Worst Censorware Blocks Cannot Be Fixed 420
The ACLU is threatening to sue a group of Tennessee School Districts for using blocking software that blocks sites categorized as "LGBT" — that is, sites themed around lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender issues that would not be classified as pornographic. Some of the blocked sites include the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign.
Legally, the school districts' decision to block these sites seems fairly indefensible. The content being censored is political speech, not illegal to distribute to minors, and as the ACLU points out, by blocking these sites the school districts are engaging in "viewpoint discrimination," since the schools allow access to anti-gay sites like Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality (which, ironically, features a disclaimer saying its content is not suitable for children). But, you never can tell with judges. A judge in Utah once ruled in favor of a school that suspended a student for wearing a t-shirt with the word "Vegan." (Do you think the judge would have made the same ruling if the student's t-shirt had said "Christian"?)
However, while the ACLU would be right to bring this case, there may be another unintended side effect. By focusing on the fact that the "LGBT" category is enabled to be blocked in these districts, this sets up a contrast with districts that do not have the "LGBT" category enabled, which could lead people to think that such districts are not blocking LGBT sites. This is not the case.
When a school district buys blocking software, the software comes with an encrypted list of websites listed in different categories; categories like Pornography and Nudity are typically blocked, while categories like LGBT would usually not be. If a site falls into one or more of the blocked categories, then attempts to access that site will be blocked (at least until some reprobates help you get around the filter.) However, it's the blocking company that decides what to put on the list under each category. And even if only categories like "Pornography" are enabled, there are likely to be many non-pornographic sites categorized as "Pornography," and hence blocked wherever that category is turned on.
When the ACLU of Washington sued the North County Regional Library system for enabling blocking software for all patrons (including adults), they asked me to test the Fortinet Web filter that the library was using. I used a random sample of 100,000 .com and 100,000 .org domains and ran them through an automated script to find 536 .com domains and 207 .org domains that were blocked by Fortinet. Of those, about one out of every eight .com sites categorized as "Pornography" or "Adult Materials," and one of out of every four .org sites blocked in those categories, was a site with content that could not possibly be considered "adult" — some of the sites blocked in these categories included the Dabar Worship Center, the immigrant-rights group Families for Freedom, and the Seattle Women's Jazz Orchestra. Extrapolating these ratios to the set of all .com and .org domains in existence, one could conclude that there were about 71,000 non-pornographic .com sites and 5,800 non-pornographic .org sites blocked by FortiNet as "Pornography" or "Adult Materials" — a number almost certain to grow into six figures when you add in all the sites outside of .com and .org. Years earlier, I had run similar tests for Cyber Patrol and SurfWatch (products which have since been discontinued) and found that an absolute majority of sites blocked by each program were actually non-pornographic, which translated into an estimate of hundreds of thousands of .com and .org sites wrongly classified as "porn."
Only the blocking companies know for sure how such stupid mistakes end up on their lists, but the most widely accepted explanation is that they use machines to crawl the Web and guess which sites are pornographic, and add those sites to their blacklists without any human intervention. In their early years, the makers of SurfWatch and Cyber Patrol claimed that employees actually did review sites before adding them to their lists, but that claim became increasingly untenable as more and more reports came out of sites being blocked with no adult content on them.
Nobody has yet done a similar study for the ENA blocking program, but every blocking program that has ever been tested has had a non-trivial error rate that extrapolates to at least hundreds of thousands of non-pornographic websites being blocked under "Pornography" and similar categories. There is no reason to think that the ENA blocker is different; at the very least, if they claim that it is, then the burden of proof should be on them.
So, the ACLU will probably succeed in persuading the Tennessee Schools Cooperative to stop blocking the "LGBT" category, but that doesn't mean that LGBT sites — or any other category of non-pornographic sites — will no longer be blocked. A student who encounters a blocked LGBT site could request an override, but what if they don't want to "out" themselves as someone who was browsing an LGBT site? Is Tennessee the best place to be known as the "queer who wanted to get around the porn filter"? And there may not be an option of getting an override anyway. Some of the correspondents on Peacefire's mailing list for new proxy sites to get around blockers are teachers who aren't given a password to bypass the blocker on their school's computers.
Then of course — you know what's coming — there is the other "larger sense" in which unblocking the LGBT category doesn't "fix the problem," which is that there would be no "problem" if we didn't think of teenagers as children instead of adults. You've probably already decided which side you're on in that debate, but consider it as a scientific question instead of a moral one. Do you think there is any objective evidence that teenagers, if they were given the opportunity to have the same rights and responsibilities as adults, would behave differently from adults to a large degree — more differently than, say, men and women behave from each other? The trouble with the "evidence" that we gather from personal interactions is that it's not truly objective — if someone believes that teenagers are immature and adults are not, they're likely to see and remember only the pieces of evidence that confirm that belief. A true double-blind experiment might involve talking to someone through a computer terminal and rating the other person's "maturity" just based on their responses. That's a start, but the trouble with that experiment is that adults tend to know a larger set of words, so a participant might rate the other person as more "mature" because of their large vocabulary, even though having a large vocabulary is completely different from having mature thoughts or logical reasoning skills. A fairer test might be to take a non-native-English-speaking adult and a native-English-speaking young teenager who scored about the same on a test of English vocabulary, and see if participants could tell the difference in maturity between those two test subjects while talking to them through a computer terminal. I am not aware of any experiment along these lines that has been done, but this is the sort of evidence of differences between adults and minors, that would be truly objective.
