell in a handbasket... (Score:1)
Am I the only one who thinks this? The insanity is just going to far... and Bush Jr gives me the willies. Don't get me started on that issue.
Do we not have enough problems as it is, we have to make up more? Do we seriously have nothing better to do with our resources than to sue and litigate trivial things? It seems like every time there is the smallest problem there will be a media frenzy and someone running to congress to whine and complain like a spoiled kid does to their parents. Are we so far removed from the cold harsh reality of life? I think what the country needs is a good spanking.
It's no wonder we've not had any contact with aliens. All they'd have to do is take one look at what's been going on lately and they'd write the earth off as "a bad idea". Maybe the "mostly harmless" description wasn't so far off after all (thank you, Douglas Adams...)
Speaking as a Canadian (uh oh, here come the flames!) and one who's spend a little while in Europe, the whole issue of pornography and alcohol are only problems because we make them problems. We've been taught that nudity means sex, and since sex is bad for anyone less than legal age we must shield our delicate children from that evil evil incarnation.
Here's an interesting question: What would happen if we didn't?
In Toronto a few years ago we had a big fight come up for the right for women to go topless on the beaches. They made it legal, and.. well.. nothing happened. Some women took advantage of it, and that was about it. Once it was accepted as being common, suddenly seeing a pair of brests on the beach simply wasn't that big a deal.
I suspect that the same thing would happen. Once it's commonly accepted, it's not unusual. Think about the 1800's, where if people saw an ad for Calvin Klein they'd faint, nevermind watch a fashion show. I'm sure they'd say much the same thing as we're saying now, but now that it's a usual thing to happen, it's not a big deal.
North Americans (yes, Canadians included) are particularly anal when it comes to these issues. Over here there are commercials on at any given time during the day with full female frontal nudity and TV shows with the same. In fact I was watching a primetime TV drama show with some friends a few weeks ago and there was a scene where two women had a quite-a-bit-more-than-just-a-kiss moment (no nudity however, but close to it), and another where a woman walked out of the shower, front view, completely naked. While I stood there with my mouth on the ground nobody else here so much as blinked.
The point is they don't make it a big deal here, and so it isn't. Proof of concept. Is life any worse over here? If anything I'd say it's better (no patent wars over here
Same goes for alcohol. Basically if you're old enough to reach the bar counter they'll let you in. You can go to McDonalds (which is just wrong to have here, I'm sorry) and order beer with your happy meal. Every corner store has a nice selection of alcohol of all kinds, and people freely walk around drinking without a second thought.
Seriously, I think that we just need to grow up and stop the whining and bitching and complaining. Everyone over here is laughing at Americans. Maybe if we grow up the rest of the world will start to look at us with some sort of respect, but until then...
Re:Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:3)
The real solution is the removal of the tax. I'm with the Libertarians on this one.
I agree with the Libertarians on quite a few things as well. Too bad their candidates always come off as crackpots. They need to find someone a tad more moderate to get in and start things moving in the right direction. This all or nothing, all at once approach won't work. Their candidates even scare me, and I'm inclined to agree with them fairly often.
Re:Unconstitutionality? (Score:1)
The Bill of Rights: it's not just a good idea, it's the Law...
Re:how about (Score:1)
If they did, this would all be moot.
Re:You have to take the good with the bad (Score:1)
A hovel and some breadcrumbs aren't sufficient.
Also, ignoring social policy thinking that the associated problems will magically cure themselves, or fail to get worse, is simply not sane (but that's another rant).
View from the trenches (Score:2)
Currently we have an X-Stop filter installed, but it is switchable. We have three groups of users:
1. Adults sitting at one of our stations with a recessed monitor. These users are totally unfiltered.
2. Adults at an exposed monitor. These users go through the X-Stop for web access, but their use of IRC and Telnet, etc is unmolested. The logic is that p0rn pics are visible to others but text should be fairly safe.
3. Children are catagory three. If their parent has signed off for unfiltered access we treat them under the above rules for adults. Otherwise they get X-Stopped and access to common ports like Telnet and IRC are filtered.
Here in the very Buckle of the Bible Belt (Beauregard Parish is in the Record Books with highest per capita number of Churches) we have had zero complaints about this policy because it puts control in the hands of the parents and they like that.
If they force us to filter everyone our current plan is to modify our login scripts to do the filter, but if a patron would have had unfiltered access under OUR rules throw up a large box explaining what we did, why and the contact information for their masters in Washington.
