CIPA Trial Comes to a Close 209
Cossie writes "As the latest major case on library/internet censorship comes to a close, CNET News has an article up summarizing the court battle over the CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act). It's a decent summary of the case, including several quotes by judges commenting on the case." See our story from when the suit was filed describing the issues at stake.
The problem- Private Emails were illegal too! (Score:3, Interesting)
It was a crime to use offensive words in email, including political email.
The law might have gotten further if it was not too fascist.
But the US passed a workaround by joining the hate-speech laws the EU adopted and used a TREATY to enjoin the usa citizens... now extraditable to EU for Nazi Speech or White Pride Speech!
A Treaty overrides Constitution evidently.
Thus the locale law becomes moot.
Re:The problem- Private Emails were illegal too! (Score:2)
Wrong, you obviously havent read the treaty or specific exemptions,
In the US it is still perfectly leay to say you hate whoever for whatever reason and they cannon deport you to say france, or isreal.
These exemptions, after the US said it wouldnt sighn were put in specifically for the US and other countries (cant remeber which) that could NOT sigh the agreement with all the provisions in.
You as a US citizen can still say build a PRO-NAZI website in German language, hosted here directed at Germans, with NO fear of extradition or breaking any laws.
Now that said, I sure as hell would never travel ANYWHERE in europe, there they could grab you up and try you under their laws.
"But the US passed a workaround by joining the hate-speech laws the EU adopted and used a TREATY to enjoin the usa citizens... now extraditable to EU for Nazi Speech or White Pride Speech!
A Treaty overrides Constitution evidently.
Thus the locale law becomes moot.
"
BZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTT
Where did you ome up with this, is it meant to inflame people or are you really so stupid as to belive it ?
Re:The problem- Private Emails were illegal too! (Score:1)
However as someone else said, if you are going to an other country and have been violating that country's laws in our country you may be in trouble. But that goes both ways as the adventures of a certain Russian programmer found with Adobe.
Re:The problem- Private Emails were illegal too! (Score:2)
"A Treaty overrides the USA constitution"
Not to US citizens at home Im sorry it dosent, where did you go to school ? Some public school in Cleveland Ohio ?
"Not all have exclusions for Americans alone in them! Maybe the first one or two did but not ALL treaties!
"
You were initially reffering to hate speech with the EU.
"Many allow extradition."
NONE allow for extraddition of lawful acts performed in the US, by US citizens. None.....
If this were in the LEAST true you would have the French Judges extradite Yahoo executives for trial there, as it is they wont travel there because theyre fair game, just as many pro-nazi site owners operaters dont travel THERE.
Here they CANNOT , I REPEAT CANNOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE BE EXTRADITED FOR CONSTITUTIONALY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH (Acts of subversion or thing not legal within the realm of free speach may, but it wont happen) !!!!!
Like it or not Hate speech is PERFECTLY OK, and PROTECTED in the US , although some PC liberal communist wannabes would rather it not be.
The Klan hands out flyers outside grade schools in the south, they march in rallies (mostly a joke I think) Nazi's show at black rallies, and so on and so on.
Do you even live in the United States ?
And I would seriously question your grasp on Constituional law and its interaction with Treaties as it applies to legal acts by US citizens on US soil. You are sadly misinformed.
Whats more sad is there are those readers out there that may actually belive you.
Re:The problem- Private Emails were illegal too! (Score:2)
No it dosn't. A constitution is the highest law of a nation state. A treaty is an agreement between 2 or more nation states.
You are appologizing for things without knowing all the facts (the many treaties USA is signing into).
Indeed the US is notorious for ignoring treaties, even when there is no conflict with the US Constitution.
Anyone for an analogy? (Score:2, Interesting)
To change the wording around:
The slashdot population doesn't like the slashdot editors to have supreme control over slashdot to censor it. Slashdot population wants themselves to have control (like the FAQ says), where each person has their own system (not editors with unlimited mod points).
Posting anonymously, cause michael will have a hayday with this one...
Re:Anyone for an analogy? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they want to use the mod system any way they like that's entirely their prerogative.
Re:Anyone for an analogy? (Score:1)
I'm stumped (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sorry? Since when do we see ads popping up saying "Hey kiddies! Come look at naked ladies!"
It just doesn't make sense to me
Re:I'm stumped (Score:4, Interesting)
They may not see popups but they may see porn-spam to web based e-mail used only in libraries. Not to mention results in search engines, and clever traps used to lure kids into chat rooms and porn sites.
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm stumped (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Kids have no money. Porn sites run by getting customers to pay money. Thus porn sites have no interest in showing kids porn. Any traps out there on the net to lure people to porn are designed for ADULTS, because adults are the ones that can then pay these people to look at naked people.
As far as chat rooms are concerned, it's pretty much kids doing their own exploring, they hardly have to be lured. Usually this is because the kids don't have parents or schools that satisfy their curiosity in regard to sex, so who can you blame there?
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
IIRC, a good portion of stolen credit card numbers end up in the hands of minors. So you could say, "young customers very rarely have legal credit cards."