Most of the evidence in favor of the innate "adulthood" of teenagers is also anecdotal and not scientific, but it is compelling. As psychologist Robert Epstein has pointed out in The Case Against Adolescence, for thousands of years humans in their early teens were giving birth and raising children of their own. That obviously does not mean that that is a good idea in today's society, it just means that somewhere along the way, we must have lost sight of the level of responsibility that human teenagers are biologically capable of handling. If one of our Stone Age forebears could be brought back to life, he might eventually get used to the Web, but he'd probably always be amused by the idea of Web blockers for teenagers who are older than he was when he was raising his first child.
Tantalising Read More? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
would you prefer nibbles?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
8960 May Refer to... (Score:5, Informative)
What does this have to do with anything? I don't know. I'm just typing furiously away at the keyboard to make my boss think I am actually working (while alt-tabbing to wikipedia and google images).
Enjoy :D
Re:8960 May Refer to... (Score:5, Funny)
It's also the ISO guideline for the emission and noise of refrigerators.
Chilling effects, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Read tl;dr More Bytes
So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because while little Timmy can have his internet activities monitored by his parents at home when he gets to school his parents wishes are cast into the ditch because other people have decided they know what is best.
People love to demonize parents for not getting involved in the lives of the children but when those children are outside of their control for eight hours a day what are they to do?
Frankly I do not believe they need internet access outside of what is required to finish a class assignment. I figure most of this comes down from haters who look for any chance to embarrass or otherwise annoy religious oriented Americans who send their kids to public school. The parents are legally responsible for most of the actions of their kids and legally prevented from knowing about many of them.
Public education should have standards on EDUCATION. What a locality wants to do beyond that should be off limits to the Feds. As long as they don't try to indoctrinate based religion/race it should be fine. The problem with education is that the system is keeping parents out and then blaming them for it.
Let them be more involved, but realize freedoms you claim the students don't have should not be granted by the system over the wishes of their parents. If you do that then you absolve the parents of any liability for their children thus making them wards/products of the state. Then again maybe that is what these people want.
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument you bring forth makes me feel the true pain it is to grant any sort of internet access to a population that isn't held responsible for what they do. Which is covered by the latter part of the rant above. If the sites are blocked, then free expression is squelched. If the sites are allowed, it could be considered offensive by the parents that you are arguing for.
Maybe, the school systems are going about it all wrong. Instead of having "blockers," poke "holes." I would assume that the access to the internet is not intended to be for the entertainment of the student. It likely has a purpose, namely assisting with research, email, or whatever else. The simple solution is to tell the student users, "This is for [purpose] only." And allow sites that assist with that purpose. If a student really wants to read about some other subject, they can research it at home, or at a local library, or a freaking coffee shop if they really want to. I'm sure that even Tennessee has a Starbucks or something to provide that in the towns.
If the school is feeling really frisky, they can even allow that instant messaging thing. Also, give the staff a way to access the broader content, so if there's something that they feel is worthwhile, they can get it added. I think that this addresses the biggest concern, "What should they be doing at school" against "What shouldn't they."
I don't think a school is a place where kids should be hanging out streaming the NCAA tourney either... Cause I'll bet that's not part of the curriculum.
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, the school systems are going about it all wrong. Instead of having "blockers," poke "holes."
This is an interesting idea, and I'm sure some must do it that way already. The problem with this approach is that the students are then spoon-fed their sources. Giving them an assignment with a pre-approved list of sites takes away the part where they have to actually dig for information.
I think as a practical matter, the "blockers" approach provides the best cost/benefit ratio. That doesn't mean it's perfect. But as GP put it (in one of the best posts I've ever seen on slashdot), the students are in school to work on their learning, not to watch sports, investigate alternative lifestyles, or do anything else like that.
When my daughter reaches that age, I'll be happy to explain the diverse nature of people in the world. In the meantime, I don't want to hear that this is what constitutes school work.
Re: (Score:2)
I see many posts basically saying that censorship is OK because schools are for learning, not about entertainment. What kind of learning do you want these kids to experience? Do you want high schoolers to have some Sesame Street notion of reality? Understanding sex and sexuality is essential for understanding what it means to be human. You can probably learn math or physics in a censored environment, but what about any subject that actually looks at human beings? Biology? Anthropology? Sociology? Hi
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have a point here. In schools, white lists (maybe even different white lists for different classes) make a lot of sense. Those white lists can even come with a commenting link catalog.
On the other hand, I would not agree, if one would ask for white lists also in other public areas, such as libraries.
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:4, Insightful)
People love to demonize parents for not getting involved in the lives of the children but when those children are outside of their control for eight hours a day what are they to do?
Let the children learn that there are other viewpoints out there. That's what school is supposed to be for.
I figure most of this comes down from haters who look for any chance to embarrass or otherwise annoy religious oriented Americans who send their kids to public school.
When they stop trying to embarrass or otherwise annoy me by trying to ram through "academic freedom" bills that force teachers to teach a fairytale as science and act as a wedge to break down the church/state separation, then they'll earn my sympathy and respect. When they stop putting their fingers in their ears and shouting out that "abstinence is the only way, sex is sinful and dirty, and condoms will give you AIDS", then I'll be concerned about what they think. When they stop telling people that the genitals of the person they like are more important than the love that they have for them, then I'll entertain their cries of oppression.
Let them be more involved, but realize freedoms you claim the students don't have should not be granted by the system over the wishes of their parents.
