Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Elizabeth Dole Calls for Library Net Filtering

CmdrTaco posted more than 15 years ago | from the thanks-liz dept.

United States 336

A Big Gnu Thrush writes "This Wired article discusses Presidential candidate Elizabeth Dole's "technology platform," which includes a call to withhold funds from public libraries which don't filter Internet content. Finally someone with the guts to put a lid on these hothouses of porn. " Thanks liz. I'm glad somebody thought of the children *cough cough*

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great (1)

matguy (7927) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827518)

So now no Yahoo in libraries, that's what we need.

Net. Admin.

Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827521)

The one woman I thought that might have enough integrity to be President. I would think a Republican would not be into censorship and anti-freedom of speech since they are so anti-government. I guess that only applies to the fat cats and taxes and not freedom of speech. What exactly are we shielding our children from anyway? Sex? Why do we give kids such a complex about it and make them think it is bad?

Compromise (1)

fliptout (9217) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827524)

Why not have computers with and without filtering software at the libraries?

Who Cares? She has no chance of being elected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827527)

George Bush has more support among the GOP members than all the other hopefuls combined. I think we can say with some satisfaction that Liz will not be on the GOP ticket.

Somebody PLEASE think of the children!!! (1)

Dr Drew (15165) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827530) if someone, ANYONE wants to research anything controversial, they better find somewhere besides the library, because the last thing we want is for anyone ever to get offended by anything...

When are these people going to learn to shut up?

Why can't we have... (2)

shine (1502) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827533)

porn sites have a URL xxx:// and make it eazier to filter. Let the sites rate and police themselves. Informational sites about breasts could be weeded out from titilating site. What we have now is akin to having a porn store in Walmart, right in the face of people who don't want to see it. That would never happen and so shouldn't this. We need a change, now.

Thank God (3)

_Dante_ (14004) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827535)

I am unbelievably happy that a great American like Liz Dole (married to Grade-A war hero Bob Dole), has taken this step to protect out youth from bomb-making plans, satinism, wicca, and pornography.

Why, just the other day I saw a bunch of goth-bomb-throwing-commie punks fornicating (in ungodly, premarital couplings I might add) on a bed of Das Kapital and On the Origin of Species.

Only the saving power of our LORD, Jesus Christ, brought to earth via (dare I say it) his agent, Liz Dole, can save these children from the evil that is the library (Books? For Free? COMMIES!).

Library policies on adult materiel (2)

Stephen Williams (23750) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827537)

Some (all?) public libraries carry recent issues of magazines. I reckon that these libraries are pretty picky about the kinds of magazines they carry, and they'd not think for a moment about carrying top-shelf magazines.

Maybe they'd see Internet filtering in the same kind of way - choosing what materiel they want to be available through their systems. Whilst some people are going to scream "free speech", these computers are library resources and the library is free to decide what they get used for.

The flip side of this is that libraries carry literature like Lady Chatterley's Lover. Would materiel like that be filtered by the proposed filtering software?

I think a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I'm glad I'm not the one who has to draw it.

Why not start clearing out the shelves too... (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827539)

I'm sure the "Antiporn" group mentioned, along with the multitudes of "think of the children!" groups would be agast if they actually spent time at a library reading the books. There is more stuff in your public library that could be "harmful to children" than most people realize. Shoot, if we're worried about harming the children's delicate sensiblities, we should keep them out of school entirely. After all, nothing good can come from letting people think on their own...

Just my $0.02

Re:Why can't we have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827633)

"Informational sites about breasts could be weeded out from titilating site."

Was that pun intentional? Great one!

Re:Somebody PLEASE think of the children!!! (1)

Lysander Luddite (64349) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827635)

>When are these people going to learn to shut up?

When everybody agrees to ignore them. As long as they have an audience, they'll tell them what to do. Once in power though, you have a captive audience. Aye, there's the rub.

I agree with it. (1)

alta (1263) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827639)

This first comment may see rather harsh but... Ok, so what's going to stop homeless and internetless people from going to the library and surfing the porn sights because they have no other way to do so? They have nothing else to do, so they could be spending a LOT of time at libraries researching porn.

And the children, the net is FULL of porn. Yesterday (at work) I was looking for a file that I knew the name of, but the server was down. So i got to Oh boy was that a mistake. Up pops a few extra windows, I figure just advertisements so I ignore them. Then I finish what I was looking for and try to close the ads. Once I closed the first, 3 more windows opened up, all on porn sites! Then as I closed them, they reopened. I ended up giving the computer a boot cause I'm at work, and I can't let this stuff be seen on my computer.

Its one thing to keep people from seeing what they want, but if this happens to a child, then what?

Library Filtering (1)

dieman (4814) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827642)

Um, hold on a second here. Hasn't many cases of internet filtering just ended up in courts and knocked down because it was shown there was more than just porn censorship going on. And since when was porn "wrong"? It's not an illegal business in the United States last time I checked. It is illegal for minors to view it, but under the current setup the viewers end up with it anyways. So filtering sucks anyhow.

Anyways, I dont want my government and my money mandating filtering. Even the HS I went to wasn't this bad.


Re: (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827645)

I completely agree, except that the top level domain should be .xxx instead of the protocol name (xxx://)

Any site with porn should be required to have a type address.

With all these new so-called competitors to NSI for registering domain names, why are we still seing nothing but .com, .org., and .net? I had ONE company mail me something about getting a .cc address, and that is it. I thought that these competing registrars were all going to have their own TLD - .web, .inc, .dot, .slash, etc. (or would that be .etc ? :) )

what does Columbine shootings have do with p0rn? (1)

nmarshall (33189) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827649)

nothing, nothing at all...
or at least nothing has been proven. as far as i know there has been no study, no reports, no edivence [sp] that the Colmbine shootings, and p0rn are linked in some way.

this wish to "Filter" or censer the internet, seems like how every new media is censered. ie print is the "freest" media, and tv the least.

as long as us geek's, nerd, etc... let them, [ presidential hopeful's, do gooders, your parents, my parents, girl friends... etc... ] they will try to control us, by defining what is "real" [ that which you can think, how you can act, and whome you should love, etc... ].

goddess, politics sickens me...

#include "standard_disclaimer.h"

A Stance For Purity (0)

ultrapenguin (2643) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827652)

I know that I cannot be the only one out there who agrees with her, at least for what I have heard so far. While I do not consider myself to be an extremist, I do think that the pornography available on the internet is ridiculous and I am proud of a presidential candidate who is willing to step out and say something. Yeah, unfortunately I don't know if she even has much of a chance of getting elected.

I am praying, however, that we will finally get a president elected who will bring some concept of integrity and morality into the Whitehouse.

I know that there are other Christian Slashdot readers out there. Speak out and say something. Don't let yourself be the silent minority.

Let love and faithfulness never leave you;
bind them around your neck,
write them on the tablet of your heart.

