Slashdot Log In
Open Letter to the Family Research Council
from the don't-look-at-those-boobies dept.
Last Wednesday, the library board opened up its auditorium for two and a half hours for three presentations on blocking software. The local branch of the FRC went first and put SurfWatch through its paces. They showed an unfiltered Internet on the left, SurfWatch on the right, and demonstrated how a search on "breast cancer" was successfully not blocked. Then they put child pornography on the wall of the library auditorium, demonstrating what SurfWatch would block.
For my presentation, I had brought a computer, but asked them if they would mind my demonstrating the software's flaws on their own laptop, to show I had not misconfigured anything. They agreed.
I spent much of my presentation talking about the size of the Internet and why most blocking was done by robots. Then I spent several minutes just listing some of the sites found blocked in some of our earlier studies at the Censorware Project.
Then I turned to the keyboard to illustrate some bad blocks. I ran out of time before getting to most of them. Some I did show but so quickly that many of those watching may not have realized what was going on.
Afterwards, Kimberley Fraser, who gave the Family Research Council presentation, asked me about some of what I'd said. I ended up asking her if I could respond to her in the form of an open letter. She agreed.
Below is that letter.
Dear Ms. Fraser,
As you know, at Herrick District Library last Wednesday night, your group gave a demonstration of SurfWatch's successes and then I showed some of its failures. I went through these failures rather quickly and didn't give the audience much of a chance to see the details of what I was doing.
You asked afterwards if I could provide verification of some of these points of failure, and I am delighted to do so.
First of all, regarding the colossal list of wrongly-blocked sites that I spent so much of my presentation reading, please consult our Web site. These wrong blocks were found in our reports on five other popular blocking packages: X-Stop, Cyber Patrol, WebSENSE, X-Stop again, SmartFilter, and Bess. You will find these reports at http://censorware.org/reports/.
There was some confusion in the question-and-answer period about whether these wrongly-blocked sites were also blocked by SurfWatch. Surely not all, and I have no reason to believe very many of them, are still blocked by SurfWatch or any other software. As I explained, when wrong blocks are publicized, they are usually unblocked quickly to minimize bad press.
Now, regarding the errors of SurfWatch itself. Note that some of its past errors are cataloged at http://peacefire.org/censorware/SurfWatch/. I am not sure whether I found time to describe those erroneous blocks or not.
In any case, here is information that hadn't been reported before. The following are all sites which I had prepared for Wednesday night, not all of which I was able to demonstrate. Please consult with your technical staff and confirm that each of these URLs and searches is wrongly blocked using the same category ("Sex") that you use in your tests and that you would recommend for public libraries.
http://www.gaydaze.com/sstory/curfantasy.html
"Daisies for my Wife," by Harold Roppers, a science fiction short
story.
http://censorware.org/essays/sex_lies_jt.html
"Sex, Lies, and Censorware," an essay by my colleague Jim Tyre that
is critical of SurfWatch.
http://intertain.com/store/browse.html
The bookstore at Intertain.com. Starting from that
Web page, click
"Browse," then "Love, Sex and Marriage." All categories of books on
that page, 600 books total, are blocked, including books on domestic
violence, natural childbirth, and African-American families.
http://www.wap.org/ifaq/sex/marriage.html
"Marriage." A humorous look at marriage through the eyes of children.
http://netdetours.com/archive/sex.html
"Sex and Politics: A historical look at affairs of state." A
comparison of the Clinton sex scandal to scandals of other historical
figures.
http://www.wwf.org/galapagos/booby.htm
The World Wildlife Foundation maintains information about the animals
found on the Galapagos islands. SurfWatch refuses to let us read
about the Blue-Footed Booby.
Searches on the following phrases are blocked, on (almost) any search engine:
safe oral sex
testicle cancer
sexually abstain
abstain from sex
sexual abstinence
no sex
Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (book title)
Smart Sex (book title, safe sex guide)
Voyeurism in the French Novel (book title)
Save Sex (title of both book and FRC poster campaign)
http://www.nytimes.com/library/arts/013000tv-voyeurism.html
"Television's New Voyeurism Pictures Real-Life Intimacy." The New
York Times looks at shows like "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire."