Then start researching exactly WHAT qualifies as a filter and if possible code up a minimal filter that only blocks the really nasty stuff and drop THAT into the system as what adults get.
The best solution if to eliminate E-Rate, otherwise this battle won't ever end and even if we win this round, they will try again in a few years. So long as the money comes from Washington, eventually they WILL win control of what happens with it. We had a T1 line years before E-rate and we will still have one if it went away.
Re:First AMendment != Commerce Clause (Score:2)
This is some really good information. It sort of makes sense, but I remember that Clinton was able to do something on the federal level about assault weapons. Is this being challenged, or did they have some sort of loophole (anti-loophole?).
Re:constitutional problems? (Score:2)
Now, the government has not only imposed its subjective judgement about what books are OK for library patrons, but they have done it in such a way as to get rid of perfectly good books that even they had no problem with.
Well (Score:1)
get shakespearean on 'em (Score:2)
they can have their pound of flesh only, no blood.
they can require that access to the listed material be blocked, but only if the technology used does not block anything else...which the technology cannot.
-dk
Re:Unconstitutionality? (Score:1)
The government isn't acting as some nice charitable organization that's giving money in exchange for some conformance. They forcibly take money, and then they offer to give it back if you'll do what they say! How nice of them.
Re:Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:2)
Still didn't stop them from having a multi-million dollar gymnasium built though...
Ok (Score:3)
I want a hot girl (Score:2)
Re:Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:2)
Find a local ISP willing to donate the bandwidth. It won't be that hard, really. Most will either give them a free port or a significant discount. Find a local computer retailer who wants some good community will. (remember that the CIPA also mentions "hardware purchased with government funds", so if some government grant made the PC possible, they're equally boned). Work out a discount deal and install it. Put in Windows (yeah, you could use Linux, but in reality, Windows plug-in support, etc. etc., is much better, although the security aspects of Linux are not something to be shaken away lightly)... anyhow make whatever choice you want to on that front and just do it. You'll get a ton of thanks and good karma (real world karma, not /. karma) from people who are just as adamant about free-speech as anyone here.
And besides... occasionally, there's a really cute librarian you'll make the acquaintance of.. and she'll be indebted to you. :) just kidding
D
I WANT the filters applied! (Score:2)
When the swimsuit edition came out (and this was in the days when they actually wore swimsuits - just to tell you how long ago that was)
our librarian would remove it from the shelves.
Being the obnoxious youngster that I was, I made a point of insisting that she return it to the shelves because it was censorship.
She basically told me (and rightly so) that I was a snotty little kid who didn't need to have access to this sort of thing.
I cried CENSORSHIP! and she told me to buzz off.
I had no reason to be reading that sort of material - certainly not in a government funded library.
On top of that, I was a student, and a minor - both mean that I had fewer rights in our society than someone who has attained adulthood.
Children are developmentally different from adults and need help making information and media choices. If you choose to raise your kids on a diet of pr0n and violent TV/Movies/video games, that is your choice, but don't ask me to fund it.
If you want to get your jollies looking at women/animals/men/explosives/automobiles, I really don't care, but don't ask me to subsidize your entertainment.
As a practical matter, librarians act as censors all of the time. Even thought the ALA publically decries censorship, most libraries have very limited funds and must choose carefully what materials that they make available. They choose not to procure the items that serve only the smallest number of people.
Bandwidth is not free, and ideas have consequences.
Download what you will in your own home when you're paying for it.
I can't control what you put in your head. I don't want to.
You're accountable for the consequenses of viewing that garbage - but don't look in my wallet to fund your jollies!!
Filtering software is imperfect.
Get over it.
I don't want my son exposed to pr0n. If this means that when he's at school or at the library he can't get to some material which may benefit him educationally, he can work with me at home to surf the net where I can help him find apppropriate material, and potentially protect him from damaging material.
I know what spending lots of time with pr0n did to my world view and to my brain. Victimless? Not hardly!
If I can pass on that for him, I will.
I want filters in the libraries and schools, thank you very much!
Respectfully,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
If you would like more information about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Re:Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:2)
So what you really want is lower taxes. If the government can't afford the massive military programs, then they won't exist.
Personally, I like massive military programs. Worst case, the spinoffs of the research help everyone. Best case, no one attacks the US because they know that the slightly crazy fuckers who run the US will pound them to dust.
I also like giving people access to information on birth control and an unfettered Internet. I'm just not convinced it's a government job to do so.
