Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Utah About to Sign Library Filtering Law 446

Posted by jamie from the using-libraries-like-Utah-roads dept.
Greyfox writes "This USA Today story tells us that the Utah Senate just passed a law to withhold funding from libraries that don't implement net filtering. The law now goes to the governor for signing or not signing." The bill text talks about keeping minors off sites with "obscene" material. Most Utah libraries will probably just sign on to the existing statewide Smartfilter network, which (as the Censorware Project has shown) already blocks a legitimate access every 99 seconds. As the law pressures more libraries to sign up, that rate will climb. More thoughts below...

I am not a lawyer, but here's something interesting. The bill requires that any public library receiving state funds:

"...adopts and enforces a policy to restrict access by minors to Internet or online sites that contain obscene material."

"Obscene" is a term with strict legal meaning. The definition is, roughly, that the material must depict sexual conduct in an offensive way, must appeal to prurient interest as defined by community standards, and must lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political ("SLAP") value.

But no internet blocking software in existence blocks material according to these or any other legal criteria. For example, "sexualconduct" is defined by the state. Is mere nudity sexual conduct? Not according to most states. In Utah? I don't know. Does Smartfilter offer a Utah- or Utah-community-specific version? Of course not.

Most censorware programs just lump nudity in with hardcore obscenity. Their simple categories are aimed at the home or business market, after all, and there's no need to be very picky. Sometimes they just block any webpage with "sex" in the URL - no, I'm not making this up, that's the software they were pushing in Holland.

In other words, the only way to satisfy the requirements of the bill is to install software which violates the First Amendment by indiscriminately blocking protected material. The bill uses legal terms that no software can live up to.

Also, the bill offers no definition of "site." Is a site an entire domain? If so, then no minor may access Yahoo, because, at any given time, somewhere on geocities.yahoo.com, there is probably a (soon-to-be-decommissioned) free page with sexual content.

This is not an abstract problem. The Smartfilter software used in Utah at the time of our tests blocked the Wiretap archive, which blocked library patrons from reading the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, "Wuthering Heights," and many other legitimate and valuable texts. Not theoretically - in reality - we know because we read the proxy logs.

But after our report came out, they unblocked it - so now patrons could read about how to have sex with a horse, make drugs, and build an atomic bomb. Same archive. Two very different types of material.

So, should the entire Wiretap archive be blocked, or not? Or should the decision be made at the directory level? The file level? Granularity is important, and by using the sloppy word "site," the lawmakers have dodged the issue.

And they are not alone. Lawmakers in every state and at the federal level are looking at similar legislation. It'll be worded slightly differently every time, but none of it can get around the fundamental problem: computer algorithms aren't up to the task of categorizing human expression.

If and when the governor signs this into law, it will be an important marker in the struggle over filters. It will probably encourage other states to do the same. But, this isn't the final word; wait for the lawsuits to begin.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Utah About to Sign Library Filtering Law More

Utah About to Sign Library Filtering Law

Comments Filter:
  • slashdot-terminal wrote:

    In almost every library I have seen there is not special XXX or "adults only" room or any means to authenticate yourself as an adult.

    True, but in almost every public library I've been in two things were true:
    * Any computer was in a position where it is clearly visible who is using it
    * There is a childrens section that is set apart in some way

    If a library wants to remain in compliance with the laws of the land and of the State of Utah, all they have to do is have one or more separate computers in the childrens section with no access or restricted access to the internet, and a policy which states that minors have to use the childrens section computers.

    Done. There's a policy, so the State of Utah is happy. Adult access can be unrestricted so the constitutional issues are dealt with. If a librarian lets a high school student use the adult computer to do a research project, they're bending the policy, not breaking the law, so provided any repercussions are trivial, the librarians are happy.

    ----
  • The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with this approach provided one important exception that most of these laws don't currently support: there should be a way for minors to bypass this system.

    I don't mean in the sense of a security flaw or technical solution. I mean that I think it's a parent's choice (not the state's) to censor their children's access to the Internet. I myself would want my kids to have wide open access, but at the same time I know there are some movies I wouldn't take them to. I see no problem with libraries having policies in place that make it easier for me to censor my children's exposure to the world out there.

    Libraries are one of those few remaining places where in theory you can let your kid loose and there are no problems (provided the kid follows library rules ;-). I think it's ok if the people in the community want to set up certain controls to assure that this remains the case. I DO think that parents should be able to decide that whether their children's Internet access is curtailed. To me it'd be a simple matter of having a check box on the child's library membership application, ("Do you your child's access limited by our censorware?").

    This gives a parent a variety of choices. First, they can leave the Internet wide open for their kid (which is where I would go). Secondly, they can allow some arbitrary censoreware filters to limit their child's access. Finally, they can do a mix of the two by giving the child the censor filtered account, but then while spending time with the child at the library they can surf the web with them using their own account. The latter sounds pretty revolutionary I know, but hey, everyone now and then it helps to spend time with your kids. ;-)

    I think the sad thing is when a community arbitrarily places restrictions on what children can and cannot do regardless of their parent's wishes. Beyond what an adult isn't allowed to do and what a parent won't allow the child to do, well, I just don't see there needing to be additional rules.
  • My current company, and previous company have blocking software, and there really haven't been any serious problems finding
    sites and information that are useful. I am sure some legitimate sites are blocked, and I am sure that some illegitmate sites aren't,
    but I surf a lot (maybe too much at work), and it just hasn't been a problem.

    Perhaps if you were a twelve year old girl trying to find advice because you were being sexually abused at home, you would have had more trouble?
    --
  • Is keeping a 14 year-old kid from learning how to build an atomic bomb or learning the finer points of doing it doggy-style really censorship?

    Yes. It's censorship.You're allowed to approve of it, but do remember it is censorship.

    If you believe that some things should be kept from the eyes of children, then you believe in censorship. There's no shame in that. Censorship is not a dirty word.

    In my case however, I really see no reason why a fourteen year old shouldn't see either of the things you mention:

    The principles of how to make an Atomic Bomb should probably have been taught to a 14 year old in their physics lessons: they should have access to the details if they consult more advanced textbooks.

    As for "learning the finer points of doing it doggy-style" -- a fourteen year old who's interested in such things is either going to learn about it, and do it right (i.e. safely, avoiding pregnancy, avoiding perverts etc.), or they're going to learn the hard way, and increase our rape/teenage pregnancy/STD statistics.

    In fact, I have a hard time thinking of anything which ought truly be hidden from a child's eyes. If it's out in the open, we have a better chance of putting the material in its proper context. If a child looks at porn in secret, they get odd ideas about sexuality. If you know they're looking at porn, you can take them aside and say "y'know, most women aren't really like that you know".
    --
  • It's not the library's job to provide unlimited, unfiltered access to every bit of information that could possibly reside in the world.

    Actually, I'd argue that was exactly what a library's role was. They may fall short (because it's such a difficult job), but that's what their aim should be.
    --
  • 1) All individuals who don't go to a Christian Church are to be registered and this will be marked on their driving license.

    Reality check. I don't see how to interpret this statement as anything but pure bigotry.

    --

  • For the record, I was an extremely vocal atheist in high school. And Followed that up with heavy involvement in eastern religions. And followed that up with Jesus. that's where I stayed. Go figure.

    Can you show me /one/ documented case of someone being fired from a non-religious institution for claiming that they don't believe in God? Also, you claim that tax dollars are spent on churches. Where? When?

    This post is even worse biggoted slander than the one I responded to. This is even worse biggoted slander

    --

  • Up until recently they could not hold the Priesthood (which is how power in the Church is passed out), but that was wisely ammended. Still there are very few blacks in the Church, but after attending a couple of black churches back in the day I can see why. Mormon religious ceremonies are long and boring and the puritan movement is historically caucasion, I believe.

    Amen to that. There's a long line of my family history in that church. My mom was "excommunicated" from the Mormon church in 1968 for participating in the civil rights parades where we lived in Southern California. Damn proud of her for that too! The church back then had an unfortunate unbending policy against blacks under its old prophet who finally died and now its haunting them. I don't know if the long and boring services are what's keeping blacks out, but it keeps me from attending. Imagine yourlself in a suit and tie all day long. Members do lead a healthy lifestyle though.

    There are blacks in the Mormon church today and they are heavily recruited.
  • like this [homepage.com].
  • The Wiretap Online Text Archive, mentioned in the article, has moved here [area.com]. Apparently Google's webcrawlers haven't found it yet.

    Right now it appears to be slashdotted. I guess the prospect of reading "Wuthering Heights" was too much for most slashdotters to pass up.

    Me, I just wanted to have sex with a horse.