If they feel that their children are being exposed to viewpoints that they don't agree with, let them home school their kids or send them to a private school.
While I agree that there should be local control of schools, the reason this lawsuit was filed was to challenge what the locality thinks should be acceptable and if those standards are reasonable. Community standards, the basis of most obscenity claims, were never meant to be static and unchanging - they were meant to be influenced by society as a whole. What works for one community may not work for another, but reasonable community standards are important.
I'm sure that you'll find some towns in the south that feel showing a black man and a white woman kissing is obscene. Luckily, society as a whole as advanced passed that racist and backward world view, and any obscenity trial involving that community will take that into account.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Let the children learn that there are other viewpoints out there. That's what school is supposed to be for."
Of course no one actually follows this, but only says it to allow the viewing of some viewpoints with which others disagree, but not others. They should be allowed to read about advocacy for homosexual lifestyles, but should they be allowed to read about advocacy for white nationalism or holocaust denial?
And then creating reasonable community standards involving society as a whole. How would that w
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a couple of options -- either (A) hold the schools to account for what they're doing and not doing; or (B) homeschool.
No, the problem is that parents don't want to expose their children to any ideas contrary to the parents' beliefs. Problem is, the real world doesn't work that way, and neither do the public schools that are a reflection of the real world. It's all well and good to teach your child that homosexuality is sinful or whatever -- hey, it's your belief, and the U.S. thrives upon a wide variety of beliefs.
But what does it teach your child when you tell him that he's not allowed to even explore other beliefs and ways of looking at the world? In my view, it teaches him that you're not confident your beliefs will stand up to scrutiny, and it's going to encourage him to find out what you're trying to hide.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have a couple of options -- either (A) hold the schools to account for what they're doing and not doing
the biggest issue here is that school are allowing kids access to the freaking internet. I'm sure none of the kids there give a damn about any gay/lesbian website - they're too busy talking crap with their mates on facebook. Instead of learning stuff.
So yeah, sure we should be outraged at some faceless company deciding what's allowable or not on the internet, but we should be equally outraged that kid
Re: (Score:2)
As many others have pointed out. A public school's best move should be to cut the internet off except for a few rooms. Those machines have an approved list of websites that they can visit. This sound moronic with the number of websites, but it is safer for a public school to do this. Those machines can be monitored easier. Not just with software. Have a school employee there to keep an eye on what is going on. Also this forces even the teachers to use those same internet allowed computers.
The rest of the co
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly I do not believe they need internet access outside of what is required to finish a class assignment. I figure most of this comes down from haters who look for any chance to embarrass or otherwise annoy religious oriented Americans who send their kids to public school.
Let's play make-believe. I was once married to a female and had kid(s). My wife and I get a divorce and I win custody of my kid(s). Post-divorce, I realize that one of the reasons for my poor marriage was the fact that I'm gay.
Now I live with my life partner (not husband because those poor tread-upon religious oriented Americans say we can't be married) and my kid(s). We have a wonderful, healthy relationships (parent-child, etc). One of my kids decides to write a paper on child development in gay households, goes to school to research and ACCESS DENIED!
So now, my child can't do the report and who's being hated on, me or the poor religious oriented American (why do LGBT and religion have to be exclusive?)?
Re: (Score:2)
Your fairy tale missed his point entirely.
There are a number of pretty good research websites on-line that would be made available via a "poke holes" system instead of a "block bad stuff" system. In these research sites there are quite a few studies on child developement in gay households (relative to how many studies there actually are).
That's because these are *gasp!* academic websites! I'm not even talking Wikipedia here, though that would almost certainly be allowed as well.
Your fairy tale assumes that
Re: (Score:2)
Public education should have standards on EDUCATION. What a locality wants to do beyond that should be off limits to the Feds. As long as they don't try to indoctrinate based religion/race it should be fine. The problem with education is that the system is keeping parents out and then blaming them for it.
1. Federal Laws protect much more than religion & race. If you don't like that, please ask your state to opt out of the US of A.
2. Parents can be as involved as they want to in their child's education.
3. Twice you've said something to the effect that parents are "kept out". [Citation Needed] because I have no clue WTF you're talking about.
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly I do not believe they need internet access outside of what is required to finish a class assignment.
Yeah, and they dont need books outside of the one required for their classes. Nor should they being able to watch any videos programs unless they are some kind of homework... Good lord, I dont want my kids to ever develop any kind of independent thoughts that might reflect bad on me. They dont need to hear the thoughts from other people than their parents. Those are MY children after all, they should think like me and act like me...
Re: (Score:2)
they dont need books outside of the one required for their classes
There's a strong argument to be made that most books will contribute to a child's education, which of course is the point you're making. However, the vast majority of the internet won't contribute to a child's education more than they could get by just reading a decent book. In addition, websites tend to promote extreme views which is exactly what you don't want to present to children in an educational setting.
Nor should they being able to watch any videos programs unless they are some kind of homework
In school they shouldn't be allowed to watch any videos that aren't related to their education.
They dont need to hear the thoughts from other people than their parents. Those are MY children after all, they should think like me and act like me
You
Re: (Score:2)
They do not need internet access *in school* *provided by the school* outside what they need for classwork
They do not need books *in school* or *provide by the school* outside of what they need for classwork
What they do at home is up to their parents, and under the control of their parents
The school should either, not block anything - unlikely, or whitelist websites that the child needs to access and block everything else
Blocking a list provided by an outside company, does not work and cannot work ... it wi
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly I do not believe they need internet access outside of what is required to finish a class assignment.