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
It's all about addiction. Get them hooked and they will stop at nothing to get more. It's just like tobacco and alcohol, once they start it is *very* hard to stop. As an industry they don't care whether it's internet porn, magazine porn or video porn. They make enough legitimate money that it doesn't matter if the initial taste was off a bogus card.
Re:I'm stumped (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is, you can only look at so many pictures of naked people before you realize that they basically all involve the same parts, just in different proportions.
Also, credit card fraud is expensive. It's not a matter of some vast porn industry conspiracy to "hook" people on this imaginary addiction. Porn sites scrape by when they make cash. Getting credit card companies on your case for trying to use stolen credit card numbers means that they go bankrupt. I somehow doubt most porn site operators are selfless enough to "take one for the team" to get kids hooked on porn at their expense.
Don't be an idiot and think before you post.
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
Look, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion but don't bash me for having one too. I happen to know several men who are clinically addicted to pron. They have been in treatment facilities, lost jobs, lost their wives and kids and still cannot control themselves. It is a real problem and it has real consequences. I have given this topics weeks of thought so get off your high horse and quit criticizing things you know diddly about.
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
If you look at the placement, I think that's a
"If you think before you post, you are an idiot".
-l
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
If you are clinicly addicted to porn you are a fucking weak willed pathetic loser. If you lose your job because you are addicted to porn you deserve to be begging on the streets with a 40oz in a paper bag. What kind of pathetic wretch of a human can't stop themselves from looking at porn for 8 hours to go to work? For crying out lound! I look at a lot of porn and I'm married and it doesn't interfere with my work, or my marriage or anything. There isn't even an endorphine rush when you look at porn! It all looks the fucking same!! (literally) Hell, unless you're whacking off to the porn all the time you can't be getting that much out of it!
Hey, maybe these guys didn't get enough from their wives, but damn, do the healthy American thing and get a mistress or buy a fucking hooker. Yeesh. Getting addicted to pornography has got to be the dumbest, most worthless addiction I've ever heard of! Anyone who DOES get addicted to pornography to the point where it affects their job performance or family life is just a complete fucking worthless human being who probably wasn't doing anything productive in the first place.
Kintanon
Damn... all this talk about porn is getting me horny...
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
I see the humor in your post but unfortunately it is a true condition. I guess you could apply your same logic to say Everquest [slashdot.org] or "EverCrack" or any other time consuming/wasting endevour. Sure this seems like a lame problem to you, but you don't have it. I guarantee you that these people definately don't get bored with it. In fact it is the opposite. They can't stop from getting more to the point that they want to see more and more crazy stuff. From pinups to hardcore to fetish to plain illegal. It goes from there to prostitution and affairs and *that* is what wrecks the marriage. It starts with porn and moves on to other things. I am glad you don't have that problem, but others do.
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
I've been posting flames like that every few days trying to get below the Karma cap and I'm still at 77. No one mods me down for anything for some reason. This post is totally off topic and meaningless but I bet IT won't get modded down either!
Kintanon
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2, Insightful)
Sex is healthy. Most porn is relatively harmless, even to curious children (since even children will someday grow up and probably end up having sex). This isn't to say that there isn't some vile porn out there that has no redeeming value except to psychopaths and it's not to say that some people won't find porn addictive.
However it is neither the governments job to censor it, nor is it the government's job to try to protect us from something that is harmless to the vast majority.
Somebody else's lack of control is not an excuse for somebody to censor me. If you are of the opinion that such an act is justified then I really have no regard for how many weeks of though you've put into your opinion. People trying to censor what I can and can't see tends to get me more than a little mad.
Re:I'm stumped (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree.
Sex is healthy.
I agree.
However it is neither the governments job to censor it, nor is it the government's job to try to protect us from something that is harmless to the vast majority.
I agree.
Somebody else's lack of control is not an excuse for somebody to censor me.
They why isn't there naked weathergirls on TV in the US? Just because we don't agree with the law doesn't make it wrong. What makes it (legally) wrong is that in a court's opinion it says it's wrong regardless of our personal views.
If you are of the opinion that such an act is justified then I really have no regard for how many weeks of though you've put into your opinion.
Close mindedness will never allow you or I to see another viewpoint. This self-limitation can only close off new ideas and thoughts which leads to and end of wisdom and learning. You and I can disagree on every single point of consideration. However, that does not preclude us from understanding each other's point of view. I understand that you think it's silly for someone to get addicted to porn. I think it's silly for someone to get addicted to nicotine. That does not mean I disregard smoking or chewing or people who do so.
People trying to censor what I can and can't see tends to get me more than a little mad.
Any limitation of personal freedoms is difficult to swallow for Americans and people in general. Personally, I feel competent enough to make my own decisions regarding right and wrong. Having morals dictated to me by government is not good. I have religion for that. However, having a government designed to protect me from drunk drivers is good. So there are some valid arguments for both sides of this fence.