Wow, Sam's better than ever... (1)

Tyrell Hawthorne (13562) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827654)

I add two more: *cough* *cough*

The United States of America, the worlds greatest democracy! Hooray! I think it is weird that China, you know that big, communist country over to the east with loads of people in it, filters Internet content. And now, Uncle Sam won't even let his own children read what texts they want? Isn't that what libraries are for? It's just like the days of the black-listing of the communists, when people couldn't read whatever they wanted. Who knows what they'll be filetering away this time? I'm sure glad I don't live in one of the great 52 states, and that I don't have to rely on a library for connecting to the Internet. Worlds greatest democracy... *Shaking my head*

Re:Oh well... (1)

edremy (36408) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827656)

The Republican party today is all for greater regulation- social control regulation, that is. Companies and gun lobbies, forget it- they can do whatever they want. Have a ounce of MJ and get thrown in jail for years. (Oh, the jail's overcrowded? Might as well release this armed robber- he's much less a threat to society.) Better create a Constitutional amendment just to ban a form of free speech, censor that Internet and keep gays in the closet while we're at it.

Sorry for the rant- this registered Republican has to blow off steam once in a while. It's too bad there's no party for socially liberal, fiscally conservative voters. (Yes, I know about the Libertarians, but they go too far. There are some things the Federal government should do, and the Libertarians as a whole aren't really willing to admit it.)


Give Me A Break! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827659)

Crying about this?! Cripes. It's getting to be a weak argument... free speech! This isn't about censorship per sey nor is it about free speech. It's about filtering stuff from kids. If it's done right then no problem. If you want to research something 'controversial' then I would gather that you're old enough to find a connection that isn't filtered.. or you talk to your parents about it etc... Face it, getting access to porn on the internet is easier than going and buying a magazine or getting into an adult bookstore. If you want to cry about censorship let's talk about Australia's policy. Now that's censorship. I'm sure to get flamed. But guess what? I don't care. Flame on!

Re:Library policies on adult materiel (1)

invenustus (56481) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827667)

and the library is free to decide what they get used for.

Wrong! That's exactly what this article is about. Liddy Dole wants to withhold funding from the libraries if they don't decide exactly what she tells them to decide.

Necessity? (3)

soup (6299) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827668)

Actually, the best filtering is to ensure there is NO expectation of privacy; If a librarian (coordinator/whatnow) is walking around and there is no way for a browsing user to "hide" the contents of the screen, there should be little difficulty. Additionally, for all users, how's about recording sites visited through the library system's firewall? Like a libary card would help them record what kind of material you are reading (assuming anybody is interested) a children's account would be associated with their parent's card, so the parent would get notification of material the children have accessed (if you're really paranoid).

Filtering should NOT be necessary- since, once you start filtering, where do you stop? China, for instance, finds political discourse offensive.

The First Amendment is not so much a right to speak as a right to hear other voices. While *I* would not be happy if my children read some of the material on the web (heck, there's stuff out there *I* don't even want to see, but it's sometimes helpful to trip over it on occasion as a booster for immunities) I would like to know where my son (and, someday, my daughter) have been reading, since it'll give me an idea of what I'm missing as a parent.

Perhaps the search for "easy, simple" solutions is wrong. Who ever said parenthood is easy?

Politics is the effort to sell easy, simple solutions- but there are none. Human nature implies a huge "gray zone", though there are some things that we must accept as minimums just to work together.

Laws are needed to constrain behavior- they should not be constraining thought.

Seriously, though, if the display tubes in the library are large (heck, just put monitor repeaters where others in the library can see, with enough defocussing to make text unreadable) and in a central place where people usually walk through (not some dingy back room) the community will correct itself. If you're determined to cruis porn, well, why shouldn't your neighbors know? The Library is a _public_ place! Let's keep it that way- leave it an open channel for information in print and otherwise...

Re:Why can't we have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827671)

This post and its response are the only sensible ones I've read so far. Actually it is in the porns sites own best interest to have a .xxx TLD as it would make them much easier to find on the net. Ease of location means more hits and therefore more chance at memberships and advertising money.

Additionally as noted the adding of .xxx allows for filtering of pure sleeze while not intruding on meaningful research sites that may contain sexually explicit material.


Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827672)

Chemistry books can involuntarily lead children down the dark path to making bombs!

Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827675)

Anybody who looks at porn at a library is a wierd-ass, save that shit for home.

Just my $0.02

Freedom (1)

rberlin (36715) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827676)

We must support Gore! I know he is realy confused about computers but at least he's not Republican. We cannot go back to being a nation that has a Conservative Govenrnment that feels responsable to force morrality on it's people. And by the way this does affect the way other nations enforce policies. If the US goes conservative so will other nations, because we have very strong political influance.

Re:Library policies on adult materiel (3)

ethereal (13958) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827679)

I don't mean to fire off a flame at you, so please don't take this that way - I just feel a good rant coming on about the whole issue.

Whilst some people are going to scream "free speech", these computers are library resources and the library is free to decide what they get used for.

If this was what Mrs. Dole was supporting, then I couldn't agree more. The problem is that the local libraries aren't going to have those choices if the federal government calls the shots on filtering. And when you think about it, a national standard for what is filterable is going to upset as many people as the current situation. Some people still won't feel that the federal filtering standard is restrictive enough, others will feel that it is too restrictive, and some people are just opposed to federal intervention at the local level (a position you would expect a Republican candidate for president to take, but that's a different argument).

I think a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I'm glad I'm not the one who has to draw it.

Aren't you glad we have politicians to do the thinking for us? I don't see why this line has to be drawn at the national level, rather than local.

That'll fix 'em (2)

RobertW103 (54252) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827680)

Yes sir, nothing like the smell of banned websites. Let's just put them up there with the banned books. My question is who filters the filters? Why are we letting someone else decide what is and is not appropiate for our viewing pleasure? I am not advocating porn all around, but let's get real here. Any kid who has spent any time on a computer can get around any filter. Problem is most public libraries still confrom to the old lab usage. Let's keep the computers locked in a seperate room. How about putting the computers in the main part of the library? No one and I mean no one looks at porn where someone can see them. Computer usage should be a privilege, screw around and you will have the privilege removed, and that fact will be recorded on your library card. This is assuming we can hook up the computer to a card reader.

Re:Why not start clearing out the shelves too... (1)

washort (6555) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827682)

>Shoot, if we're worried about harming the
>children's delicate sensiblities, we should keep >them out of school entirely. After all, nothing >good can come from letting people think on their >own...

Heh. Are you implying that schools encourage people to think on their own? :-)

[OT] grammar (1)

Mawbid (3993) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827683)

Isn't the use of "demagogue" as a verb incorrect?

I ask because I think so, but I'm not sure.

Elizabeth Dole can Blow Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827687)

Because I think we all know that no one sucks better than a republican. Maybe she can team up with Tipper Gore as her VP Candidate for a truly dynamic duo. Tipper, for those of you who missed it, helped establish a lovely rating system by which all children everywhere know exactly what CDs to buy at the music store (the ones with the stickers that say "Warning: Explicit Lyrics." I'm sure this post would rate one of those stickers.