  • Let me get this straight, its okay for people to enact laws that violate the rights of people as long as a majority of the people want it.
    This is a particularly interesting point. When you boil it down, perhaps the majority should rule. Unfortunately this results in things like the Dark Ages. In practice issues like this are dodged and ignored because typically people of greater than average are the ones that are successful in politics (Austria aside).
    All individuals who don't go to a Christian Church are to be registered and this will be marked on their driving license.
    Gotta love the Puritan-founded US. I don't have a driver's licence, but there are times I'd be proud to broadcast that I'm an athiest. Heck, there are times I'd delcare myself a witch if I thought it'd piss off some religious types.

    Seriously though, the majority have the right to try to enforce whatever stunts they want, you have the right to fight them - each side using whatever weapons they wish to use, even education. Wasn't there a big article about Meme wars on this very issue...?

    I agree (or at least, don't disagree) with everything you've said, but how does one effectively combat these "problems"?

  • It is about censoring the internet, because that's what proposed changes will do. Holders of the purse string are asking the impossible - which this time happens to revolve around censorware. If it was possible to only censor the porn without touching legitimate material this would be a non-issue.
  • Literary value? I doubt it, unless you want to study the literary value of ancient propaganda. However, as a center point for discussion of social anthrapology, or perhaps some sort of political archeology.

    As noted by a previous poster, the bible almost falls into the hate material category. The original works of the new testament contained anti-roman material. Even the base mythology was built to fight against the matriarcal earth religions.

  • It could be purely descriptive, or be dealing with how these women wanted something so bad (children) that they would do anything (incest) to get it.
    This is the most offensive thing I've ever read on Slashdot. I'd expect this sort of thing from an Australian high-court judge, but not from a Slashdotter...
  • Standard political (or managerial) response;

    We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it.

  • Thanks for the fine example.

    So, you'll strain out the freedom of speech GNAT to swallow the pornography CAMEL

    Filters dont stop pornagraphy.

    Kill you're friends as long as there's free speech, jam pornography down the kids throat as long as the pornographers get to have a web site that expresses their free speach

    Need I reply to this? If kids want pr0n, they get pr0n. Period. Filters are no inconvienance for the horny youngster. (or adult for that matter).

    and burn the flag because that shows that it's ok to hate the land you love, and defend the KKK because they must have their hate mongering

    Sorry, but as long as they keep it to speach this is legal, and should be allowed. If you agree with their blantant hate mongering, that is your problem. Very few people are closed minded and big enough bigots to follow their filth. But they still have a right to say it.

    Sure, you can't say fire in a crowded theater, but you can't say, God forbid, that pornography should be filtered

    Is there supposed to be a correlation here? One endagers life, the other is a moral decision. Spare me the dramatic falsities.

    that'll be heresy and an abomination to the freedom of speech god

    Im glad you beleive so passionately in your fundamentalist viewpoint. Id like to send you all off to canada than hear this crap, but again, you have your right to say what you will.
  • If there is to be a court problem with filtering software in libraries, it will be because they filter too broadly, not because a librarian uses them

    Exactly. And there is no filter that is not in error as far as this is concerned. That is why the government cannot support these filters in puclib government funded institutions, or in general. It would be absolutely legal to prevent minors from getting to adult information, however, on the net there is currently no way to do this.

    But the proposed Utah law does not mandate a specific piece of software. Therefore, the law could be held constitutional, while certain specific applications of it would not be.

    Very true. If they mandated filters, it would be illegal, if they mandated open well viewed net terminals with large signs saying no pr0n for kiddies, it would all be cool.
  • Wow, have you been in the dark during the whole censoring issue? Here are the main reasons why this stuff is a violation of free speach:

    1. it DOESN'T work. Period. You still get smut, you still get offensive content.

    2. it BANS valid sites. Thus stifling the availability of these sites to users for no reason.

    3. it is CONTROLLED by companies with varied interests, and is thus censorship based on the views of a very small organization for a very wide group of people.

    These filters cause more harm than good, and are a violation of free speech however you look at it. If something is to be done about content, these fileters are NOT the answer.

  • Ignoring the fact that such a process is impractical, censorship = censorship.

    I don't have control over the information I view. How do I know what is being filtered out? Whether it's a computer or a person, certain information is being withheld which is not what public libraries are for. In my opinion, everything is valid, except what I don't want to see, which is my own definition, which I control. That's the only way it works.

    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
  • First, you proclaim:

    I'm all for keeping minors from accessing unnacceptable material by whatever means possible.

    Then, you go on to assert:

    I believe in free speech.

    Well, which is it? These two stances are diametrically opposed, and you simply cannot have it both ways.

    People have demonstrated on numerous occasions that filtering is ineffective. Indeed, nothing can be said to be 100% effective, and although supervision by the parent is by far the most effective approach at preventing children from accessing on-line porn, even an adult may accidentally stumbe across something they'd rather not see, be it when walking down the street or surfing the web.

    So clearly, to be absolutely effective, we must extend your whatever means possible to include more agressive policies. Whether you take tiny baby steps or large leaps, by following your philosophy to its logical conclusion one can only reach a situation where, in an effort to keep minors from accessing unacceptable[1] material on-line, the United States will need to institute far reaching supervision of the internet at all levels and in all contexts, sever all data links to the outside world (including Canada), and put all of the providors of pornographic content to the sword (or in solitary confinement, if the Jerry Falwells and Buchanon's are feeling generous - which I wouldn't count on). Even then, I suspect you'll find little Johnny hiding a dirty magazine under his bed, lusting after the Calvin Klein girl when he hits puberty, or simply reading the more lurid portions of the bible as erotic fiction, as people routinely did in my grandmother's day.

    The end result? Your whatever means possible can only result in hundreds or thousands of wrongful imprisonments or even deaths, a muzzle on all speach, everywhere (whether adult oriented or not), draconian supervision of society at every level, and even then, there will still be children viewing what you deem to be inappropriate. We'll have lost most if not all of our fundamental rights (in a world of strained silence don't count on your religious rights to necessarilly be respected, either), and the children will be no more protected than they are today.

    If you really want to prevent minors from accessing "unacceptable material" pluck out their eyes, punch out their eardrums, and sever tactile nerves to their fingertips (Playboy is offered in Braille, after all). Even so, I'll bet good money little Johnny will find some means to communicate a concept, word, or desire that the would-be censors don't approve of.

    So yes, in short, this is bullshit, and Down with censorship. Better shout it today, lest you be unable to even whisper it tommorow.

    [1]The definition of "acceptable", and who defines it, is a can of worms which, although you've opened, we'll leave for another day.
  • As a graduate of BYU, I know that's completely false. Granted, BYU is a private, church-run university and they require single students to live in approved housing. But:

    1) In Provo, Utah, there are lots and lots of apartment complexes that are not "BYU-approved," and non-BYU students can drink all they like there.

    2) "Officials from the Mormon Church" do not search apartments. What do you think this is, a police state? Do you think the Mormon church, which has NO PAID CLERGY, is some big monolithic hierarchy of dogma-spewing vigilante cops? Get real.

    3) In fact, there are no "searches" of apartments. Nobody comes into your private residence and ransacks your place looking for dirty magazines. In four years at that school, I never heard of such a thing. I felt that my privacy was respected just as much as it would have been at any other college.

    4) The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is not going to get you evicted or kicked out of school. You might get a few dirty looks if you read it on campus, but it is not a controlled substance.

    5) Nobody is going to evict you on a whim, as you suggest. Repeated, willful violation of the rules, however, will get you kicked out of any apartment, anywhere.

    Now, it is true that non-LDS students have to abide by BYU's rules in off-campus housing, including the health code prohibiting coffee, alcohol, tobacco, etc. As a private university, they have every right to expect a high standard of conduct. But otherwise, your "Fun Utah Fact" is a baseless lie.
  • Ask your favourite site to use ssl. It cannot be filtered in transit so just make sure it does not get blacklisted.
  • If you're talking about the confederate battle flag, I say that it's up to the state to determine what is appropriate.

    I personally find it to be in poor taste, but I don't live in any state where that's an issue so my opinion is not important.

    LK
  • Apparantly the majority of Utah voters are Mormons(I could be mistaken though), and if they want something, they get it.

    The political climate in Utah is heavily influenced by what Mormons want.

    LK
  • Unrelated issues. If you want to discuss the validity of the NRA's positions that's fine, but it has NOTHING to do with this story.

    This is not the CDA all over again, the people in Utah are going to withdraw funding from any library that isn't going to follow their rules.

    This is not making something a criminal offense, this is controlling the purse strings.

    LK
  • You need to study constitutional law. IANAL, but I have taken a class or two on the US Constitution and constitutional law.

    This is not affecting all, it's just affecting state funded libraries. A state can attach just about any restrictions on their funds that they wish. They're not making it illegal, if a library can get enough donations to do without state money they can keep non-filtered access.

    It's a bad idea, but this still has nothing to do with the constitution.

    LK
  • How highly do you value the first ammendment ? Should Utah or any other state be allowed to restrict it because they don't like you to see certain things and their approach to preventing anyone seeing these pages is to stop anyone seeing various other completely safe pages.