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
No, but I am trying to make a point with this as an example. Currently in the US, you can't see naked weather girls on regular TV. You can in Britain and most of Europe. America is "censoring" this type of programming. I am not offering an opinion of the rightness or wrongness of this type of entertainment.
Bad laws have been passed before and will be passed in the future. Just because they are law doesn't mean they aren't stupid or immoral and should not be fought (and sometimes broken).
I agree.
i claimed that it was silly to state that porn is addictive...
OK, but I still think you are wrong. It is addictive, induces endorphin production and causes a "high" in some people. Again, just because you have never experienced this does not mean it isn't real.
Undoubtedly millions of people see porn every day, yet only a vast minority find any addictive qualities to it
Complete speculation. I won't argue this point because it lacks any merit other than your opinion.
By your arguments, we should censor celebrities in order to protect a minority from ruining their marriages by becoming stalkers.
I am making no such suggestion and you are close to putting words into my mouth. If the government is going to make standards, then they should indeed be standard. If it is going to ban drugs because they pose a certain threat to the public health, then they should ban all things that have that same level of threat. Whether they be chemicals, weapons, computer programs or images. Since we have miscommunicated already I will try to be clear. I am not advocating censorship/gun control/drug legalization or anything else. I am merely pointing out that standards should be standard.
Porn... well that's not really a danger to all but a few who get obsessed with it and even then really doesn't produce the same results as several hundred pounds of metal travelling at high speeds into other people.
Certainly they are different in their immediate consequences. However, the effect on society, IMO is not so different. While I can't think of a porn related death, I can think of many broken homes, ruined careers and lost years. While we may disagree porn is this kind of a problem, I hope we can agree that anything that has these symptoms represents a danger to society. If you are still having doubts, I am sure I can link you to some studies on broken homes that support my argument.
As far as there being valid arguments in favor of filterware, I disagree strongly.
You are entitled to an opinion as am I. However, if I as a parent want to keep my kids from seeing porn on my home network, then I think it is perfectly acceptable for me to install filtering software. As for government implemntations of filterware, I agree that since filterware is flawed, there cannot be a good use for it in public settings like libraries.
While sex is a healthy subject, porn isn't something we can really expect libraries to support (although sex education is) if there is a reasonable way to not support it.
As an aside, I find this quote intriguing. Do you look at porn? If you have/will have kids, will you let them look at it? If so, then how do you reconcile this with libraries not supporting it? Just curious.
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2)
Re:I'm stumped (Score:2, Informative)
Congressional Powers (Score:5, Interesting)
From Atty. Rupa Bhattacharyya's arguments in court: "Even if you assume that libraries have a right to provide unfettered access to the Internet, they don't have a right to do so with a federal subsidy," she added. "The crux of this matter is whether or not Congress has the power to decide how to use its money."
And she's right, but probably not the way she thinks. The answer to her question is that Congress cannot use its powers in a manner that violates the Constitution--including the First Amendment.
Re:Congressional Powers (Score:2)
Re:Congressional Powers (Score:2)
Re:Congressional Powers (Score:2)
Yes, it may be somewhat difficult in the abstract, but I'd think there are enough private citizen free speech advocates with money to make up the cost difference for a reasonable network link per branch.
Re:Congressional Powers (Score:2)
That would be a interesting solution, yes. Historically significant, even. I believe it should only be considered as a shortgap measure because the principles involved are important. The goverenment's role in resolving censorship and privacy issues needs to be addressed.
Obviously judges with sense (Score:4, Insightful)
- "Every witness has testified that the statute can't be applied according to its own terms,"
- "What right does the government have to require this kind of filtering system?"
Filtering Programs (Score:1)
Sites get miscategorized frequently. The technology isn't perfect.
Well. (Score:1)
Re:Well. (Score:1)
If the government tried to regulate the decency of what was sent through the mail we'd have a valid comparison here. My two cents...
~Chazzf
Re:Well. (Score:2)
However, that tends to be subject to local community standards. If memory serves, there was a Tennessee postmaster who found out about a non-TN couple mailing out bestiality videos. He ordered some for evidence, then initiated prosecution.
Re:Well. (Score:2)
NO. There is a HUGE difference between "providing" and "not forbidding".
It's the difference between "requiring all DVD's to be unencrypted and lacking region codes" and "not throwing people in jail for bypassing these restrictions in a reasonable and fair manner".
Re:Well. (Score:2)
Re:Well. (Score:2)
Often the definition of what porn is - is very broad. For instance should books on sex be banned? Again check your local shelves you might be suprised.
We can probably skip the discussion on what these filters tend to actually filter. Just I think its funny when my dad (who is a certified librarian at a public school) tried to visit the American Library Association but was stopped by "web sense". Their filter also used to block "entertainment" until my father pointed out that people do enjoy reading - since the school was using the metaphor for a long time that the internet could replace the library.
Libraries already do (Score:2)
There was a big fuss in the UK since at one point the police decided this was an obscene work and raided libraries to confiscate it.
I trust libraries to make material that has some value available, regardless of some blanket regulation on how much flesh they can show.
