Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:05:47 +0000 From: "David Smith" Subject: Re: Sex, Lies, and Cyberpatrol [1] . The National Law Center for Children and Families argue that libraries have the right to block material that is obscene, child pornography, harmful to minors, or would create a hostile workplace under sexual harassment laws. Are you saying that this photo meets one (or more) of these legal criteria? If yes, which ones, if not, what criteria do you assert libraries can use in blocking websites? [2] What categories do you think that libraries should activate under Cyber Patrol? Why I ask -- I noticed on your updated website that you said that libraries aren't blocking under "gross depictions" but I know of at least two who do -- Austin Public Library and Coppell, Texas. Cyber Patrol's selection criteria for that category includes "scatalogical" material which is being cross-referenced to the definition of obscenity in Miller v. California that censors scatological material that appeals to the prurient interest. APL is blocking under full nudity, partial nudity, sexual acts, and gross depictions. Coppell (according to news reports) is doing the same. [3] Finally, I didn't want to miss in on the fun of reporting mis-categorized websites under Cyber Patrol. Here are my additions to the list: http://www.dejanews.com -- All of Deja News. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ -- West Hollywood is a gay and lesbian site for Geocities, which prohibits sexually explicit images on the sites that they host. I couldn't figure out how many sites are actually in this neighborhood -- 10,000? 1,000? Maybe someone else will have more luck than I did. http://www.austin360.com/enter/lovelink/lovetop.htm -- Austin 360's "Lovelink" .... an innocuous dating Q&A site. http://www.tpt.org -- Ten Point Ten -- discussion of Christian music. http://www.etext.org/Zines -- this is an archive of numerous online zines. While I am sure that you can find examples of publications that are being appropriately blocked, Cyber Patrol blocks the entire archive. Another one where I had problem determining the exact amount of non-pornographic material being branded as pornography. David Smith david_smith@unforgettable.com http://www.realtime.net/~bladex File under : Internet activist Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:44:40 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Library Administrators Report Few Patrons Complaints from David Smith wrote: > > >> In fact, of the 3 most popular filters used in >> libraries, WebSense, CyberPatrol, and SurfWatch, the number of bad blocks >> even claimed to have existed >> at any one time is only a few dozen. > >What number did you give to all of the gay and lesbian sites blocked in >the West Hollywood section of Geocities? Is it 1000? 10,000? I could >never figure out how many personal websites are included there. How >did you justify it as one? > >Or do you assert it's not a bad block? You never responded to my >earlier message about this. > > You mean your earlier message that said: >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ -- West Hollywood is a gay >and lesbian site for Geocities, which prohibits sexually explicit >images on the sites that they host. I couldn't figure out how many >sites are actually in this neighborhood -- 10,000? 1,000? Maybe >someone else will have more luck than I did. > They "prohibits sexually explicit images"? Really Dave? Well then, perhaps you'd like to explain to me what http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4033/nasty.html is doing on the WestHollywood site? Why is there an animated gif of a man masturbating and ejaculating all over his torso if they "prohibits sexually explicit images", Dave? > >> And that small amount of "collateral damage" >> can easily be compensated for by having the librarians override the filter >> on patron request. > >The Austin Public Library isn't using the local lists exception to >manually over-ride the CyberNOT list. What you are calling "easy" has >been too difficult to implement for 56 machines across 22 branches. >The APL relies solely on the discretion of Cyber Patrol to determine >what can not be viewed. > But this anomolous situation isn't the APL's fault, it has to do with the Austin Freenet. You *know* that, Dave. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Wed, 26 Nov 97 10:01:19 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: Sexually explicit images on Geocities David Burt has commented on more than one occasion that CyberPatrol blocks no more than a few dozen sites improperly. He's often said that the number of sites even _alleged_ to have been blocked improperly is "very small" (a blatant falsehood). It was pointed out to him that CyberPatrol blocks the entire neighborhood at -- hundreds of pages such as the Life Memorial Park Foundation Inc., "designed to educate the public in AIDS awareness and to remember those friends, and loved ones we have lost to AIDS,and AIDS related illness." CyberPatrol blocks the entire neighborhood despite the fact that GeoCities has a policy against sexually explicit images: >They "prohibits sexually explicit images"? Really Dave? Well then, >perhaps you'd like to explain to me what >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4033/nasty.html is doing on >the WestHollywood site? Why is there an animated gif of a man >masturbating and ejaculating all over his torso if they "prohibits >sexually explicit images", Dave? His logic appears to be that blocking thousands of sites is OK if one of them contains sexually explicit content; that these are _proper_ blocks not improper ones. Of course, GeoCities _does_ prohibit pornography and even nudity. See : "Please refrain from using your free Personal Home Page for the following activities: [...] Displaying material containing nudity or pornographic material of any kind." I've filled out a Content Violation Reporting Form with the following in the comment area. >David Burt, of www.filteringfacts.org, >has pointed out that the filtering >software CyberPatrol blocks the entire >West Hollywood neighborhood. When it >was pointed out that GeoCities >prohibits sexually explicit images, he >retorted that the block of thousands of >users' homepages was proper because one >of them contained pornography: > >"Well then, perhaps you'd like to >explain to me what >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4033/nasty.html >is doing on the WestHollywood site? >Why is there an animated gif of a man >masturbating and ejaculating all over >his torso if they 'prohibits sexually >explicit images', Dave?" > >I don't personally care about members >putting whatever they want on their >pages, but if conduct outside the terms >of agreement is getting thousands of >other members censored in schools and >public libraries, that seems unfair. > >If you could contact me and briefly let >me know what you decide to do, I would >very much appreciate it. Thanks. I'll let f-c know what happens, of course. The confirmation page said "it may take us a few days before we can investigate your complaint." -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:32:54 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Sexually explicit images on Geocities Jamie McCarthy wrote: > >I've filled out a Content Violation Reporting Form > with the >following in the comment area. > >I'll let f-c know what happens, of course. The confirmation page said >"it may take us a few days before we can investigate your complaint." > > I'm curious too. If they do nothing about the site, then don't you agree they are guilty of false advertising and mismanagement by their own standards, and a block of the whole WestHollywood site might be appropriate? ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:39:55 -0800 From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: Sexually explicit images on Geocities At 03:32 PM 11/26/97 +0000, Filtering Facts wrote: >Jamie McCarthy wrote: > >> >>I've filled out a Content Violation Reporting Form >> with the >>following in the commen-t area. >> > >>I'll let f-c know what happens, of course. The confirmation page said >>"it may take us a few days before we can investigate your complaint." >> >> > >I'm curious too. If they do nothing about the site, then don't you agree >they are guilty of false advertising and mismanagement by their own >standards, and a block of the whole WestHollywood site might be appropriate? > Okay. Let's assume (purely hypothetically, since I've not checked it out myself) that geocities has mismangaged or falsely advertised. Two wrongs make a right? Its OK to block purely innocent sites of users because the ISP misstated (allegedly) what would or would not be in the 'hood? BTW, how many pages are in that hood? So far, you've justified blocking the entire neighborhood based on one "bad" site. Using your logic, it would be OK to block access to your entire meatspace library, since it carries Playboy along with "good" books. -Jim Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:46:18 +0000 From: "David Smith" Subject: Geocities West Hollywood and the Austin Public Library > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:44:40 -0800 (PST) > From: Filtering Facts > Subject: Re: Library Administrators Report Few Patrons Complaints from > > You mean your earlier message that said: > >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ -- West Hollywood is a gay > >and lesbian site for Geocities, which prohibits sexually explicit > >images on the sites that they host. I couldn't figure out how many > >sites are actually in this neighborhood -- 10,000? 1,000? Maybe > >someone else will have more luck than I did. > > > > They "prohibits sexually explicit images"? Really Dave? Well then, perhaps > you'd like to explain to me what > http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4033/nasty.html is doing on the > WestHollywood site? Why is there an animated gif of a man masturbating and > ejaculating all over his torso if they "prohibits sexually explicit images", > Dave? 1) The GeoCities Page Content Guidelines and Member Terms of Service at http://www.geocities.com/members/info/guidelines.html includes "Displaying material containing nudity or pornographic material of any kind" 2) The GeoCities Content Violation Reporting Form is at http://www.geocities.com/main/contact/alert_form.html. 3) When I looked today (11-26-97) at the URL that you mention I am kicked back to the West Hollywood main page, so I am unable to independently verify your claim. 4) I sent a query to GeoCities asking just exactly how many sites are in West Hollywood, but let's just say it's 10,000 for now and I'll change my number to whatever their response is. I am also willing to believe you that at one time there was some type of pornographic image on the page at 4033 West Hollywood. By attacking my assertion are you saying that this one site formerly at 4033 West Hollywood justifies blocking the other 10,000 (or 1000 or 500 or whatever) sites in West Hollywood? 5) On the Filtering Facts webpage you assert that "There is no compelling evidence that the number of bad blocks by any of the five recommended filters is significant." You have also posted variations of this message in several discussion lists. How are you defining "significant?" > >> And that small amount of "collateral damage" > >> can easily be compensated for by having the librarians override the filter > >> on patron request. > > > >The Austin Public Library isn't using the local lists exception to > >manually over-ride the CyberNOT list. What you are calling "easy" has > >been too difficult to implement for 56 machines across 22 branches. > >The APL relies solely on the discretion of Cyber Patrol to determine > >what can not be viewed. > > > > But this anomolous situation isn't the APL's fault, it has to do with the > Austin Freenet. You *know* that, Dave. > I didn't realize that my library's inability to use the local list exceptions had to be someone's fault or that it had to be non-anomolous. The fact is that APL is relying solely on the discretion of Cyber Patrol to determine what can or can not be viewed on the Internet access terminals. In one of our community round table meetings I brought up that Cyber Patrol was fairly easy to configure once you learned how the program works, and that perhaps the staff could be trained on how to manually over-ride the CyberNOT list. While I am still pressing it as an issue, the objection raised was that the library staff had too many other responsibilities already and that management was reluctant to create additional duties. While making one change at a central server would certainly be an easier workload to manage, the APL is citing personnel issues, and not Austin FreeNet as the reasons why. If a patron raised their hand to say, yoo hoo, Mr. Librarian Person, I want to access Deja News for but Cyber Patrol won't let me, what should I do? In Austin, the librarian can't do jack, except to direct the patron to fill out a written complaint form. Big whoop, for something that you say is easily compensated for . They don't really have the time or training to sit with the patron and suggest alternate searching strategies for the same information or to manually over-ride the block on-the-spot. David Smith david_smith@unforgettable.com http://www.realtime.net/~bladex File under : Internet activist Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:20:32 GMT From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) Subject: Quick Statistic on WestHollywood An AltaVista search on url:www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ returned 52050 documents. Here's the first listed: 1. GSMCCoT: You Are Welcome Here Gentle Shepherd MCC of Tallahassee is a Christian church (in UFMCC) open to everyone, including the GLBTQ community. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5876/welcome.html - size 5K - 15-Aug-97 - English Blocked by CyberPatrol under the following categories: Full Nude Part Nude Sex Acts Just those recommended for public libraries. Paul Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:31:06 -0800 From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: Quick Statistic on WestHollywood >From whence "recommended"? -Jim At 07:20 AM 11/28/97 +0000, Paul Spirito wrote: >An AltaVista search on url:www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ returned 52050 >documents. > >Here's the first listed: > >1. GSMCCoT: You Are Welcome Here >Gentle Shepherd MCC of Tallahassee is a Christian church (in UFMCC) open to >everyone, including the GLBTQ community. > http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5876/welcome.html - size 5K - >15-Aug-97 - English > >Blocked by CyberPatrol under the following categories: > >Full Nude >Part Nude >Sex Acts > >Just those recommended for public libraries. > >Paul > Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:20:01 GMT From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) Subject: Re: Quick Statistic on WestHollywood On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:31:06 -0800, James S. Tyre wrote: >From whence "recommended"? Aren't those [Part Nude, Full Nude, Sex Acts] recommended by Burt? I apologize if in error. Also, do any library installations not block at least one of those categories (& hence the site)? That was my point -- Charles Arthur had earlier questioned whether the blocks we've cited are actually present in libraries or under categories not used in libraries. Also, Burt claimed that only Austin's full-bore implementation had caused significant complaint. This may be true, but -- as WestHollywood shows -- it isn't for want of thousands of misblocked documents. I agree with Arthur on another thing, though. If the fight is over mandated use in public libraries, then the number isn't important. We ought to be honing our Constitutional arguments. Paul Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 01:02:48 -0800 From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: Quick Statistic on WestHollywood At 08:20 AM 11/28/97 +0000, Paul Spirito wrote: >On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:31:06 -0800, James S. Tyre wrote: > >>From whence "recommended"? > >Aren't those [Part Nude, Full Nude, Sex Acts] recommended by Burt? I >apologize if in error. I'm not sure if he, Microsystems or anyone else recommend particular CP settings, but anecdotal evidence indicates these three are the most common. > >Also, do any library installations not block at least one of those >categories (& hence the site)? That was my point -- Charles Arthur had >earlier questioned whether the blocks we've cited are actually present in >libraries or under categories not used in libraries. Also, Burt claimed that >only Austin's full-bore implementation had caused significant complaint. >This may be true, but -- as WestHollywood shows -- it isn't for want of >thousands of misblocked documents. Any library which uses CP surely would use at least one of these three, probably all, possibly Gross Depictions too. The basic point, of course, is correct. Even if geocities/WestHollywood has one (or some) user pages "properly" blocked on those settings, that is not grounds to block the whole neighborhood. Susan Getgood promised us that CP 4.0 would be more refined, after all. > >I agree with Arthur on another thing, though. If the fight is over mandated >use in public libraries, then the number isn't important. We ought to be >honing our Constitutional arguments. > No, yes and no. Yes, the basic constitutional argument is the thing. But no, the courts won't look at the argument without empirical data, rather than just suppositions. Assume that the anti-censorware constitutional argument is correct. I show the court one bad block, CP and/or the library counters that CP will eliminate the one, and, in any event, CP allows the library to override. Or, I show the court 500 bad blocks, and when CP says "override", I show that only something like 65 overrides are allowed. The constitutional argument is the same, but which scenario is more lik-ely to get the court's attention? There are of course other scenarios, but the point is that con. law is not decided in a vacuum. If the theory is bad, the numbers don't matter. But if the theory is good, the numbers will help to establish the theory. -Jim Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:46:49 GMT From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) Subject: Re: Quick Statistic on WestHollywood On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 01:02:48 -0800, James S. Tyre wrote: >There are of course other scenarios, but the point is that con. law is not >decided in a vacuum. If the theory is bad, the numbers don't matter. But >if the theory is good, the numbers will help to establish the theory. Okey doke. Back to the trialware! Actually, though, let me make one more point: How many of the "good" blocks are really permissible constitutionally? You could argue that only material found obscene in court may be blocked -- & only in the appropriate jurisdiction. Viewed this way, the entire CyberNOT list consists of bad blocks (with perhaps a couple of exceptions). Too radical? Paul Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:39:42 +0100 From: "Charles Arthur, The Independent" Subject: Re: Disinterested observer on the David Burt arguments At 5:27 am +0000 28/11/97, declan@well.com wrote: >At 19:43 +0100 11/27/97, Charles Arthur, The Independent wrote: >>Please note I'm leaving all the constitutional stuff aside - just noting >>how this might play in a public forum. Of course, it would depend on your >>location.. > > >If Charles is saying censorware opponents may not play to the cameras as >well as Enough is Enough and the other folks who are sponsoring the summit >next week, he may be right. Phew. I had hoped someone might realise the effect on Ordinary Joe (I did try abbreviating it but somehow the sense changed) of seeing a David Burt demo of filtered vs unfiltered pages. > It's always been easier to say "just say NO to >porn" than explain Constitutional law. This is true. The "just say no" crowd also have PR-types like that guy from Surfwatch whose transcript was in here. Bleagh. What a crappy interview that was. But it makes it easy for him to sound reasonable, whereas in opposing filters (at least automated ones) you're going against most peoples' instincts. >Of course I think the anti-censorware folks have a strong message; it >perhaps needs to be honed for a general audience. Exactly. >Still, civil liberties are and always have been anti-majoritarian by their >very nature. Legislatures and executive agencies do wacky things. Courts >strike them down when they violate the Constitution. In the end, the party >with the strongest legal -- not political -- argument wins. Ever hear of >something called the CDA? Rings a distant bell. BTW a stat in the Guardian newspaper here last weekend said that porn is now the US's biggest leisure industry - estimated worth $8 billion annually. Could it be that the people pushing filters have an uphill battle? Charles -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Independent newspaper on the Web: http://www.independent.co.uk/ Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:42:34 +1100 (EST) From: "Danny Yee" Subject: Re: Quick Statistic on WestHollywood > I agree with Arthur on another thing, though. If the fight is over mandated > use in public libraries, then the number isn't important. We ought to be > honing our Constitutional arguments. How about the intellectual and moral arguments? Don't forget that your constitution exists because people fought for it with intellectual and moral arguments... Danny. Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:17:27 GMT From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) Subject: Re: Quick Statistic on WestHollywood On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:42:34 +1100 (EST), Danny Yee wrote: >Paul Spirito wrote: > >> I agree with Arthur on another thing, though. If the fight is over mandated >> use in public libraries, then the number isn't important. We ought to be >> honing our Constitutional arguments. > >How about the intellectual and moral arguments? > >Don't forget that your constitution exists because people fought for it >with intellectual and moral arguments... I plead guilty to ignoring non-US listies, & apologize. But I think the appropriate sorts of intellectual/moral arguments are still those USers would call "constitutional". That is, I'd argue that governments should not determine what information individuals can or cannot speak or access. In the US, we're fortunate enough to substitute "government cannot" for "government should not", but it remains the high ground -- as opposed to pointing out that a site classified as "Full Nude" is really a tasteful topless shot. If you're not careful, such arguments carry implicit concessions to government authority. I'd recommend you obtain a Bill of Rights of your own (it's been damn useful!) but classical-liberal revolutionaries tend not to be in power these days, so it would probably end up a mess. G'luck & g'day, Paul Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:59:59 -0800 From: Jonathan Wallace Subject: The metaphysics of "bad blocks" David Burt has asserted that the censorware products he endorses contain a small number of "bad blocks". In a separate message, I said that the number of sites erroneously or inappropriately blocked by a censorware product is insignificant from the standpoint of constitutional law. David's assertions and his methods again bear some examination here. Whenever anyone points out to David that a page is blocked, he clearly heads for Altavista, searches on the URL and some combination of naughty keywords, and pops up anything in the neighborhood which he can rely on to justify blocking. In some cases, he has found materials linked from the blocked page, in others materials residing in the same directory not even linked from the blocked page. The Geocities West Hollywood pages provide the best illustration of David's methodology. In this case, there were thousands of documents blocked as a result of one explicit graphic. In David's methodology, does the blocking of a directory used by numerous people constitute one bad block or thousands? David's delight in ferreting out nasty speech doesn't release him from the responsibility of explaining to the rest of us the full extent of his position. David, which of the following is the best expression of your views? 1. Cyberpatrol shouldn't block the whole West Hollywood directory, but given the existence of that nasty graphic, the mistake is understandable and excusable. 2. CyberPatrol justifiably blocks a directory with thousands of documents posted by numerous users because of that nasty graphic. If your argument is the latter, please explain further why you think the action is justified. It seems to me that blocking West Hollywood effectively ghetto-izes a large amount of constitutionally protected speech based on the sexual preference of the speakers. ----------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wallace The Ethical Spectacle https://www.spectacle.org Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace https://www.spectacle.org/freespch/ "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."--Gandhi Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:27:38 -0800 From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: Censorware debating points This also responds to Paul Spirito's most recent on the Quick Statistic on West Hollywood thread, to wit: At 09:46 AM 11/28/97 +0000, Paul Spirito wrote: > >Actually, though, let me make one more point: How many of the "good" blocks >are really permissible constitutionally? You could argue that only material >found obscene in court may be blocked -- & only in the appropriate >jurisdiction. Viewed this way, the entire CyberNOT list consists of bad >blocks (with perhaps a couple of exceptions). Too radical? > At 08:47 PM 11/28/97 +0000, Jonathan Wallace wrote: >Jim Tyre appropriately pointed out that the >First Amendment establishes a threshold for protection >of speech; states can exceed its requirements but >not come in under them. I had remarked that >the First Amendment is "pre-emptive". >What I was trying to say >is that community desires to censor particular types of >protected speech are irrelevant in First Amendment >litigation. > >I am concerned by Jim's comments on another issue. >While he is right from a strategic standpoint >that you would want to prove numerous bad blocks >in a litigation against a library using censorware, >the desire to do so flows from a litigator's >desire to have the facts overwhelmingly and redundantly >clear, not from constitutional requirements. >Jim, I think this is what you meant, but feel the >need to clarify this further. > >Most First Amendment cases, after all, involve the >censorship of a single work, and it would be an >unheard of result for a federal court to say >that the ban of a single work was appropriate >given the amount of other speech available. To >bring this down to earth, let's look at the Tin >Drum case in Oklahoma. The state's action against >the movie must stand or fall on its own merits; the fact >that the Tin Drum is just one out of X number of movies >available, or Y movies addressing the same theme, is >irrelevant. Nor would it be relevant that only one >person in all of Oklahoma wants to view The Tin Drum. > >The Pico case, the Supreme Court's significant utterance >on libraries, involved the removal of a relatively small >number of books from the library. It is irrelevant for >constitutional purposes if the library possessed a total >of one hundred volumes or one million. > >Many of us have too easily conceded to David Burt's >attempts to make censorship a statistical argument. >His statement, quoted from memory, that the Austin >library system now receives only five complaints >a month could have been met with: > >"That's a lot" (which it seems to me to be). > >or: > >"-One would be enough, from a constitutional standpoint." > >Instead, arguments that a lot of people don't bother >complaining, though true, are misguided, because they >apparently concede the point that the number of >complaints is important. > >CyberPatrol, with the settings used in the Austin library, >bans adult access to Dejanews and the Jake Baker Information page, >both constitutionally protected research sources. You have here >the requirements for a constitutional test, regardless of >whether there are tens, hundreds or thousands of other bad >blocks. I think Jim intended to point out that, given a variety >of possible test cases, a litigator would want to pick out the >one in which a maximum number of bad blocks could be shown. >Lawyers call this the "belt and suspenders" approach to >maximum security. > I've put Jonathan and Paul's together because both, as well as my most recent on Quick Statistic thread, are concerned more with a litigator's strategic and tactical decisions than with the underlying legal theory. A valid case could be made on one bad block. Indeed, responsive to Paul, a case could be made without even proof of one bad block, since, among other things, one could argue that the very fact of a public library delegating its selection decisions to a private vendor/rater, where the public library has little or no control over what the vendor does with that delegation (e.g., the library has no input into what goes on the blacklist) is impermissible. But a frontal constitutional attack on censorware is fundamentally different from the Tin Drum case, the CDA case and others with which we are familiar. Jonathan is correct that most censorship cases involve only a single work - and the ruling in such cases apply only to the censorship of that single work, although the reasoaning may well apply to other cases. In Tin Drum, or in a case where the library pulls 8 books from its shelves, what else would be attacked directly beyond the specific censored work? In CDA, the challenge was to the law itself, but there is no pro-censorship law to attack here. Rather, there is only an anti-censorship law, called the First Amendment by some. In contrast to Tin Drum or the pulling of 8 books from the shelves, a case involving the use of censorware itself in a public library, rather than a complaint about a finite number of bad blocks, is more ephemeral, less easy for a judge to grasp. So how does one show the juat censorware is a problem? As a matter of strategy, not con.law theory, by showing the judge that the bad block is not an isolated phenomenon. Instead, show the judge that, whatever the particular product in question may be (lets stick to CP, since that what we've been taling about), and even with minimal settings (with CP, this would mean Part Nude, Full Nude, Sex Acts), the collateral damage is meaningful, not mimimal. So suppose CP, as installed and set in a public library, blocks myinnocentsite.com. Can the constitutional case be made on that one block? Sure. Would I advise the client to do it if I had alternatives? No. But then add in the block of all of Geocities/WestHollywood where (making up numbers here - I have no more data than the rest of you) a single block censors 5,000 "clean" pages. Is the law any different? In theory, no. In terms of driving the point home to a judge, probably. Then add in dejanews. Again, a single block causing massive collateral damage. The legal theory is the same, but the psychological impact on the judge is/should be more - and let us not forget that judges are people, who often react based on personal feelings, particularly where the law is not 100% clear. Then stir in 400 more miscellaneous bad blocks, by the same product using the same settings. The theory is still the same, but what does the judge now see? Even if the judge has never used the net in his/her life, the judge now begins to see the inherent problems with censorware itself, rather than an isolated glitch. Then throw in another factor. Most courts have procedures in place to prevent "judge-shopping": that is, to prevent me, as the pltf's lawyer, from maneuvering to get my case before the "best" judge for that case. Suppose the court in question has 20 judges, 5 of whom I would consider "good" for the case, 6 bad, the rest in the middle. In a broad-based censorware attack case, I will have compiled my evidence and mapped my basic strategy before I ever file, rather than waiting to see who the judge is. So do I hope like hell that I draw one of the 5, or do I prepare for drawing one of the 6? The latter, of course. If I happen to draw one of the 5, my mass of evidence may be piling-on, and I can scale it back if appropriate. But if I draw one of the 6, all of my massive evidence may be necessary to convince the judge, even though the core legal theory is the same regardless of who the judge is. This has nothing to do with the legal theory itself, but it has everything to do with convincing a possibly skeptical judge, with hard-core statistics (bad pun intended), that the problem with censorware as it exists today is not an isolated glitch, but rather a fundamental conflict between censorware technology and speech law. So yes, I am talking strategy rather than core law, and yes, I'm as susceptible as any good lawyer to the desire to put on as strong a case as possible, even if, in some instances, that would be overkill. But if I were the lawyer in the first test case, I would want and need to do everything possible to maximize success probability even with a "bad" judge, since that one last piece of evidence might make the difference between winning and losing. "Justice is blind" is a nice theory, but 19 years of litigating cases tells me its a bit different in reality. Much of what I would do (or would at least be prepared to do) technically might not be relevant to the core legal issue. But oddly enough, not all judges see eye to eye with me. If I've prepared one avenue of attack and the judge doesn't like that one, I'm up the creek. If I've got 7 avenues, I'm more likely to have plotted a course the judge will want to follow. Courtroom strategy, as Jonathan knows, often has little relation to classroom law. Jonathan is therefore right in saying that using numbers and statistics is a strategic decision, not a decision required by the core law. But if my objective is to win, and I have the ability to use the numbers and statistics in my favor, then what I would do seems clear. If I can show the judge 1,000 bad blocks, why would I show the judge just one? -Jim Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:44:52 -0400 From: "Michael Sims" Subject: Re: Disinterested observer on the David Burt arguments Charles Arthur wrote: > It was a moment I knew had to come, and I've been sitting like a > prisoner facing excution in anticipation of it. Those fateful words: > "At 6:44 pm +0000 27/11/97, jellicle@inch.com wrote:" Oh, it's not so bad. I've been busy lately, but I can throw a few nastygrams now and again for a good cause. > which means Michael Sims has joined the argument, which generally > means I'm about to go down in flames. Ah well. > > >Charles Arthur wrote: > (re evidence that X-Stop, Cyberpatrol blocks) > >> No, because you're talking about "bad blocks", which Burt has > >> *admitted* exist; but he says there are few of them, > > > >And we've showed that isn't true. You can accept A) Burt's > >assertions or B) our lists of thousands of megabytes of content which > >either is blocked for no apparent reason at all or meets one of CP's > >categories but is absolutely socially valuable. > > > >Your choice. But please make it clear that you're disregarding > >a ton of evidence to believe an assertion with not one bit of > >evidence behind it. > > Where his assertion is that.. there are only a few bad blocks? Hmm. > What weakens his side is that you can point to big chunks (say, > geocities/WestHollywood) which are blocked because (it seems) of one > page. What weakens the anti-filter side is that WestHollywood did > have at least one user with, oh, an extreme animated GIF. And my position is that for EVERY page banned, Cyberpatrol or David Burt should be able to show said GIF exists. It would make a very poor legal argument to state that since David Burt's library stocks, say, a video deemed obscene in Oklahoma, that therefore one was justified in banning the other 10,000 works in the place merely because they happened to be stored in the same library. > Anti-filter person (demonstrating software): These products block > loads of sites they shouldn't, you know. Ordinary Joe: They do? > That's disgraceful. A-f: Yeah, just look at all these pages it > blocked on Geocities' WestHollywood site. Nothing rude there, is > there? Really useful stuff, in fact. OrJ (amazed): Wow! You're > right! Burt: One of them had a animated GIF of a guy jerking off, > you know. OrJ (wheels around in surprise): What? That's disgraceful! > A-f: Whoa, but the program blocked all these other pages just to > block that one. OrJ: You mean the program caught that? Sounds like > they were on the money. Sure, but the odds are that CP never saw the GIF David refers to. They saw several different pages, who knew what they were, in this area of Geocities, and decided to conserve space by banning the whole directory. Or maybe they read about the area, realized it had a gay/lesbian theme, and decided on a pre-emptive strike. There are other Geocities areas with sexuality themes, CP probably bans a number of them. > >Sure. I wouldn't complain either if I looked in the card catalog and > >didn't find the book I was looking for. They just don't have it. > >*Maybe* I'd be suspicious if I looked for Huck Finn and they didn't > >seem to have a copy, nor Wuthering Heights, Little Women, any works > >of Shakespeare, etc.