(In the question-and-answer period, one gentleman suggested that this
page was blocked for a suggestive photo that appeared in the print
edition of the Times. Please confirm that the Web page has no photo.)
http://www.rainbow.ch/chribru/chris/odonnell.htm
A Chris O'Donnell fan page.
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Spa/6834/
"Alternative Healing Resources: A Reference Guide for Balancing Your
Mind, Body, and Spirit."
http://www.lesbigay.com/equal_rights/equality.html
"The Equality Project: Dedicated to promoting education and
acceptance of all genders, sexualities, races, and religions."
http://www.magiccarpet.com/%7ecgrafe/diamondgallery/
"Diamond Gallery Sports Cards." Baseball and football cards for sale
or trade.
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Crime/Crimes/Sex_Crimes/Child_Pornography/
Four of the thirteen anti-child pornography sites listed on Yahoo
are blocked. "All Against Child Pornography," "Anti Pedophile Network",
"Adult Sites Against Child Pornography," and "Defence for Children
International."
http://cnn.com/starr.report/
The Starr Report, in every place it appears on the Internet (this
URL is just one example).
http://afa.net/Pornography/pornography.html
And finally, the American Family Association, which launched the
pro-blocking-software initiative in Holland, is blocked.
I believe your technical staff will confirm what I have found to be true: that all of these are blocked as pornography by your software. Please let me know what your team says. Thank you.
Jamie McCarthy
jamie@slashdot.org
Join 'Em, and Ask Defining Questions (Score:3)
Which after all are a legitimate concern once you get past the stridency of "little Johnnie may see something inappropriate"
After all, if what they say to you doesn't penetrate your head as being meaningful, the converse is likely to be true as well.
In a "debate"/"heated discussion" on censorship, I took issue with the comments of someone who was feeling particularly strident about protecting the world from "evil." I pointed out that a law based on his definitions would actually outlaw publishing the Bible.
He then headed off into "never-never land" indicating that he didn't care, and that if the Bible was outlawed, he'd feel religiously persecuted, and would break that law.
Unfortunately, I never got around to underlining the point that he was proposing to break law that he had proposed in the first place.
At any rate, the critical point is to bring the focus away from the technological tools that allow them to believe that there is some sort of And Now We See A Miracle and back to the three crucial issues:
They have to be properly appointed by a body that is answerable to the public that is being censored.
For it to be someone in the back room at NetNanny, that is utterly improper.
Disclosure of policies and procedures needs to be mandatory, if they are to behave as a governing body.
This is the truly thorny issue that can show there to be a true problem with the whole attempt; there is no unambiguous definition of "obscenity."
In contrast, medical students obviously need such a reference. ...And are probably also capable at sniggering over parts of it ...
Research??? (Score:3)
I'm sorry, Jamie, (Score:3)
I mean, something had to be done.
Good luck persuading the FRC (Score:3)
I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association [afa.org], which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council [frc.org], to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda
The AFA prominently explains [afa.net] that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape [afa.net] "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda" produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this [frc.org] remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA [frc.org] and MISLEADING RAND STUDY PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY [frc.org].
In summary, if you're expecting to engage in reasoned debate with these venomous loonies, I would advise you not to hold your breath.
Re:I've got some reservations about all of this... (Score:3)
But why single out sex? Surely, we must also remove any content dealing with other frivalous soruces of pleasure. Why subsidize the arousal of your artistic passions by keeping all those art books around? Or arouse your literary passions with those thick tomes of poetry? Why spend money on books about music, good food and drink, travel, and all those other trivial pleasures that distract people from what's truly important?
No sir. The only books the public libraries need are the Bible and books on job skills (100 copies of, say, "HTML for Dummies") and playing the markets.
Of course, I suppose if you're really a Tight-Assed Conservative, you'd want to close the libraries entirely and have the local government sell the building to WalMart to fund a tax cut.