Open access (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open access (Score:2)
Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
But, would anyone else agree that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed somehow? Should kids (or adults for that matter) be able to view whatever the hell they want on a public PC in a public library? I would love to hear some of the big brains here suggest alternative solutions.
Sadly, all that I can think of is good old fashioned human supervision.
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:2)
Exactly!
That's what it should be. Look, the problem of displaying purient material to minors is not a technological one, it's a social one. It would naturally follow that it has a social solution.
So you make a rule sheet and stick it next to all the terminals in the library: "You should not display material of a pornographic nature on this machine." Put the computers somewhere were an attendant can glance around and see the screens. If there's a gang of 14-year-olds (or a 20-something perv) looking up playboy (or goatse), you kick them off.
Content filters are not a solution. I mean, if you remove all the "mature content" what's left but "immature content"?
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:2)
This opens a whole other can of worms too. Now you have "Content Monitors" and you can be sure the regular librarians don't want to have any extra duties. So you have to hire more staff, where does the money come from? Federal/State/Local funding? Now you have regulations about who can be hired and what their job functions should be. It gets to be a big hairy mess real fast.
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:2)
Nah, I'm thinking you put the machines where some of the regular staff can just glance over and make sure nothing shady is going on. In my old hometown library they had the two computers next to the reference desk, so the reference person could just glance over in his/her spare moments and see what was going on.
Of course, in really large libraries with big computer banks (e.g. NY Public Library main branch) you'd need someone to handle it (they have 60 or so machines). But they already have someone there who does Q&A for people, so that person can just be the friendly monitor.
It's a community model, not a policing model. Eventually you just want to make it the normal thing to do for the library populace to keep tabs on itself: e.g. other patrons report abuses or even tell the person they're in violation. I know it sounds odd that people might actually take care of each other and (gasp!) speak to strangers, but that's exactly the sort of behavior a public institution such as a library is supposed to foster. It's a community space.
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:2)
I am totally with you on this one, but I just don't see it happening. I grew up in LA and none of the community monitoring that went on was for public good. If it happened, it was because the library workers were nazis and just wanted to control you while you were there. In small towns I have seen this would be much more practical. I also like your idea of the QA guy walking around "being friendly".
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:2)
Like it takes extra staff to notice half a dozen kids huddled around a computer screen giggling uncontrollably and mumbling things like "boobies!" every few seconds. Besides, I'm sure if the signs said something like "If you see someone viewing inappropriate material, report this to a staff member," there would be plenty of "concerned parents" monitoring content themselves. After all, if they're concerned enough to try to force their ideals on the rest of us, they should be able to look around when their kids are in the library, right?
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:2)
Kids have, since time immemorial, done this with National Geographic or anything else that depicts traditional peoples with exposed breasts. I fail to see why kids doing the same at open terminals (from which they can be banned for "misbehaving") constitutes such a threat to civilization.
Before snorting too loudly at the revolutionary nature of the Internet, it would be wise to consider the extreme legislation advanced in recent years to contain the free flow of information made possible by the Internet. If Internet isn't, in fact, revolutionary, then why are so many working so hard to counteract its effects?
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:1)
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
A central tenet of professional education in Library Science is that public libraries have a mission to provide information to anyone who asks in a non-judgemental way.
This is exactly why I don't think any kind of governmental control over library internet access would work. Regardless of intent or implementation, it would only serve to undermine the very purpose of a public information store (library). It seems that in it's zeal to "protect" the public from harmful information, it instead is "protecting" us from ourselves.
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:1)
I wonder if anyone has bothered to ask the librarians themselves what should be done?
Filtering just won't work. There's too many sites just like mine that will easily slip under the radar of the nanny-software companies. Some kid will be reading Slashdot - see my sig at the bottom and go 'oh, boobies!'. One click later...
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:2)
I mean, sheesh. If they got their priorities straight in the first place, they wouldn't need to bump against this issue at all...
MOD THIS UP! (Score:2)
In fact I have noticed that school libraries have gone downhill since net access was added to them. The internet is NOT a library!
Librarians CHOOSE which books to put on the shelf. Is that censorship?
Librarians also keep track of the books you borrow. Is that a privacy violation?
--Jeff
Re:Can we agree that there is a problem? (Score:2)
In Minnesota it is illegal to display anything of a pronographic nature in public. Note that this statue applies to everything, not just comptuers. You can have all the porn you want, just make sure it isn't a public place.
In other words, it isn't just web porn that the law keeps out of the library, it is all porn. It doesn't however prevent you from checking out playboy (if the librarian chooses to carry that magazine) but if you do, you are required to make sure that nobody can see you with it in public.
I'm not sure that the above law is perfect, but it is a lot better than one narrowly targeted at comptuers. And it avoids the issue of filtering. No need if you go to legitimate sites. (Although it doesn't cover what happens if the person before you leaves a trojon horse to get you into trouble)
NOT their money (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not IT'S money it's OUR money. Amazing how often our representatives seem to lose sight of that.