    This is NOT a constitutional or first amendment issue. They're not trying to filter everyone's connections. Whether or not you like it, they do have the right to attach conditions to the money that the state gives to libraries.

    This bill could just as easily cut funding to any library that has more than say, 10 copies of Mein Kampf.

    Filtering doesn't work. Though the idea may be misbegotten, it is still the right of a state to control it's money in any way that it sees fit.

    LK
  • Only if you are actually part of the mormons these are not laws but ideas that they cary and ideas that really don't have much purpose.

    Utah does have restrictions on purchasing Alcohol. You can delude yourself into thinking that it's for some reason other than because of the Mormons.

    Geez you do know don't you that access to most of the good porn sites is usually something you have to pay for don't you?

    There's this little thing called the USENET, I've downloaded gigabytes of porn from the usenet. I never paid a dime. There's more to the internet than "the web".

    When you deal in first Ammendment issues you are dealing on the *FEDERAL* level of government and that means you have to take your cues from federal authorities and the laws that they make.

    You are the one who does not understand, they aren't making it a criminal offense, they are just going to withdraw funding from any library that doesn't filter. This is completely legal, there are the constitutional principals of the carrot and the stick. When the stick is forbidden, the carrot can be used.

    How do you think that the federal government has been able to sustain the 21 year old drinking age? Because they tie federal highway funds to the condition that states make it so. Same thing that they did with the 55mph speed limit.

    Utah is not a country in and of it's own right and it dosn't get the right to change the constitution on a whim.

    This is NOT a constitutional issue. You can look at all of the porn you want at home, on your unfiltered internet connection. If you go to a publicly funded library, you have to deal with a filtered connection while you're in Utah.

    One of the many reasons why, I'm glad I'm not in Utah.

    We're not talking about an Austrailian-style universal filtering system, just in libraries. If you don't like it, don't go to the library.

    As I've said before, filtering is a bad idea, and it doesn't work very well, but if that's what the people of Utah want, that's what they'll get.

    LK
  • Does anyone else remember when libraries were the only place in town with an Internet connection? When the The fount of enlightenment and information.

    And now we're going to blanket-install filtering software and have AOL-level fiascoes, filtering breast cancer support groups and who knows what else?? [censorware.org]

    What about a two-tier system compromise; filtered computers for minors, full-access for everyone else, with the ability to get full access for everyone with a permission slip or somesuch.
  • Check out back issues of the Provo herald. Large lawsuit was filed over this back in '94. ACLU backed the guy who got evicted after BYU officials searched his room and found a poster of a chick in a bikini. BYU won.
    --Shoeboy
  • Fun Utah fact:
    In Provo Utah it is nearly impossible to find an apartment complex that is not BYU approved student housing. What "BYU approved" means is that officials from the mormon church will search your appartment without notifying you. If they find something they don't like (say the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue) you will be evicted. This is true whether or not you are a student of BYU. You simply can't get an appartment without agreeing to this in your lease.
    --Shoeboy
  • I don't see any problem with this at all. Now before you proceed to flame me unmercifully for the above statement, let me explain myself.

    First of all, I believe that he who owns the property gets to make the rules for that property. Since the government owns the library, the government gets to set the rules for its use. It may be slightly problematic that this is a state law and the library is under county jurisdiction, but the principle holds. If you don't like the fact that the government can force libraries to block general access to pornography, perhaps it's time you thought about why libraries need to be under the control of governments to begin with.

    Second, if libraries have the legitimate authority to deny children access to pornographic magazines printed on paper, then they also have the authority to deny them access to pornography online. Why aren't the censorware foes lobbying to get Penthouse and Hustler put out on the regular magazine racks?

    Third, the internet is a form of public broadcast. Like it or not, that's what it is. As long as porn merchants continue to publically broadcast their wares, then they'll have to deal with the repercussions of public broadcasting. There's a reason that PBS is not allowed to broadcast pornography, but is allowed to broadcast "I, Claudius". Since the internet is publically broadcast, public access to it falls under community standards.

    Forth, one can access hardcore pornography online through sheer accident. Some people who choose NOT to view pornography can be subjected to it anyway. A misspelling of an URL can result in a large explicitly graphic display of copraphilia, as once happened to me with great disgust. If I don't ever want to see the inside of a Hustler magazine, I don't have to. I could go an entire lifetime without opening one up. But online porn is much different.

    Fifth, and finally, this law does not mandate specific filtering software, but leaves the choice up to the library. If one particular piece of software is flawed and limits legitimate access, another can be used instead.

  • "The fact is, and has been upheld numerous times in court, and by the supreme court, that current filter software CANNOT be implemented in public libraries."

    Then what's the problem? Utah will pass the law, someone will challenge it, and the very first court it reaches will throw it out.

    "True, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROVIDING SPEACH, its about stifling free speech."

    How is my speech stifled when a library uses filtering? Let's say I have a web site that goes into great detail on verboten material. Do I now have the right to compel libraries to distribute that speech? Of course not. If the government clamped down on the web site itself, that would be censorship, but that is not the case. No rights of mine are violated if the government decides not to disseminate my information.
  • Oh, but I do understand the issues. I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding the First Amendment all on my own without any handholding. Have YOU read it? Here it is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    Please tell me where it says that the government must provide access to speech. This sounds vaguely like Berkeleyism, where specific areas on the UCB campus are devoted to free speech, as if one were not allowed to express the opinions elsewhere. My freedom of speech does not depend upon the existance of libraries, the presence of computer terminals within them, or the lack of filtering. Believe it or not, I would still have 100% freedom of speech if my local library had no computers at all! It is various dangerous to predicate the existance of free speech upon government action or inaction.

    Can you cite the case where the US Supreme Court said that filtering software was illegal? I can't find it.
  • "We forget-- we are the governement, or should be. They're saying you must use filtering software... the problem is... who decides what is allowable and what's not. Who controls the information?"

    You could, of course, have the general populace vote on all library issues. But if the referendum process is expanded to included such trivialities as what software a library should use, the ballots would end up being hundreds of pages long, and that's not including any text of the laws. That's why we elect representatives in republics, so that the average citizen doesn't have to concern himself with the day-to-day workings of government.

    However, I do feel that county libraries should be run at the county level. Keep the taxes local and spend them locally.

    But censorware in libraries is NOT controlling information. You already have access to the internet elsewhere. Utah is not banning web sites, just limiting access to them from public locations.

    I do not believe that filtering is the best solution by any means, but at the present time it may be the only practical one. Lincoln said that you can't please all of the people all of the time, yet that is precisely what we want our governments to do and it's impossible. Thus, we are either stuck with lowest-common-denominator libraries, those which offend the fewest people, or taking libraries private, which is not presently practical.
  • Hmmm, I ask for a Supreme Court decision, and you give me one from the Court of Appeals. Oh well...

    What you cite is largely someone else's interpretation of Reno vs ACLU. Specifically, the assertion that "Blocking Software: For Parents, Not the Government" and simply cannot be found in the ruling.

    Have you read the actual ruling yourself? I find it telling that the above article references sections from the findings of fact as if they were legal opinion. The CDA attempted to eliminate some speech altogether. Filtering software does not do this. But see what the ruling actually says.

    Here are some direct quotes from Reno vs ACLU:

    From the Conclusions of Law -

    Sloviter: "When Congress decided that material unsuitable for minors was available on the Internet, it could have chosen to assist and support the development of technology that would enable parents, schools, and libraries to screen such material from their end. It did not do so, and thus did not follow the example available in the print media where non-obscene but indecent and patently offensive books and magazines abound. "

    Buckwalter: "That is to say that I specifically do not find that any and all statutory regulation of protected speech on the Internet could not survive constitutional scrutiny. Prior cases have established that government regulation to prevent access by minors to speech protected for adults, even in media considered the vanguard of our First Amendment protections, like print, may withstand a constitutional challenge. "

    I added the emphasis. Reading through the ruling, one finds that there was great concern on the vagueness of the words "indecent" and "indecency". If there is to be a court problem with filtering software in libraries, it will be because they filter too broadly, not because a librarian uses them. But the proposed Utah law does not mandate a specific piece of software. Therefore, the law could be held constitutional, while certain specific applications of it would not be.
  • I'll have to respond by asking what universe you're from!

    First of all, anything the government does is by definition, legal ;-) Second, the first amendment does not mean that freedom of expression has to be carried by government facilities. Thinking this way is just plain ridiculous. I have the freedom to orate on political issues but I don't have the right to compel (hah!) the government to broadcast it for me.

    A reading of the amendments to the US constitution reveals that they are all limits to government actions. Not one of them gives any powers to the government, nor compels private individuals to any action. Just as the second amendment does not mean that the goverment has to supply you with firearms, so the first amendment does not mean that the government has to provide you with speech or press.
  • I am not advocating censorship by any means, but what about instituting some sort of login criteria, with username and password? Children under the age of 18 would be subject to such filtering criteria while all registered users over the age of 18 could see all content without the filtering.