Anyway, porn in the libraries, big fucking deal. Yeah, the public library is my first choice of locations when I want to go jack off to hardcore porn. Of course I can always just check out one of the porno magazines, it's generally just going to the reference desk and asking. I suppose that'll be next on Dole's list of things to fix.

For most kids, their first taste of porn comes from their dad's sock drawer. Maybe Dole should be going after that. Laws against sock drawers as a platform strategy. It's about as likely to get her elected as any other strategy she could choose.

I find it odd that a female politician is going after this. Usually it's someone in Congress and it calls for HOURS of debate with audio-visual aids (All of which get entered into the congressional record which I believe everyone has ready access to.) Of course, as much of a boys club as Congress is, I'm sure they all get a kick out of these hours of debate with their audio visual aids. Funded, I might add, by your tax dollars.

Filtering the libraries (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827688)

If you want to do that, fine. Then censor all of the hates sites, all of the anti-government sites, and everything that offends everyone. Granted I could do searches for that at home (not that any of those topics interest me), but not everyone can. So they go to the library. But remember to filter it so that no one feels that their rights are impeded, and their money wasted when they have to use a computer with a filter set to someone Age 8.

This is not just about censorship (1)

migmog (40610) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827691)

There's several arguments here. It's not just a case of the ALL-CENSORSHIP-IS-BAD people against the WE-NEED-TO-PROTECT-OUR-CHILDREN people.

A Public Library is paid for by the taxpayer (ie ME). I don't want my money spent on providing free porn for adolescents. If they want porn, they should not be able to get it at a public library at my expense.

I don't believe that the internet should be censored, but I don't for one second believe that everything on the internet is benign. If people want to access the whole of the internet, they should be prepared to pay for it.

I don't think that it is likely that any censoring software out there can filter out potentially dangerous political ideas, whereas filtering out porn is slightly easier. There is no place for the former in a democratic society, while there is a place for the latter.

There should definitely be internet access in public libraries. I'd much rather see a censored internet than no internet at all.

Re:Thank God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827693)

Your Lord Jesus Christ, not mine.

Re:Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827694)

Helloooo! Earth to rberlin! Earth to rberlin! Gore? The man that supports crypto key escrow, roving wiretaps, the clipper chip etc... You really should read a little more. Umm, have you listened to Gore/Clinton the last 8 years? They preach morality but practice something else. Hmm, are you a paid shill or really that far out of touch? Look up the word 'conservative'. Conservatives are conservative and do not want to 'progress' and leave behind the Constitution.

Read executive order #13083 wherein Clinton tried to redefined federalism. You want to support a Clinton crony go right ahead.. the rest of us will point and giggle.

turn off javascript (1)

/ (33804) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827697)

Or were you hoping for a knee-jerk government power-grab solution?

Re:A Stance For Purity (1)

LordBhaal (20726) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827699)

In a so called democracy, why are you letting minorities (like the self confessed Christian above) run the show?

Oh, I know. Whilst a democracy is supposed to be run by the majority, it's really run by who can shout the loudest. So when are we going to start shouting?

Censorship ... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827700)

... is one of the most despicable things I can think of. It still amazes me to see people who think that ignorance -- about anything is good. You don't protect people by keeping them in ignorance. You protect them by letting them know as much as possible, and talking to them so that they are able to judge the consequences of things.

If you're worried about your kid viewing pornography, tell him about the consequences of unsafe sex, objectizing women, and remind him of any moral code that your family might adhere to on the matter. If you're worried about violence, teach gun safety. And teach the consequences of violence. Make it personal. Introduce him to some victims. Show him what it looks like when a person's face gets shot off. I guarantee you that will have a lasting impression.

Keeping people in darkness doesn't help them. They'll go behind your back and then they'll just be getting a one-sided view of things. By forbidding it, you make it even more likely that they'll take an interest in it -- kids are like that. But by letting them explore -- kids' minds are built to explore and learn -- and by not making a big deal about it, they're more likely to come to their own decision about it, which if you've raised them well, will probably coincide with your own. I had access to pornography and violent media when I was a kid. I looked at some of it. It wasn't a big deal. I didn't turn into a sex maniac, I can see the value in waiting until marriage before sex, I'm not a violent psychotic, etc. But who knows what would've happened if I lived in a domineering family that tried to dictate my thoughts and beliefs? I might easily have rebelled in quite the opposite manner.

If I want to teach my kid something, I'll present my view and the opposing view. If I just present one side of things, then he'll get the impression I'm trying to snow him. Kids aren't stupid.

On the other hand, present one point of view enough and you may get a nicely brainwashed kid. I've seen it happen. Personally, raising a kid to be a little copy of me without any free will or capacity for independent or critical thought isn't the reason why I'd raise a kid. But lots of people seem to be into that.

As someone else said, I find it ironic that it's the strongest backers of this kind of thing are conservatives; you'd think that they'd be as far away as possible from the government controlling information sources. But of course, those conservatives who back this sort of thing are the type of people who want to blame society's ills on convenient abstractions like "pornography" or "the movie industry", etc. (can we say "Columbine"?) without taking any personal responsibility for raising their own children. Usually while reviling "liberals" for doing the same thing (blaming others rather than themselves for social issues). It's that kind of thing that gives the Republican party a bad name, which is shameful, since I know plenty of reasonable conservatives who aren't bent on controlling other people's beliefs.

Those people act on fear. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred, hatred leads to suffering. :) They fear that kids will mindlessly emulate anything they see. They fear that they can't control their children. The only thing it proves is that their value system or their parenting is so weak that it can't stand the light of day, all opposing viewpoints must be hidden for it to prevail.

Finally, let me just say that anyone who thinks that pornography turns people immoral is, IMHO, pretty whacked. Whatever morals or lack thereof one might have are likely already present. It's like blaming school killings on wearing trechcoats. If I put on a trenchcoat, it doesn't make me a killer.

Re:I agree with it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827701)

> I`m at work, and I can't let this stuff be seen on my computer.

Tell me about it! I was looking for some MP3 sites this morning and the same thing happened. Having that kind of material is a sackable offense at my company ( and probalbly most others).I also went to a Commodore 64 emulator page a few months back and guess what?

I think that this kind of behaviour is worse than the actual porn sites, you can choose not to go there but when you are effectively taken against your will it is not acceptable. What can you do then? If you send them a shitty email then they have your address so then you get lots of xxx spam.

Someone suggested making them put xxx in the url, while I think that it would help I cant quite see how it could be enforced.

Re:A Stance For Purity (1)

awhit (62472) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827704)

Almost everyone holds the position that we should keep young kids away from porn - that's not much of a position to hold. She's just reaching out to an american culture confused by school shootings and finger pointing. It's akin to saying 'I think murder is wrong' - everyone agrees, but it's a pointless position to run with.

The problem with her solution is that almost every system out there, if not _every_ system out there, doesn't block porn - it blocks 'content harmful to minors', which includes any educational sex sites, most fringe religions, and any site the filtering company has a vendetta against. Libraries are supposed to be where you can learn about anything and everything, not where you can just learn about happy fuzzy Christian values.