Health care for poor people is a toughie. No one wants to see sick people not getting the care they need, but someone has to pay the doctors, and doctors have $100,000 loans from medical school to pay off (and probably another $50,000-$100,000 from their undergraduate work). And then there's the cost of equipment and the cost of researching new drugs and devices (and the cost of educating researchers). Medicine is an expensive business.
Someone's gotta pay somewhere along the line, or we have to significantly slow down the pace of research. Which is better: doing the best we can for poor people today, or finding cures sooner for people tomorrow? I'm not wise enough to make that call.
-jon
Re:Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:3)
Yes, and the government decided to allocate it in a wildly stupid way because McCain et al are too stupid to understand the technology they want to regulate.
The real solution is the removal of the tax. I'm with the Libertarians on this one. There are some things of national need which are best run by the government and funded via taxes. For example, I put roads, schools, police, firefighters, military, and maybe utilities in this category. (complete aside: the one part of California which isn't subject to rolling blackouts is the City of Los Angeles. That's because LA owns its own power generation capacity) Internet access for libraries is not one of those things.
How much would it really cost to provide a dial-up connection to every library in the country? This doesn't require any sort of central planning or administration. Just walk into your nearest library with your checkbook and the phone number for a local ISP. Heck, I bet the ISP would provide service at a discount in exchange for the publicity...
-jon
Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:4)
If you want poor areas to have Internet access in libraries, but you don't want stupid government censorship, raise the money yourself and give it to these schools!
It's not like charity _has_ to come from the federal government...
-jon
No slam dunk, but we can hope (Score:4)
The idea is, primarily, to smooth the differences between rich and poor neighborhoods. My neighborhood could easily afford to put computers in the libraries, but not every one can. If the federal government is going to be involved this is a good reason for them to be. The differences in income in this country are largely due to differences in education. Differences in education are largely due to differences in affluence. Therefore, smoothing access to educational resources will ultimately (on a generational scale anyway) lead to a smoothing of class differences.
The problem is that the bill has been turned into a censorship bill and the right to refuse has been taken away from those who most need the help. My neighborhood could easily tell Dubya to go spank it, but the neighborhoods who need the help simply cannot do that.
Once you take away the choice, the censorship is all you are left with. Hopefully this thing will be stuck down and the money used to provide internet access instead of thought police.
--
Re:Hold on a second here... (Score:2)
What is the definition of "hate speech"? I've seen the term used to attack anyone who has an opinion that is objectionable to an "oppressed group", such as upper middle-class college students.
Re:Unconstitutionality? (Score:2)
Adhere to the letter of the law (Score:1)
Leading Question (Score:1)
Plus CNN polls are notorious for having groups with agendas getting people to vote for their choice. Explain how Jesus/Muhammad/(Insert long dead religious figure here) can be voted into the top 100 people of the last century.
Re:Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:1)
Please, somebody, anybody, mod this up. This guy is right on target. This is the problem with this whole debate - we, as geeks, come off sounding like a bunch of whiners because we want library computers to have pr0n access for free. If you feel strongly about the issue, get out and do something about it. Don't sit here and e-mail your Congressperson - get out and do public service work.
Re:Wouldn't it be luverly? (Score:1)
That's government sponsored censorship in libraries, absolutely. But it's not the regulation of internet access. Libraries are still free to fund their own internet access. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that the government is not regulating internet access in libraries. It's just giving it away for free in censored form. Would you rather they took away the offer altogether, and forced all libraries to pay for their own internet access?
Frankly, if the library my kid frequented had the choice between censored internet access and none at all, you know which one I'd pick? Something is better than nothing.
Re:Wouldn't it be luverly? (Score:1)
Re:how about (Score:1)
One problem there - cybercafes aren't free. Libraries are. The whole issue is about funding for poor libraries that couldn't otherwise afford to give away free internet access. Unless, of course, you're saying only rich kids could have internet access - but I know that's not what you meant.
Re:Unconstitutionality? (Score:2)
If you consider a budget as legislation, then yes. However, every year a new budget is passed. None of the restrictions contained therein are binding permanent contracts. They're redone every year. IMHO, legislation is permanent, binding things that don't go away each year.
Re:You have to take the good with the bad (Score:2)
And by extension, what you're saying is that the Libertarian solution is to not pay for internet access, and give the citizens a tax break in exchange for that money that is no longer being spent. Then, the citizens need to organize and figure out how to fund their own libraries' internet access, right?
Makes sense to me, but I know it'd aggravate some people who live in poor areas that can't afford to equip their libraries with computers. What's the Libertarian solution there?
