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.
Not what I thought (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not only anti-immigration (which is un-American IMHO), they sound like a bunch of racists. But should they be blocked?
of course it's impossible (Score:3, Interesting)
however, that doesn't mean:
1. you should stop trying
2. you should consider getting it perfect as your goal
it is wrong to block a site that shouldn't be blocked
it is also wrong to allow unfettered access to the web by kids in school
but you can't stop doing one wrong without committing the other, so that there exists a tension between two perfectly valid goals, where you always have to be careful about what you block, mindful of the fact that no matter what you do, you won't get it perfect
but there are a lot of people out there who are idealists, who believe that if you can't do something perfect, you shouldn't try to do it all. there are also a lot of people who are only capable of looking at wrongs completely out of context. in other words, they see a downside, a negative, but they don't understand that for some thankless challenges in life, there is a downside no matter what you do, and the goal is not get something upside, or even a wash, but to just minimize the downsides. and yet some people therefore:
1. don't recognize the nature of the problem, and oppose an action just because a downside exists (nevermind that it is impossible for a downside not to exist for some problems in life)
2. don't recognize that acting imperfectly in some problems beats not acting at all. but because they can't be perfect, they'd rather not act, but they only wind up compounding the problem, simply because of their idealism
the fact that these tensions between two competing wrongs exist for some tasks in life doesn't mean you stop trying, but it does mean that you unfortunately must continually whether withering criticism from howling idealists who just don't understand the nature of the dilemna
Think of the children! (Score:2, Interesting)
Why? Has any scientific study ever concluded that watching pornography harms children?
Or is it fear that they might actually learn something parents don't want them to learn?
Like authentic footage from WWII, Viet Nam, L.A. and Iraq you mean? Heavens forbid that the kids see the level of horror that actually happened and happens. They might catch politics or become peaceniks. Oh vey.
If there's anyone who deserve full uncensored access to any and all information, it's children. How else can they make informed decisions and grow up into the best they can be? If adults wants to censor something for themselves based on beliefs or tradition, I'm not going to stop them, but don't limit the information children get. They deserve a chance to make their own choices, with a full knowledge of both sides of any issues.
Regards,
--
*Art
Common sense? (Score:2, Interesting)
Your tax dollars at work (Score:3, Interesting)
For some categories, we have half an hour discretionary time per day we can use for anything but porn, hate sites, etc. Personally, I'm glad my tax dollars aren't being wasted. No! I'm not wasting tax dollars here, as I explained to my supervisor, my visits to slashdot are for "researching industry trends" and "developing valuable contacts in the open source community."
Re:New category (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, we want the idiots who preach hate to have their public voices, so we can see who they are.
slashdot=hate speech (Score:5, Interesting)
See how this works? Constant attacks on religion of all types, and as extreme as it gets, complete with stuff pretty close to threats..I've seen it here. Hate speech? Looks like it to me following this dubious "logic". Is it cool to block slashdot?
How about those "everything hispanic is just so damn cool" sites, the bronze warrior aztlan overlord la raza reconquista sites?(despite them all wanting to move here and theior own nations are cesspools) Are they being blocked by these softwares? They go so far as to want to kill off all the whites in the south west US, I've read some on their sites, I've seen pics of posters some of them have carried at rallies, complete with graphical representations of white folks with their heads cut off by bronze warrior machetes.. Blocked? Are they? The US attorney general is a member of a hispanic separatist organization! I have seen quite a bit of "hate speech" there at those sites following these strict guides. How about Free Republic and D.U.? You honestly want to say you (anyone you, not being specific at all) haven't seen a variety of "hate speech" there?
And so on.
Here's some reality. You have to be 100% pro gay or be classed as a hater. You have to be 100% zionist and pro everything israel does or you are a "hater" (that's a HUGE one in this society, go on, admit it) You have to be 100% pro ultra radical feminism or you are a hater. You have to either bend over and spread 'em with a smile on your face for clinton or bush or you are a hater. And so on.
There's a HUGE list, and if you look close EVERYONE ON THE PLANET has some semblence of "hate speech" naughty thoughts and the occassional "hate" scribble or "hate" utterences, so let's just block everything and go back to living in caves and grunting. Then instead of hate speech we can engage in mass "club love" and be "sharing" with the "multicultural" neighbors.