Re:NOT their money (Score:5, Insightful)
If a community decides that it wants its libraries to use filtering software, don't the citizens of that community have the right to NOT fund that library if it chooses to ignore the wishes of the community?
Re:NOT their money (Score:2)
Re:NOT their money (Score:2)
1. Communities are one thing, Congress is something different. Constitutionally, Congress's regulatory power is _supposed_ to be very much more limited than states and localities. If that Red/Green map bandied about after the 2000 election means anything, it's that different parts of the USA have quite different community standards... If you want to put filtering software into your local library, run for the library board on that platform, don't try to impose your desires everywhere.
2. The actual standards used in commercial filtering software are not set by community standards, or even by Congress, but rather by the software vendors. AND THEIR BLOCK LISTS ARE SECRET, AS ARE THE METHODS THEY USE TO CREATE THE LISTS!!!
3. Similar filtering software has actually blocked political speech in the past, even the Democratic party web site, and probably still is now. It's hard to tell, because simply probing a filter to determine what it blocks and publishing the results is apt to bring a lawsuit for "revealing trade secrets." OTOH, the filter vendors assume no responsibility for improperly blocking a site -- since they won't even reveal their blocking criteria, it's hard to prove they f'd up...
So what would be acceptable filtering? I can see two approaches:
--Open source filtering: your block list is open to public inspection. Of course, you'll have a hard time making money off of selling that list, since anyone can just download it and feed it into their server themselves, so it might be hard to get the staff needed to keep up with thousands of new porn sites an hour. (Not that the commercial vendors seem to be doing much better.) And you'll have teenagers downloading the list and trying to visit every site on it. (Keeps them off the streets. 8-)
Government certification: The filter software will be checked out by bureaucrats, who will do just as thorough a job as the Aussie patent officials that approved a patent for the wheel, or the INS officials who rubberstamped Mohammed Atta's application for a student visa so he could learn to fly airliners into buildings. And, in the everchanging world of the internet, the job will be done with the promptness of that gov't contractor who mailed out the approval five months after Atta became the world's most famous dead terrorist...
Private Certification: Congress _could_ write the law so vendors would certify themselves as complying with the law and the Constitution, notify each blocked site that they were doing so, and stand exposed to lawsuits from anyone they blocked wrongly. "Blocked wrongly" meaning that the blockage violates either the 1st Amendment or standards published by the vendor. Let's set the penalty at a minimum of $10,000/day + legal fees and court costs, or actual damages if higher.
I don't think it would be a good idea to allow lawsuits for mistakes the other way, because it seems to be utterly beyond anyone's capability to even come close to identifying all the porn sites. Well, maybe there could be a suit if redhotsluts.xxx stayed unblocked for over six months... I'd suggest just putting in a truth in advertising provision; if the vendor's sales materials clearly say the filter will allow much but not all porn through, and it does block _some_ porn, then you can't sue because it didn't block everything, but if their ads claim the filter is effective, then they get sued for every bare tittie that gets through the PG setting...
Don't you just love giving businessmen a choice like that: tell the truth ("this don't work") and get no sales, or lie and get sued into bankruptcy. 8-)
And finally, of course the libraries cannot be required to install a filter until at least three competing companies have self-certified their filters as both non-infringing on free speech and effective, and are selling them low enough to be within the library budgets. Maybe in 50 years, AI will have advanced to the point that someone can actually make that certification and not lose about a $million per copy sold to lawsuits. (HAL can visit 9,000 sites a second, and if he gets a virtual erection, on the list it goes...)
Re:NOT their money (Score:2)
That's why the government decides how to budget, instead of individual taxpayers figuring out how to spend their individual little contributions. You can send requests and advice, but it IS the Gov'ts money, and it can spend it on researching ways to breed less-intelligent catfish if it wants.
A fool's errand (Score:3, Interesting)
First, it's stupid to target the net when you can get more/better porno in cable. Even mainstream channels like Cinemax are now offering softcore, and nobody is talking about banning it. And, yes, I'm pretty sure more kids have access to cable TV than to internet.
Two, there isn't that much porn out there. Yes, there are plenty of teasers, but it's REALLY hard these days to get to actual porn wothout paying for it. Porn sites are businesses, and kids don't get in without paying (and paying is pretty hard for a kid).
So, I say all these people need to chill out a bit. Try to be a good parent, and get used to the idea that your kid WILL actually see some porn, somewhere, somehow. I did. You probably did too. Did it cause us any harm? Of course not.
"We were so busy trying to give our children all the things we never had, we forgot to give them all the things we did have".- Someone, I don't remember who. But he was right.
Re:A fool's errand (Score:1, Insightful)
You obviously haven't gone looking for free porn lately then. There are literally dozens of thumbnail sites that link to "teaser" porn, most of which is uncensored. And there are still gigs & gigs of it out there. Do a google search for "thumbnail gallery" sometime and you'll realize how easy it is to get actual porn without paying for it.