Oh, wait, I know. You're going to say that the Libertarians would still have the internet access program, but they wouldn't place any filter restrictions on it. So that's the Democrat plan. So how is the Libertarian platform better again? Could you explain that?
Re:cnn (Score:2)
You have to consider the viewership of CNN. CNN is inherently Democrat-biased, and they tend to attract the liberal left. I saw that particular poll myself and clicked No, but I wasn't at all surprised by the results. Two words for you: Ted Turner.
During the presidential race, a friend of mine and I had a running bet. Every morning, CNN showed a picture of Gore and Bush: Gore was always smiling, and Bush was always frowning. This went on for 17 days in a row. It was hilarious. I won $170 on it, $10 per day. The friend of mine wouldn't give up until he won once. And of course, Bush ended up winning, and I'd have loved to have seen Turner's face that day.
Re:Wouldn't it be luverly? (Score:3)
Re-read that, and re-read the article. Congress isn't saying you're not free to browse whatever you want. All they're saying is that they will offer funds to libraries if the libraries censor the internet. You're still perfectly free to enjoy pr0n in your home. Even further, you're even perfectly free to donate to your local library to install a pr0n-loaded computer accessible to minors. There's nothing whatsoever that's being made illegal here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for this particular budget restriction. However, it has nothing to do with free speech. Congress can dole out our tax dollars in any way, shape, or form it wants to, and the only thing we can do about it is to write our Congressperson.
Re:Unconstitutionality? (Score:4)
They're not regulating schools or libraries. They're offering funding to libraries for internet access if they install filters. That's all. They're not saying the libraries can't spend their own money (or the community's money, however you want to look at it) and install pr0n-laden computers accessible to minors.
This is no different than Congress saying, "Ok, Texas, you can have half-a-billion bucks for highway renovations this year, but you have to use it on interstates, and you have to restrict the speed on those interstates to 65 mph." Get it? They're enforcing arbitrary rules for our own safety (they think) as a condition of receiving the money.
Now, if Texas had a ton of money, they could maintain their own highways and ignore the speed limit. In fact, Montana did just this for a while. However, most states find it easier to accept the burdens in exchange for the bucks. It's not an additional regulation - the states have to choose to take the money.
Thankfully, internet access costs a lot less than highways. You can organize fund-raising drives for your local library to get filter-free internet access, and your library would actually thank you for it. So you ARE doing this, right? Or are you just sitting around whining?
Re:First AMendment != Commerce Clause (Score:2)
The bus guy doesn't like this, understandably, and so he calls his friend the chief of police, and gets a bunch of uniforms out at the bus stop. Everyone who gets off the bus is asked where they're going, and if you say "to see the picture" you get put back on the bus.
So, no, no-one's stopping me from speaking.
--
Wouldn't it be luverly? (Score:1)
Well, it was a nice thought...
You're right! Uh, but so am I... (Score:1)
You probably understood my real point was that the intention of the First Amendment was pretty obvious. Congress shouldn't be trying to get around the First Amendment by offering carrots on a stick to the States if they allow the rights of the people to be suppressed.
So by passing a bill that helps to abridge the rights of the people, blah, blah, blah.
You get the picture.
By the way, income tax is voluntary - don't volunteer.
Good point, that's the way I felt too until... (Score:1)
It sounds too weird to believe, but after reading Title 26 and Title 27 of the United States Code and with a little help from the below I believe that no citizen is obligated to pay Federal or State income taxes.
Unless you've spent at least 20 hours pouring over this stuff please don't feel that you can comment on the legitimacy of what I say.
I had to be dragged into this kicking and screaming by someone I really trusted before I believed it.
Did you know that your W-4 form is the form where you ask your employer to withhold from your pay? You ask. There is no regulation forcing you to fill out that form, it is a contract between employer and employee only.
The OMB (Office of Management and Budgeting) number on your 1040 form (upper right corner) says that the 1040 is only for foreign earned income. If you really do the research you'll discover the truth and the truth is that it's all a big lie.
Is 20 hours of serious research and maybe a couple of hundred dollars for books worth you saving $30,000 a year on your taxes?
I am not affiliated with these people in anyway other than being a satisfied customer.
http://www.taxgate.com
http://www.freedommall.com
http://www.eddiekahn.com
If this doesn't blow your mind try to find out what the gold fringe on the American flag means. Those flags are in every court in our land, but not outside them, or in schools or hardly anywhere else. What does that gold fringe mean that makes it so important inside of a courtroom?
