VDARE Fights Blocking By Censorware 278
Bennett Haselton writes "The anti-immigration site VDARE is publicizing the fact that it has been blocked as a 'hate site' by several Internet blocking programs, although some of them backed off and un-blocked it after receiving a letter from VDARE's lawyer. Since blocking software is bound to remain in use in most public schools for the foreseeable future, this raises the question: Is it possible for a blocking company to define a 'hate site' in a consistent way, without including conservative groups that might file a First Amendment lawsuit if their sites were blocked from public school computers? See what VDARE says about the content on their own site, and how blocking software companies have handled this issue in the past and what they might do this time." This is the first in a series of article by Bennett Haselton, writing for us from the Peacefire group. Read on for the rest of his piece.
The anti-immigration site VDARE.com is publicizing the fact that their site is blocked as a "hate site" by several different blocking programs. They don't name the programs, although they say that four companies used to block VDARE and "backed off after receiving a lawyer's letter".It seems to be working, since according to the online lookup forms provided by WebSense, N2H2, SurfControl and SmartFilter, only SmartFilter lists the site under "hate speech"; the rest either don't categorize it or list it in innocuous categories. (N2H2 lists it as "Web Page Hosting/Free Pages", which makes no sense -- but not only that, N2H2 is now owned by the same company that makes SmartFilter, which means the company has VDARE listed one way in one product, and a different way in another.)
VDARE says they decided that showing legal muscle was a good way to get unblocked, after reading about an experiment Peacefire did in which we found that censorware companies would block sites with anti-gay content when they thought the sites were run by individuals, but would not block the *exact same content* when it was hosted by "mainstream" groups like Focus on the Family. Concludes VDARE: "The obvious reason for the double standard is that the foundations have lawyers on staff, and volunteer lawyers, and the Censorware companies are afraid of them." True -- although we did nominate AFA.net as a "hate site" at about the same time, and it did get blocked by Cyber Patrol, so it is possible if the content is extreme enough.
I'm against blocking VDARE, even from people under 18, but only because I'm against such blocking in general. Polls show that most people under 18 are more liberally-minded about race than their parents, suggesting that if you want to end racism, give minors more rights and freedom of information, not less. There was a big flap when it came out that in some Islamic schools in New York, parents had their children taught with textbooks which said that "the Jews killed their own prophets" and "you will find them ever deceitful", but without more civil rights for people under 18 to seek information for themselves, there's not much that anybody can do about it.
But as for whether VDARE really should be listed as a "hate site", the site owner himself says that VDARE is not "white nationalist", but adds, "We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as 'white nationalist'". Well even if VDARE itself claims not to be 'white nationalist', if they host white nationalist writings, it's still accurate to classify the site as a place where such content is located. VDARE itself is also listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. VDARE's founder insists they are merely anti-immigration, not white nationalist, although he admits he once thought about adding a chapter to his anti-immigration book Alien Nation about the "last white family" (not the "last non-illegal-immigrant family") to leave Los Angeles.
Like BoingBoing.Net did before them, VDARE is retaliating against the block by encouraging people to learn how to get around blocking software. I wonder if they looked closely at our site first, since we fight censorship from the point of view of advocating greater civil rights for minors, which would probably not be a popular view with VDARE's ultra-conservative base. And if that's not enough, I'm planning to contact WebSense, SurfControl, and any other company that doesn't currently list VDARE as a "hate site", and ask them why not. So, VDARE sends us traffic, and this is how we repay them.
New category (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a historical pattern of the "hate" bans leaning "a certain way," if you know what I mean, and with a broad brush. Some sites are also the target of campaigns to have them labeled as "hate" by political opponents.
I don't think VDARE would be able to argue that they don't foster political controversy, though I'm sure the new category would elicit some argument. I used to follow links there from time to time, and while I would categorize them as "strident" I don't think I could honestly condemn them as a "hate" site, anymore than (and probably less than) I could CNN or Reuters.
