> I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to prove
My point is that censorship already exists in schools and libraries, and
with the proper technology, filtering will not make that any different. I
don't think the issue is internet filtering, I think there is a broader
issue which is, "who determines what does and doesn't go into a
library".
> of a GLBT teenager who was looking for resources to find them
> blocked. Now what is she to do? Go ask a librarian to unblock
> it? What if it's a small town and she doesn't feel comfortable outing
> herself by requesting access to a web site.
A person searching for gay and lesbian resources is a great
example. However, if the library of a small town (or any size for that
matter) has stocked the shelves with gay and lesbian resources, why would
they block any sites that provide those as well? If they do choose to
block those sites, then chances are they do not have anything in
print related to that topic anyway, and then it's not the filtering that
is the problem, but the person choosing to deny those resources.
Try to take a different view and look at filtering as a tool that 'allows'
sites instead of 'blocks'. A search on google for 'lesbian movies' lists
8 out of 10 porn sites. How does this help the lesbian who is looking for
resources about her sexuality? Now apply a 'filter' where only
resource-driven non-porn sites are listed, and the user sees 10 out
of 10, or 100 out of 100 sites with relevant non-pornographic lesbian
movies. Apply that also to a student who is searching for
information for a report about the pornography industry. There's no
way viable information can be found on the web about this subject without
filtering at some level. Proper 'Filtering' can find the best possible
sites, as well as the worst possible sites, and in that way can also be
used as a tool to improve the quality of what resources are available for
students.
> People are inheritently lazy and will not do anything they don't have to
> Therefore an "opt-out" scheme will never be used.
That's simply not true. I would like to think that any teacher or
librarian would do everything they can to provide the best possible
resources for all of their students.
Jen
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Kathryn Hogg wrote:
> Jen Hamilton said:
> > I suppose a better question is,'Have any English classes in American High
> > Schools NOT included a book on Gay and Lesbian issues in their required
> > reading classes?'
>
> I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to prove. I don't remember having
> to read any books about Wicans for example but I sure don't see a problem
> having them in the school or public library.
>
> > I think these arguments are true for old, software-based filtering
> > technology that the industry is familiar with. However, over the past six
> > years technology has developed to include filtering that is
> > URL-specific. URL-specific technology allows the freedom of choice. If a
> > site about breast cancer has been blocked, the ability to find that URL
> > within the software (or add it) and un-block it is the type of technology
> > I'm talking about. This is the type of filtering technology that takes the
> > control away from the software company, and gives it back to the librarian
> > and school board.
>
> People are inheritently lazy and will not do anything they don't have to.
> Therefore an "opt-out" scheme will never be used. Also, think about the case
> of a GLBT teenager who was looking for resources to find them blocked. Now
> what is she to do? Go ask a librarian to unblock it? What if it's a small
> town and she doesn't feel comfortable outing herself by requesting access to
> a web site.
>
> I wonder, how would some of these programs determine that an image is
> objectionable.
>
> I can see it now, web pages will be encrypted with a little javascript
> decoder built in.
>
> --
> Kathryn Hogg
>
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