Re:A fool's errand (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been asked the question re: protecting children from porn, etc. by several church members. Answer is always the same
1) be involved
2) lay day the rules
3) put the PC in a public area, or require leaving the door open
4) install tracking software, not censorware
5) Small kids get a different rule, censorware is ok
Why point 4? It's a feedback loop, see #1
And yes, a clever young person can download more porn than the parents would like, for free, w/o a credit card check. Parents would like no porn for the 10 yr old son, not "just a little"
Constitutionally, free speech does not trump rights of parents to raise their children. It says the government can not suppress free speech, not that the government has to publish speech for free.
I believe strongly in free speech, including porn (because it should not be up to government to decide the limits). But parents should have the right to control access to their children. They can exercise this right by going with their kids to the library, but maybe libraries could apply censorware to minor children without applying it to adults. Free speech would be preserved, as would parental control.
Almost right (Score:2, Insightful)
The net is NOT like existing sources of information. If you take your kids to the video store, you can see what part of the video store they're in. If you take your kids to the library, you can see where they're at. When your kids surf the net, you can't necessarily see what part of the net they're using. The net puts all the information of the world right there in your PC. All of it, good, bad, and ugly. This is convenient but requires a lot more vigilance on the part of parents.
I think in a generation we'll have a much better handle on this, but right now it's so new parents are struggling to adapt.
Re:A fool's errand (Score:1)
Utterly false. There are THOUSANDS of free sites out there, many of them neatly categorized by Yahoo. Consider all of the thumbnail galleries out there. If you don't consider that material porn, I shudder to think what you consider "actual porn".
That said, I favor free speech. I just think we should be honest with ourselves.
Re:A fool's errand (Score:2)
I got that site off of someones
Kintanon
Re:A fool's errand (Score:2)
First, it's stupid to target the net when you can get more/better porno in cable. Even mainstream channels like Cinemax are now offering softcore, and nobody is talking about banning it. And, yes, I'm pretty sure more kids have access to cable TV than to internet.
Last time I checked, my local public library did not have free Cinemax so this point is moot.
Finally! (Score:2)
Seriously, I've not read about anyone looking to challange the DMCA in court. I've heard about defences being mounted against it, but no one has (to my knowledge) challanged the law, even though it seems that there could be a constitutional claim against it, if only under the area of copyright. I assume the EFF, ACLU, etc have looked into this? Is anyone planning on mounting a challange in the courts? If not, does anyone have any pointers to reasons why?
To borrow from some post I read yesterday: if we're serious about Online Rights, we need to start taking up the political tactics of other more successful movements (e.g. the gun lobby), and cast the debate in our terms. For instance, we're not technology advocates or content pirates, we're Pro-Information Liberty, or some such thing. The Online Rights movement needs some better branding.
We also need to be more active (e.g. on the offensive) in the judiciary realm of the government so as to get more rulings like this one.
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
Perhaps you've heard of US v. Elcomsoft [slashdot.org]?
I've said it before and I'll say it again (Score:5, Insightful)
What the first amendment is really about is enabling communication that may be unpopular with government authorities.
Government authorities are always trying to get around this by taking the absurd position that the freedom to hear has nothing to do with the freedom to speak:
"There is no constitutional right to immediate, anonymous access to speech, for free, in a public library," Justice Department Attorney Rupa Bhattacharyya said in a spirited defense
Of course there is no constitutional right to free public Internet access. But once it is there, it is not up to a government official to decide what kind of content is acceptable in communications between individuals. The analogy to selecting books is flawed. The government in this case must spend public funds to obtain the books, and of course should be selective. A better analogy would be a requirement that books have pages ripped out of them that might contain information that might be offensive to some people.
Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again (Score:1)
(Personally I'm not convinced that libraries ought to be offering Internet connections at all, but that's me. It seems too much like offering free cable TV at a library)
Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again (Score:2)
Would you rather that the NSF assign research grants by lottery? Or, likewise, the NEA (the arts endowment, not the educator's association)? Or, for that matter, highway grants?
If not, then you'll have to agree that the Government is entitled to make subjective judgements about how to dole out its funds. Libraries are quite free to reject the e-rate restrictions. In fact, subject to obscenity ordinances, a community-funded library could have all-porn-all-the-time network access, if no Federal e-rate funds are involved. Even if the restriction is impossible to meet, meeting the restriction is not mandatory since accepting the e-rate is not. The law could be revised to require merely best-effort, perhaps, without invalidating the main intent that the Federal government has no intention of allowing e-rate funding to be used for providing pornography.
Nor is it particularly prejudicial, since it's covering a specific type of content -- and one that is not a significant method of conveying a message, so it avoids various issues that would occur with, say, banning political content. And it certainly is not arbitrary; the government has long maintained that pornography for children is a bad idea.
Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again (Score:2)
I think it might be quite interesting if the Federal government provokes the public by extending legislative blackmail to other areas, as well. By legislative blackmail, I mean the "we'll tax you, then give you some of your money back -- on conditions -- in order to impose regulations on areas that normally we wouldn't be allowed to do so". The cardinal example is the blood-alcohol content limit, where the Feds blackmail the states into maintaining 0.10 or lower BAC thresholds, on non-Federal roads, in exchange for receiving Federal highway funds.