    Just my .02

    -d9
  • Ouch. Better, but still not good. The preventing marriage bit sticks out more than a little, too...

    It worth noting that that isn't in any Bible I've used as a protestant Christian. This is Mormon belief, not general Christian.

    Greg
  • Well, public libraries are under the control of the state.
  • look s-t. You spout off way too often on stuff you have NO idea about.

    What if I am not a mormon what then? Public execution? whipped and beaten?

    No, like most other major religions outsider are tolerated and encouraged to join up. The Mormon religion also has a doctrine on how un-believers will be given a chance to recieve the gospel after they die. When you hold incredibly high standards you get real good at tolerating those that don't, or you form a hate group. If you want to read about whipped and beaten read a little bit of Mormon history. Ever seen somebody tarred and feathered? You do know how Joseph Smith died right?

    No Smoking, No Boozing, No Coffee, no Tea, No Pre-Marital Sex and many other rules that may seem arcane to outsiders.

    Whoever wrote this missed the point. It no CAFFEINE, no NICOTINE (i.e. all tobacco), no rated-R movies is also a big one. These are all things that various Prophets of the church have counciled against (the current leader of the church is called the Prophet)

    Only if you are actually part of the mormons these are not laws but ideas that they cary and ideas that really don't have much purpose.

    If you replace ideas with ideals you would be closer, but still dead wrong. Every single one of the things they prohibit can cause severe health problems or unneeded trauma in one's life. The movie thing is to try and avoid unpure images being introduced into the brain, where they have a hard time getting out.

    Giving unrestricted access to the internet is not the same as giving everyone a free adult check id number and free unmetered access to porn sites.

    You haven't spent much time on the Net have you? I still don't think that filtering is the "right" thing to do, but avoiding the truth is not the way to prove your point. I prefer the "place Net-enabled computers in well-lit, high traffic areas" and let the patrons filer themselves. Very few people read Swank on the bus

    Utah is not a country in and of it's own right and it dosn't get the right to change the constitution on a whim.

    No, that's for Congress to do. How do you impose a national speed limit, drinking age? Threaten to hold back funding for those that don't comply. Monkey see, monkey do.
    For a better picture of what Mormons believe at the root level go here [lds.org]

    I am no longer a part of the Church by personal choice. This choice in Mormon terminoloy is called "Free Agency" (aka Free Will) and is regarded as one of the greatest gifts we recieved. We fought a war for it in Heaven, or so the story goes. They have faults, which MANY Internet sites are more than willing to point out, but the core of the religion is the family and most of the doctrine is designed to strengthen that aspect of life. Which is why I'm defending my family's beliefs here. And please don't bring up evolution, it's taught in the Book of Mormon.

    --
  • Welcome to the largest and most financially powerful religious cult in the US. You think the Scientologists are kooky? Or the Southern Baptists? Well you haven't seen nothin' till you spend some time around devout mormons.

    I hate to say it, but I saw this coming a long time ago. The really sad thing is that it is all for nothing. No one has ever been able to convince me that obscene material hurts anyone. People are so afraid that their kid is going to see some woman's tit or two people having sex that they are ready to try and nullify our rights. What is up with that? Where does the idea come from that seeing pictures of sex or reading about sex hurts young people? I saw plenty of these things growing up. It hasn't warped me or led me to have sex with chickens. I also read many of the self-help style sex books such as the joy of sex. If anything all this led me to have a very healthy, respectful, and realistic, attitude towards sex. Most people seem to be very uncomfortable about it, or at least somewhat so. I'm not. It's not the big issue to me that it is to some. I think that deep down that is the reason for all these attempts at censorship. People don't actually believe that seeing sex is going to hurt their kids, they are more worried that it will interfere with their careful attempts to implant the common neuroses most people have about sex. A kid who is familiar with sex isn't going to believe it is evil, or dirty, or what have you, quite so easily. It is amazing to me that knowledge of sexual matters is considered such a dangerous thing for the young to possess. Our society is pretty damned whacked out over this stuff if you ask me. I hope that the internet will change that. I'd love to see a day when our society's obsessive-compulsive relationship with sex has faded away. When erotic material is viewed the same way that action or mystery novels are viewed today. Where kids don't grow up in a world where sex is kept mysterious, but where it is seen as ordinary.

    Library filters are a waste of time because the things they are meant to keep out are not dangerous enough to bother. Of course there are things like goat porn out there that are truly disturbing, but then so are things like murder or rape. Everyone is going to encounter these things to some degree, and doing so doesn't warp anyone. If someone has their wires crossed it may be something they are interested in, but for 99% of the population it won't do anything but make them want to hit the back button. Seeing it isn't going to make anyone's wires get crossed either.

    I have a hard time putting all this down in words. Our society has trained us from the time we were children to want to hide certain types of material from children. That would be fine if the material itself were truly harmful. But the fact is, it isn't. Even the truly perverse stuff isn't damaging, especially when someone enough information and understanding of the issue to judge it by

    So filtering software is a lose-lose proposition. The rights of everyone get damaged, and the software doesn't even keep out the material it is meant to, which isn't hurting anyone to begin with.

    But unfortunately the more religious minded in our culture can't see it that way. Don't bother trying to reason with them, it isn't their strong suit.
  • Just to get things out in the air up front, let me say that I am one of the consultants in the labs that the previous poster mentioned. It's a perfectly legit policy. If you have a reason to be looking at objectionable material (ie. human sexuality, art, poly-sci) you are expected to be discreet. There are obviously machines in corners and against walls where you can turn a monitor if you must view that stuff. The lab policy [usu.edu] doesn't directly address such material. It's actually covered under the student code.

    Viewing porn just for the hell of it? Well you are certainly allowed to do so in Utah, I can attest to that. The state, church, etc. will not stop you from doing so. What they will do is not pay for you to do it, no more than they would pay for a WW II revisionist to put up their propaganda. Or pay for Klan members to march through campus. You have the right to say what you want, but you don't have the right to expect me to provide you the pulpit or to sit and listen.
  • Of course I do realize the technological limitations of filtering, which is why I am against it in general. I also know the network guys and they are very strongly against it. But this isn't a filter on UEN, so it's somewhat moot.
  • For fear of being -1; Redundant-ed, you aren't being censored. Just the state doesn't want to pay for your viewing. Just like they don't pay for my HBO, Showtime or Cinemax.
  • Yes. Librarians are typically very free speech oriented. Plus the local ACLU chapter is certain to get involved (and she's not Mormon for those of you who are conspiracy theorists.)
  • Err, that is the head of the local ACLU is not Mormon. Doh.
  • This isn't about filtering the internet. Nor is it censoring the internet. It's about not giving money to public libraries that won't filter internet access points. You still have all the access you want, the state just isn't going to contribute money.
  • Telling your daughter that it's a "thing" is entirely dependant on how mature and grown she is. Many children do not have the cognitive abilities to understand adult concepts. Particuarily concepts about the future good, etc.

    This is not meant to be morality, just info.
  • This isn't necessarily filtering. I think a lot of people are jumping to the incorrect conclusion. It's about a policy. Perfectly reasonable. It's even reasonable if filtering is decided as the policy.
  • So you (or the previous poster) is saying that we should be able to go view snuff films at the library? It is already illegal in something like 90% of the states for minors to view certain classes of material. The law seems to say that a policy is required not a filter. The whole filter business was thrown up by the stupid-dot crew.
  • Any "sex-related" web site? What on earth does that mean?


    He should have said adult site. Pretty much every community and state in the nation already has laws regarding access of certain materials by minors. Just extend those to the net. Now I wonder what kind of technological advance would be necessary to carry it out since every community has it's own laws.
  • First the "separation of church and state" is debatable. Secondly, it because the "home Country of the Mormon religion" because they settled the area. In fact they gave up a lot of territory in order to be granted statehood. So you got your chicken and egg backwards.
  • You make at least two faulty assumptions:

    There is a single universal definition of obscenity

    The unexamined administrative opinion of a random bureaucrat is sufficient for the prior restriction of otherwise free speech.

    Censorship cannot work because of the above two problems (in addition to others), not in spite of them.

  • The only solution I've seen which has any degree of success is to put the internet terminals in a position where they can be seen by the librarians and/or other adults. No kid wants to be SEEN viewing pr0n.

    This has the additional advantage that it also discourages theft & vandalism, a problem which is not yet solved by software.

  • an infinite number of years before you're allowed to smoke a certain type of plant.

    Don't forget, you're not allowed to go on vacation to a certain caribean country, or smoke cigars made in that country, just because the US's choice of dictator was overthrown by his people.

  • The example I usually use is url's referening to MicroSoft EXel, eg this one [uiuc.edu].
  • Unfortunatly, it's not always a GOOD reason. Many of these companies who create filters seem to have an agenda. An agenda mandated by law is not good.

    While it may be possible to get information on womens rights, safe sex & other things inappropriately filters at the moment on paper, I for one do not want to set any precedent that these are acceptable things for a library to filter out.