Ok, now create a system that A: Knows all student's current class and extra-credit assignments, at all times; B: Knows what student is accessing which computer wherever they are on the campus; C: Knows what websites are relevant to each assignment and student at all times; D: Can then enforce that on a case-by-case basis.
B is difficult, but could probably be dealt with. If you solved all the rest, D is not a major problem. A and C are nearly impossible: They actually require the system to know more than the teachers (A) (remember: many assignments are along the line of 'pick a topic and write a report on it') and Google (C) simultaneously.
Good luck with that. In the meantime, I can see why schools would put in blocks on 'known non-relevant' sites, for sites that should never be needed for any class assignment. (And, since it's not on adults, I can even see decent arguments for doing so.)
Re: (Score:2)
The system doesn't grant them those freedoms, they're supposed to be self-evident and innate. The only thing "the system" did is take away some of them. You can argue for censorship and the removal of freedoms, sure, but don't misrepresent the nature of the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
That has to be one of the most ridiculous and offensive things I've ever read on Slashdot.
Students are individuals, not property of their parents. Parents should not get to filter everything.
And yes, school is about education - and should not be about doing busywork class assignments, but about real education. And real education requires access to information, one of the best sources of which today is the internet. Having it available only in a creampuff filtered version is doing a serious disservice to
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
People love to demonize parents for not getting involved in the lives of the children but when those children are outside of their control for eight hours a day what are they to do?
They are to grow up themselves and realize that their children can never prepare for a live out from under their skirts if they are continually kept under their thumb.
If you cannot give your children the grounding at home to go out in the world and still function as an independent unit, perhaps parenting is "not your bag".
If the message you are delivering at home is so uncompelling that your children immediately go out and decide you're an idiot, perhaps your message is inadequate.
Children are tiny humans.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they don't try to indoctrinate based religion/race it should be fine.
So you seem to agree that it wouldn't be OK for a school to censor/filter in a way that favors or disfavors a particular religion or race.
But then why is it OK to censor/filter in a way that favors or disfavors a particular subculture? A particular social class? A particular lifestyle? A particular gender? A particular viewpoint? A particular genetic predisposition?
Would it be OK to censor/filter out any reference to autism (let's say, for the sake of argument, that a community felt that autism was an abomi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should young people be the property of their parents until they turn 18?
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not quite that simple. Not all parents are supportive and nurturing. Kids should have access to certain types of information no matter how their parents feel about it.
I disagree. Parents should be able to raise their kids as they see fit, provided they aren't abusing them. Why is it any business of the state if I want to shield my kids from a lifestyle that I may not approve of?
(Disclaimer before I get modded down by the PC police: I don't have any objections to homosexuality, but I do have objections to the state telling me how to raise my kids and the above paragraph is intended to play devil's advocate)
Re: (Score:2)
provided they aren't abusing them.
I think that is what it comes down to. What constitutes abuse?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is what it comes down to. What constitutes abuse?
Shielding them from a lifestyle that I don't approve of != abuse. When they turn 18 they are free to learn whatever they want about that lifestyle. Do you really think it's ok for the state to interfere with parenting on this level?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it any business of the state if I want to shield my kids from a lifestyle that I may not approve of?
Because your kid has rights, and you don't automatically get to throw them out just because you "don't approve."
Oh, and if you don't want the state (me) telling you how to raise your kids... stop using my property tax to pay for your kids education and foot the bill yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Because your kid has rights, and you don't automatically get to throw them out just because you "don't approve."
Where did I say that you have the right to throw your kids out on the street?
Oh, and if you don't want the state (me) telling you how to raise your kids... stop using my property tax to pay for your kids education and foot the bill yourself.
Many people have done just that [wikipedia.org] because they are fed up with people such as yourself that think the school system should be teaching YOUR morals to THEIR kids.
Pointing out greater problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I'm so happy I don't work for you ;)
One topic at a time please (Score:2)
Why does the article go on to talk about designing a double-blind study for judging the "maturity" of teenagers?
Re:One topic at a time please (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Bennett Haselton is famous for being verbose and embedding extraneous arguments within a larger debate (sometimes diluting his original point).
In this case, his point about scientifically judging the maturity of teenagers is that it would entirely obviate, using rigorous evidence, the need for these web-blockers at all (at least for people above a certain age). That would certainly be progress (rather than debating about how much to block, wouldn't be nice if we had a good metric by which to say "we don't need to worry about censoring at all for this class of people").
We have arbitrary social rules about when someone is "old enough" to do certain things (drive a car, drink alcohol, buy porn). These standards vary wildly from culture to culture (in some cultures, even adults are not allowed those things), and are never based on evidence. Just "gut feelings" about maturity. So he proposes that some standard be established, and that standard tested against average adults, teenagers, children, etc. If it can be shown that a 15-year old is statistically indistinguishable from a 28-year old in terms of how they are able to reason logically, and how they react to, say, pornography; then it doesn't make sense to block the 15-year old from porn sites.
I agree with Haselton on this point. It's ridiculous that in this day and age we are still basing most of our legal rulings on untested "gut feelings" about how people behave, and how they are affected by external events/forces. We can do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but Schools DO have Totalitarian control... (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be wrong and hardheaded and backwards... but I'm sorry... it _is_ the schoolboard's right to do it. If they really wanted to, they could block Mac Sites and keep IBM sites or block Evolution Sites and keep Creationist ones. They're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government and I highly doubt that you can classify a local school board as the State Government, so they're probably not bound by the State's Constitution, either. The schoolboard is subject to state _laws_ and local ordinances, neither of which say anything about this, I am guessing.