[1] > > But what are the net.e-quivalents of those written works? DejaNews, > maybe; AltaVista; sites like that. But in general people aren't > net.literate enough to know what they're missing: I agree. Well, I used those examples because all of those works exist in full-text form online; and Cyberpatrol ban[s/ned] all of them under the so-called library categories, so they are directly equivalent. It's true that what we call literature today is much longer and more concrete than what we will call literature in 20 years, but there are an infinite number of absolutely valuable works that will be banned by censorware. I mean, these works meet their criteria! They do! Any Shakespeare play meets at least half of the CP categories. This shows the utter idiocy of trying to have a program or a 10-second analysis by a $5/hour human make valid decisions about what is good, valid, accessible, and what is bad, should be banned and made non-accessible. > >Patron complaints are meaningless. Who complains about the absence > >of something they can't see? Why don't you survey the populace in > >Beijing and ask them if they miss reading uncensored news? > > Which goes back to my point above - people don't have cultural > marker points in the Internet world as they do in the written world. > Yes, you'd wonder why there was no Shakespeare in a library; but the > first-time Internet user will have no idea why DejaNews is blocked, > and might assume it was correctly done. > > But as more people get experienced, more will note when things get > blocked that they might be used to hearing about from friends or > read about in magazines about this Internet thing. I predict. Oh, I agree. The problem is that people are willing to pass judgement whether or not they have complete or truthful information about what they are judging. So the current tactic is to present misinformation and whip up sentiment against the evil internet - in the absence of good information, the ignorant will still have equally loud voices condemning something they know little about. The situation will certainly ease as more people acquire real knowledge, but that makes it no less stressful now, and obviously the tension will never really disappear. > >The Federal constitution extends down to all areas of local > >government, who may be more protective of rights guaranteed under the > >Constitution but may not be less. In many areas a state constitution > >may be of even more help in battling these local practices, but the > >Federal Constitution reaches everywhere so that is what has been > >argued here. > > Well, good: I didn't know that before. How come libraries aren't all > being sued for using filters then? I think the experts are still looking for the ideal test case. Loudoun, VA, which recently decided to adopt mandatory censorware for adults as well as minors, has been suggested as such a case. But I have no inside information. -- Michael Sims Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:13:04 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Re: Censorware debating points Jim makes good points. I would add one. At 12:27 -0800 11/28/97, James S. Tyre wrote: >But then add in the block of all of Geocities/WestHollywood where (making >up numbers here - I have no more data than the rest of you) a single block >censors 5,000 "clean" pages. Is the law any different? In theory, no. In >terms of driving the point home to a judge, probably. For the last year and a half, roughly, a very large portion of the traffic on f-c has been devoted to exposing censorware's follies. Blocking now.org, eff.org, heritage.org, dejanews.com, and so on. These posts have had an effect. Net-savvy reporters now know of the perils of such programs. But the secondary effect is that the censorware vendors, embarrassed, unblock the sites. Which is why free speech advocates may want to stop this practice. As court challenges to censorware in libraries are being readied, it may very well be in the plaintiffs' best interests to be able to show judges that such software blocks an incredibly broad selection of innocuous material. So send your complaints to the lawyers (email me if you care), not the censorware vendors! -Declan Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:03:26 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Fair is Fair, Jonathan Jonathan Wallace wrote: > David, which of the following >is the best expression of your views? > >1. Cyberpatrol shouldn't block the whole West Hollywood >directory, but given the existence of that nasty graphic, >the mistake is understandable and excusable. > >2. CyberPatrol justifiably blocks a directory with thousands >of documents posted by numerous users because of that nasty >graphic. > >If your argument is the latter, please explain further >why you think the action is justified. It seems to me >that blocking West Hollywood effectively ghetto-izes >a large amount of constitutionally protected speech >based on the sexual preference of the speakers. > Why should I answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine? Here's a hint though: if you re-read my post you'll notice I wasn't making either argument 1) or 2): >I'm curious too. If they do nothing about the site, then don't you agree they >are guilty of false advertising and mismanagement by their own standards, and a >block of the whole WestHollywood site might be appropriate? My questions for you again: 1) Would you allow your child to look at that picture of the man defecating on a woman's face? http://209.94.7.44/samp-2.html 2) If a filter only blocked porn sites (let's for the sake of argument define that as sites selling adult entertainment that had "Adults Only" warnings), AND the list was published, would this be acceptable in a public library: a) For minors b) For Adults ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:30:13 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: More West Hollywood Porn Here's some more porn links: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4266/ http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/8332/index.html http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6378/Walter.htm http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5686/geldingp.html http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/6405/ http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9690/Ref.html http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5859/links.HTM (well, Ok, a couple are just links to porn links, but still..) Jamie did it last time, I think it's someone else's turn to be the snitch and notify Geo Cities. Didn't someone point out how clever they thought I was for moving the debate to my own ground? That's not nearly as neat a trick as turning anti-censorship activists into thought policeman! ;-> Heh, heh, heh... ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:34:08 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: Re: Sexually explicit images on Geocities >>I've filled out a Content Violation Reporting Form [for a GeoCities site with sexually explicit material] >>I'll let f-c know what happens, of course. The confirmation page said >>"it may take us a few days before we can investigate your complaint." > >I'm curious too. If they do nothing about the site, then don't you agree >they are guilty of false advertising and mismanagement by their own >standards, and a block of the whole WestHollywood site might be >appropriate? Sure, why not. Will you admit that any censorware product that doesn't live up to its own declared statements about overbroad blocking is equally guilty of false advertising and mismanagement, and should be boycotted? Now, for more about the GeoCities case. Fortunately for me, it appears that they did not "do nothing" -- the URL is no longer functional, returning me (and another poster to f-c, I saw) to the WestHollywood home page. I haven't gotten a confirmation note from the GeoCities management about this, but it appears that they reacted swiftly to enforce their content guidelines. In fact the entire "4033" account seems to have been removed. There may be a few isolated cases of GeoCities sites violating their content guidelines. Considering that the GeoCities management is responsible for tens of thousands of sites, occasional errors are almost inevitable. But, as we have just seen, they are very responsive to correcting these mistakes when they occur, and there is no evidence that the number of violations is large. Does the above paragraph sound familiar? It should. You give CyberPatrol the benefit of the doubt when you write: There are a few isolated cases of innocent sites being mis-classified by the recommended filters. Considering that filtering companies are responsible for reviewing hundreds of thousands of sites, occasional errors are almost inevitable. But the filters recommended by Filtering Facts have all proven very responsive to unblocking these mistakes when they occur, and there is no evidence that the number of bad blocks is large. So, do you think we should give GeoCities the benefit of the doubt in the same way? Or are censorware vendors the only ones allowed to plead "we don't make many mistakes" and "we correct our mistakes quickly"? -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:44:13 -0800 From: Jonathan Wallace Subject: Re: Fair is Fair, Jonathan You said: "I'm curious too. If they do nothing about the site, then don't you agree they are guilty of false advertising and mismanagement by their- own standards, and a block of the whole West Hollywood site might be appropriate?" Thanks for reminding me. This is exactly the position I postulated for you when I wrote: "2. CyberPatrol justifiably blocks a directory with thousands of documents posted by numerous users because of that nasty graphic." In other words, it seems you are willing to create a speech ghetto because of one nasty graphic. If blocking West Hollywood is, in your opinion, justified in the case that Geocities does not apply its own rules, why restrict the block to the gay area of Geocities? Why not block the whole Geocities site? There wouldn't be something about gay speech in particular, would there? I'll go ahead and answer your other questions: " 1) Would you allow your child to look at that picture of the man defecating on a woman's face? http://209.94.7.44/samp-2.html" (David, shame on you. There may be children reading this list. Sometimes the anti-porn seem like the biggest porn-mongers on earth. Why is it acceptable for you to pander this particular link, but not acceptable for the author of the Jake Baker Information Page to gather news stories, legal documents and critical discussion of Jake Baker's stories? He is not advocating Baker's speech any more than you are advocating the speech you distribute when you give that link.) I didn't go look at the picture but assuming it is as you describe it, I would probably not want my child to look at it. I have a child (actually he is now 24). While he was growing up, we didn't have the Internet, but we had a modem and dedicated phone line. He had access to CompuServe and to any BBS he chose to dial. My wife and I taught him our values and then trusted him. He read any book and saw any movie he wanted. Today, he is a software developer, married and extremely practical and stable. So I also wouldn't have been particularly worried about him seeking out that particular picture, and I certainly don't need to see censorware installed in the library to protect him or me. "2) If a filter only blocked porn sites (let's for the sake of argument define that as sites selling adult entertainment that had "Adults Only" warnings), AND the list was published, would this be acceptable in a public library: > "a) For minors > "b) For Adults" This is really a dishonest argument on your part. If this described what you stood for, you and I wouldn't argue all the time. This is really just a bait and switch on your part; you've made it quite clear, despite occasional denials, that you are in favor of blocking far more speech than this. I can best respond to your perfect filter question with a few other hypotheticals: "Would you still be opposed to the torture of suspects by the police if they tortured only the guilty?" "Would you still defend strong crypto if the government read only the email of criminals?" "Would you be in favor of the death penalty if we only executed the most egregious murderers?" (https://www.spectacle.org/1297/death.html) When we have shown so emphatically right here on this list that all censorware is created through an extremely flawed process, and that no better process is possible, questions about perfect solutions have no reality to them. The purest form of your question would be, "Would you agree to software which only blocked legally obscene speech from the library?" And the answer to that would be that highly experienced lawyers and judges have an incredibly difficult time deciding what obscenity is, and no software distributed by Microsystems or anyone else is going to be able to automate a decision that experienced humans can't agree on. So protected speech will continue to be swept away, and categorized as acceptable losses (minimal numbers of bad blocks) by you. Filtering Facts wrote: > > Jonathan Wallace wrote: > > David, which of the following > >is the best expression of your views? > > > >1. Cyberpatrol shouldn't block the whole West Hollywood > >directory, but given the existence of that nasty graphic, > >the mistake is understandable and excusable. > > > >2. CyberPatrol justifiably blocks a directory with thousands > >of documents posted by numerous users because of that nasty > >graphic. > > > >If your argument is the latter, please explain further > >why