  • But after our report came out, they unblocked it - so now patrons could read about how to have sex with a horse

    I assume that you mean "how to have sex with a horse without getting hurt or killed"???

    none of it can get around the fundamental problem: computer algorithms aren't up to the task of categorizing human expression

    There are two ways around this that I can see. The first is to use human proxies. On a local TV station we get I keep seeing advertisements for an Internet service that supposedly has people "monitoring web 24 hours a day". I can't imagine they are actually using people to proxy the data before returning it, simply due to the sheer volume of web requests. But such a thing could be possible - if each request page first displayed on a human operator's terminal, the operator could reject pages which violated the ISP's TOS. (that is, people could sign up, essentially agreeing that they subscribed to the ISP's standards and wanted things outside that standard filtered out. While I'm definitely not in favor of censorship the above type of agreement wouldn't be violating the reader's rights any more than a news filtering service would.)

    The big problem with human proxies is of course the sheer volume of requests. What are you going to do, have 10,000 workers filtering requests (expensive to say the least), or are you going to impose a 1 minute delay on every page your request? This method might work in a small town where one person might (a big maybe here too) be able to monitor pages for a few computers. But a better use of this technology might be in conjunction with existing filtering technology - if a page comes up blocked, forward it to a human proxy who can decide if the page was blocked in error. Of course this doesn't block potentially offensive material that misses the filter, and costs a lot of money.

    In the long term, those who insist on filtering Internet content need to get much smarter software, software that doesn't exist today. "Bad" words or offensive language in the page? Replace them with a non-offensive word or simply "bleep" them out. That way you don't throw out pages simply because the contain expletives. As for pornography, how about an AI program that get's trained as to what pornographic pictures look like, which can then assign a probability that an unknown pictures is pornographic. Pictures above a certain threshold would be blocked.

    All the above solutions of course would take a lot of work and a lot of money. They aren't easy solutions, and unfortunately there isn't much more political value in them than "knee-jerk" censorship.

    Nothing beats education and parental responsibility except the iron first of a dictator.
  • Unfortunately, the FIRST thing that filtering software blocks is any proxy servers that it knows about - regardless of what you specify to be blocked, it assumes proxy servers are an example of that class and adds them to the banned list.
    --
  • I think a similar rule would apply to surfing at a library terminal...since the terminal is in a public area, you would surrender your right to privacy at that terminal. Hence, there would be no real privacy problems with having a librarian watch the images that went by.

    Execpt that (a) we should want to *increase* privacy and (b) you have no way of knowing if someone is monitoring what you are browsing (unlike your sex in a public place analogy). I don't really want to create a system the prevents an increase in privacy. This is why I proposed that the system would not say identify the terminal who loaded the image, so that as long as there is more then one person using the computers this prevents the librarian from just watching someone browse (I really feal this is important). Also, the images should be distorted enough that text is frequently unreadable by the librarian.

    This could work, if libraries thought that their folks had the time to be nannies.

    This is a possible problem, but part of the point of my proposal is that you place the monitor behind the circulation desk where they can not help but see it. Technically, someone should do research to find out if the librarians can learn to monitor the system without slowing down their other work (and to find out how effecting the solution is in the first place).

    If the librarians do have a problem monitoring the system we could set up an AI to identify flesh tones and other porn image traits and attract the librarian's attention when this happened.

    BTW, A nice side effect of this system is that the library has exactly as effective a porn blocking system as they need. If they have no problem with porn then the librarians ignore the system, but if they have a problem then the librarians pay attentin to the system. I would like to point out that I do not think anyone should install this system unless they need it, i.e. you have bums comming into your library to watch porn, but If they have already passed a law in your area requiring filters then this really is the perfect solution.

    Actually, my biggist problem with the system is that it dose not exclude the use of filtering wsoftware, i.e. I would hate to see a library install filtering software, realise it did not work, install this system too, and end up with a system which blocked constitutionally protected speach AND risked violating people's privacy. The only way I can think to get arround this is to patent the idea, write the software (slid show program), and make the EULA require them to not use any other filting software. Also, maybe make the software to require a client to be run on each terminal and have the client deactivate all other filtering software? Is there an easyer solution?

  • Oh, that would be a sweet deal if somebody did that, but I expect the relevant patents are taken and if not, there is obviously prior art.

    Yes, there is lots of prior art for traditional keyword based and black list based censorware, but I doubt there is any prior art for applications of artificial intelegence or using ahuman to identify a picture as pornographic, so you should be able to get patents on these. Hell, you could probable get a patent on the idea of looking for fleshtones as a partial key in identifing porn.

    The biggest problem is that patenting up all these ideas would coust a lot of money, but it is nice to think that we could "bring an end to the technological advancement of censorware" with a few well placed software and buisness model patents. If free speach groups like the ACLU controled these patents they could enshure that the only effective censorware was censorware which refused to sell to libaries/schools and did not censor gay rights, women's rights, etc. The situation is that no current censorware is really effective. People will realize this in a few years and parents would need to switch censorware packages.

  • IMHO, the only way Censoring will work is if someone takes the time to look through every file coming through the pipe: images, .html pages, .zip files, etc. Unless that's done, you risk blacklisting something that's valid.

    You are correct, but since large numbers of pages are added to thie internet every day it is actually the only way to block effectivly too.

    Since that's theoretically impossible (and expensive) Censoring will not work.

    Technically, this is not totaly correct. There is not way to monitor people's hme use of the internet, but it is possible to monitor people's use of the internet in libraries. the solution is to share the web browser cahche directories and have a monitor computer which runs a ``slide show'' of all the images in the various terminals cache directories. This cmputer would be set up in a possition, like the circulation desk, where there is a librarian most of the time. Now, privacy concerns are a big problem with this system. It may be possible to correct the privacy problems by not telling the librarian which system the image is from and digitally distorting the image to make text hard to read, but I do not really know. Aanway, this is about the only solution with a really high rate of porn blockage (and it incedientaly could have a really low rate of blocking constitutionally protected speach)

    Now, the question on everyone's mind is "If the above system is the only one which manages to block a gpod portion of the porn then why arn't the AFA going for something like that?" The answer is that the pro-censorship people do not care about blocking porn. They really care a lot more about blocking access to gay rights, women's rights, etc. sites (and It gives their friends in the censorship companies who make shure that the software blocks these things some money).

    Question for people: What did you think of my blocking proposal? Can it's privacy concenrs be resolved? Would pushing this proposal to libraries in Utah where this law has been passed help discredit the AFA? How can we prove that the above system is better then blocking software?
  • Exactly. The Internet is like life in the city - if you learn to avoid the bad parts of town you are probably safe.

    But loving parents don't leave their sheltered young child a couple steps away from the red light district. They wouldn't even if the child had a Kevlar vest to "filter" out most stray bullets. They would teach their child what to avoid and where to go, holding the child's hand until he becomes street-smart enough to go out on his own.

    There is information available on the internet as destructive to a child's mind as crack is to the body. If your child is capable of saying "no" to drugs he or she say "no" to junk on the internet.

    Library filters won't help. If you want to do something that will, take a couple hours to teach your children street-smarts on the Internet.
  • I think the point is that it is possible to keep little kids from looking at pr0n *without* using filtering.

    Filtering has bad side effects, as many people will attest.

    Filters do not always block out bad sites. And sometimes they filter out sites that should not be blocked.

    A monitored system with rules on proper usage and appropriate enforcement is the clearly better solution.

  • Well, but then you might keep kids from reading something they *should* be allowed to read. And, like I mentioned, filtering doesn't solve the problem of objectionable material.

    The crux of the matter is realizing that filters aren't a perfect solution. There is no perfect solution. Even if there was, kids have had no problems looking at bad magazines in the past. No filter will protect kids from that.

    I would rather have a library policy and maybe a system of monitoring concerning objectionable material. (I have no problems asking public library patrons not to view objectionable material, I just feel a filter would score only a pyrrhic victory.) A system like this (which was and is in place in the Holland public library, and seems to have worked just fine) is cheaper, more functional, self-policing, and more flexible. Also, it doesn't suppress free speech based on the whims of some company.

  • There was a Daily Universe [byu.edu] article at the vernerable Utah institution of Brigham Young University [byu.edu] that pointed out that the Harold B. Lee Library [byu.edu] had a subscription to Playboy. There were a couple of raised eyebrows over this, but the faculty tried to explain that it was for the "art classes".


    There are some ultra orthodox religious conservatives in Utah [state.ut.us], and considering that the state legislature is about 70% Republican, with so much control that the Democrats can't even stop a bill even if it is vetoed by the Governor. This tends to make legislative activity more like political platform actions, and some people have even suggested that most state legislative action actually occurs during the state Republican party convention, or at least during the party legislative caucus meetings.