Re:Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827707)

The one woman I thought that might have enough integrity to be President. I would think a Republican would not be into censorship and anti-freedom of speech since they are so anti-government. I guess that only applies to the fat cats and taxes and not freedom of speech.

I think you have the Libertarian and Republican parties confused. Libertarians are VERY anti-government, essentially saying all government should be is a police and military force to prevent people from hurting one another. This applies to both social and economic policies.

Republicans tend to have a similar view for economic policies, but are very socially conservative. They are typically anti-abortion, pro-drug laws, pro-gun rights, pro-death penalty, and anti-porn. I think a majority are also unsupportive of homosexual rights and extremely free speech (supporting measures such as banning flag burning, etc). Many are extremely religious and try to force it on others.

Democrats are usually socially liberal (see [] for items "Democrats" are typically supportive of), but also very supportive of measures such as Social Security, Welfare, affirmitive action, etc.

I think the statement "Republicans want to control what goes on in your bedroom, Democrats want to control what goes on in your boardroom" is very true.

What exactly are we shielding our children from anyway? Sex? Why do we give kids such a complex about it and make them think it is bad?

Exactly. Sex is a perfectly natural act, as nudity is a perfectly natural state. I find it highly confusing that people attack the porn industry so readily, yet balk at the idea of attacking violent movies and TV shows. In my mind, showing violence is a lot worse than showing people having sex.

wrong (2)

/ (33804) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827709)

Whilst some people are going to scream "free speech", these computers are library resources and the library is free to decide what they get used for.

Sorry, try again. Libraries that are funded/run by US governments are beholden to the constitution; Federal ones by the first ammendment, and state/local ones by the first ammendment via the fourteenth. The whole point of a constitutional democracy is to have the government not be free to do whatever it likes. If you're into that sort of thing, then hop on over to Australia, where their consitution doesn't protect civil rights.

The original rationale behind allowing libraries to ban objectionable books was that the amount of money available for purchasing books is scarce. Because a library cannot own all books, there is some leeway granted in determining which books are to be carried.

Bandwith, however, is not scarce under the current scheme of non-hourly rates. As such, there is no independent and clear government purpose in regulating which speech can be heard and such filters are therefore unconstitutional. This is independent of the fact that dumbing down adult speech to protect minors is not exactly constitutional either.

Re:Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827710)

Sorry for the rant- this registered Republican has to blow off steam once in a while. It's too bad there's no party for socially liberal, fiscally conservative voters.
Agreed. I consider myself pretty moderate, and I agree with Republican policies on fiscal and other non-social matters as often as Democrats, but the conservative social agenda of the Republican party has pretty much assured that I'm never going to vote Republican. Even the more reasonable candidates are too easily influenced by the strong far right.

Re:A Stance For Purity (2)

Stephen Williams (23750) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827712)

In a so called democracy, why are you letting minorities (like the self confessed Christian above) run the show?

In a democracy, you let whoever gets the most votes run the show, no matter what their beliefs are.

You can't say "Christianity is a minority belief, so Christians shouldn't be in office" any more than you can say "The country is predominantly white, so only whites should run for office". If you find someone's beliefs objectionable then just don't vote for them :-) but they have as much right to campaign on a platform built on those beliefs as you would to campaign on a platform built on yours.

A Stance For... Propriety? (1)

Cowards Anonymous (24060) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827714)

I am praying, however, that we will finally get a president elected who will bring some concept of integrity and morality into the Whitehouse.

I think this would be a wonderful thing.

I just pray we don't get someone who feels that their sense of morality applies to the citizenship. Morality is a personal trait, not a template with which to make law.

It's a shame, really. I can look past all manner of foibles, but it simply goes against my principles to cast a vote for someone who comes out in favor of mandatory censorship.

If she had tried a different tack, perhaps saying: "I propose we set aside N dollars with which to assist libraries that wish to install and support filtering technologies," I probably would not have been bothered in the slightest. But extorting the installation of filtering with federal funds?

Sorry, that's not the kind of behavior I expect in a leader. Abusing my tax money to further an extremist moral crusade is just plain out of the question. It's utterly inappropriate.

Re:Why can't we have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827716)

There might be an obvious answer to this, but how does using an .xxx domain name make 'em easier to find? Unless you're saying people play "guess the domain name", off the top of my head I don't know of any way to query a top-level domain for domains.

It DOES make it easier to block 'em, which has to make 'em at least somewhat unhappy.

it's not the porn (3)

ethereal (13958) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827718)

It isn't the porn filtering that bothers me, it's the federally-imposed filtering of a public information source. The companies who write filtering software have proven time and time again that they don't just filter porn - they filter educational information about birth control and human sexuality, discussion sites that they don't like the tone of, and even sites which are anti-filtering software. It's that last one that really bugs me - it doesn't bother me a whole lot if my local community filters porn in the library, but don't take away my access to sites just because they threaten Net Nanny's profits.

Also, that was a really cheap shot about homeless people. Don't you think they have more important things to worry about than surfing for porn? All the homeless people I've run into in a library were there because it was warm and indoors, not because it was a porn-haven. We might as well say: "people that post to Slashdot must have nothing else to do, so they are probably all researching porn at work (or school) right now".

Re:Why can't we have... (1)

whoop (194) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827719)

Unfortunately, there'll always be the type of sites that take advantage of typos, registerring for those that forget it's .gov (was done around the time the Mars lander touched down). There was another one that was a letter off of some big video game site (game vs games or something in the name). For these people, the point is to get hits on their banner, not respectable distribution of their porn.

Without any way of enforcing a .xxx TLD, it's useless. You'd need ISPs and everyone cooperating for a cleaner Internet. Then if you want to enforce it, some whiney people will be yelling censorship, just as they are with this. Face it, libraries (and schools, etc) don't need porn. Unfortunately, too many parents just want to dump their kids someplace and get back to their business rather than sit with the kids (at least within sight of the monitor), be it a library, an arcade, or whatever.

Re:A Stance For Purity (1)

amonymous (53279) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827722)

Well, you guys in the US really need a good
filtering system to protect your kids from
all the christian zealots like the one above.

I call this "easy meat" (1)

Jimhotep (29230) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827724)

Want to do something lots of people
won't like? Find something similiar that
people will like.

Start taking away property from drug dealers
before they go to trial. The people will yell
"yeah get em, those sorry bastards are killing our kids!".

Wait a few years, start taking property for other
reasons. Ooops, to late to complain. You asked
for it!

Bring lawsuits against tobacco companies. If that
works, go after other industries.

This crap works people. It's just easy meat.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827727)

Because the new registries are only for .com/.net/.org.

.cc is a country specific TLD, just like .am, .no, .uk, etc. They just happen to be open for registration by anyone (many/most of the country specific TLD's have fairly strict registration policies)

Re:Censorship ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827728)

You don't get it! They're talking about kids online! Not adults! Geez

Re:This is not just about censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827729)

But it's not costing you anything. The library computers have a fixed bandwidth. The cost to you is fixed no matter what is actually being downloaded.