No taxes, no way to exploit them (Score:1)
See my other post.
Re:Good point, that's the way I felt too until... (Score:1)
"...I don't even think..."
What I mean is that's your opinion. I don't mean to imply that you're stupid - I don't call people that.
My opinion and that of TENS of MILLIONS of other Americans (per the IRS' own numbers) is that it really is voluntary, or optional to use your words.
The IRS certainly wants you to think it's mandatory. I was surprised too.
See my other posts to learn the truth.
Re:So... (Score:1)
You don't mean <A HREF="http://www.thejugscompany.com/products/pitc
--
Re:ACLU != AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAMERS UNION (Score:1)
Re:*The* remedy? (Score:2)
--
Re:Hmm? (Score:2)
Won't Somebody Think Of the Children!?!?!(tm)
How about, "Won't Somebody Think of the Constitution?!?!?"
The 14th Amendment (Score:2)
It extends the protections from the federal government to cover state action.
Re:First AMendment != Commerce Clause (Score:1)
I've often wondered why this is. Read legally, the First Amendment doesn't seem to say this at all. But I probably shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth...
The reason is that the 14th amendment [cornell.edu] made all the previous amendments (and future ones) apply to all government action--whether state, local or federal. In other words, it makes no sense for the Federal Congress to be prohibited from establishing a state religion while state governments are not prohibited. Specifically, this amendment was passed in order to extend the protection of the law (i.e. basic human rights) to blacks and other groups that were previously second-class citizens because of state, not federal law.
Rachael
Re:Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:2)
I agree. Someone needs to outline a program of "Progressive Libertarianism". It's one thing to say "We're at Point X when we should be at Point Y", but what is the proper path (progression) from one to the other? It's one thing to say a building should come down, but what's the proper, safe way to do it?
The Libertarians (I include myself) need to lay out not only which laws/programs/bureaus should be abolished, but in what order. For example, in the 'ideal' world, the individual need not fear corporations, since corporations cannot use force to get their way. The only problem is that right now, via the DMCA, the proposed UCITA, and other laws, the Government acts as a proxy for the corporation. When a corporation uses it's vast legal resources to drag me into court, just going through the legal proceedings is a drain on my resources (a fine, in essence) and an infringement on my liberty. My nonparticipation is not an option -- the Government will see to that.
From where I stand, individuals should be granted their full and unrestricted liberty first. Individual liberty is supposedly the bedrock of Libertarian beliefs, and under the current system individuals are less able to infringe on someone else's liberty by abusing the legal or political system. Groups of people should be freed of Government interference in the reverse order of the power they currently wield. Since Governement always has the guns, it must always be heavily restricted, but other groups of people (corporations, unions, religious groups, etc.) should be given their freedom to associate without regulation as they demonstrate they will not infringe the liberty of others.
On a side note, the other hurdle for Libertarians is properly addressing common property (e.g., the environment), but that's another discussion.
First AMendment != Commerce Clause (Score:3)
The Commerce Clause says (effectively) that Congress can only legislate on matters involving interstate commerce. A national drinking age is not a matter of interstate commerce; it's a state policy decision that Congress is not constitutionally competent to regulate. So Congress used "legislative bribery" to force states to adopt a national drinking age. Since there is no constititional "right to drink", however, this doesn't offend the Constitution because Congress is entitled to determine how to spend federal money.
However, there is a Constitutionally-protected right of free speech. Furthermore, this right acts to limit not only Congress but also the states and other entities which are acting as governmental agencies (including public schools and public libraries). The First Amendment will no more countenance "legislative bribery" that restricts speech than it will a direct regulation that does the same.
As proof, I offer a case handed down earlier this term, in which the Supreme Court invalidated a regulation that requires lawyers who receive funding from the Legal Service Organization to refrain from representing clients who were challenging the legality or constitutionality of welfare reform laws. The Supreme Court held that this restriction violated the free speech rights of both the lawyers receiving the funding and their clients. I don't see how the instant matter is any different.
Re:Unconstitutionality? (Score:2)
The E-Rate plan is legislation. The filtering stipulations on those funds are legislation. The filtering is an abridgement of speech.
Legislation, once signed, is Law. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you get?
Re:Wouldn't it be luverly? (Score:3)
Computers cannot be offended: it's not the censorware computer program that is doing the filtering of offensive material.
If it's not the censorware, it's the proponents of the censorware, that chooses what to hide from you. What political slant or prejudices are you entrusting with the filter?