This sort of thing is determined at PTO meetings by elected school board officials, and therefore, the appropriate action is to take it before the schoolboard, before a PTO meeting, and to parents and teachers who make the decisions, not some judge who is likely to uphold whatever the aforemetioned committee happens to decide, even if it's something as stupid as the right to ban a kid for wearing a t-shirt.
This may sound weird and backwards and stupid but I actually think that's how it should be: the local community decides what they want, specifically, so long as it meets certain state standards. Some may want 5th Grade Sex Education, others may want to wait until high school. Some may want to "shield" their kids from the influences of the world and keep out anything related to sexuality, others may think it's important to teach tolerance. Certainly, if this were a predominantly Quaker Community, nobody would even raise an eyebrow. And if you don't like the community, there are several million others in the US to choose from.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government and I highly doubt that you can classify a local school board as the State Government, so they're probably not bound by the State's Constitution, either. The schoolboard is subject to state _laws_ and local ordinances, neither of which say anything about this, I am guessing.
<img src="facepalm.jpg">
Re: (Score:2)
They're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government and I highly doubt that you can classify a local school board as the State Government, so they're probably not bound by the State's Constitution, either. The schoolboard is subject to state _laws_ and local ordinances, neither of which say anything about this, I am guessing.
A. If they're taking Federal Funds (which almost everyone is) then they're stuck with whatever rules the Feds tie the money to. If they're taking State Funds (which almost everyone is) then they're stuck with whatever rules the State ties the money to.
B. How the fuck do you get to the conclusion that there is anything in the USA not bound by the US Constitution. Further, how the fuck do you get to the conclusion that there is anything in [State] not bound by [State]'s Constitution? Even Bush had to go to Cu
Re: (Score:2)
You have NO IDEA what the Constitution is for, do you?
It is to prevent the Federal Government, and by some interpretations, the State Government, from infringing on your rights. NO ONE ELSE.
Your Constitutional Rights are infringed all the time... and rightly so. Try and exercise your 1st Amendment Rights by yelling FIRE in a movie theater. You'll get arrested. Try and exercise your religious rights as a Muslim by praying your prayers in a Catholic Church during a service. Try and exercise
Re: (Score:2)
You have a serious misunderstanding of constitutional law.
Local school boards, cities, and states most certainly ARE bound by the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sorry, but Schools DO have Totalitarian control (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution applies to everyone ....
They should not use a companies known faulty list to block access - it blocks sites that are legitimate, and does not block some that are definately not ....
They should either get a human to regulate internet access, or whitelist the site they want their students to access ....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sorry, but Schools DO have Totalitarian control (Score:4, Insightful)
To save anyone from having to look it up, parent is referring to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted as giving the several states the same responsibility for upholding the Bill of Rights as the federal government. The fact that school boards are not the federal government in no way diminishes their responsibilities under the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Going by another response...
To save anyone from having to look it up, parent is referring to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted as giving the several states the same responsibility for upholding the Bill of Rights as the federal government. The fact that school boards are not the federal government in no way diminishes their responsibilities under the First Amendment.
Alright. I'll bite. So are schools breaking the First Amendment when they give a kid detention for talking in class? How about by enforcing a dress code? How about forcing the kid to sit still and listen in class for 8 hours?
To me, those are all clear examples of the School _actually_ infringing on someone's rights. On ther hand, how, exactly, are they breaking ANY amendments or infringing on anyone's rights by installing Blocker software on computers whi
Re:Sorry, but Schools DO have Totalitarian control (Score:5, Informative)
The case of interest here would be Tinker Vs. Des Moines. Decided by the Supreme Court in 1969, It held that while the school had a compelling interest in curtailing certain rights that would otherwise be unacceptable violations of certain civil liberties, (in this case the first amendment, though the decision seems to apply to others) speech that was non-disruptive to the school environment could not be denied.
It's a complicated decision, and there has been MUCH discussion on exactly how Tinker does and does not apply, but it would seem to blow several of your arguments out of the water. One, that school districts arn't bound by the Constitution, not being "Federal government agencies". They are (Bound, that is, not federal). They get have special dispensation due to the fact that there is a compelling government interest in educating children, and that interest can justify curtailing certain civil liberties, at least as held by this case. But that shows clearly that school districts are held to constitutional tests, and are clearly NOT outside the jurisdictional bounds of the constitution or the federal court system.
Now, just what contributes to disruptive speech, acceptable curtailing of rights, and other issues has been argued fiercely, often in other SCOTUS cases. However, schools are NOT private entities, and cannot censor at will without substantial cause.
Re: (Score:2)
"Constitutional scholars need not fear for their jobs any time soon."
That is true. They have created such an abominable, incoherent kludge that no one can understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I do not have the right to suppress your freedom of speech.
See my above post.
And yes, you do... assuming you have Mod Points.
Not pornographic?! (Score:3, Funny)
The Seattle Women's Jizz Orchestra isn't pornographic?! How could you possibly come to that conclu--
Wait, what's that? Jazz, you say?
Oh. Ohhhhhhhhhh....
Never mind.