Personally, I don't care whether kids are viewing porn on public computers that I'm paying taxes for. It's none of my business, and it's not costing me any extra money. Besides, there are already risque books in the public libraries (stuff that some of us snuck glances at when no one was looking when we were kids), and your tax dollars are paying for that too.

Wheeee! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827730)

One of Hitler's first actions was to stomp out the pornographers. People applauded.

Yes, that's a bit extreme, but hey, this is ugly stuff we're talking about here. Censorship is not good. Americans would like the world to be a big, puffy, safe place where they don't have to think or take responsibility for their actions and can do things like let the web be their babysitter. "Don't worry the government'll handle it". It seems like we're trying to legislate morality here folks.

Uh huh. No thanks.

Re:This is not just about censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827731)

Who are you to judge that censoring political ideas is "bad" while censoring porn is "good"? Censorship is censorship. I personally see nothing wrong with pornography -- if you want to look at it, that's your own personal business.

MEDIA = Sports, stocks, sex != INTERNET. (1)

cynicthe (33709) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827732)

Go live in China, fucking NAZI.

1st line says it all (1)

agtofchaos (56094) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827733)

GOP presidential hopeful

(against bush and quayle she has no chance)

Re:Why can't we have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827734)

Are you kidding? Porn sites would love to be blocked in this manner. They don't make their money off kids anyway, they make it off adults with wallets. Having some trivial way of preventing their teenage non-costumers from getting at their sites would get all the conservatives off their back and save them a lot of legal hassle.

Re:Oh well... (1)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827735)

Why did you think the Republicans were against censorship? I have always felt they were very much into censorship. The Republicans try to convince us that they are anti-government. But in reality they aren't, they are just anti-tax. Which is fine, but I think they are actually more pro-government when it comes to personal freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Its kind of a trade off. Less taxes but less individual freedoms.

I personally think all political parties should be banned. Let the candidates run on their own agenda, not a parties. Then we might get some people in office who are actually concerned with whats going on.

Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827736)

I have a thought: why not remove all the filters and only allow children to enter the computer room with a legal adult. Then, have a "children's section" where the filtering software is in place. Not that the filters have ever done any good. (Thank you dos/windows, for a single user system, where by simply rebooting the computer I can make any changes I want) This way the adults aren't censored, but the children can be protected as much as the parent wants. I've always been in favor of seperating adults and children.

Baa-aa-aa-aah.. (Was:A Stance For Purity) (1)

CoffeeNowDammit (5514) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827737)

Oh Gawd.

Folks, let's get real: Liddy Dole's campaign is engaged in the proverbial downward spiral, and she needs to shore up her popularity with the slackjawed-yokel Bible-thumper crowd to win any GOP primaries at this rate.

So hey, what better way to get the pathetic sheep behind you than to promote "family values" at the expense of a minority (us)?

I'm so sick of hearing "we must protect the children" (from the left and right, thank you very much). Americans (particularly the holy-roller types) really do love big government.. so long as it prosecutes their particular agenda.. and tries to tackle those big bad things like the Internet that they don't understand.

(And oh yeah, the US education system sucks so badly that what "they don't understand" is a fscking lot. But that's another rant.)

Ya wanna protect the children? Fine. Be a better parent. Tell your kids what's out there instead (knowledge is power, not ignorance). But stop asking me to pay for (let alone do) your work.

I feel better now..

"politician hype" vs. "the big bad internet" (1)

ColourCure (19325) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827738)

politicians love it when things get blown out of proportions.

"hi, i'm and i promise to protect your children from the evil corrupting technology known as the inter-net which seeks to turn them into porn-perverts and show them how to make bombs to kill their teachers. vote for me."

why can't we have a politician who isn't actually a complete dumbass when it comes to technology? oh yeah...

Re:Why not start clearing out the shelves too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827739)

Shoot, if we're worried about harming the children's delicate sensiblities, we should keep them out of school entirely. After all, nothing good can come from letting people think on their own...
Sadly, many people home-school their children for precisely that reason. I've been close friends with some of them. The brainwashing is disturbing. (To be fair, there are also those who home-school for better reasons.)

Libraries (1)

JJ (29711) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827740)

I previously sat on a library board and we solved the problem this way. When anyone under age 18 received a library card it was mandatory for their parent/guardian to fill out an internet responsibility statement. "Did the library have the right to terminate the child's usage of the computer for viewing pornographic material ? If not then the parent had the responsibility of supervising the child's surfing." Large print signs were posted to the effect that one complaint about pornographic material was enough to invoke the library's right to decide what was pornographic and what was not. No complaints, no interference. We also kept a list of sites which previously had been found pornographic (not posted but in a binder.) I did see a few people using that binder to explore new sites, and others off-hours surfing but because the policies were clearly posted and immediately enforced, after one year of this system we had only one complaint (from the head of the local ACLU.)
Librarians would never permit 'tailing' someone using a public computer. What patrons read is completely their business. A librarian can monitor it only to the point of guarenteeing everyone else's right to read it as well. No explicit censorship by the librarian is good. Implicit censorship, such as whether to buy a copy of Lady Chatterly's Lover or not is permitted, which is where we took our policy from.

Re:A Stance For Purity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827741)

You should know that not all Christians agree with your position on censorship.

Re:Why can't we have... (1)

cjkarr (23970) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827742)

Nice idea (xxx://, but it would only apply to the new sites.

I don't know how it would work -- porn sites seem to try and grab those who are not looking for it (ever searched for something perfectly legit on Altavista?).

My Idea:

1. Use some sort of intelligent filtering to block sites that are obviously just porn. I'm talking about the ones with tons of keywords in the title and pasted in the same color as the background at the end. Filter the ones that exploit the search engines.

2. (I don't know if this could be done without enraging the masses of PC Internet freedom fighters...) Have the TLD authorities enforce that new porn sites register with an .xxx TLD. There are already regulations about who can use a .org and .edu TLD.

In the end, I'm not against outlawing porn on the Internet, but I am against the sites that continue to appear when I am trying to search for something online.


Re:Baa-aa-aa-aah.. (Was:A Stance For Purity) (2)

Stephen Williams (23750) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827743)

So hey, what better way to get the pathetic sheep behind you than to promote "family values" at the expense of a minority (us)?

Which minority is that then? The minority that like using library computers to view pr0n? :-)

If this legislation were to go through, I think it'd impact the life of the average nerd very little. It's the principle of the thing that a lot of Slashdotters find distasteful.

Re:Necessity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827744)

I know it wasn't the main point of your post, but I don't agree at all that parents should get reports of their children's browsing activity. There should be at least one place where children are free to browse the shelves or the net without parental control of information.

Libraries carry porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827745)

You couldn't be more wrong. When I was a teen I read playboy at the library on microfiche.

Re:Why not start clearing out the shelves too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827746)

Yeah. Lots of children's "rights" advocates believe their agenda supersedes the Constitution, as they'll readily admit. For instance, right here in the US, such managed to legislate an interesting list into existence.