One of the biggest problems with blocking is that definitions of "offensive" vary from person to person.
this seems out of place (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, I don't know what the article-publishing mechanism is. I wouldn't imagine you'd design it as just a button labeled "Publish" and no edit controls, but I don't really see any evidence to the contrary.
First amendment rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see no rights violation here.
pro 2nd amendment often blocked too (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to be a pro-gun site and not be blocked, too. You need not necessarily be promoting violence or have any images of people even using guns, much less anything that's been shot by a gun. All you need to do is show guns positively and the blockers think, "Oh, horrors! Kiddies might go on a rampage!" and you're on the blacklist. Of course, anti-gun sites are fine, and get right through. Hard for a schoolkid to get any balanced information.
If one is going to filter (let's just assume for the moment that filtering is inevitable), then one needs to distinguish between responsible sites that talk about the political issues involved and the ones that glorify the elements of that issue that some find unsavory. There's a big difference between NRA.org and WatchMeBlastEverythingThatMovesIntoBloodyPulp.net - you can't lump them together as "gun sites" and block both.
Wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it seems to me that the companies filtering sites are the ones being trampled on by lawyers, forced by threat of litigation to back off their initial judgement that the page contained racist ideas. It sounds like it's THEIR rights being interfered with here.
After a quick reading of a few things on the site, I'd say that if it's not racist, it teeters on the edge of it.
Re:First amendment rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:New category (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that a new category would be a perfect solution.
Throw everyone with a militant opinion (whether it is "save the trees" or "i hate spics") and let the individual network admins sort out what they do and don't like.
P.S. Just so that we're all working from the same definitions, here is what wikipedia has to say about hate speech [wikipedia.org]
"Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, moral or political views, etc."
If you disagree with that definition, feel free to say why, but "because I disagree" or "people are overly sensitive" isn't a valid response.
P.P.S. Political/Nationalist extremists are just as bad as the religious fundies.
All censoring violates the First Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, take something which we, for the most part, can equally identify: Pornography. Now define it. If you're reaching for a dictionary, note that it will use the word "obscene" or somesuch - a subjective, qualitative adjective. To make the impossible even harder on yourself, try to come up with a strict definition that would clearly differentiate pornography from nude art. You can't.
There is a reason that former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart came up with the famous case-law definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it." I cannot think of a more ambiguous definition for something which we know so well, and if we can't even come up with a suitable definition for something so clear as pornography, how ever could we come up with a clear definition for anything else?
VDARE's views... (Score:3, Insightful)
When did it become fashionable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:New category (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not what I thought (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wanted to get that clear.
Re:this seems out of place (Score:3, Insightful)
I look forward to further slashdot articles such as "Ask Slashdot: What knitting needles are best for sweaters?" and "Everybody Loves Raymond Picked Up for Nth Season".
Re:this seems out of place (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you missed it, because it has always been that way.
I was under the impression it was for discussion of issues relating to science and technology.
No. It's "News for Nerds." Nerds are interested in more than just science and technology.
By the way, how could you miss the technology angle? This is about how the use of technology impacts society, and the ethical questions surrounding technology. Sounds like perfect nerd/technology discussion fodder to me.
I look forward to further slashdot articles such as "Ask Slashdot: What knitting needles are best for sweaters?" and "Everybody Loves Raymond Picked Up for Nth Season".
Yeah, because the internet will run out of space if slashdot posts too many articles. Oh noes! Somebody is interested in reading something that you don't approve of!
Re:New category (Score:4, Insightful)
According to this, Slashdot and many other web forums are just filled with "hate speech", since they constantly have comments like "Bush sucks", "neocon", "liberal", etc. In fact, just about any political speech these days could be considered "hate speech" according to this definition, since political viewpoints are so polarized.