Can be fixed! (Score:2)
I recently replaced my Surfcontrol product. I reviewed around 20 different products and had live demos of several.
Every single product had a way to re-categorize sites. Each provided a way to "allow" access to a site, regardless of the category.
I don't understand how this "cannot be fixed."
I'm currently running on a very restrictive network which has the iPrism, 8e6, and Websense filters all in place at the same time. Each of the article's listed websites are not blocked. ATAH, HRC, GLAAD, none of them
Court cases aren't enough (Score:2)
The Internet is the greatest tool for free speech and learning in all of human history. It has the power to put everyone on equal footing in terms of knowledge-power. Some of us see the this extremely powerful technology for what it is, a liberator with the ability to challenge existing hierarchical structures. Organized religion, corporate advertising, government deception, and restrictive social norms all crumble when the people can learn the truth.
The established leaders and their conservative allies
Re: (Score:2)
No. The internet is *potentially* the greatest tool for free speech and learning in all of human history. In reality, it is mostly for porn, games and telling other people that they are idiots.
I'm rather more concerned about "hate speech" censorship than other forms of censorship because that is what is growing the fastest.
Personally... (Score:5, Funny)
...I'd be fine with a filter that stops the GBT, but letting L through would be fine. :)
(And yes, I understand the idiomatic usage, but aren't L's actually just a subset of G? Why do they get their own category like that?)
Open source blocking (Score:2)
It would also allow parents to demand to see the list of blocked sites, and to argue among themselves about whether a particular site should be added to (or deleted from) the list - in o
school privitization (Score:4, Insightful)
The ACLU has happened on yet one more issue that would be completely a non-issue if schools were not an extension of government.
Schools should be able to do whatever they want, or whatever the parents want.
When the Bill of Rights was written, it's intention was to restrict what laws congress writes, not the sites should be in whitelists and blacklists in a web filter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The ACLU has happened on yet one more issue that would be completely a non-issue if schools were not an extension of government."
I'm currently of the opinion that there shouldn't be any government schools at all. Sure, give people vouchers or whatever and require an education of some sort. There is no reason why the government should be doing it directly.
Are you nuts? Schools Must Censor out this content (Score:2, Insightful)
None of you have children? There is a cadence to growing up. There is a an appropriate age for gaining such knowledge. Unless you are trying to indoctrinate young minds full of mush, what is the purpose in providing this content?
Does it matter? (Score:2)
Plane crashes: Oh, sorry. I didn't mean it! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm iffy on the whole concept of blocking content. People just need to learn to surf responsibly, and teach their children right and wrong. And no matter what, children are going to be exposed to smut, mostly by their peers.
That being said, there are clear cases where the sensorship is wrong, and technical explanations are not adequate excuses.
Professionally, I worked as a chip designer and software developer for air traffic control systems. I've made my share of mistakes. I've coded bugs and had to fix them. But when that happens, I take it VERY seriously. Yes, the ATC systems have sophisticated fail-over systems, but the last thing I want is to have ANY chance of increasing the probability of putting airline passengers in danger. "Oops, sorry." doesn't cut it, and once a bug is discovered, I certainly can't dismiss it. I have to fix it right away!
If you know anything about this history of the USA and plenty of other free countries, you know that people are willing to trade their lives for freedom from oppression. And I generally think of censorship as oppression. Of course, I'd prefer that there were no blocking software. But with it being there, all I can say is that there's no excuse for leaving discovered blocking errors unfixed for any length of time. People's rights are being infringed, and the people who develop these blockers need to take those rights seriously.
As long as there is censorship, there's going to be a slippery slope. The law must protect people against abuses of censorship laws. There needs to be checks and balances. There are laws that let the police search your home. The check against that is that they have to have a warrant issued by a judge, which means they need to show significant probably cause. A balance against that is called "exigent circumstances", where if they believe someone's life is in danger, they can enter a home even without a warrant. The balance against THAT is that even WITH exigent circumstances, things they find in your home are likely to be inadmissable in court. Likewise, with censorship laws, there needs to be other laws that come with penalties for abuse of the censorship laws. If you censor, you're taking on a huge responsibility, because false positives and false negatives are not something you can just brush off.
Blocklists are bad (Score:2)
God, this is old news! Any so-called blocklist, where some faceless group of people you don't know - and who quite possibly have values contrary to yours - are making decisions what you should and should not be allowed to see, is intrinsically bad.
Given that, how exactly are blocklists any less of an infringement of personal rights than a heavy-handed government telling people what to do? Why is it that some government-hating reactionaries who are terrified of government intrusion into their lives will hy
Vegan shirt ban (Score:3, Informative)
While I think I disagree with the judges ruling, the incident occurred because of a "gang" problem. It's less about banning the word vegan and more closely related to banning gang symbols. There's a group in Salt Lake City (and other places as well) called the Straight Edge movement. They encourage the vegan lifestyle among other things but at least in that area they were using violence to promote their ethical stand.
School administrators went overboard but I don't think it's fair to compare banning a particular vegan sweatshirt to banning a tshirt that says Christian. If the local community was having a gang problem that used a particular cross symbol on their sweatshirts I'm not sure that same community wouldn't have tried to ban that sweatshirt. (I still think they'd be going about fighting the problem the wrong way and that they'd be in the wrong, but I wouldn't outright dismiss the possibility of them acting that way as absurd).