    Even with all of that kept in mind, it is still surprising how much erotic literature can be found in paper form, even at public libraries in a very conservative state like Utah. And don't think that the people in Utah are technically illiterate. Senator Bob Bennett [senate.gov] chairs the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem [senate.gov] (The Y2K Comittee), in fact he helped push the formation of the comittee in the Senate. Utah is also home to tech companies like Novell [novell.com], Caldera [caldera.com], Thiokol [thiokol.com](the makers of the space shuttle booster rockets), Iomega [iomega.com], and many others. To say that Utah is being backward in their decisions is not really taking notice of what happened. The state legislature took the considered opinions of many tech professionals, together with the screaming opinions of a strong conservative religious constituancy and came up with the legislation that could be considered "the will of the people" in a representative democracy.


    This isn't to say that this is a one-way street either. If it turns out that net filtering will keep out politically sensitive sites (which it does), it will eventually prove to be a faulty technology.

  • There is information available on the internet as destructive to a child's mind as crack is to the body.
    Oh, hogwash. Remember, you're talking about letters on a screen here. Most of this stuff may not even be understood by young children; how can it possibly destroy them when they'd just forget it as nonsense? By the time they're old enough to understand, they're also old enough to go click on something else or just do alt-F4. If they are fascinated by it, it's no different than any other fascination they might get through a stack of magazines in someone's garage or an older friend. If parents can't handle the "problems" posed by material from the Internet, they've almost certainly failed to handle the age-old problems either. Hey, I should know. I grew up before the WWW, but I knew all about encyclopedias and reference books. You'd be surprised what you can find with a card catalog, and reference librarians don't look twice at a pre-teen in the stacks.

    Can we puh-LEEEEESE drop the silly pretense that the Internet is some unique phenomenon, instead of just another way for people to talk to each other for whatever purpose?
    --

  • This is a completely false statement. You don't have to roll around mud to know that it is dirty. Likewise, you don't have to roll around in the smut to know that it can warp your conception of people (women esp), and turn them into nothing by sex objects.

    I wasn't advocating rolling around in the mud or anything like that. In fact, my concern is about vital information that could be blocked. Not necessarily sex-related material, but since you chose sex-related material for your example, so will I:

    Suppose you were a teenager looking for information about sex. Perhaps for one reason or another, going to your parents is not an option (though in a perfect world maybe it would be.) Your sex education class really left you with a lot of questions, but you were afraid to ask. You have doubts that your friends, who've told you most of the things that you know about sex, are really are the experts on the subject they claim to be.

    OK, were I in this circumstance (as a teenager, or an adult) I'd start my search on the Internet. I know this is a double-edged sword--the Internet contains plenty of misinformation. Still, I'd have a much better chance of finding the information I require than I would have if the site was blocked.

    And this is where I see the problem with filtering. I really think there is more danger of access to important information being blocked than there is of an unfiltered Internet changing our next generation into a nation of porn fiends and terrorists. In other words, I think that making sure that relevant information is not blocked supercedes the need to filter porn.

    Another problem with filtering porn is that we don't have a reliable technology to do it. The technology that we currently have isn't capable of doing what it's meant to do, and at the same time it has bad side effects like blocking relevant information by mistake and because of personal prejudice.

    I may be able to distinguish between "smut" and "sex education" and "art" in my own prejudiced way, but a filter can't do even that. What sucks even more is that it's not just the kids that people are trying to apply this filter to--its adults as well.

    In the meantime, kids and the issues they face get lost in the shuffle. And really, this was the only point I was hoping to make when I made the original post.

    numb
  • I think protecting the children has to start with protecting their right to learn and to have free access to information that may or may not agree with the state-funded institutions that have been charged with educating them. The more you limit the 'set' of knowledge that is available, the less they will be able to protect themselves from dangers that lie outside of that set.

    A more direct way to protect the children is to come down hard on people that try to exploit them. It truly disgusts me that there are people that exploit children to further their own goals or to line their pockets. If we can get the politicians to stop doing this then maybe we can spend more time stopping the rest.

    numb
  • For almost one year, I worked for the New York City Board of Education as a computer technician. In my short tenure at the BOE I had the extreme displeasure to witness the implementation of a filtering system called Netgear. Without question, filtering net access caused more problems than it solved. This was a city-wide rollout, so I'm talking about all of New York City here. Before the age of filtering (my first 4 months) I noticed that the children, for the most part, used the internet access available to them on a daily basis to send email to each other, search for Pokemon stories, participate in chats, help in their homework etc... and all was well. Enter Netgear- first filtering priority- NO email and NO web-based chat. In the following days, the Netgear administrators at Metrotech (BOE technology center) watched and logged (I saw the logs) all web hits from random school districts. They (non-educators) then decided what web sites were appropriate and what web sites should be blocked. Sorry guys... they didn't want the children (grades K - 8) to read Slashdot, among many others. In my last few months, I saw a very visible drop in interest towards the internet. It's a damn shame and I really don't want to see the same thing happen in the libraries.
  • ... as in resources required to fight all the coming stupid cases like this. Between the censorship cases, crypto, MPAA/RIAA, patents and so forth, the EFF/ACLU/CPSR(sp?) are overwhelmed. It seem to me it will take a long, long time to get all of this crap overturned in the courts just because it will take a long, long time to educate the judiciary about what the real issues are.

  • Not only does the fact that they plan to implement filtering frighten me, but that they are dictating policy for every library in the state. Policy should be up to each individual library.


    A good concept however libraries are usually under control of the state/federal government and not under control of private citizens or groups of them usually.

    Oh well, this is probably nothing compared to what McCain would like to do. Picture a bill dictating policy for every library in the nation.


    And also disturbingly he is protrayed well on the net and by media. If you want conspiracy this would be a good one.

    What ever happened to local governments having some degree of control?

    History has taught us that local governments are usually quite dispotic and when given infinite control over do and do nots of a region can take us pack to the good ol' days of small city-states of the likes of Italy pre 1830's or so.

    Ever read "The Scarlet Letter" another example of the "friendly" and "close knit" group of people that make up local governments.
  • Utah is just entirely wacked out to begin with. Most libraries carry Playboy magazine and they will not back down from having it on their shelves. ..Government-attempted censorship at its finest...

    Exactly which library was this I have seen many, many libraries across the country and I don't think things like Playboy were amongst the periodicals but I could be wrong.

  • What exactly is McCain's position on internet censorship? And where do the other candidates stand on this and other issues that would be important to the typical /. reader?

    Well he wouldn't be against it if that answers your question. He authored the CDA2 and would probably support other rotten crummy things of the like

    Does anyone else like the idea of having slashdot interviews with the presidential canidates?

    Would be nice but not practal in terms of what most candiates think. You might get someone from a really insignificant party but not the major ones because their schedule is so tight and competitive.
  • but I also believe in the rights of minors to be protected from such material.

    Hiding this material from your child is not the best answer. You have to teach them to think and make the right decisions on their own. The world is not a perfect place, and you won't always be around to protect your child. Like it or not, one day your minor will be exposed to sex, drugs, and bomb plans. This stuff has been around long before the internet.

    Instead of trying to shield your child from things like this, your energy is better spent raising "street-smart" children. That way, when they're faced with a choice between right and wrong, they'll be able to deal with it on their own, and do the right thing.

  • How about "Goat Spanking"? Does it allow "Goat Spanking?" You actually get a rather amusing result if you search for it on Altavista -- apparently, according to Altavista, the Savvy Investors at Raging Bull are the only people on the net who have something to say on the topic. At least, when I did the search a couple of days ago. I asked their web master where I might find that material along with a screenshot of the Altavista search so it may have gone away by now...

    Does that mean smart filter will filter out Raging Bull?

  • The NRA used to complain about mandatory waiting periods which were being discussed (and that are in use in many states) when purchasing a gun. They were arguing that "a right delayed is a right denied."

    Wouldn't that apply here??

    OK, so perhaps someone with sysadmin privs can go in and unblock any given website, it's very likely that this will take some time.

    I wonder if the same conservatives making the argument for the NRA will make the same argument in this case.

  • I guess I came off as rude, which wouldn't really surprise me...this is the Internet, manners come second to proving yourself right.

    What I meant by "real" state is that your state, as well as Louisiana is known for having policies and laws that don't necessarily impact the rest of the country because the lifestyle there is so much different from the rest of the contiguous US. (When Hawaii was trying to adopt some radical new license plate law, did anyone care? No.) I don't need coffee houses to be cool...in fact, I find most coffee houses to be frequented by the pseudo-intellectual, smug types that I am most likely to kill the most of, should I ever go postal.

    The difference between California, New York, Florida, Nevada, or even Washington and Utah life is immense. Utah is known for having stricter moral guidelines than the rest of the country because of its Mormon roots. I tend to strongly disagree with most of their religion, but morals are good...however, most of the rest of the US will look at it and say, it's just Utah, and this is the type of thing Utah is known for. If Utah were to say, start sweeping educational and health care reform, the rest of the US would stand up and take notice, but Utah and codes of morality are as linked together as Texas and the death penalty. When Texas announces it's getting tough on crime again, nobody else in the US really cares...except for the fact that they'll be that much less likely to visit Texas.

