|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Supreme Court Upholds CIPA
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 5 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 23, @07:15PM (#810)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can't
(Score:2, Interesting)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cyber Patrol blocks Peacefire. During the last Presedential election they also blocked one state Libertarian Party Headquarters plus all of the web sites of that states Libertarian Candidates.
About eighteen months ago Cyber Patrol blocked www.TheRegister.co.uk because they published an article about the antics of a political group whose views were opposed by the makers of Cyber Patrol. The site was blocked as Pornographic (Same for the libertarian party sites} although there certainly was no pronographic material on the sites. This was blocking by URL, not by a filter. One of the reasons these companies will not publish their blocking lists. They are blocking sites advocating political policies that the owners of the software disagree with. Much of this (like the WWW.TheRegister.co.uk block) was not accidental. When TheRegister enquired why the block was put in place, they were told (I understand) that they should have cleared the article with Cyber Patrol prior to publishing. The Block was punative.
Now that is a problem that the Supremes should have addressed directly and did not.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's times like these when it's clear that the good people at the EFF (whom I support and even give money to) are going to just lead the movement into the quicksand. Insisting on filters is a reasonable restriction that does very little harm to free speech or education.
Yes, the current crop of filters don't work very well. But it's clear that even if they became very accurate, those who oppose filtering still wouldn't want them. They are simply hitching their wagon to the bad filter evidence because it's easy. (At least some of them come right out and say they think minors have the right to view whatever they want in the library.)
Their media release [eff.org] was sloppy and it overreached. It said, "The Supreme Court today dealt a tremendous blow to the free speech rights of child and adult library patrons". Well, technically, the decision only limited the channel of speech of website publishers to reach an audience inside of libraries that receive federal funding who do not wish to ask to have the filters blocked (which is allowed by the law). This limitation, in reality, is so small, that it is pathetic for people at the EFF to make some overblown big brother argument about it.
People who don't like this can either:
- Go to a library that doesn't have these filters
- Surf at home
- Go to a cybercafe
- Simply ask the librarian to temporarily disable the filter
If our slogan is going to be, "Adults and children have the right to go to the library and view pornography and bomb-making sites without having to make a simple request first," we're finished.
But it gets worse. EFF Media Director Will Doherty says, "The tragedy is that millions of library patrons now join the millions of students, many of them no longer minors, who face the Internet blocking barrier to obtaining a proper education at schools nationwide." How silly. As if it is, suddenly, the *Internet* that is providing a proper education for students. And now, thanks to ineffective blocking technology - they're screwed now. Are we to hold bad filters responsible when most college seniors cannot find New York state on a map, or place the Civil War in the correct half o the 19th century or know how many Supreme Court justices there are? Does a filter's blocking of a particular website about breast cancer really mean that the kid is not going to understand anatomy now? Can't he just walk over to a stack of books and read about it there if it is blocked incorrectly? Just how lazy are we?
The reality is that the miniscule restriction on speech that this law causes is well worth it when weighed against the very real desire of adolescent boys to get access to things they shouldn't be seeing on the web. I think the parents of America would easily agree and think the people who oppose the filters are just out of touch with reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 24, @01:11PM (#814)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hadn't heard of peacefire's software, and was wondering why it was spelled "cirvumventor" with a v... and then I realized that if it was spelled correctly, then the word "cum" would be in it and it might get blocked by exceptionally stupid software. Alas, it isn't spelled this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be
lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.
- Isaac Asimov
|
 |
|
|
|
[
home |
contribute story |
older articles |
past polls |
faq |
authors |
preferences ]
|