It's not like they were just going around banning shirts that support causes they disagree with. If they had a list of banned items that included "Vegan", "Environmentalism", "Obama", etc. I'd be much more in agreement with the rhetorical question used.
right now there is a 14 year old geek (Score:5, Funny)
whose only chance to have any social interaction with that superhot chick is when she needs him to teach her how to configure tor, or that anoymous proxy, or even just rdp
so please slashdot, for the sake of geek kinship, just let this whole issue slide
leave the poor 14 year old geek's only source of social capital in the brutal world of high school society intact
Teenagers as adults? (Score:3, Informative)
(They can be given responsibilities in doses, to help them grow; that's necessary, good, but clear proof that they are still in the process of maturation.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm asking this in the full knowledge that someone will mod me down and call me names - but I'm ignorant on the topic:
Why do lesbians, gays, and bisexuals allow themselves to be lumped together with transgenders. To me, the layman, they seem like VERY different things. The first three are people who like to have relationships and sex in ways that aren't historically accepted. Fair enough, and I can get behind efforts to stop discriminating against these people.
The latter, at the extreme, cut off their genit
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some gays and lesbians don't like transgendered people. Many others are okay with them. Some gays and lesbians don't like bisexuals either, but they keep the B in the acronym anyway. It's just a convenient acronym for identifying a set of people who are often discriminated against for sex/gender-related reasons.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree. There is a difference between just being attracted to others of the same sex and actively wanting to become a member of the opposite sex.
I'm not against the former, though I'd be repulsed if one tried to come on to me. The latter though, just seem wrong...
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not against the former, though I'd be repulsed if one tried to come on to me.
Why? I've been married for better than a decade and, over the years, I've rejected several advances from ladies and a couple from guys - Not sure why that is - My wife tells me that I'm an ignorant flirt. But it's not much different - You let them know that they're barking up the wrong tree and, typically, they back off and look elsewhere. I've actually had much more trouble rejecting straight women than gay men (I've been literally tackled twice, but liquor was involved).
The latter though, just seem wrong...
I wish I could fault you for that, but frankly it gives me the heebie-jeebies too. But the fact that it creeps me out does make me sympathize with the fact that they feel ostracized.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, I've got +1 Flamebait.
I'm not actually trying to be flamebait, I do actually find the idea of a gay coming on to me repulsive. I think a lot of other people also think like that, only they extend it to hatred of gays themselves instead of the live and let live attitude I take.
I've been friends with gay people before (and one bisexual), and I don't have anything against them as people. They're perfectly normal, just a little different to me.
Re:You have been unfairly modded (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me a break. The idea that a heterosexual man finds another man coming on to him revulsive is not some failure of empathy, latent homosexuality, an expression of homophobia, or due to immaturity.
Heterosexual guys don't like gay guys coming on to them and find it revulsive. It's been that way for 20,000 years and is not going to change. Guys who do like other guys coming on to them are called homosexual.
Note that the original poster didn't say "and therefore I poured gasoline over him and set him afire" or "and therefore me and my friends beat him up" or "and therefore I think we should put all gays in concentration camps." He simply said he felt an inner revulsion. So what. For all you know, he was polite about it and amicably declined.
I would find myself revulsed at a woman with a moustache coming on to me - does that mean I have deep-seated facial hair issues? Do I lack empathy? Should I question my own shaving practices? According to your line of thought, simply saying "no thanks" while being revolted inside means I've somehow done something wrong.
Saying that the original poster is somehow defective, evil, or less enlightened because someone gave him the heebie-jeebies is ridiculous. You can fault someone for how they choose to act, but not how they react inside.
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:5, Informative)
"Transgender" doesn't necessarily mean people who "cut off their genitalia." From what I understand, it can refer to people who do not psychologically identify exactly with the bipolar genders of male/female.
It can also refer to intersexual people, i.e., people with sexual characteristics of both genders. This is more common than most people realize, but often newborns undergo "corrective" surgery to assign them to one gender category or another.
intersexed (Score:3, Informative)
It can also refer to intersexual people, i.e., people with sexual characteristics of both genders. This is more common than most people realize, but often newborns undergo "corrective" surgery to assign them to one gender category or another.
Corrective surgery can only correct the physique.
If you are lucky, your brain is as "all male" or "all female" as your average guy or gal and the doctor guessed right when he did the "corrective surgery." At this point, you are no longer intersexual.
Although the term "intersexual" usually means having ambiguous genitalia and other obvious physical characteristics, it should really mean "between genders" whether in the genitals or in the mind/brain. By this definition, people who are "trapped in the wrong
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm your classic "woman trapped in a man's body." By all appearances, I'm a man, but from even before I started school, I've felt female. Nobody would know the difference between me and a normal guy if I didn't tell them. In fact, I've only ever told one person because there is so much stigma about transgendered people. Lots of people can't wrap their head around why someone would identify as the opposite sex. As you point out, it's even more unacceptable than being homosexual.
So, I'm attracted exclusively to women. That makes me straight because I have a penis. However, deep inside, I feel that I am a woman. Does that make me a lesbian with a penis? If I were to undergo gender reassignment, does that make me a lesbian or a straight man without a penis?
understand where the issues over sexual orientation based discrimination comes in now?
btw, I'll probably never go ahead with SRS or attempting to live as a female... I'd make a horrible looking woman thanks to the changes after 20 years of testosterone coursing through my veins. So, if I don't cut off my genitalia, does that make me "normal" as far as you're concerned? Am I just quirky if you notice my tertiary characteristics like multiply pierced ears, tramp stamp, and shaved legs? Will that make you assume I'm gay?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very sorry if I made you uncomfortable and I didn't mean to insult anyone. But your description is reflective of what I was talking about. From your description, your situation is much more complicated than someone who simply is attracted to someone of the same sex. I'm not sure why lumping sexual preferences and sexual identity into one group of people is done, and I'm not sure why it is seen as politically advantageous.