Government-mandated filtering via a commercial product means a private company becomes a government bureacracy: think of the complexity of ensuring several million, if not billions, of websites are blocked or allowed according to government-mandated standards.
If a government sets the standards for what to filter, then the government opens itself for lawsuits. Millions of lawsuits where website creators feels they are being censored unfairly.
If the government requires censorship before they distribute funds, that's government sponsored censorship. That, by itself, is against your argument and against the First Amendment.
Re:Hmm? (Score:1)
Actually, no. US law differentiates "questionable" materials into at least two different categories, which are called "indecent" and "obscene". Materials which are "obscene" are outside of the normal public purview - things like child pornography, for example, which is illegal everywhere. The standards for "indecent" material, on the other hand, are decided by local and regional governments, based on their own laws. In other words, different communities have the right to decide for themselves whether "indecent" materials are allowed in various contexts; however, "obscene" materials aren't allowed in any context. Inasmuch as CIPA applies to "obscene" materials, it isn't that bad; after all, the material is for the most part illegal for adults as well. At least, it wouldn't be that bad if it were actually possible to write filtering technology that didn't block access to perfectly legitimate things as well - which it isn't. However, CIPA also says that access to "inappropriate material" has to be blocked. It also says that what is "inappropriate material" is supposed to be decided at the local level. In other words, this is code language for "indecent" material - which can basically be just about anything some local school official decides he doesn't want you to see.
Haven't we been here before? (Score:1)
Dan
Re:First AMendment != Commerce Clause (Score:1)
"Excuse me Officer Smith, but why am I being detained?"
ajm
-- fencepost
Block only material *ruled* obscene? (Score:2)
I suppose this is really a question about who has the authority to actually determine what is obscene or not. "Harmful to minors" is a greyer area, but if there's not a good definition then it also leaves quite a bit of leeway for local judgement.
Finally, for a passive-aggressive approach, libraries can put up signs with the names and addresses of their Senators and Representatives, along with a statement:
For the list of blocked material, use whatever information is available, and specifically include any information such as "Holocaust history," "classical art," "youth-oriented websites," "women's health," "political discussion," etc.. I'm sure Peacefire as a frequently-blocked website can provide a nice list of inappropriately blocked material...-- fencepost
Re:First AMendment != Commerce Clause (Score:1)
Hold on a second here... (Score:2)
The problem is what they call "shaving the barber" -- from the old logic puzzle about a town where no man could shave himself, and only the barber was allowed to shave anyone else. Who determines what consitutes "hate speech" or what violates "community standards"?
Usually, libraries have done pretty well with having their board of education / library committee / what have you. Unfortunately, access through the Internet requires decisions based on an evironment that changes faster than the pulp-based publishing one. Decisions about site access have to be made more quickly than decisions about book purchases.
Now, it's already been pretty well done to death that the Internet filtering software currently available is not as effective as their brochures would suggest. That is not my point. My point is that the people who provide the filtering software have already determined their own standards, and are in turn imposing them upon the community.
The worst part of it is that the block lists are not readily available to the library staff responsible for system management. In fact, almost all of them are encrypted, and those that offer a "filtering check" web site are assuming that a hyperlink is always available. The libraries have to buy "a pig in a poke," as it were - they don't know what's being blocked, and can't find out.
In short, the filtering software is based on standards that are not at all influenced by the "community standards" we have been using so far. Those who piously mumble that "libraries should take responsibility for their internet access" by buying this software are actually trying to suggest that libraries abdicate this responsibility.
The only way I could tolerate our local library installing content filtering software is if it does the following:
- the software is 90% reliable (no more than 10% error rate for false positives and false negatives... OK, that's pretty lenient, but I'm getting there).
- the blocking lists and criteria are available for adult perusal at the library (I'd prefer to have them available to take home, but it's likely that some would gasp in horror at the idea of "script kiddies" taking these lists home and exploiting them).
- a parental or library staff override is available (to help deal with the "false positives").
I know, someone'll suggest that I wish for the moon while I'm at it. Just bear this in mind - if the filtering software ever gets up to that no-more-than-10% error rate, there'll be a loud hue and cry to start using it immediately. If we already have our other requirements in line, then we might be able to keep some semblance of sanity here.that's not funny. (Score:1)
Which is, as someone pointed out, almost all the schools that the congressman's children attend.
Re:Wouldn't it be luverly? (Score:1)
IANAL, but that's not how I read it.