That may be acceptable to people in the name of public safety, but extend the policy to other methods, raise the tax brackets, and sooner or later there'll be people sufficiently irritated to question this circumvention of the 10th amendment. If it brings about greater awareness of Constitutional issues and discussions of Federal power, it might be beneficial in the long term to actually work towards such a moment...
Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again (Score:2)
Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again (Score:2)
That's because there is a practical limit to how much of the available content it is possible to acquire. This is not the case with the internet. Once you acquire the connection, you instantly acquire access to all of the content, for no additional cost. If librarians could do this with books, they would jump at the chance.
Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again (Score:2)
Libraries make value decisions all the time about what content to provide. They consciously censor on
whatever criteria it is they use.
No, it's different, because the library must pay (in money and shelf space) for each book it buys. Because the library has a finite amount of book-buying funds, such value decisions are necessary. With the Internet, all content is equally available by default, and it costs the library more to make some of it unavailable than it does to just leave it all available.
A more accurate analogy would be if Congress agreed to fund a bulk book-of-the-month club subscription on the library's behalf, but only if the library agreed to hire someone to go through the received books each month and throw away the books that he considered 'offensive'.
Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again (Score:2)
You obviously haven't spent much time talking to librarians lately, have you?
I think if you do, you'll find that the word "censor" is on their list of baaad words we don't say around here, as is the action of censorship. They make value judgements, but they are based on positive values (based on all these things, what would be the best value for the money to add to our collection), not negative censorship (will this offend some patron).
Misnomer (Score:1)
If the "holier than thou" crowd continues to have their way, our freedoms will slowly be eroded away to the point where we live in an oppressive and tyrannical society.
Yep, we all know that (Score:1, Offtopic)
Obvious Solution? (Score:2, Interesting)
Libraries could still provide computers for use by unsupervised children that are not connected to the internet, or that are firewalled to only provide limited set of services such as e-mail.
-- jason
Censorware - changing the debate from "filtering" (Score:2)
Censorware - changing the debate from "filtering" (Technology) [kuro5hin.org]8 [kuro5hin.org]
By Seth Finkelstein [sethf.com]
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/25/8925/0608
New sig for today: My proposal to Slashdot for CIPA article [slashdot.org]
the censor icon guy... (Score:2, Interesting)
Take the computers out (Score:1)
Traditional libraries with no internet access, and therefore no access to porn for children.
Libraries with internet access thereby making it very easy for porn to be seen by children (search queries turning up wrong, porn spam, etc)
Obvious solution would be to throw filtering software on the computers and prevent porn from being viewed. But this is problematic, it doesn't work 100% and it runs into free speech issues.
So, we have two options to weigh, is it more important to provide internet access in a library, or is it more important to maintain obscenity standards in a public place (and prevent children from being subjected to porn).
I say we take away the internet connection. Sure people will bitch and moan and start sounding like Jon Katz, but lets face it, the internet isn't that important, if there is any information the children need to receive then that is what those aisles and aisles of books are for.
Re:Take the computers out (Score:1)
Or, as a third option, have the damn parents come with their kids for a change.
Again with the wrong initial predicate (Score:2, Interesting)
"There is no constitutional right to immediate, anonymous access to speech, for free, in a public library," Justice Department Attorney Rupa Bhattacharyya said...
As wiser /. readers than I have pointed out recently, something doesn't need to be in the Constitution to make it a right. The Constitution [house.gov] explicitly says that the Bill of Rights is an incomplete list, and that any and all rights and powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the jurisdiction of the States.
Note how it begins, "All legislative powers herein granted..." That means anything not explicitly mentioned is not granted to the federal government. Again, those wiser than myself also cite the 9th and 10th Amendments [house.gov]:
Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Therefore, our Constitutional rights, by construction, include rights not named in the Constitution. :-)
Let's try a different approach (Score:3, Interesting)
What I have proposed is to block *ALL* general access to the internet except for those site that the teachers have added to an Access Control List. These lists may be dynamically updated and may be limited to very specific durations.
The idea is that the students will not have unfettered access to the internet. They will only be *shown* content that the teacher feels is relevant to what is being taught.
While this approach may not be appropriate for a public library we feel that it is for a public school setting. We feel that it sidesteps the issue of the 1st amendment because we are not limiting the general publics access. Furthermore the school has no obligation to provide students access to the internet. In fact the access is being provided to the teachers.
Re:Let's try a different approach (Score:2, Interesting)
I am definitely against censorware in public libraries and schools, on pragmatic and ideological grounds. It's been shown too often that the products block inappropriately (breast cancer sites), malevolently, (sites critical of censorware, catagorized as raunchy sex, for example), and ineffectively. I also think that the censors pretty much have their heads up their asses, for all the usual ideological 1st amendment reasons.