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Homosexuality was very historically accepted. See: ancient Greece, the basis of Western Civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to your belief, homosexual "relations" are *not* historically frowned upon -- See any number of empires in antiquity: Romans, Greeks, etc.
See : Clicky! [gay-art-history.org]
I'd modify your statement to read something more along the lines of "The first three are people who like to have relationships and sex in ways that aren't historically accepted by the "Christian" based religions."
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm asking this in the full knowledge that someone will mod me down and call me names - but I'm ignorant on the topic:
Why do lesbians, gays, and bisexuals allow themselves to be lumped together with transgenders. To me, the layman, they seem like VERY different things. The first three are people who like to have relationships and sex in ways that aren't historically accepted. Fair enough, and I can get behind efforts to stop discriminating against these people.
The latter, at the extreme, cut off their genitalia. This is a group I have a little more trouble viewing as "normal". Or am I just too hung up on the extreme?
You are too hung up. You have a problem with it, so what do you think would the laws of a muslim country like Iran say about it? You'll be surprised: If someone wants to change their gender in Iran, they are considered to be ill. It is a medical health problem. As an ill person, you can expect that the state will help you. And that is what they do. And since nobody knows how to change a person's mind about these things, and it is known how to change a person's body, the body has to be changed. Which is interestingly exactly the same thing that happens in Germany, for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the end of the day they are all lumped together, because they are allies in a common cause and they recognize that they all suffer the same type of what this group categorizes as persecution. As the parent post pointed out, all of these individuals have a predilection to take actions which historically have been considered perverse and wrong.
Of course the basic issue of having a right, first requires that one be 'right' about what you are fighting for, so it implies a moral stance.
As a whole they basica
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If he ACLU was actually interested in civil liberties in this case they would recognize the liberty of parents to raise their children as they see fit.
But this is a public school. They are free to raise their kids any way that they see fit, but they can't make a public school into a private Christian school, no matter how matter how many in the community are so inclined.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that Sci-Fi allows itself to be lumped in with Fantasy? I hate that shit! Give me some Sci-Fi, and NO, that does NOT include Lord of the boRings!
(Decided against Bored of the Rings, since it's always been boring, and it's the king of shitty boring stories that go on way too long.)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does SF get lumped in with SciFi? If there's no science, it's not Science Fiction.
Re:tl;dr (Score:5, Insightful)
lgbt wont be happy till they get "equal time" to indoctrinate kids.
But why isn't that fair? Wanna bet that these assholes [narth.com] aren't on the block list? These nutballs [evergreeni...tional.org] even keep a list, making the blocking very easy. If "indoctrinating kids" is your objection, you'd expect them all to be blocked, right?
Re:tl;dr (Score:4, Insightful)
you said the problem
"oftware company to develop a filtering solution that blocks 100% of what you don't want kids to see"
translate
"[someone else] filters reality for your child how you feel it should be filtered with no action from you"
what it should be is "parents take the time to teach their child about the world and what is appropriate when and where"
i'm just getting sick and fucking tired of parents that want to shove all the problems onto someone else and when that someone else doesn't get it right they sue them.. i'm sorry but that someone else never agreed to raising your child..
personaly .. i feel if a child fucks up the parents should be punished along with the child. lets get some accountability in parenting for a fucking change
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:tl;dr (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly why we shouldn't have Public Education involved with anything "sociological" and teaching PC crap and all that, and trying to correct the crap that parents subject their children to.
And while you may want(or not want) kids to know about that stuff, other people don't (or do). Who is gonna sort out what is allowed, or not allowed?
If we cut the crap out of the schools, and let parents instill their values (or lack thereof), then we won't have these types of crap showing up in schools in the first place.
And what may be okay for 16 year olds may not be appropriate for 7 year olds. And while you may want your 7 year old to know everything about everything, who are you to say that is okay for everyone else's kids too?
Here's a suggestion. Lets focus education on, you know ... reading, writing, math and science, and perhaps some art and music, and getting people literate before we start our little social experiments.
I work for a school, and there aren't enough hours in the day for teachers to teach all the required crap, and it is REALLY showing up.
When I go to McDonalds and the bill comes to $5.58 and I give the brain dead clerk $6.08 and she starts to cry because she can't figure out the change we have a seriously under educated populace.
It happened when the state started to demand that parents turn their kids over to their schools. You want to fix the problem? Look to the cause of the problem.
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
One successful lawsuit equals one blocked website. Very simple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apologies in advance to all for feeding the troll.
I've yet to see a case anywhere in the US barring prayer in school. If it's happened (as so many people seem to complain about), please cite a reference. All that I've seen is action taken against school officials leading prayer services - Good. I don't want my kids' Christian/Muslim/Satanist/Pagan/What-freaking-ever-ist teacher trying to install their religion into my kids' heads. That's a job for me/the-church-we-attend/"holy"-books/themselves - And se
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Roberts vs Madigan: Teacher who silently read the Bible while students took a test was banned from doing that. In addition, the two Christian books out of 240 books in a classroom library were banned.
I just happened to remember this one. I don't care enough to see if there are more :)