The Federal Gov't is getting employers to register information into one giant database, about *everybody* who works, with the intent that if any of them *ever* becomes a "deadbeat dad|mom", that they can track 'em down. Sure, it seems like a bit of a privacy invasion (just cause?), but an advocate was quoted to the effect that, "Isn't helping children more important than privacy?".

*SMACK* Goddamn it.

More on-topic:

Off-hand, does Dole want to target:

* the Bible, just about any version. Well, except in its original language, known to very few kids. Child sacrifice, adultery, murder, genocide, all the fun stuff...

* History books. After all, lots of truly vile, offensive things happened in the past, and kiddies might be inspired.

Timmy: Look, Mom, I'm learning 'bout the Aztec
religion! See what I can do!"

Mother: That's nice, Timmy, now PUT THAT HEART

Timmy: But it's still pumping! Oooh!

Tlaloc: Thanks for the gift, Timmy. The clouds
shall rain generously for your crops.

Timmy: But... I'm not a farmer!

Tlaloc: Then you shouldn't have called a rain god,
you squirt.

* Advertising, much of which seemingly is targetted to creatures with the intelligence and wit of eggplants. That level of inanity can't be good for kids, can it?

* Biology, chemistry, just about anything which has any potentially evil use or could at all be disturbing, be it the Human Genome Project, fire, a #2 Pencil ("It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye"; or, a quick stab up through the rib cage...), karate, sharp-cornered tables, eyeglasses (Ever see the _Godfather III_ ?), Crucifixes (the guy's got *nails* in him for cryin' out loud), religion of just about every kind, meat (it teaches kids that it's right to kill other creatures, right? heh.), grading (poor grades can traumatize kids, giving them an excuse to kill... or so one would think, listenin' to some dweebs), newspapers, stinging insects, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Libertarians...

...or does she just have a hang-up 'bout SEX, and if so, can she please get Bob to stop doing those damn ED/Viagara commercials, or at least make 'em less frequent?!

...or is she just slavishly pandering to potential voters, with an utter lack of principle?

That's enough of my ranting for one message...

Re:Necessity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827747)

Giving parents access to info about what their kids surf is something I find even more objectionable than only filtering.

What if a kid is being abused, and want to look for support online? Not say it doesn't happen - I've stumbled over kids on IRC twice that claimed to be sexually abused, but that didn't know what to do about it, that I directed to support groups (and it's very unlikely it was some asshole posing, unless that person was VERY skilled in psychology - I asked some questions, and all the answers I got fits 100% with a person that is really being abused). Tracking net access would effectively close that avenue.

For many that are being abused, whether sexually, or "just" being subject to violence, calling from their home is out of the question due to the fear of being found out, if they even have the resources to find a phone number of a support group to call. And kids often even have a problem understanding that it is a problem they should seek help for - many believe that they are at fault, and deserve everything they get. (If that what's whoever abuse you tells you every day from you're a small kid, you WILL believe it to some extent, often totally).

Actually, often people that are being abused won't dare to get help by phone even if they wanted to, because it is difficult to say it out loud. Help lines are a lot better than having to go there yourself, but the net is even better: they won't have to talk to someone in person right away.

Of course, you might object that since you don't abuse your kids or your spouse, you could track what your kids do, but the problem is how the library or whoever would know?

And there are lots of less serious issues too: What about a kid that thinks he/she is homosexual, but grow up in a very homophobic environment? Often life situations like that ends in suicide, unless they get support from someone. Same thing for religious issues. If your kids start having doubt about beliefs, whatever beliefs they are, that is very strong in the rest of the family, it will be something they might not dare to talk about, and that might cause their life situation to become extremely difficult.

Kids have a right to privacy too.

One thing that might be tolerable though, would be to gather anonymized statistics for a longer time period - say on a weekly basis, so that the librarian could see if there's reason to "watch out" for people viewing very offensive material (the key here being that it not only is offensive, but also highly visible - meaning images etc. - so that it disturbs other users of the library).

But taking actions based on user complaints should be more than enough...

Re:Elizabeth Dole can Blow Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827748)

Well, next time she comes up here to New Hampshire, I'll see if she'll blow me first, and I'll let you know if it was worthwhile. Somehow, I doubt it, though...

If it's any consolation, I WON'T vote for her in the upcoming primary, if for no other reason than this topic - I generally don't have a problem with a female presidential candidate, but I agree wholeheartedly that she's put herself in the same bucket as Tipper Gore, and said bucket is what's usually put in the bottom of the hole under the little shack out back with the crescent moon on its door. There are a lot of other issues out there that deserve *intelligent* scrutiny by the presidential candidates (of all parties), and which are far more important than this one. Dole and the others have forgotten that you can't legislate common sense or decency or morals, so don't bother. If they were to lead by example and work on the real issues, the little things, such as this one, will work themselves out.

Re:This is not just about censorship (1)

migmog (40610) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827749)

Suppose there are 4 PCs in your library. 3 of them have kids on them looking at porn. The 4th has crashed (Guess wnat OS they're using). An old lady walks in and wants to email her grand-daughter on the other side of the world....

Or... there are 4 PCs in your library. One has crashed. 3 are ready for any old ladies that come in...

The PC itself is a scarce resource, not just the fixed price bandwidth. I am prepared to pay for the old lady (or 14 year old kid) who wants to email someone. I'm not prepared to pay for the wankers. I also don't feel that I have to justify this position.

Re:Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827750)

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't as far as I'm concerned -- the Net is screwed either way. Clinton/Gore's Nazi infosystems policies on one side and the Republicans trying to force their morals down my throat on the other.

Mmm...liability (1)

Paradox !-) (51314) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827751)

A couple things

1. The moment you start filtering content, you are liable for that content. You no longer are a common carrier. So if a library has a filtering system in place, they can be sued if a 14 year old gets past it to porn.

2. There is a fundamental rule of nature that no barrier will ever suffice to completely separate a 14 year old male and his porn.

3. There is an argument that has been made (and a Virginia state Delegate from a rural part of the state made it in testimony to the Virginia General Assembly last year) that libraries ALREADY filter content by chosing to stock some books and not choosing to stock others. Librarians are very vulnerable to this argument and in my experience have not made good arguments against it.

4. Virginia has looked into this issue deeply, through the Joint Commission on Technology and Science [] of the General Assembly. In that Commission's Annual Report [] for 1999, they addressed this very issue. (Advisory Committee One studied it, I actually was on that committee) The ultimate recommendation was against mandated filtering, and in favor of people under 18 being required to sign Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) to use Internet terminals at libraries. This way, the librarians have grounds to restrict inappropriate or illegal usage by kids under 18. Some libraries in the state have taken it upon themselves to setup separate areas with privacy desks or study carels for adult Internet use. The Commission's final report pretty conclusively posited that filters are simply unworkable in a public library environment because Internet content is changing so quickly and libraries are the public bastion of free speech and expression and are held to a very high free speech standard.