It doesn't say "only on federally funded computers", it says if you receive funding you must install filters.
Remember the CDA? (Score:1)
Has it been that long?? Has everyone forgotten the Communications Decency Act?
We've fought this kind of censorship off before with a massive grassroots effort, and the online community is now more massive than ever.
Bring back the blue ribbons, that's what I say!
Re:You have to take the good with the bad (Score:2)
So why is the Libertarian platform better?
Well, first you have to realize that there is no "democrat plan." There are plenty of socially conservative democrats, just look at Joe Lieberman. And 99.999% of politicians will do anything to keep their power, ie. stay in office, ie. get people to vote for them. So if the general public opinion swings towards filtering the internet, any politician that wants to keep his position comes out (in varying degrees) in favor of censorship.
Second, if there is a "democrat plan," what happens when the republicans come into power? They're going to want to implement their plan, which will mean filters, which will mean fighting this battle again.
You can't escape the power-mongers and opressors and censors as long as you keep giving the government power. And that's the beauty of democracy, that you can decide that government should have the power to censor the internet, ever. The only party that wants to do that is the Libertarian party.
So to summarize, the Libertarian plan is to get rid of all the government plans, and let the individuals decide to give to library charities, or buy their own computers, or whatever.
You have to take the good with the bad (Score:4)
It's an accepted method of pushing your agenda, and both parties do it. As long as the goverment is giving you money, be it controlled by demicans or republicrats, you're going to have to answer to them.
The solution? Vote Libertarian [lp.org]. The only way to be sure your money will go for what you feel is right is to not give it to the government. Any other way is to submit to the will of whatever bozo happens to be in charge.
Think about it. The Republican party wants you to do whatever you want with your money, as long as it's not "immoral". The Democrats want you to be able to do whatever you want, except use your money for what you feel is right. The Libertarians want to take the Government off your back socially and fiscally.
Libraries need to stop taking government funds. Otherwise we fight a new battle each time some power-hungry politician comes in with an agenda to push (which is every 2 years in the congress, 4 years in the whitehouse).
Re:So... (Score:1)
Isn't that the way it always is? Have you seen the price of a copy of Juggs these days?
Crown Books [crownbooks.com] is going out of business, and I don't think I need to tell you what section got cleaned out first when those "50% off all magazines!" signs went up at my local store.
--
Re:how about (Score:1)
What makes you think that the only purpose for libraries is for warehousing dead trees? Should they get rid of other non-print materials? Microfilm and microfiche? Should they toss the CD-ROM based encyclopedias and only buy the multi-$K print ones?
--
You guys are attacking the wrong loophole (Score:1)
It seems to me that a situation like this leaves a lot of wiggle room. Surely some of you clever programmers out there can come up with the Slashdot filter, that will remove only those sites that WE consider harmful to minors. Not that there's exactly a consensus around here, but give it your best shot. I expect to be seeing some pretty good-looking girls, but not much of that Bill Gates fellow...
fine fine (Score:1)
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
how about (Score:2)
let cybercafes handle easy community net access... it'd open jobs to people or some such nonsense. this way people who need quick net access or have to do research or something can hit up a cybercafe and not bother the people reading for fun and stuff. plus they get up to date machines and can deal with people who know what they're doing.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
Federal gun control uses this loophole: (Score:2)
I remember that Clinton was able to do something on the federal level about assault weapons. Is this being challenged, or did they have some sort of loophole (anti-loophole?).
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." USese adults have a right to bear arms in general, but which arms we may bear is "well-regulated" by Congress. Want a handgun or a recreational firearm? Wait a week and you can get one. Assault rifles are hard to keep "well-regulated" when they're sold on an open market; if you want to bear one, all you need to do is join the Army [army.mil].
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
One Question (Score:2)
If so this is a mute point since government can not censor.
So... (Score:2)
--
The major issue ... (Score:1)
Re:Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:1)
If you really want to convince them, you might consider including some kind of mild advertizement, like using their branded web browser and computers with an obvious logo. The provider for the local library is going to have a leg up with the people who are using the library for access if/when they decide to get their own computer and ISP. Make that clear to them and they'll take the idea of giving to the library much more seriously.
For the hardware you might also consider trying to get a local business to donate their old computers. Many businesses are constantly replacing older models that are perfectly satisfactory for web browsing, and they may get a tax deduction for donating them to a worthy cause.