No, It's MUCH worse than nothing (Score:3)
I object to it because it teaches our children that censorship is ok, it is ineffective, it targets groups for political reasons (women's rights, EFF, censorware warnings, etc.). The truth is that a normal reasonable parent could not find a blocking package which blocks only porn (and the more objectivly harmful stuff) because the AFA and company have a significant influence over the blocked sites list.
Finally, I object to censorware because there is a much better solution. Yes, that's right there is a better solution: Put the computers out in the open and have the librarians walk near them occasionally! This is immershuably more effective at elliminating porn then any blocking software. Parents who are concerned about their kids use of the internet should want their kids to use the internet at a library or school without blocking software but with an intelegant usage policy becuase the librarians can monitor usage.
If they computers really must be in an enclosed space then you could install a video fork to switch between the monitors and display a distorted image of the web page at the front desk. (You should distort the image enough to make text unreadable for privacy reasons, but you can keep nudity identifiable) Actually, you might be able to show random images from the recent cache on a libraians system for a total software solution since random out of context images might not constitute an invasion of privacy.
The AFA dose not want the libraries to adopt this more effective solution because it would not push for their political objectives (no gay rights, women's place is in the home, etc.) and it would work thus removing their ability to push for more restrictions.
Yes you can say the list should be public, but I do not hear you complaining about the types of books the library places in the childrens section to browse.
The lists should be public period, no execptions. I would like to see the current batch of companies prosicuted for their attempts to instal privatly controled censorship into schools and libraries. Also, we do not complain about the selection of childrens books specifically because the list is public (it's sitting on the walls of the children's section).
This post is going to do some serious damage to my puny Karma, but alas, I am willing to take that chance.
Has anyone else noticed that saing something like this is the best way to get a high scoring post? (even better then having a meaningful post)
Jeff
Alternatives to censorware? (Score:3)
Probably you've already thought about this, but have you tried proposing any alternative ways of dealing with the perceived pornography problem? I notice, for example, that the Ann Arbor district library [aadl.org], although it doesn't use "censorware", does have an acceptable use policy [aadl.org] which deals with the issue of "disturbing information and images".
I also stumbled across a survey of library policies [oswego.or.us] which has pointers to individual policies of libraries in each state, and also has some statistics (e.g., they say that at that time only 2% of libraries were using filtering software).
Maybe it would be possible to talk someone from the Ann Arbor library, or from some other library in your area, to come and give a presentation about how they arrived at the policies for their library, and how those policies have worked. I bet a lot of people would find it very reassuring to see a local librarian come and say "we didn't use censorware, but we did do this and this and this, and we've had no complaints so far...".
Re:I've got some reservations about all of this... (Score:3)
Excuse me? Since when is that illegal? Last I heard the only speech that wasn't protected was racist 'hate speech', and then only in extreme circumstances! I think I'll inform my colleagues that the information I provided them on how to copy that Tru64 disc set for lawful archival constitutes a felony! Gee, I guess any information that could be used in an illegal manner should be banned! I suppose I'll have to stop hand-rolling my cigarettes in public too! Someone could watch me and use the information to roll a joint! Free speech indeed!
Call me a tight-assed conservative, but I don't think that the government ought to be subsidising the erotic arousal of others.
Let's see.. We can subsidise one local sicko, and it costs us nothing to do so. Alternativly, we can spend $85 per PC to install blocking software. If anything, the government would be subsidizing the censorware companies!
Beyond how governemnt administrates its own computers
Lest ye forget, they work for us. If we say 'no blocks', then anything else is tough cookies. And even the government answers to the Constitution, which seems to be the reason 'censorware' hasn't taken hold. Remember the article on how we paid thousands of dollars to protect Supreme Court Justices from porn sites? It was ridiculous then and it still is. If Sandra Day O'Conner wants to peek at some 'stud muffin' from her office PC, good for her! Come on! These are the people who defined 'hate speech' and 'pornography'!!