Re:New category (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, as this situation illustrates, many views that people regard as racist don't facially demand unequal treatment. I think we would all recognize a site that called for seperate schooling for children of different races as endorsing prejudice even though it is cast as a neutral policy. You might try to argue that any site demanding people be seperated based on race or similar categories is inherently prejudicial but this won't fly either. After all a website that advocated seperate sex schooling on the grounds that boys and girls distract each other from learning could be non-prejudiced despite calling for seperation based on sex.
Ultimately the issue is that 'prejudicial' is a subjective standard. Something is prejudicial if it call for unwarranted different treatment of one group or another. For instance most people don't think calling for adult men who have sex with 13 year olds to be sent to jail is prejudiced. However we do think that calling for adult men who have sex with other men to be sent to jail would be prejudiced. The difference being that in the first case we think having sex with a 13 year old warrants being treated differently but having sex with another man does not.
This is ultimately why I detest restrictions on hate speech. It boils down to nothing but a list of positions that the society has deemed to be sufficently distasteful. While I happen to agree that most positions now deemed hate speech are horrible I am firmly against society imposing it's judgement through censorship or legal enforcement.
Re:New category (Score:3, Insightful)
> where it's subjective to label them as "hate."
No need, everybody with a clue understands that "hate speech" is newspeak for "disagrees with liberal orthodoxy" because it certainly doesn't have anything to do with supressing "hate". Go look at ANY website where 'progressives' (also known as liberals (US), Democrats, socialists depending on country and audience) hang out. Hate will drip from their every word. Hate for Chimpy McBusHitler, America, Christians, etc. Now find one listed in a filter as 'hate speech.' Ok, so now we now that catagory isn't for hate filled people spewing venom. So lets look at who does get catagorized there.
Most probably agree the skinheads and nazis are fair game. So we are saying raging racists should have their speech supressed. But notice the double standard. Who do nazis hate? Blacks and jews for the most part. So why aren't any anti-semetic arab/muslim organizations ever catagorized? And hell, look at 'progressives' throwing Oreos at a Senate candidate for the sin of being a black republican. Certainly looks like some racially motivated 'hate' going on there, do we drop a block on the DNC website now?
Point being, where does it end? Madness. We need a different catagory than 'hate' because hate isn't even always a bad thing in the first place. Heck, I HATE Nazis and I bet I won't be thought a bad person by 99% of the readers on this site. Of course when I extend that statement to say I hate ALL socialists, not just National Socialism, I'll get branded a 'hater.'
I just wish "Progressives' had the balls to quit hiding behind language tricks and just start stamping "politically incorrect" on sites they disapprove of. If they REALLY had stones they would brand em "Crimethinkers".
Really, except for very young and overly impressionable children, blocking any speech is offensive. You deal with speech you disagree with by disagreeing with it. I just wish we could get the 1st Amendment back.
Re:pro 2nd amendment often blocked too (Score:3, Insightful)
> WatchMeBlastEverythingThatMovesIntoBloodyPulp.net
> - you can't lump them together as "gun sites" and block both.
But the anti-gun nuts really and truly cannot see any difference, any more than the "religious right" can see any difference between a gay porn site and a liberal site advocating tolerance for homosexuality.
Re:slashdot=hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, young people tend to have more extreme views than older people. That's why societies with a larger proportion of young people tend to have more radical governments (and why Western governments are becoming more conservative as their populations get older). Young people are also more impressionable. (my opinion - unsubstantiated)
I think freedom of speech is a really difficult (yet important) issue. It's certainly *not* as simple as "everyone should be able to say whatever they want."
"You have to be 100% pro gay or be classed as a hater."
I'm not sure what pro gay actually means, but from the examples you cite I gather there are many aspects of political correctness that you do not agree with. P.C. does need to be recognised as an agenda, whether or not you agree with it (personally, I think it has some good and bad aspects). It's agenda could probably be described as "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything," which is probably a bit simplistic, but if everyone practiced it would probably result in a more harmonious society.
A big problem facing our society is lack of respect and manners, and if people were a little more tolerant, and a little less quick to point the finger ("How about those "everything hispanic is just so damn cool" sites") I reckon that'd go a long way.