    It's not that I think your state isn't "real" in general (except the fact that I hate the Utah Jazz.)...it's just that in that case, you guys are the Boy who's cried moral wolf once too often. Now that I've made a more reasonable explanation of my actions, maybe the "Troll" moderation should be removed.
  • When I went to read the USA Today story, the banner ad consisted of the following directly adjacent two images: the left side [usatoday.com] and the right side [usatoday.com]. To save you the trouble of downloading them, I'll tell that they depict a sexual scene, and come with the words (and alt tag) "Ignite his passion tonight". Now, I have to go fix adzapper to drop those pesky banners from USA Today ...
  • That is like trading a greater evil for a lesser evil. This is free speech, all or nothing please thanks.

    hope you like nothing.

    Free speech is not absolutely garenteed anyway. You can't threaten people, you can't make false advertising statements, etc. And free *access* is limited even more. If you want your kids to have 100% free internet access, buy them a computer. The library can restrict access based on age all they want and won't be interfereing one whit with free speech.

    The concern I would have with such a plan is that most avalible filtering programs will end up blocking info about safe sex, gay and lesbian issues, sexual abuse, even if thats not what the community was looking to block.

    -Kahuna Burger

  • More importantly, little Johnny shouldn't even be at the library without his parents unless they deem him mature enough to make responsible decisions about what information he seeks out.

    Afterall, most libraries contain information about explosives, erotica, and texts on human sexuality complete with graphic illustrations and photos, without any access control to prevent Johnny from getting his hands on them. The librarians are there to help people find information, not to babysit some irresponsible parents' children.

    This is the worst argument that comes out of this debate. Libraries are great places for kids. I don't know what's wrong with the libraries you go to, but where I come from, there are "children's", "young adult", and "adult" sections of any library. Parent's do and should feel perfectly comfortable leaving their kids in either of the first two sections and any librarian worth shit will ask a young child out of those areas if they are lost or where their parents are. It isn't babysitting, its doing part of their job and has more to do with making sure that they don't get lost, destructive or caught in the back stacks with some sicko than with restricting information access.

    Now most libraries that I have seen place computers in a central area accessable to all their patrons. A child using a computer alone is not a neglected waif, anymore than a kid listening to story time without his mom checking each page before the aide reads it. If the library places computers in a child accessable area, they have a responsibility to the parents of those children, just like they wouldn't put the penthouse forum in the stack of books for volunteer readers and then say "well why weren't you paying attention to your child?"

    Libraries are good places for kids. They can stay that way even with computers and without faulty filterware, but not if your attitude defines the debate (and sadly, on /. it seems to). All you are doing is telling people that filter-ware is their only alternative, cause you'll just call them bad parents for giving their kid some independence in what should be a safe environment.

    -Kahuna Burger

  • Who determines if something contains serious value?

    That's why the law shold be limited to concepts that can be described in a simple way. Saying "love thy neighbor" is good for God's laws, but not for the laws of humans, because it's not enforceable. There is no way you could describe "love" in a text of law.

    The same is true for "obscene" or "serious value". These are slippery, fuzzy, concepts. They have no place in a law whose enforcement must be judged at a court of justice. Let those things be judged by God Himself, when the day comes...

    Supermen are superthinkers; anything else is a side issue.

  • "Isn't it weird how just a few years ago it was an exception to have garbage come on the TV. Now it's an exception if it doesn't."

    Try telling that to people a few years ago. They'd say that it was all garbage on TV, and that it wasn't a few years before. Ask the people a few years before, and they'd tell you the same things.

    This "the grass used to be greener" attitude you hold, and many hold, is patently wrong. Things aren't changing for the worse, or the better. Like it or not, things just change - its the way of the world.

    "It used to be an exception if college students had pre-marital sex, now people think you're weird if you don't."

    Ever heard of the Flappers? No, probably not. 20's, wasn't it? women casting off the "womanly role". Looking more boyish. And, of course, "having premarital sex". Forget about the 60's and the 70's as well? No, you just weren't there. Listen to some Velvet Underground sometime. (that stuff is just to messed up for me, but anyways...) As a general rule, society tends to cycle on its acceptance of sex.

    "It used to be that if the smut we get on the internet was a big no-no, now, it's like weird if you speak out against it."

    I have some very personal issues that would likely be censored by that software - don't you dare tell me that I can't read about them because you find something on the net offensive and are too lazy to hit the "back" button on your browser.

    - Rei
  • Who determines if something contains serious value?

    According to censorware.org, CyberPatrol filters the rsi newsgroups. Is it a coincidence that they are litigating [sorehands.com] with an RSI injured geek and trying to get him to be silent about the lawsuit?

    Some people are trying to deny the existence of the holocaust, maybe they can just filter it. Why not filter slavery and anything else embarasing?

  • as usual, the poor are getting shafted again.

    I am curious - who uses the local public library to access the net? don't most folks of primary school age already have a home account? with used pc's being VERY affordable and capable enough to logon with, and with 33.6 modems and dialup lines (and ISP charges) being very affordable, who isn't already connected? perhaps the not-so-middle-class folks. don't know - just guessing.

    so what does this library-based filtering accomplish? I bet it will encourage folks to access the net from home rather than via the public library. once it gets around that your search, while at a library, will knowingly return less info than you'd get if you were at home, I bet most folks who have alternative access options will surely exercise them.

    --

  • I see taxes going down in Utah (Score:3)

    by Shotgun ( 30919 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @08:47AM (#1235036)
    So, libraries who allow minors to access pron get their budgets whacked.

    Bill repellation algorithm:
    1) Quietly allow the law to be implemented.
    2) Take your 8yr old nephew to the library (without his mother knowing about it of course)
    3) Show him all the neat tricks that the lovely women of the internet can do with their genitalia.
    4) Inform the librarians and the news media about the filth that the libraries let your nephew see, and with righteous indignation demand that the libraries funding be cut IMMEDIATELY as the law requires!!
    5) Snicker inside as the politicians scramble to retroactively repeal the silly law when it's discovered that every library in the state is going to be shut down.

    If you can't smother them with kindness, hit them with a brick!!

  • Re:This is UTAH you know. (Score:3)

    by slashdot-terminal ( 83882 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @07:29AM (#1235037) Homepage
    The Mormon capitol of the world. Whether you share their beliefs or not, you have to respect them.

    What if I am not a mormon what then? Public execution? whipped and beaten? I really shouldn't have to respect certain beliefs if I happen to just be in the same locality as you. Suppose I like to smoke, further suppose that you don't like smoking now besides that inate stupidity of smoking and the fact that I can die from cancer eventually does that give you an excuse to punch me in the face? No it dosn't.

    No Smoking, No Boozing, No Coffee, no Tea, No Pre-Marital Sex and many other rules that may seem arcane to outsiders.

    Only if you are actually part of the mormons these are not laws but ideas that they cary and ideas that really don't have much purpose.

    I would have a very serious problem if my tax dollars were going directly to perform abortions. The people of Utah seem to have a problem with their tax dollars going to give people access to porn.

    Giving unrestricted access to the internet is not the same as giving everyone a free adult check id number and free unmetered access to porn sites. Geez you do know don't you that access to most of the good porn sites is usually something you have to pay for don't you?

    We all know that filtering doesn't work. Too many legitimate sites are blocked. And although I'd prefer a decision like this be done on a community by community basis, the people of Utah are within their rights to do this.
    Boneheaded idea or not.

    Unfortunately you are not correct. When you deal in first Ammendment issues you are dealing on the *FEDERAL* level of government and that means you have to take your cues from federal authorities and the laws that they make. Utah is not a country in and of it's own right and it dosn't get the right to change the constitution on a whim.

  • My take (Score:3)

    by pnevares ( 96029 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @07:08AM (#1235038) Homepage
    IMHO, the only way Censoring will work is if someone takes the time to look through every file coming through the pipe: images, .html pages, .zip files, etc. Unless that's done, you risk blacklisting something that's valid.

    Since that's theoretically impossible (and expensive) Censoring will not work.

    Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".

  • How to help / Get involved. (Score:3)

    by medicthree ( 125112 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @07:13AM (#1235039) Homepage
    I realize that this may be a bit late for the Utah case itself, but there is still much that can be done for this issue in general, and other civil liberties issues.

    A page that I've found useful in the past is the ACLU's "Act Now!" section of their site. It contains updated information about various issues, as well as a free and easy way to fax, email and mail letters to your representative on certain issues--all by just filling in a zip code and some information. Currently there is a page dedicated to information about bills dealing with mandating filtering in libraries. There is the usual way to contact representatives included as well. Take a look.

    http://www.aclu.org/action/jjfilteri ng106.html [aclu.org]

  • It affects minors. (Score:3)

    by Anomalous Canard ( 137695 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @07:22AM (#1235040)
    The bill only requires that filtering be used for minors. I don't see the problem.