Freedom is a Religious Issue (Score:3)
Most of the conflicts that imping on freedom of speech and thought could be resolved if the definition of what constitutes a "religious group" were expanded and the autonomy from central government enjoyed by those groups deepened.
This dives directly into the can of worms that is child protective law. All supremacist groups, be they Christians, Commies, Nazis or the Political Correctors, believe they have an inalienable right to legislate how others are to raise their children -- and what ideas are to be considered "virulent" enough to justify "prior restraint".
Christians via laws against heresy, abortion and pornography
Nazis via book burnings
PCers via laws against, not just hate speech, but against the very emotions that make us human and in which we all indulge, including the PCers.
The Christians, Commies, Nazis and PCers need to mind their own business, but they cannot do so if the government is allowed to intervene in their internal affairs on behalf of their enemies.
This means actions like the burning of the Branch Davidian compound are about as evil as can be imagined within the context of a pluralistic society -- for they force us all to compete, as special interest groups, in the political arena for control over the indoctrination of the children of other groups, lest we lose our children to our enemies.
Ultimately, the centralization of sovereignty is the enemy of all freedom, including the fundamental freedoms of religion and of speech.
Personally, I believe that genes are fundamental to social identity, but I cannot establish a community of like-minded people without the continual and very real threat that we will be attacked by police and military groups as "supremacist racist hate mongers". I would gladly mind my own business if other groups would cease imposing, via governmental pogroms, their religious beliefs about genetics (ie: that genes don't matter to social identity and anyone who believes otherwise is a clear and present danger to civilization).
The only way out of this black-hole of ever increasing centralization of sovereignty that I have been able to come up with, other than off-planet migrations, is warrior insurance [geocities.com].
Re:Puritans (Score:3)
Why is it then that when that same library doesn't want to make this content available through its Internet terminals it is considered censure?
Everyone understands that blocking software is not perfect; however, the librarian making decisions about which books to place on the shelf isn't perfect either. Also, that librarian is no less politically motivated than the purveyors of blocking software.
Re:Another argument against the pro-block lobby (Score:3)
I think one of the best counter-arguments about these filter products is the fact that most of them block any discussion or critisism about themselves..
That is only partially correct. Some certainly do block critical commentary, but not all, not necessarily most.
One of the blocked sites Jamie mentions in his open letter is a mini-essay of mine, which is critical of SurfWatch. However, the reason why SurfWatch blocks it is not because it is critical of the product; rather, it is blocked because the URL contains the word "sex", and "sex" is one of many keywords which, if in a URL, automatically will be blocked by the client version of SurfWatch. The page would be blocked by SurfWatch if the URL was the same but the content was a tirade against the evils of premarital sex.
Of course, in many ways, blocking on that basis is even more pernicious than just blocking criticism, but unlike some of our adversaries, we at The Censorware Project do like to deal in facts, not myths or scare tactics.
Re:Yo! Blacklists over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND sites (Score:3)
According to Surfwatch's very own PR, their censorware has over 100,000 sites on their blacklist.
That's ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. One with five zeros after it. No-one could examine this list in a reasonable time. It's not humanly possible. At one per minute, that's around 500 per workday. A whole work-year (200 days) to go through it once.
Seth (who, for those who do not know him, was one of the earliest, most vocal and dead-on accurate critics of censorware) understates the case to make a point.
First, if the SurfWatch list has 100,000 entries, in fact SurfWatch blocks far more than 100,000 sites, because of keyword blocking.
Second, many vendors block by IP numeric addresses in addition to domain name blocking. If your site is blocked because it happens to share an IP address with a porn site, you may never see your domain name on an open blacklist.
Third, although the vendors like to tout the size of their blacklists, in one area, they have an interesting way of counting. For example, many vendors block some or all of the free webpage hosts in their entirety, but if, for example, they block members.xoom.com, they will count that as a single entry on their list, rather than a block of however many hundreds of thousands of member sites there may be at xoom.com.
Last, 100,000 is a conservative number these days. Many of the vendors say on their sites that their lists are in excess of 500,000 entries, a few have passed the million mark.
