Library Internet Filters - Good or Bad? - GoFuckYourself.com

longhair · 03-23-2001, 11:48 AM

Well, I thought my 100th post should acutally be about something important.

I've been following the stories about libraries putting in porn filters and I wondered what you guys think about it. The libraries are crying freedom of speech, the government is saying they can force it since the libraries get goiv't funding.

As a webmaster I say filter 'em. Anybody looking at porn in a library is either a kid or someone who doesn't even own a computer, so there's no way in hell they're going to buy a pay site membership. They would be filtering out useless traffic for us which would save us money on bandwidth.

The downside is that this gives the gov't an in regarding freedom of speech on the net. It would give them a (what they feel) victory over porn and encourage them to do more.

Ok, go.

Fuck_it_all · 03-23-2001, 11:53 AM

I am a kid and a moron, and I won't bother you any more.

[This message has been edited by Lensman (edited 03-23-2001).]

Jamdin · 03-23-2001, 12:19 PM

I'm on the borderline concerning filtering systems. Some filter systems block all use of sex, penis & vagina. Suppose somebody wants to do a health research paper on STDs. Lets suppose the library has only two books on the subject. One can find dozens of places online to gather STDs information. Unfortunately, the library computer won't allow them access to the sites because the word "sex" is there.

The local library has only one computer for research use & you have to sign in & out to use it plus putting down what the computer is being used for. They won't let kids under 15 use it unless they have a parent with them. That works better than any filtering system.

------------------
Moongem Erotica Moongem Fiction

longhair · 03-23-2001, 01:04 PM

Now see that's a good idea. At my local library they've got a bank of 20 or so machines. They could filter all but one or two that need to be signed in for for particular research topics. Of course, they also check out Playboy to 12 year olds at my library too. They have to.

Gemini · 03-23-2001, 01:12 PM

The libraries should be doing it on their own. I have noticed and even larger increase in .edu hits the last two weeks tho.

F-I-T, what stake do you have in this?

Tanker · 03-23-2001, 01:12 PM

WE just filtered Fuck_it_all

thanks for the idea Longhair

Gemini · 03-23-2001, 01:15 PM

Maybe having a librarian be the only one to be aable to shut off the filtering for such research cases. You can't go in and finger things at the local adult store underage. Or play with guns at the gun shops. Kids have no rights in a lot of shops. Libraries are just a different form of shop when you think about it.

Tanker is a God!

[This message has been edited by Gemini (edited 03-23-2001).]

boneprone · 03-23-2001, 01:46 PM

the filters are bad news, even librians know it and lobby against them.. It is a form of cencership, and someone telling you what you can or cannot view. Something most librians and library people have been fighting against forever.. Unfortuantly these librarys are forced itno useing these filters in the form of blackmail.. They are told they have the "choice" to use them or not, but if they choose not to, they loose funding. Libraries are already underfunded, and if they want certain funds they are blackmailed to obey to big brother and use the internet filtering systems "by choice"

At least that is how it is here in Oregon.. And we are a liberal state.

------------------
Webmaster/Owner
www.boneprone.com
icq: 66883099

Gemini · 03-23-2001, 02:07 PM

Life is nothing but give and take.

We carry that first admendment abit far when we overlook the other ones. ALL people have their own rights and they must not infringed upon others rights. It infringes upon mine (and my kids) if you allow my child to view something inappropriate.

[This message has been edited by Gemini (edited 03-23-2001).]

Warphead · 03-23-2001, 03:16 PM

As an adult webmaster I say filter 'em. I don't need the kids in the library burning my bandwidth.

As an American I say France is looking pretty good. The first amendment is first for a reason, it's been pissed all over by the conservatives, but it's not gone yet.

and if filters only filtered out actual porn it would be one thing - but these things filter out stuff we see on The Learning Channel. Is the internet supposed to be educational? If we block anything that mentions a penis it won't be!

(Yes, I think Penis Studies should be in the curriculum)

Gemini · 03-23-2001, 03:48 PM

That would work Warp IF we could force the jerks to quit meta tagging things like that and stick to porn terms. SOMEthing need to happen to seperate us, thats for sure. I still burn thinking about when I was teaching my step daughter how to search and she wanted spice girls and 9 of 10 were porn sites that came up!

You can't in good conscience call that infringing on anyones rights. If it is, then its for the better good for the kids. But I more look at it as seperating one business from another just like we do mechanics from roofers. Bottom line on the whole mess is the government is going to go for the kids. So we can deal with it and plan for the future or whine about it. lol

We are trying to plan for the future instead of acting like its our right to fly porn in every ones faces. Yes we have the right but they have theirs as well. Happy medium is just like bars. You can NOT drink or sell in the streets. So live with it or perish in this line of business. Clean up your acts. Get the porn off of the indices or get visited by the upcoming Porn Policia`. Undoubtedly Ashcroft has them chosen by now!