Federal Funding (Score:1)
That would be a lot more persuasive if we could also decline a portion of the tax.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Re:Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:2)
Funding does not "come from the federal government". It comes from citizens' paying taxes; the government just decides how to allocate it. I will be taxed regardless of whether I donate privately (minus a modest tax deduction), so I will continue to bitch and moan when it is spent badly or misallocated. Since congress is supposed to "represent" us, we ought to let them know how we feel.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Re:So... (Score:1)
A needed levity break (Score:1)
so sad (Score:1)
________
Re:Unconstitutionality? (Score:2)
So in the end they are just deciding how to spend money, well within thier rights.
________
Re:Unconstitutionality? (Score:2)
________
A modest proposal ... (Score:2)
A more practical solution (Score:1)
Re:ACLU != AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAMERS UNION (Score:1)
Except for gun owners. The official position of the ACLU is that "the people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment is not the same as "the people" referred to in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments, even though the term and usage is identical.
Hypocrites.
Re:Unconstitutionality? (Score:1)
Possible Alternative (Score:2)
Have 2 rooms in a library with internet terminals.
Anyone can go in the censored room.
To get into the uncensored room a person must have a photo id that indicates that they are old enough to drink. Subsidize the library with a bar in the uncensored room.
The only problem to be overcome is beer spills in the keyboards.
constitutional problems? (Score:1)
Federal Proxy Server? (Score:2)
The only other way to do it would be to have a fedral level proxy server charged with being a proper legal portal for use by the schools, since obviously the schools do not have the ability to meet the legal requirements.
I, for one, would not want to have that thankless job. I can see the headaches now: a parent out of Woodchuck, Arkansas decides to complain about the people on the other side of the planet being so un-something or other. (you fill in the blank)
Oh the horror of it. I can see it all so clearly now.
Run away, now.
A Federal Proxy Server with Slash Moderation (Score:2)
Agreed. But as I said, I wouldn't want to run the place.
I know! We could get Malda to write a version of the server implementing the slash moderation system for recommended vs censored links. And schools could set the read levels to always be at +2 or higher for recommended links. You could add other bells and whistles, like ratings by scholl systems, cultures, etc.
Re:So... (Score:1)
___
Use this tactic to "ban" flag burning (Score:1)
Poll on CNN (Score:1)
Re:First AMendment != Commerce Clause (Score:2)
Re:First AMendment != Commerce Clause (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Filters (Score:2)
I don't know why librarians/parents/teachers think that just because they bought a computer, that some piece of software is supposed to teach them morals and respect.
Look mommy! I can download hardcore asian bestiality on our cable modem, but it blocks info on our former president's scandal (the Starr report)! It blocks a Cancer site specifically for the breast or testical, but let's me view pages with info on building bombs from household items! Wow! It even blocks sites such as M$'s Passport.com, but still lets me see the homepage of the Klan!
Ugh, give me a break. I'll be cheering the ACLU on in this one.
This Is Nothing New... (Score:2)
We all know that internet filtering software is quite pathetic. Even the people who create censoring software admit that they often censor things at their own whimsical ideology. Again and again, we keep coming back to the fact that our legislators have somewhat good intentions, but have someone whispering in their ear. This person whispering to them is often the benefactor of censorship. The solution to these problems, (again!) is education. 20 years down the road, perhaps our legislators will be internet savvy, but until then it's your job to yell louder than the lobbyist.
Hey jokers (Score:2)
Exactly Re:Why not fund libraries privately? (Score:4)
I often get the feeling that the people on Slashdot like to bitch and moan, without actually stepping up and doing something about it. I don't mean to be preachy, but you can whine about things forever. But the coolest people on earth are those who step up for what they believe in.
To the point, if you think that the government shouldn't be able to tell these libraries to install crappy censorship software, help out. Honestly, it wouldn't cost you much money. You could order DSL for the library, and buy a router/hub for as many computers to share the connection as needed.
And guess what, in the end you actually will get something out of it - the knowledge that you kicked some ass and did something about it.
*The* remedy? (Score:2)
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Taxation Without Representation (Score:2)
Most comments were about how institutions may deny gov't funding, thus avoiding restrictions. However, there is no way for anyone who would like to have a telephone and lives in a taxed area (if indeed this is how the system works) to avoid the taking of money by the government.
If money is to be taken from the individuals, it is absolutely against the principles of democracy to use such taxation as a bait to censor information in poor institutions.
Whether or not this has anything to do with the US Constitution is an entirely different question, since the Constitution was not written with democracy - as most of us think of it today - in mind.