5. Finally, the Courts decided in a Virginia case, Mainstream Loudoun vs. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library [] , that filtering websites at libraries is not a library acquisition decision (as voiced by that Delegate noted above) and that filtering is unconstitutional if it applies unilaterally to both adults and children. Applying the same speech standards to both adults and children online was specifically overruled by the Supreme Court in Reno vs. ACLU (the CDA decision).

So unless Elizabeth Dole will commit to appointing a Federal Judges who see the constitution differently than most, (incuding the Supreme Court) she won't be able to enforce her policy. IMHO.

I think this is just a move to the Right by her in the hopes of winning conservative primary voters. I don't actually think she'll keep this policy all the way through the campaign, and if she makes it past Iowa and New Hampshire, I seriously doubt we'll ever hear it again. It's a political tactic to try to win a conservative voting base among Republican primary voters.


Re:Censorship ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827752)

I was TALKING about kids, if you'd bothered to read what I wrote.

Re:Oh well... (1)

Mnemonic22 (63062) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827753)

The problem here is that many parents in this society do not want to take responsibility for reviewing the Internet content viewed by their children. This would inherently mean that time would need to be alocated for such an activity. Since time is a commodity based on priorities, many parents want the easy way out (i.e., V-chip, censorship, etc.). Libraries are not really the issue here. How many children do you know who actually frequent a public library in search of pornography? Parents need to take a more active role in the development of their children and let them know that there is nothing wrong with the naked human form and that sex can be a beautiful expression of love. There is nothing wrong with love, right? What is wrong is sitting in a darkened room, hidden away from all eyes, sneaking glances at the fat lady biting the horse.

But isn't THAT an easy solution? (1)

gnarphlager (62988) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827754)

How much effort would it take to tie in a users login account to their history file? Not much, last I checked. How much effort would it take to implement user ID's tied into library cards? A little, granted, and that would take a LITTLE of the freedom associated with libraries away, but cards are usually free anyway. I'm sure even some geeks would volunteer to set up library user logins on whatever network they're using (myself included. I'd be the first in line).

I am very opposed to censorship. In order to grow as a person, you need the ability to learn, and any restrictions on that learning are restrictions on how you can evolve. I'm not saying if a parent doesn't want their child to look at porn they shouldn't stop them. But I think a large problem is imposing rules without reasoning. If a parent could see that thier son/daughter is going to the library to look at porn, or to print out bomb blueprints, they could DISCUSS that with the child, and why they thought that was wrong. It's an issue of instilling morality rather than imposing it, and that should be in the hands of the parents rather than the government. If you're not willing to take that step, then you shouldn't have become a parent in the first place.

I think you're on to something there. Maybe you should run instead ;-)

Re:Thank God (1)

ufdraco (78193) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827756)

[Retches at the utter intolerance] Um...if she's an agent of the person you call "Jesus Christ" then I want no part of her. Thanks for pointing this out to me Dante--though perhaps you didn't influence me in the way you had hoped.

May this be a lesson to you on the value of your preaching.

Re:A Stance For Purity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827757)

Absolutely. I find religion highly offensive... Especially to my intelligence :-) And if I'd had kids I certainly wouldn't want them exposed to material like that... Who knows what they'd get themselves involved in.

For the humour-impaired: The above is satire. It is meant to present an extreme view to highlight the problem with censoring "offensive" material: Someone has to decide what is offensive and what is not.

While I'm certainly against religion, and think it's stupid, and even offensive when someone try to convert me, I don't support censoring it. On the other hand I don't support censoring porn either. But if I had to choose between the two, and HAD to censor one of them for to protect kids, it would without a shadow of a doubt be religion that would be censored...

Re:Library Filtering (1)

Christopher Craig (1394) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827759)

All cases of internet filtering to date have been thrown out by the courts because they restricted the delivery of protected speech to non-minors. That does not apply to this bill. Because libraries have a limited ammount of resources (limited shelves, limited funding, limited bandwidth), and because they are funded by the government, the Supreme Court has said before that the government can mandate what content is carried by them.

Censorship legislation doesn't apply here because the government is not restricting what you can view, only what government libraries pay for. You can still go buy porn if you want, but the government won't buy it for you (or pay for the bandwidth). This is completely inline with existing legislation of library content, and I'm suprised it hasn't been passed already.

Re:Censorship ... (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827767)

>You don't get it! They're talking about kids online! Not adults! Geez

Maybe you should actually *read* the article? Given that the first sentence is:
"GOP presidential hopeful Elizabeth Dole on Monday called for restrictions on what Web sites adults may visit in public libraries", I think you owe us an apology.

Re:Oh well... (1)

mfrog (49965) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827768)

First of all, this isn't censorship of the internet. Dole isn't saying that porn cannot exist. She is simply stating that it should be blocked from a public library. I don't entirely disagree, but I'm not sure if it's needed since I don't know too many people that are going to check out porn in a crowded library. Secondly, what libertarians are you talking to? There are many things libertarians believe the government should regulate. You shouldn't lump all libertarians into one group; we are all individuals with differing ideas and opinions.
Oh, and as far as keeping gays in the closet, the don't ask/ don't tell policy was Bill Clinton's idea...

Re:Thank God (1)

shifty (64374) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827769)

Mrs. Dole may not have the best plan, but I wonder why her simple political platform was uses as an opportunity to slander Jesus Christ. The U.S. Government cannot father or mother a child, that responsibility belongs to the parents. I guess what I find so sad is how wrongly so many people view God. I am a Christian, and so often I am confronted with people seeking 'freedom'. These people don't want to listen to God's instructions because it's not what they want to do. As a human we each have our own choice as to what we do in our lives. All are FREE to choose. The only thing I want people to be aware of is God's intent in giving us rules like the ten commandments and others... they are given to us to keep us from getting hurt. God isn't a dictator, He's trying to watch out for us. We can each choose what we want to do though. Make your choice, but be prepaired to accept its consequences.
May God bless you.

Re:Give Me A Break! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827770)

So, you'd agree with, say, restaurants all serving vegan meals, because meat's easy to get and you can always eat at home? And that the menus only contain foods that, say, 5-year-olds can pronounce correctly, and are safe and easy for them to eat without sharp implements?

*IF* the move was voluntary (not the Feds saying: We're taking your tax dollars, and we won't give you nearly as much back if you don't do what we say), and *IF* it could be done intelligently (like: somehow the filtering could be bypassed for older folks, *without* human intervention -- like a license scanner of some sort), and *IF* it weren't so inane, then maybe it'd be palatable.

But right now, I'd say that
* Kids aren't as impressionable as people think;
given the chance, they can be quite
* With that, comes the fact that some (many,
perhaps) will be complete and utter assholes.
Some will eventually kill people. It's
not like one can possibly stop that, and expect
that everybody's going to become well-adjusted,
law-abiding citizens; violence, lust for power,
and just being all-'round total bastards is
part of humanity.