Kat - Fast · 03-23-2001, 05:25 PM

this sort of topic has been brought up before.
it is not us that need to be regulated - it's the children - www.disney.kid
Filtering has been tried before and a huge chunk of the bible can't be accessed if sex is filtered, nor can some artists eg. david essex
for a filter to have any chance of succeeding, it would need a law passing on meta use (or something similar) - all adult sites state 'adult', all kiddie sites state 'children'
unfortunately there is no way of enforcing this worldwide

i have edited this post because up until right now i was unaware that .kid was valid!
why hasn't this been used more often?!!?!??!

[This message has been edited by Kat (edited 03-23-2001).]

Gemini · 03-23-2001, 06:11 PM

One question Kat...WHY shouldn't WE be regulated? Just like many other and ALL other adults only businesses.

If this is the premise then bars can now serve kids. Age for guns just went out the window. Drivers licenses...I could go on. WE serve adults and to a large degree it *IS* our responsibilty to try and prevent kids from getting in.

Or is the wallet complex your driving need.

Kat - Fast · 03-23-2001, 06:21 PM

we keep kids out of and away from all areas of life that could adversely affect them/ hurt them/ stop us adults enjoying the company of other adults. So why not do so with this area?
Just as we don't let kids walk the streets alone at night, we shouldn't let them wander the internet without restraint.
Your logic follows that i shouldn't be allowed to walk down certain streets incase there are kids there (and a few of my mates would probably agree with you! lol).

What i am trying to say is that the .kid thing be usedby the likes of the spice girls/ football clubs/ toy manufacturers so that parents know they are safe for kids to browse and any adult sites could get instantly booted for using the .kid suffix.
Just like we boot dodgy people from kiddie playgrounds and schools.

------------------
There is no such language as English{United States} dammit!!

[This message has been edited by Kat (edited 03-23-2001).]

Gemini · 03-23-2001, 06:42 PM

Your dot kid sounds like a plan but in this case it should be dot adult. And WE should go there. Now you are forcing the majority when you say dot kid which according to the laws is illegal. Majority rules and the minority does what they have to.

We are trying to supply a need. So we need to do what WE have to to do that in a lawfully, orderly way. We'll make more $$ if we just go with it and quit the BS about who is right.

You are saying that strippers are now able to dance in the streets simply because we should see that our kids do NOT walk that street.

03-23-2001, 11:48 AM	#1
longhair Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: California Posts: 198	Library Internet Filters - Good or Bad? Well, I thought my 100th post should acutally be about something important. I've been following the stories about libraries putting in porn filters and I wondered what you guys think about it. The libraries are crying freedom of speech, the government is saying they can force it since the libraries get goiv't funding. As a webmaster I say filter 'em. Anybody looking at porn in a library is either a kid or someone who doesn't even own a computer, so there's no way in hell they're going to buy a pay site membership. They would be filtering out useless traffic for us which would save us money on bandwidth. The downside is that this gives the gov't an in regarding freedom of speech on the net. It would give them a (what they feel) victory over porn and encourage them to do more. Ok, go.

03-23-2001, 11:53 AM	#2
Fuck_it_all Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: centerville,mn,usa Posts: 47	I am a kid and a moron, and I won't bother you any more. [This message has been edited by Lensman (edited 03-23-2001).]

03-23-2001, 12:19 PM	#3
Jamdin Registered User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 3,560	I'm on the borderline concerning filtering systems. Some filter systems block all use of sex, penis & vagina. Suppose somebody wants to do a health research paper on STDs. Lets suppose the library has only two books on the subject. One can find dozens of places online to gather STDs information. Unfortunately, the library computer won't allow them access to the sites because the word "sex" is there. The local library has only one computer for research use & you have to sign in & out to use it plus putting down what the computer is being used for. They won't let kids under 15 use it unless they have a parent with them. That works better than any filtering system. ------------------ Moongem Erotica Moongem Fiction

03-23-2001, 01:04 PM	#4
longhair Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: California Posts: 198	Now see that's a good idea. At my local library they've got a bank of 20 or so machines. They could filter all but one or two that need to be signed in for for particular research topics. Of course, they also check out Playboy to 12 year olds at my library too. They have to.

03-23-2001, 01:12 PM	#5
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	The libraries should be doing it on their own. I have noticed and even larger increase in .edu hits the last two weeks tho. F-I-T, what stake do you have in this?

03-23-2001, 01:12 PM	#6
Tanker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Posts: 9,287	WE just filtered Fuck_it_all thanks for the idea Longhair

03-23-2001, 01:15 PM	#7
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	Maybe having a librarian be the only one to be aable to shut off the filtering for such research cases. You can't go in and finger things at the local adult store underage. Or play with guns at the gun shops. Kids have no rights in a lot of shops. Libraries are just a different form of shop when you think about it. Tanker is a God! [This message has been edited by Gemini (edited 03-23-2001).]