I suggest you chill out a bit. There are problems with what people say. Israel ain't perfect, Hispanics ain't perfect, the West (whatever that means) ain't perfect. Let's accept that, and not get too hung up on the minority of dickheads in each society - how's that sound?
Re:New category (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does the statement "save the trees" contain anything about burning down housing developments, or anything about radical animal liberation? The vast majority of people who would use that phrase would support things like planting more trees and reducing logging, not burning down housing developments. You seem very confused. I'm not even sure hopw you managed to associate those things with "save the trees," as they are completely unrelated.
If the grandparent poster had said "save the trees by burning things down" - then that would be militant. But he didn't include that part, so how can the statement as quoted be considered militant?
Hatespeak (Score:1, Insightful)
From the point of view of a young middle-class Australian white male who's not ashamed to be labelled "racist" this is incorrect, and depends largely on the survey group. In Britain and France, young white working-class males (and many females) are by far most likely to support nationalist parties such as the British National Party or the French National Front. In December 2005, over 5000 people spontaneously rallied against harassment from ethnic gangs at Sydney's Cronulla beach, again most of them young people from working/lower middle class families. Cartoons such as South Park have proven that young people actually do hold deeply nationalistic or conservative views - often more than out parents, but the mainstream media and politically correct educational institutions work overtime to ensure they're not expressed.
At high school I was first introduced to the teachings that I now think of as politically correct brainwashing, along with the supposed benefits of multiculturalism and diversity. I began asking questions about why exactly am I being taught this instead of English, mathematics and science and decided to do some research on my own, as I was not going to get any realistic answers from the teaching staff.
One of the things I quickly noticed was that multicultural attitudes have been reinforced the strongest in the core parts of the British Empire - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, along with France and Germany following World War II. The United States was already partly a multicultural nation and had the least to lose. To the strategic policy of the United States, they wanted to ensure the collapsing British Empire or defeated Europe would not again threaten their power, and promoting multiculturalism would thwart any attempts at rivaling nationalism in these countries. see divide and rule [wikipedia.org] It was not without challenge however, and in the 60's, Enoch Powell [wikipedia.org] delivered a hugely popular speech criticising multiculturalism and mass immigration in Britain. He himself was always suspicious of the intentions of the United States in WWII, and was later barred from the Prime Ministership by Edward Heath, whom I extremely doubt made the decision from a bleeding heart, but rather due to jingoism from the USA.
Multiculturalism worked better than expected, and even today the US is being divided and conquered, just like the former British Empire - by a global elite of super-rich tycoons with no loyalty. Pat Buchanan is dead right when he says there are forces that want to do away with the USA and its constitution altogether and create a North American Union, later to be merged with the European Union. To them, nationalism and paleoconservatism isn't just an economic inefficiency, it's also a threat to their grip on power. Do you really think multiculturalism and political correctness - ideologies coming from the very top down - exist due to bleeding hearts? Or is it because the richest and most powerful people in the world have something to gain from it? Yes, we'll see more arbitary labellings of "hatespeak" directed against opponents of the super-rich and influential into the near future, along with the disappearance of your hard-won freedoms, as well as sheeple actually SUPPORTING them because they want to fight racism and be "doing the right thing."
If you're thinking that I'm "racist" or something along those lines, I suggest you get a job with a large corporation such as a bank or media company and try and make it to the top, especially if you're of a different race. Feminists and racial activists have often noticed making changes for affirmitive action and anti-discriminaton laws have been easy, but try getting a position on the executive board of a major corpo
I'm an immigrant (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not offended by VDare, I'm actually share many of their views. Illegal IS bad in any form as murder, theft or crossing the border. Desire to live in their closed language-separated communities IS bad, because it weakens the nation.