Open blacklists are less bad than closed ones, but that is very different from saying that they are good.
I've been thinking about this... (Score:4)
Simply put, we're going about this the wrong way. We're not arguing from the right angles. We talk about "adults must be able to view as they please" which the zealots view as "we want to see our pr0n and you can't stop us." They talk about "protecting the children"; there aren't many ways to argue against that without coming out looking like the scum of the Earth (which isn't exactly productive).
In other words, we need to revise our tactics. How many anime fans are on Slashdot? It might surprise most of us to know that at one point not too long ago, Japan went through similar media censorship troubles. Pick several anime at random and look through them; chances are you'll find ample evidence that the censorship advocates didn't succeed. Why didn't they succeed there?
Simply put, people came forward against censorship who were truly brilliant. They argued just as strongly and just as convincingly against censorship as our fundamentalist friends in the U.S. argue for it. We need to look at these, take our example from them. They managed to argue convincingly where we are failing. And what's more, they won.
Look into it. These are the sort of people we're going to need to emulate. Somehow, in some way, they managed to successfully argue against censorship, that is, they did it without looking as though they were doing something wrong that they didn't want criminalized. And I wish I had links to more information, but I don't right now. I'll post them as soon as I can find them.
Re:Puritans (Score:4)
First, I doubt too many libraries subscribe to Hustler. Some may subscribe to Playboy, though -- it is still considered a rather prestigious publication for fiction writing. [don't laugh here, you KNOW what I mean...
But to address your main point, there is a HUGE difference between relying on a human to make those decisions and blindly turning over the reigns to a computer program written by a bunch of people you don't know.
As to political motivations, well, as I said before, librarians are human. It takes an awfully strong person to stand up to the person who writes your paycheck. But I have found that most librarians are highly ethical people with a strong anti-censorship stance. For instance, check out the American Library Association's code of ethics:
http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html
I think that they understand the difference between letting impressionable children browse through hard-core porn and letting more mature minds have unfettered access to the information that is their birthright.
Not Perfect....But Its better Than Nothing (Score:4)
In my neck of the woods (New Jersey), the internet enabled PC's in the childrens area are blocked. The PC's in the main area are not, and are clearly marked as such. That seems to me like a good solution in any case.
I cannot see how anyone, in their right mind, would object to placing some sort of blocking software on PC's in childrens areas of a public library. Yes you can say the list should be public, but I do not hear you complaining about the types of books the library places in the childrens section to browse. Isn't THAT censorship by your definition? I mean SOMEONE ELSE decided what books those kids can see?
My wife takes my kids to the library twice a week, and they basically have their own little safe place to wander around/browse/read/learn/enjoy. I do not have to worry or care about what book they might pick up while in that area. Its a safe, age appropriate place. It should remain so. That thinking should extend to the internet as well. The internet is part of the childrens library in this case.
As to the question of who is better qualified to forge the list of blocked sites, I say a commercial entity that have people who earn a salary doing this sort of thing, should bear the responsibility/chore of figuring out what site should be blocked and which shouldn't. Blocking some sites inadvertantly is no big deal...you said yourself that the 'net is very big. I'm sure there are thousands of sites that contain the same information that was contained in the one blocked site.
Missed the important alternate conclusion (Score:5)
Simply put, you open letter is a good start. However is only half done. You need to offer a better suggestion. This orginization in the end simply wants to protect their kids.
One scare tatic I've heard (and suppsidly this is true. Lets assume for the sake of discussion that it is true) is a mother noticed some rowdy kids in the library, looking at a comptuer. She walked by with her kid and saw the kids looking at porn. The mother then talked to the head librarian, who said that they can't do anything - the moment they try to censor this stuff the first admendment advocates get on their case.
In the above situation I want to note a few things. First, this was a public place, second, kids (not adults) were looking at it without their parents knowlege. Third, this is not something that can be called research.
The open letter above has showed that the filtering software doesn't work well. (It would be nice if you could have found a porn site that was not blocked. These come and go all the time, so you would have to be quick, but I think it can be done) However by not doing anything we get the situation above. Very few /. readers would agree that children should be able to view something that goes against their parents or the publics beliefs. (Note that this is a bit broad. We can all find exceptions, where parents are in cults.)