03-23-2001, 01:46 PM	#8
boneprone Hall Of Fame Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Portland Oregon USA Posts: 34,415	the filters are bad news, even librians know it and lobby against them.. It is a form of cencership, and someone telling you what you can or cannot view. Something most librians and library people have been fighting against forever.. Unfortuantly these librarys are forced itno useing these filters in the form of blackmail.. They are told they have the "choice" to use them or not, but if they choose not to, they loose funding. Libraries are already underfunded, and if they want certain funds they are blackmailed to obey to big brother and use the internet filtering systems "by choice" At least that is how it is here in Oregon.. And we are a liberal state. ------------------ Webmaster/Owner www.boneprone.com icq: 66883099

03-23-2001, 02:07 PM	#9
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	Life is nothing but give and take. We carry that first admendment abit far when we overlook the other ones. ALL people have their own rights and they must not infringed upon others rights. It infringes upon mine (and my kids) if you allow my child to view something inappropriate. [This message has been edited by Gemini (edited 03-23-2001).]

03-23-2001, 03:16 PM	#10
Warphead Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Kiss my yankee dick. Posts: 994	As an adult webmaster I say filter 'em. I don't need the kids in the library burning my bandwidth. As an American I say France is looking pretty good. The first amendment is first for a reason, it's been pissed all over by the conservatives, but it's not gone yet. and if filters only filtered out actual porn it would be one thing - but these things filter out stuff we see on The Learning Channel. Is the internet supposed to be educational? If we block anything that mentions a penis it won't be! (Yes, I think Penis Studies should be in the curriculum)

03-23-2001, 03:48 PM	#11
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	That would work Warp IF we could force the jerks to quit meta tagging things like that and stick to porn terms. SOMEthing need to happen to seperate us, thats for sure. I still burn thinking about when I was teaching my step daughter how to search and she wanted spice girls and 9 of 10 were porn sites that came up! You can't in good conscience call that infringing on anyones rights. If it is, then its for the better good for the kids. But I more look at it as seperating one business from another just like we do mechanics from roofers. Bottom line on the whole mess is the government is going to go for the kids. So we can deal with it and plan for the future or whine about it. lol We are trying to plan for the future instead of acting like its our right to fly porn in every ones faces. Yes we have the right but they have theirs as well. Happy medium is just like bars. You can NOT drink or sell in the streets. So live with it or perish in this line of business. Clean up your acts. Get the porn off of the indices or get visited by the upcoming Porn Policia`. Undoubtedly Ashcroft has them chosen by now!

03-23-2001, 05:25 PM	#12
Kat - Fast Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: The bushes behind your house Posts: 2,303	this sort of topic has been brought up before. it is not us that need to be regulated - it's the children - www.disney.kid Filtering has been tried before and a huge chunk of the bible can't be accessed if sex is filtered, nor can some artists eg. david essex for a filter to have any chance of succeeding, it would need a law passing on meta use (or something similar) - all adult sites state 'adult', all kiddie sites state 'children' unfortunately there is no way of enforcing this worldwide i have edited this post because up until right now i was unaware that .kid was valid! why hasn't this been used more often?!!?!??! [This message has been edited by Kat (edited 03-23-2001).]

03-23-2001, 06:11 PM	#13
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	One question Kat...WHY shouldn't WE be regulated? Just like many other and ALL other adults only businesses. If this is the premise then bars can now serve kids. Age for guns just went out the window. Drivers licenses...I could go on. WE serve adults and to a large degree it IS our responsibilty to try and prevent kids from getting in. Or is the wallet complex your driving need.

03-23-2001, 06:21 PM	#14
Kat - Fast Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: The bushes behind your house Posts: 2,303	we keep kids out of and away from all areas of life that could adversely affect them/ hurt them/ stop us adults enjoying the company of other adults. So why not do so with this area? Just as we don't let kids walk the streets alone at night, we shouldn't let them wander the internet without restraint. Your logic follows that i shouldn't be allowed to walk down certain streets incase there are kids there (and a few of my mates would probably agree with you! lol). What i am trying to say is that the .kid thing be usedby the likes of the spice girls/ football clubs/ toy manufacturers so that parents know they are safe for kids to browse and any adult sites could get instantly booted for using the .kid suffix. Just like we boot dodgy people from kiddie playgrounds and schools. ------------------ There is no such language as English{United States} dammit!! [This message has been edited by Kat (edited 03-23-2001).]

03-23-2001, 06:42 PM	#15
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	Your dot kid sounds like a plan but in this case it should be dot adult. And WE should go there. Now you are forcing the majority when you say dot kid which according to the laws is illegal. Majority rules and the minority does what they have to. We are trying to supply a need. So we need to do what WE have to to do that in a lawfully, orderly way. We'll make more $$ if we just go with it and quit the BS about who is right. You are saying that strippers are now able to dance in the streets simply because we should see that our kids do NOT walk that street.