Re:Anti-immigration? (Score:3, Insightful)
This one doesn't quite make sense to me. If someone supports "open borders", doesn't that mean they think people should just be able to walk over the border at will and go wherever they want? Maybe they're not "pro-illegal-immigration", but it seems like they want the laws changed so that anyone can immigrate with no restrictions whatsoever, so that people who are now illegally immigrating can do so legally.
OTOH, a lot of people who make arguments based not on the legal status of immigration but about reducing the total level of immigration like to hide behind the word "illegal" and pretend that they are anti-illegal-immigration, but their concern is very much about reducing the level of immigration, not so much about the legal status of immigrants.
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the vast majority of immigration currently is illegal rather than legal. So eliminating illegal immigration would have the side effect of vastly reducing the total level of immigration, unless the laws and limits/quotas were changed to allow more legal immigration. Therefore, it seems rather difficult to tell whether someone who is anti-illegal-immigration is really against the illegality, or wants to reduce the total level, or what. This seems similar to how many pro-illegal-immigration people (namely people in Mexico who promote it) play the race card, calling those who disagree "racist", just because almost all illegal immigrants happen to be from Mexico and other Latin American countries. Correlation does not imply causation.
Re:New category (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm not sure why the article is only concerned with conservitive speech as being hatefull. There are plenty of other groups with political speech that offend in the same ways. This article show clearly a bias for it's intentions. It is saying, can we block the other sides message by calling it hate speech? surley all conseratives don't hold the exact same opinions as the others or groups of others. Just like all liberals might not hold the same opinions as each other.
And so far, I havn't seen any hate speech that is actualy hate speech from either official side on the imigration issue. People are trying to label aposing sides in this issue as racist and using hate speech just for the shock value. It is why the majority of people say racism doesn't exist today. It is because some who claim to be protectors have redefined it to mean "whatever we dont' agree with". It is because when some one does something another person doesn't agree with, the easiest way to shut the argument down is to throw race and hate speech acusations out there. Not only is this a sign of not having a good argument in the first place, It has weakened the outrage at real hate speech and racialy discriminatory actions and now people can almost get away with it.
No, Being that it is about private companies doens't negate it. It is just as bad or even worse because with private companies, they are looking at slander and liable based on someone's first amendment rights. This could come down to companies making the labeling of stuff like this, becoming liable for the damage to a groups reputation and how do you put a price on free speech when it is considered to be political? Can the damages be he lost revenue form all thie rmembers who are out of a job because of illegal immigration? Can it extend to all the people who wages are significantly lower because employers in some areas can exploit illegals without fear of regress (because the illegal won't seek legal action) and pay them less then minumum wage forcing others to lower thier expected wages just to get a job?
The issue if immigration is somthing outside this thread so I won't go any further into it. But i would like to say that I find it astonising that Unions and politicians who claim to be for the working person support keeping a system that allows for the exploitation of workers because they lack "legal status" or "broke a law" to gain the posittion they enjoy being exploited at in the first place.
And yes, I'm drunnk again!
Re:slashdot=hate speech (Score:2, Insightful)
I've seen the same problem with the Turkish in Austria and Germany, the Moroccans and Ecuatorians in Spain, etc, so it's not unique to the US, and it brings out the understandable fear of being displaced out of your jobs, culture, etc.
Do I? I don't use that term (I do use religious fundamentalists), I don't agree with them, but I don't "hate" those people and never suggested anything like the extremes you describe below when describing the hispanics.
I'm sure those exist, but you do realize it probably represents a minority or radical view, do you?
And before declaring that "all their nations are cesspools" you'd want to do some research. I believe my country is the best place to live as long as you earn a decent wage
Just look a little further down south and you'll see Costa Rica, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, even Brazil is doing pretty well (the slums or "favelas" are still there but it's getting better, there are some areas with a great standard of living). Can you back those claims with some evidence? I'm sorry, I'm not from the US and I couldn't find anything that backs that claim in various bios like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales [wikipedia.org],
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=241596&pa
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio
and only some vague references in some blogs after Google searching. It is very tough to argue with Jews (sorry if that's not PC), but they're not as closed as you think (I'd say most I've met are more open about the Arab issue than you are about the Hispanic issue). And I do know quite a few of them, they are very sensitive about those issues but then again, they have reason to be so (though they do go a bit too far and can be quite thickheaded sometimes).
observations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So, then, sue. (Score:3, Insightful)
The first amendment isn't only supposed to apply to those with deep enough pockets to protect themselves.