So the next step is propose an alternate solution: In Minnestoa for instance it is illegal to view porn in a public place, and illegal [for anyone but parents] to expose kids to violance or porn. This puts the issue back in the parents hands, and librarians can simply walk by, and if anyone, adult or kid is looking at porn you call the police and let the courts deal with it.
I much prefer a general, broad, law that covers all aituations to several targeted laws.
Somehow, I think the letter falls on deaf ears. (Score:5)
Regarding the letter to the Family Research Council--I honestly wish you the best of luck there.
I also think you will probably have better luck having an in-depth conversation on the merits of Red Hat versus Slackware with the walls of your home than convince the Family Research Council of the fact the software is flawed and even blocks partisan material.
This is largely because the Family Research Council would consider this a feature and not a bug. :P
For those who aren't aware--the Family Research Council is, essentially, the lobbying arm of a group called Focus on the Family. FoF is probably the largest Religious Reich organisation in the US now (yes, even bigger than the Christian Coalition) and basically split off Family Research Council some years back in order to preserve their tax-exempt status. (As an aside, often state FoF branches will operate under different names to hide their affiliation with FoF.)
To be perfectly blunt, FoF and its affiliates have an agenda--to basically get as many raving fundamentalists in office as possible and to get the fundamentalist vote out, in hopes of getting enough people in office to essentially turn the United States into a fundamentalist theocracy. If you want to get a good idea about the "face" politics they support, just look at the political platform of (recently dropped out) presidential candidate Gary Bauer--this is the guy who founded Family Research Council when it was split off of FoF.
To these folks, pushing censorware is just another way of them "saving" us--whether or not we particularly want to be "saved" or not--and making the US into a "nice Christian nation again". (Many of these folks, by the way, also subscribe to "Christian Reconstructionism"--that is, the canard that the Founding Fathers actually meant the US to be a theocracy.) This is also why they tend to run "stealth" candidates (candidates who do not reveal their links to Religious Reich groups until elected) specifically to things like school boards--they want to get them young so they can indoctrinate them young, because they know that if they're gotten young they likely won't walk away. (This is also why they push homeschooling a lot, by the way, as well as vouchers for private schools--it's been the actual stated goal of many Religious Reich groups to get the school system totally dismantled so that kids are forced to go to sectarian schools.)
FoF's president, Bob Dobson, also makes a rather lucrative career selling books on "disciplining your kids"--usually involving a mix of censorship, forcing God down their throats, and liberal amounts of spanking the kids (part of the reason corporal punishment is NOT illegal in the US--or, for that matter, why the US is the only nation besides Somalia which has still not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child--is because fundamentalist groups like FRC lobby heavily against such laws, claiming that it'll take away their right to "spare the rod and spoil the child" or to "raise their kids as they see fit". In some cases where it has crossed the line into child abuse, some fundies have even argued in court that the state prohibiting them from beating the living hell out of their kids is a violation of their First Amendment rights to religion and that beating the hell out of their kids is actually a duty of their religion).
I happen to be a walkaway from what may be described as a "bible-based cult", and I can say that a fair percentage of the harder-core membership of many (if not most) Religious Reich groups in the US happen to be from churches that use coercive tactics on their membership. In other words, the ones who are doing the lobbying are more than likely brainwashed, they have probably already mentally defined anyone who isn't on their side and who dares to tell them about "flaws" in the software is directly in league with Satan (most Religious Reich groups, and most bible-based cults, DO have a very "us-versus-them" attitude--many Bible-based cults even go to the point of "deliverance ministry" (even your doubts are caused by demons, and the only cure is to "pray them out" or get an exorcism...rather like some of the nastier mind-control techniques in Scientology, actually)...). It is going to take a considerably larger clue-by-four than that to make them change their minds.