But I do think that unfettered access to the net is a poor use of educational resources. I run the net at a community college with wide-open access in the library, and people do waste a lot of time in there. While the net can be educational, (even the pr0n could teach a few things) using it a tool to reach specific information for specific purposes strikes me as a more efficient use of human and network bandwidth. Otherwise, I believe it will interfere with, not further, education. It would be like having kids watch t.v. and not specifying the program. You probably shouldn't expect that much useful education would occur. You might have some difficulty when the students have to use the net for research, but that could be done under close supervision.
This won't work in my situation, but in an elementary school it sounds good.
Re:Let's try a different approach (Score:2)
Better stay on top of the sites with banner
ads... the students may be able to click
offsite.
How can a student browse offsite with a banner ad when the school computer lab would be blocking that ad's destination (and probably the ad itself)? Imagine the school computer lab using a limited DNS server that does not understand any other addresses.
of course, URLs with IP addresses (or those DWORD IP addresses that are not dotted quads) pose a slightly more interesting challenge.
Re:Let's try a different approach (Score:2)
No information is harmful (Score:3, Insightful)
No information is harmful to it's consumers in and of itself. If someone, even a child seeks out information, even pr0n, they want to view the info. If a kid who is not interested in sex sees a nekkid lady/dude, they will giggle that they are nekkid and move on - they probably clicked the wrong button to get there anyway. If a teenager who is interested in pr0n for sex why not let them see what there is to see! ( I remember bbs's were my sole source of nekkid ladies when I was 13-15 and now that I'm in my mid 20s I know it didn't hurt me at all )
Anyone who has seen Dances with Wolves knows that in the olden days the natives used to boink in the same TeePee with the rest of their family. Kids couldn't avoid seeing sex going on! And as glad as I am that I never had to see my old man and maw going at it, sex is just a fact of life like eating working dying and being born.
Of course it would suck if every site I wanted to look at, like google for instance had graphic advertizements for Gay Pr0n, and children shouldn't have pr0n shoved in their face either. On the other hand, how much more obscenely annoying is an advertizement for pr0n than an advertizement for Coca-Cola in the middle of your favorite TV show?
Re:No information is harmful (Score:2)
No, that doesn't hold for porn -- I don't know of any study that shows conclusive causative relationships between pornography and, say, rape or molestation, but then I'm not a sociologist and I don't spend my time looking for such studies -- but information need not always be benign.
Distributed Parenting (Score:2)
Rights? lol, how about box owner's rights (Score:2, Interesting)
I have about 50 boxes in this company. We own them; we decide, without question, what will and will not happen on each. No user has the right to do anything but what we intend... after all, they're our boxes, not the user's.
I don't see libraries as being any different. If they wish to provide a box for people to use, the library is well within it's scope of authority to attach any TOS it wants. Period. After all, the library owns the box, it's THEIRS. "The Arbitrary Public" has about as much authority over the use of these boxes as they do a police car. God help the idiot who thinks he's entitled to drive one of those somewhere, he'd get a Darwin award for sure, and noone would disagree.
I have real difficulty arguing otherwise... I have a couple machines at home, and they are MINE. Not my wife's, not my kids, not some jerk walking in off the street, and NOT the property of some anonymous, arbitrary vendor. I am a strong defender of curtilage regarding my boxes; they are mine, they exist to suit my purposes exclusively, and only I will dictate what they do. What some people call UCE, I'm the type of guy who calls it a packet stream that results in an unwanted impact on the state of my systems; in other words, it's theft of service and intrusion. Meanwhile, all of these "3rd party rights" do nothing but dilute my scope of authority over those boxes.
CIPA means PUSSY in Polish (Score:3, Funny)
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which supporters view as the government's best shot yet at reining in online smut, requires public libraries to install filtering software on all computers or lose federal technology funding.
Kinda ironic acronym for Children's Internet Protection Act, fighting for censorship of porn. I mean, if I had something like this in Poland, I wouldn't be able to read about CIPA!
I think that if you want to censor offensive informations, you shouldn't choose a name which is itself offensive in different language, unless you want to be censored as well...
Children's Internet Protection Act - it's the funniest thing I read today! Thank you CIPA, you made my day!
Re:CIPA means PUSSY in Polish (Score:2)
It won't be long before CIPA is a dirty word in the US too.
-- this is not a
it must be a benevolent donation, then... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait, whose money? Perhaps I have the wrong idea about government, but every other quote I've seen like this one at least calls it the taxpayer's money. Or maybe I've had my head in the sand for a while.
Re:My proposal to Slashdot for CIPA article (Score:1, Offtopic)
That way we can ask him about censorware.
Ask him about the truth behind the rumors of him being a "moderating gustapo".
And ask him about his insulting to various slashdot readers.
Quickest way to kill rumors/conspiracy theories?
Get it out in the open.
Re:Well.... (Score:2)
Because books and periodicals cost money and take up shelf space. Wheras attempting to block porn sites costs money. There might be an argument for blocking bandwidth sucking (and non cachable sites) though...
Wow (Score:2, Interesting)