Censorship by "recommendation engine." (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you've got the right idea. Really, we need to make web "censorship" -- if we need to do it at all -- more of a recommendation-based system. Sort of like the reverse of Amazon's "you might like this if..." system. If something offensive snuck through, then you could hit a big red button and it would add it to the block list, while also updating your preferences in its database, so that people similar in preferences to you would automatically share the block. In the same way that Last.FM suggests music based on your previous playlists, this would "suggest" censored sites to you
Basically, you could surf and when you hit a site that you find offensive, or maybe when you first ran the site it would give you examples of sites and you could pick which offend you, and it would then match you to various profiles of real people, who had rated sites based on "offensiveness." If you find Fox News particularly repugnant, then Ann Coulter is probably going to be totally off-limits.
The technology to do this seems readily available; 'recommendation engines' that take a person's preferences and extrapolate them out based on similar people are used in everything from music to movies, and they're getting better all the time. If people really want web censorship, than this is better than just turning over authority to some centralized body and letting them possess a giant God-sized rubber "censored" stamp.
The net effect of a system like this, if it were put into wide use, would probably be that people would filter out opinions that were contrary to their own. The internet would, as the software learned about you, become a little bobble-headed yes-man to your every opinion and thought. If you're conservative, than your Internet would be filled with conservatives. If you're a liberal, it'd be full of Liberals (and the occasional Bush gaffe). If you were a pro-life Objectivist anti-gun neo-Stalinist pagan, however hypocritical, as long as the system could find various combinations of preferences to match you to in its database, then you would only see stuff that matched your biases. I'm not saying this would be a good thing -- but hey, it's basically what we have already, just with less senseless screaming at each other in some pathetic attempt at rational discourse.
If we can't have an actual diversity of opinion without trying to take away each others' right to speak freely, then at least let's have a diversity of censorship.
(FYI, tongue is planted firmly in cheek throughout this, although I don't mean it as a total joke. If web censorship is a must, then a system like this would be better than where we're headed. Thus if you think this would really suck, maybe we need to re-evaluate whether we really want to start down the path at all.)
Re:First amendment rights? (Score:3, Insightful)
I was under the impression that the constitution placed restrictions on the government; ISPs are private companies, and so surely can drop whatever site they like.
I see no rights violation here.
Indeed; the only potentially iffy aspect is that public institutions use these filters. However, surely the complaint would be against those institutions, not the filtering companies. The institutions can attempt to persuade the companies to modify their filters, but ultimately it would be up to them to see that the measures they implement comply with the relevant laws, as they are the ones bound by them.
Re:Strawman much? (Score:2, Insightful)
When a journalist is covering a conflict, they have an obligation to cover both sides of the story. You cited a few anecdotal examples of obvious journalistic screw-ups in this regard, but I think you'll find that if *you* do your homework (and don't just restrict it to a right-wing media criticism site or right-leaning Israeli news site), people with opposing political views to yours have just as many examples. Witness Judith Miller's ridiculously biased reporting of an Israeli interrogation [slate.com] or CNN's failure [mediamatters.org] to balance dubious assertions that the Qana photos were staged and uncritical airing of Israeli intelligence [mediamatters.org] contradicting our own.
The same journalists who embedded with Hezbollah, of course, regularly embed with American, Iraqi, and Israeli forces (most also make the controlled nature of their experience part of the story). In most cases, there's little to suggest that these incidents stem from an explicit bias rather than just poor journalism or Reuter's stupid practice of hiring stringers virtually sight unseen.