The FRC has a rather long record of lobbying not just for censorship, but for the entire Religious Reich platform. On occasion, this has even gone to slandering folks who speak against them...don't be surprised if you find possibly much of the town turned against you (I've read in previous reports that the town in general is quite conservative and beholden to the Religious Reich).
Some links so that the curious may learn more (and educate themselves thereby):
Religious Reich Database F section--also info on FoF [infinet.com]
Extended coverage of FRC from above site [infinet.com]
ACLU's open letter to FRC [aclu.org]
People for the American Way speaks out against FRC campaign against hate-crimes laws that would protect gay/les/bi/trans folks [pfaw.org]
PFAW's "Who's Who on the Religious Right"--FRC section [pfaw.org]
here [pfaw.org] and here [pfaw.org] and here [pfaw.org] and here [pfaw.org] and here [pfaw.org] and here [pfaw.org] and here [pfaw.org] and here [pfaw.org] and here [pfaw.org] and here [pfaw.org] and here [pfaw.org] and even here very recently [pfaw.org], you can see what the FRC and the rest of the Religious Reich have to say to their own members
QRD's info on FRC [qrd.org]--this also has a lot of quotes of the FRC in their own words to their supporters
Info on the FRC from the Matthew Shephard website [wiredstrategies.com]--more FRC "in their own words" and at their worst
EFF's "Know Your Enemies [eff.org]--includes info on FRC
Walk Away [ifas.org]--a good resource not only for those walking away from "bible-based cults" but also gives you a glimpse of the mindset these groups have--important in debating them. (The head of Institute for First Amendment Studies [ifas.org] is himself a walkaway from a bible-based cult.)
And since I don't want to just talk about them without providing some way to fight the Religious Reich (otherwise I wouldn't have posted the damn warning about the FRC's agenda ;):
Arguing Against Faith [demon.co.uk]--basically, how to debate fundies
A whole big mess of resources on how to fight the Religious Reich [anti-fascism.org]
Another mess of good links [tripod.com]
and still another mess of good links [spiritone.com]
Skipp Porteous (walkaway and head of IFAS) writes on how to win against the Religious Reich [protest.net]
A really good expose of the Religious Reich, including info on the "code words" they use with their members [webpan.com]
Defending Yourself Against The Religious Right [elroy.com]
11 Things You Can Do To Fight The Religious Right [serve.com]--this is good for regular folks too. (As an aside--Domino's is no longer owned by fundies, but Coors Brewery is)
Major groups fighting the right wing:
EFF [eff.org] (as if you didn't need any more reasons to send that donation in ;)--they fight censorware initiatives)
Peacefire [peacefire.org]--the source for info on censorware, including how most censorware has just a wee bit of a fundamentalist agenda
Institute for First Amendment Studies [ifas.org]--highly recommended. Includes info on the Coalition for National Policy (basically the "think-tank" of the Religious Reich) including membership lists. Head of group is walkaway from a fundamentalist "Bible-based cult".
People for the American Way [pfaw.org]. Highly recommended is their "Right Wing Watch Online" section.
ACLU [aclu.org]
Americans United for Separation of Church and State [au.org]
The Interfaith Alliance [tialliance.org]--progressive religious groups united for tolerance
Rock Out Censorship [theroc.org]--naturally concentrates on music censorship, but has really good info on other school-related issues, including filtering. (I'm a wee bit biased on this one, much as I am with IFAS--I have done volunteer work for ROC before. They're a damned good group, though.)
In any case, I wish y'all the best of luck in fighting them...I'm not sure you realised just what the hell you were getting into, but if there's anything we can do to help here on Slashdot, let us know.
Puritans (Score:5)
You see, that's the problem with censorware - it's very much political, even though the box says it's not. Forcing schools to impliment this is a violation of both the spirit and the letter of the consititution which was created specifically to prevent any one group from dictating their beliefs. The government should not be taking sides! Yet by actively promoting it behind the veil of "political correctness" we're putting ourselves in (at best) a precarious situation.. and at worst a devestating way to deprive minors of alternative viewpoints. Which, afterall, is the point of censorware... it just isn't printed on the box.