You want societies that are totally, completely hosed, with rampant crime and barbarism, that did *not* result from kiddies being exposed to porn or violent movies -- look at a variety of third-world nations, like Rwanda, the Sudan, and so forth. Hell, some of 'em even have strong religious beliefs, but that hasn't saved 'em -- and the problems over here aren't exactly simple, either.

What kind of software will be filtering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827771)

I know that from my school, the filter they have is pathetic. It will block certain sites and also search the text of the document for words that have been deemed by the administration as inapropriate. It was hard for a friend of mine to do a reaserch project on Pissaro because "piss" was a word that the filter would not let through.
It is also annoying that the proxy is always bogged down and slowes tranfers to a crawl even though the school has a T1 line.

Re:Oh's not so bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827772)

Kids don't need to be watching people copulating online.

Parents can't monitor their children 24-7. Society has a responsibility to pick up the slack.

Personally I think the Fed should leave it up to local communities to decide for themselves, but they should restrict other entities (the ACLU springs to mind) from inhibiting those community's decisions on the matter. More local autonomy, less gov't control, no special interest group interference.

Parents should be the ones raising their children, and I'm all for empowering them to do that better. I am not an advocate of Big Government, but I am an advocate of family and morals.

Re:I agree with it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827773)

So i got to Oh boy was that a mistake

Next time use

This is the original ftpsearch engine, and the one the calls. Fast, minimalist interface, only one small banner, and no pop-ups.

What more could you want

Re:[OT] grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827775)

"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin

But more seriously, it's been acceptable as a verb for quite some time.

Re:I call this "easy meat" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827778)

"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet."

-- Lyle Myhr
"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

-- Voltaire

What libraries are about (1)

lee (17524) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827779)

Libraries are about allowing access to information. For years, i could not afford to buy books, anything i read was at the library. Some o what i read included "the joy of sex", "sex, a users' manual", "the lord is my shepard, and he knows i am gay", "the tearoom trade", "human sexuality", "the complete history of erotic art", "men in love", my secret garden". All of these books were available for anyone to read. Some were kept behind the desk, but the librarian was supposed to give them to whomever asked. The reason for this was to cut down on theiving. Some sports books and comic books were back there as well IIRC.

However, if I found websites with the same content and viewed them in my public library computer lab, i would be violating the rules and lose my privilege of using the library computers. If they were text only sites, I might get away with reading them, but if the consultant read over my shoulder as the little prick is fond of doing, he would by policy have the right to eject me. Filters would eliminate even text sites that could be read discreetly in the lab.

In my experience, the filters used to control net access tend to filter sex, drugs, and controversial subjects. I really don't think the library is the place to avoid information on controversial subjects. I know of ppl who go to the library and steal books they don't like. In my experience the books were often on homosexuality, abortion rights, and birth control. By enforcing content filtering, we are giving in to that mentality.

Re:I agree with it. (2)

Stephen Williams (23750) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827787)

I`m at work, and I can't let this stuff be seen on my computer.
I was looking for some MP3 sites this morning and the same thing happened.

This is one of the reasons that I browse the Web at work with images turned off, and only load them once I'm sure the site is okay.

I think that this kind of behaviour is worse than the actual porn sites, you can choose not to go there but when you are effectively taken against your will it is not acceptable.

Right on. I don't want to visit porn sites. I find porn offensive. If people want to put porn on the Web, that's up to them, but I object to being tricked into viewing their materiel. If I buy a subscription to a computer magazine, I wouldn't expect to be subscribed to Big Hooters Monthly as well.

Re:This is not just about censorship (1)

migmog (40610) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827788)

I happen to agree with you about pornography - if you want to look at it, that's your personal business.

However, there is a line to be drawn. What about pornography involving animals, children, snuff movies?? Should these be available to anyone that wants them in a public library?

Re:Somebody PLEASE think of the children!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827789)

Didn't the QNX people put together a single-floppy boot disk, complete w/ web browser?

Who are you kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827790)

Hard-core porn pushers are just as happy to have you stumble into their site as find it directly. Get you a taste, get you addicted, then you'll come back and give them tons of money.

Just ask a drug dealer if he'd like 20 more people to "inadvertently" get hooked to what he's pushing so that they could buy his crap. He'd love it.

Don't kid yourself. Self-rating is a great concept, but the majority of porn sites won't comply. Even if a majority did, it would be the nastiest of the nasty that did not.

Re:This is not just about censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827791)

Ahem... I happen to pay taxes, too. Chances are, a good portion of the people reading /. pay taxes. Yep, we're pretty much all taxpayers.

So who in the hell do you think you are dictating to me what taxes should be used for, simply because you don't like it? "Oh, you pay taxes, too? Well, screw you, it's still my money!" Sorry, chum, but it isn't your money anymore. It's the government's money. It belongs to Uncle Sam now, not you. Don't believe me? Try going to your nearest IRS office, demand for 'your' money back, and see how far you get.

Time to cash that second reality check, Chumley. > Most every library I've been to that has Internet access have their computers located in an open area where the contents of each and every screen are easily viewable by anyone else. Now, I don't know what you think, but I suspect that some horny teen is going to be too embarrassed to d/l porn where everyone else can see it. Funding filters is not needed when you're getting ugly stares from the rest of the library patrons.


Why just porn? (1)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827792)

Why are Americans so fixated on sex? There's a lot of stuff on the net a lot worse than sex that they can ban. Of course the best case would be not to ban anything and let people decide for themselves what is bad, but really... all you hear coming out of congress is sex!

Re:This is not just about censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1827793)

Yeah, people who feel that they don't have to justify a position are the people who generally feel they should force it on everyone. "After all, it's self-evident."

This has nothing to do with pornography. If people are hogging the computers, they should be kicked off. Institute time limits if necessary.

Besides, I think you have some serious issues if you think some kid is going to sit in a public library for any length of time looking at pornography. These are PUBLIC libraries, you know.

Re:Thank God (2)

ethereal (13958) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827795)

It's sarcasm, people (although Bob Dole was a Grade-A war hero, POW, and so forth). You know how I can tell? Dante correctly spelled and boldfaced the titles of both books.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:That'll fix 'em (1)

Lavos (52351) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827798)

HAH, you've obviously haven't been to my library. The computers are in a public area and it never stopped the wierdos from looking. It will only stop someone if they actually care about what people think of them.

Of course, the library installed filtering software a while back, and banned email, message boards, chat, and news (boards? I don't know. didn't check. If it's just news, then that's a bit scarier.) Why didn't they just say all the 13-18 year-olds couldn't sex chat? That was the number one activity on them anyway.

It just isn't right that when I didn't have an ISP I, by the rules (like that stopped me. Filtering software or not,) couldn't check Usenet for infomation on hex based geometry for use in an isometric engine, but could cheerily browse the beenie baby price lists.

Re:This is not just about censorship (1)

Christopher Craig (1394) | more than 15 years ago | (#1827800)

Can you defend your point that all libraries have fixed bandwidth? Sure you may have a fixed bandwidth to you home on your 56k modem, but most buisnesses with real data lines I know of still pay by the byte.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>