As to the original example in the article, it appears you can be pro anything, anything at all, any other race or tribe or ethnicity, other than having european heritage in your family tree. Then that becomes "hate speech".
Screw that, screw "current political correctness"..because that is the root of all hate. Want to see the simply best possible examples of the most intolerant and bigoted people on the planet, just in general terms, I mean just raw extremism, no matter the subject being discussed, where there exists only black and white but never the shades of gray? Go to any university and watch the young folks there when they discover politics.
Been there, done that,guilty as charged. Learn from history and learn from the mistakes of youth, because YOU will be making them, a lot of them. You just won't see it for many years, that's all.
All have to say is... (Score:4, Interesting)
There goes my karma, but I don't care. The message that the image portrays speaks for itself. My ancestors were here first. Someone should tell these guys that.
Re:pro 2nd amendment often blocked too (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup. It's the one civil right that isn't politically correct.
Re:First amendment rights? (Score:3, Interesting)
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
the Supreme Court held that students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate"
Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico
"Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."
Interactive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al.
speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors.
Maybe there is a first ammendment case here after all.
Re:First amendment rights? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:this seems out of place (Score:5, Interesting)
I sure would. I decline spend the effort necessary to figure out just exactly what one group of shitheads contends separates them from a similar group of shitheads, and where exactly these shitheads want the shithead line drawn. I simply draw it around both, and sleep well at night for doing so.
Hate Speech is Protected (Score:3, Interesting)
Political extremists, racism, zealotry... we should be exposing kids to this, and explaining why it is wrong; not hiding them from it to the point where they don't recognize it when they see it. My children shouldn't need to use the Internet at home to do their research.
I am fundamentally opposed to limitations on speech. I believe that censorship is almost universally wrong, and suppression of ideas has no place in a school setting.
Raven
Re:Don't block sites (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course you can. Provided you follow the 11th Commandment, you can do it with impunity. That, in fact, is the tech person's main form of power. The tech person rarely has the skills to be a politician, administrator, or lawyer. So the option of changing policies, laws, and rules through the political system or the courts are not open to him. But, since the technical person knows how those rules are implemented, he has the option of bypassing or subverting them at that level (provided he doesn't get caught).
You're running the entire show... you can make a permanent hole in the firewall just for yourself (and the other techie). What's to stop you? Is the other guy going to rat you out?Re:All have to say is... (Score:3, Interesting)
So which argument should we follow, "We were here first" or "We were here last"? Because you may not have been as first as you think you are, and hell, we're probably related anyway.
Speech as speech versus actions as speech. (Score:4, Interesting)
Cite please.
There aren't, that I know of, any Federal laws against hate speech, when it is simply "speech" and not action-producing. It is still protected as political speech, just like anything else. There are certain types of "speech" which are prohibited if they incite particular actions, but they prohibited by virtue of being actions-as-speech rather than speech per se. This has broad historical basis in the prohibitions against inciting riots, and the "fire in a crowded theater" example.
Neither one is really a type of speech being against the law, when the speech is considered independently of the action it provokes. This may seem like an academic point, but it is not. It's the difference between it actually being illegal to say something due to subject matter, and being illegal to say something in a particular time and place, to a particular audience, in order to produce a particular effect. Both situation and motivation play into its prohibition.
There is a very big difference between saying that you can't deny the Holocaust, period, and saying that you can't tell a bunch of people at a white supremacist rally to go out and kill Jews. The second case is clearly an incitement to violence and thus isn't just speech, it's also action-causing in a direct and predictable way. The first case is blatantly censorious and (although it is the case in many European countries,) would not pass Constitutional muster in the U.S. -- even if a simple majority of Congress and the President wanted to make it illegal.
Re:slashdot=hate speech (Score:2, Interesting)
Any ideas?
Re:Nice to see you buy the revisionism of Daily Ko (Score:1, Interesting)
Lol, like republicans are any better. At their speeches, democrats are all cowards and progressives are all traitors who want americans to die to please their muslim overlords. One Senator demanded that a comedian be executed for a joke, if nothing else, at least the democrats aren't in a position to make good on their threats. And their treatment of McCain, who stood up for the tortured having been tortured himself was beyond despicable.
At least they quit pushing their "values" ads, now that we know that those values were just words on a TV to them.