    The bill requires that any public library receiving state funds:


    "...adopts and enforces a policy to restrict access by minors to Internet or online sites that contain obscene material."

    emphasis added.

    Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected

  • Filter or Suppervision? (Score:3)

    by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @08:21AM (#1235041) Homepage Journal
    I'm glad that they haven't implemented filtering yet where I live, especially because I live in Middlesex County in Massachusetts. I wonder if these filters would block Middlesex/Unisex counties? Especially because those words end up in some URLs...

    Blocking the letters "sex" in URLs is foolish anyway, simply because "sex" can appear in other ways than porno sites. (I can't come up with a good example, but I guess resex for "RESearch EXample" might work as one?)

    Another question is how filtering would really help? These computers are in public areas anyway. So if you're looking at porn, chances are someone will notice. Besides, I've seen people look up porn in my high school library - they were looking up something for a report, wound up clicking a link off a search engine which turned out to be a porn site. (Even better, the site wiped the Back buffer, and they couldn't figure out how to get off it...)

    If the computers are in public areas, why would someone try looking up porn on them in communities that don't allow it anyway? Would anyone out there sit down at your library and start surfing your favorite porn sites? Probably not. And if you do, then the library can ask you to leave by creating policies which state that the USER must not engage in accessing obscene materials. Move the filtering off a computer algorithm and onto the people using it.

    Most minors (notice I said most, as in not all, and I'm talking people around the age of 12) I know only use the Internet for reports or to find cheats to the latest video game craze. They aren't looking for porn because they know they'll get caught. And if they wind up on a porn site, then that came from following a poor choice of links anyway. Usually, their parent or teacher (or a librarian) is looking over the person using the Internet anyway.

    This is ONLY a problem when someone uses the Internet unsupervised, and most parents should supervise what their children do ANYWAY (especially for TV, another hot issue). This is something that the parent or guardian of the minor should be doing, not something a legal institution. If parents can't be trusted to protect their children, then our society has a real problem.

  • OK, could we do better? (Score:3)

    by Iambic Pentametor ( 155674 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @07:14AM (#1235042)
    Let's face it: it's a valid concern of ordinary people, not just the holier-than-thou extremists. (no flames, please). Assuming that an answer has to be found, wouldn't it be better if we could help guide it into an acceptable form?

    I know we probably don't have the legal know-how to make it tight and binding (that's probably state-specific anyway), but maybe we could provide the tech-aware attitude that a lot of this kind of legislation is missing.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there's already an effort along these lines. Anyone know of such?



    Work as if you don't need the money,
    Love as if you've never been hurt, and
    Dance as if no one's watching.

  • This is UTAH you know. (Score:4)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @07:12AM (#1235043) Homepage Journal
    The Mormon capitol of the world. Whether you share their beliefs or not, you have to respect them.

    No Smoking, No Boozing, No Coffee, no Tea, No Pre-Marital Sex and many other rules that may seem arcane to outsiders.

    I would have a very serious problem if my tax dollars were going directly to perform abortions. The people of Utah seem to have a problem with their tax dollars going to give people access to porn.

    We all know that filtering doesn't work. Too many legitimate sites are blocked. And although I'd prefer a decision like this be done on a community by community basis, the people of Utah are within their rights to do this. Boneheaded idea or not.

    LK

  • Protect the stupid laws! (Score:4)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @07:36AM (#1235044) Homepage
    Let me get this straight, its okay for people to enact laws that violate the rights of people as long as a majority of the people want it.

    Here are a few you'd probably get past in several US states

    1) All individuals who don't go to a Christian Church are to be registered and this will be marked on their driving license.

    2) If a majority of people determine that an individual is subversive that individual is required to carry an identity card at all times.

    3) Evolution (the theory of descent through modification and natural selection) is not to be taught.

    The "people" does not mean 100% it means either a majority of the vote or a vocal minority. A lot of these censorship and anti-evolution type bills can be reduced to the distorted application of supposed "Christian" morality. This small mindedness can be very dangerous if allowed to continue. How highly do you value the first ammendment ? Should Utah or any other state be allowed to restrict it because they don't like you to see certain things and their approach to preventing anyone seeing these pages is to stop anyone seeing various other completely safe pages.

    This is censorship by bigotry, if the Netherlands has no such censorship and yet has lower crime, teenage pregnancy etc etc than almost everyone else (especially the States) then what is the point of these actions ?

  • A Problem with Democracy (Score:4)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @08:42AM (#1235045) Homepage Journal
    1. Righteous politicians draft legislation purporting to protect children from Internet porn, thus casting themselves as Defenders of American Family Values.

    2. The Governor of said state signs the bill into law, taking a brave stand in the fight against the moral chaos of the WWW.

    3. The law gets struck down in court, because it just doesn't work and restricts other information.

    4. The legislators and governor shrug their shoulders and say they tried their best, but the godless ACLU and other legal weasals subverted their best efforts to protect the American family.

    Just another sorry episode in the saga of American politics. There's simply nothing to deter these morons from enacting an obviously ineffective and unconstitutional law. Instead, the incentive is to push ahead and try SOMETHING, just to look like they're on the job.

  • Re:How to help / Get involved. (Score:4)

    by medicthree ( 125112 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @07:23AM (#1235046) Homepage
    Also, for a rough and ready guide to the reasons why people are against filtering in general, take a look at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/box.html [aclu.org], also from the ACLU's site. It contains some interesting things I haven't seen mentioned here before.

  • The Bible has considerable sexual content (Score:4)

    by mangu ( 126918 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @07:33AM (#1235047)
    "Obscene" is a term with strict legal meaning. The definition is, roughly, that the material must depict sexual conduct in an offensive way, must appeal to prurient interest as defined by community standards, and must lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political ("SLAP") value.

    According to this definition, a serious case can be made to censor some parts of the Bible. Take Genesis chapter 19, for example, which depicts the destruction of Sodom. That chapter ends with Lot having sex with his two daughters, and impregnating them with children. From those two children came the tribes of the Moabites and the Ammonites.

    According to the comments in my catholic Bible, this chapter was meant to defame those two tribes, which were Israel's enemies at the time the text was written. Which means we have here a text with descriptions of perverted sex (incest) written solely to advance a political agenda of hate.

    Let's try to look at it from another angle: suppose Saddam Hussein wrote a text describing Bill Clinton having sex with his daughter Chelsea. Would this be acceptable reading for children at a Utah public library?

    Supermen are superthinkers; anything else is a side issue.

  • filtering (Score:4)

    by thesundancekid ( 137428 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @07:22AM (#1235048) Homepage
    There are several distinct aspects of this situation that need to be seperated and brought out.

    The first is the necessity of filtering publicaly accessible Internet content. It is obvious to me that there are certain types of sites that I simply don't want my kids looking at -- whether it be at home at school or at the public library. It is a shame that such sites are even on the Internet in the first place. I would be most supportive of blocking such sites at publicaly accessible terminals -- inasmuch as they were all that was blocked.

    This leads to the second aspect of this situation. The effectiveness of the tools which are currently being used to do this job. As the above cited study shows, they currently fail miserabely.

    It is definitely wrong to block valid sites in a blind attempt to block obscene material. If lawmakers are considering the use of software to do this trick, they must also consider the full implications of such an approach.

    In order for it to be effective without overstepping its bounds, such software (whatever its fundamental approach) would require a large amount of human feedback and interaction. Admitidly this would be much more expensive than a blind approach, but should lawmakers want to accomplish something, they must consider the cost of truely accomplishing their goal.

    This basicaly comes down to the fact that lawmakers should not dodge the issue by implementing a quick-fix, but should fully consider all of the implications of their decisions.

  • Nitpicking (Score:5)

    by knuth ( 6137 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2000 @08:58AM (#1235049) Homepage

    The bill doesn't require software filters; it requires a policy .

    No state funds shall be provided to any public library that offers use of the Internet or an online service to the public unless the library adopts and enforces a policy to restrict access by minors to Internet or online sites that contain obscene material.

    So, a library could just put up a notice about not accessing illegal materials.

    They can hardly be expected to

    1. Make Internet access available only to adults,
    2. Prevent minors from accessing all systems that might contain obscene materials by community standards, or
    3. Effectively filter terminals to which minors have access.

    Some people might think 2. or 3. is feasible, but here's why not: many library catalogs are online today. How are they supposed to keep minors from seeing the records for material owned by that library or by other libraries that may share the catalog? Have you seen any software filter which claims to work on online library catalogs? (And if the software companies do make this claim, I, for one, would be horrified at implementation of the capability, doubly so if imposed by law.)

    Filter or not, grandstanding or not, this is a bad law.

    They might just as well say,

    No state funds shall be provided to any public school that offers use of the telephone to the public unless the school adopts and enforces a policy to restrict access by minors to calls that contain obscene material

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close