you think the action is justified. It seems to me > >that blocking West Hollywood effectively ghetto-izes > >a large amount of constitutionally protected speech > >based on the sexual preference of the speakers. > > > > Why should I answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine? > > Here's a hint though: if you re-read my post you'll notice I wasn't making > either argument 1) or 2): > > >I'm curious too. If they do nothing about the site, then don't you agree > they >are guilty of false advertising and mismanagement by their own > standards, and a >block of the whole WestHollywood site might be appropriate? > > My questions for you again: > > 1) Would you allow your child to look at that picture of the man defecating > on a woman's face? http://209.94.7.44/samp-2.html > > 2) If a filter only blocked porn sites (let's for the sake of argument > define that as sites selling adult entertainment that had "Adults Only" > warnings), AND the list was published, would this be acceptable in a public > library: > a) For minors > b) For Adults > > ***************************************************************************** > David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG > David_Burt@filteringfacts.org -- ----------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wallace The Ethical Spectacle https://www.spectacle.org Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace https://www.spectacle.org/freespch/ "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."--Gandhi Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:58:08 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Fair is Fair, Jonathan Jonathan Wallace wrote: >In other words, it seems you are willing to create a speech >ghetto because of one nasty graphic. > >If blocking West Hollywood is, in your opinion, justified >in the case that Geocities does not apply its own rules, >why restrict the block to the gay area of Geocities? Why not >block the whole Geocities site? There wouldn't be something >about gay speech in particular, would there? Not for one link, no. But go to AltaVista and type in +http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"adults only" or +http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"sex" and you will find *hundreds* of hits. It's clear this isn't an isolated case. If WestHollywood didn't advertise that they were a "clean site", I would say the burden should be more on CP. It's the fact that WestHollywood says they are clean when they in fact are not. Now, if as someone suggested they were making a "good faith" effort to clean up the porn, I'll admit CP might be wrong in this case. But I'd also have to look into on average, *how long* does it take for them to "fix their mistakes". Let's wait and see if the rest of the porn is cleaned up or not. >" 1) Would you allow your child to look at that picture of the man >defecating on a woman's face? http://209.94.7.44/samp-2.html" > > >So I also wouldn't have been particularly worried about >him seeking out that particular picture, and I certainly >don't need to see censorware installed in the library >to protect him or me. Well a lot of people would be "particulary worried" about their child seeking that out. That is why there are "harmful to minors" laws, why certain types of content are not broadcast during certain hours, why adult bookstores don't admit minors, why adult entertainment can be zoned by communities, and why vending machines aren't allowed to carry porn in California. You may not worry about your child seeing that in a public library, but that's your vaules. What gives you the right to impose your values of free speech absolutism on an entire community? Look, if a community doesn't have adult bookstores, doesn't sell skin mags at the 7-11, doesn't have topless bars, why should they be *forced* to accept pornography in the public library, at taxpayer expense, no less? > >"2) If a filter only blocked porn sites (let's for the sake of argument > define that as sites selling adult entertainment that had "Adults Only" > warnings), AND the list was published, would this be acceptable in a >public library: >> "a) For minors >> "b) For Adults" > > >When we have shown so emphatically right here on this list >that all censorware is created through an extremely flawed >process, and that no better process is possible, questions >about perfect solutions have no reality to them. > You're still not going to answer the question! The question is important because it is really the core of the entire question: Are communities obligated to offer pornography in their public libraries when they don't want? By insisting on phrasing your response in terms of the fact that the filters don't work, you are really ducking that question, and thus really refusing to address the core issue. Oh, and BTW, I'll answer everyone of your hypos: >"Would you still be opposed to the torture of suspects >by the police if they tortured only the guilty?" Nope. I suppose you could make an exception under the "ticking bomb" senario if you were conviced enough lives really depended on it, but that situation would be extremely rare. > >"Would you still defend strong crypto if the government >read only the email of criminals?" I defend the right of the government to snoop when they have the proper warrent, yes. > >"Would you be in favor of the death penalty if we only >executed the most egregious murderers?" >(https://www.spectacle.org/1297/death.html) What's so hypo about that? This is what my state does. No, I'm opposed to the death penalty entirely. Although, I suppose a convincing case can be- made for executing terrorists since it has been shown that keeping terrorists in prison often leads to further acts of terrorism to free them. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:11:20 GMT From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) Subject: Re: Fair is Fair, Jonathan On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:58:08 -0800 (PST), Filtering Facts wrote: >+http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"sex" >and you will find *hundreds* of hits. On http://www.filteringfacts.org/filters.htm you say: "5) It must be possible for all keyword blocking to be turned off." You've done something roughly similar to keyword blocking (keyword searching w/ implied condemnation). Let's take a closer look at the first few results returned by the suggested search. [First, note that David's methodology is wrong. His search returns pages that contain the text "http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/". Some of these are WestHollywood sites, but most are not. A cursory examination of the results should have revealed this to him.] 1. http://freespace.virgin.net/kieron.p/icqlist.htm The only appearance of the word "sex" on the page is in the following: "no cyber sex please". The only images are a couple of clipart style drawings & buttons, not of body parts. 2. http://members.wbs.net/homepages/g/a/3/ga30yo.html The only appearance of the word "sex" on the page is in the following: "Sex: Male". It does contain a picture of a man pulling his shorts forward and down, but no penis is visible. The substring "sex" appears in the word "sexybriefs" which is a dead link. 3. http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/5223/gaychat.html This is a list of gay chats. The only appearance of the word "sex" is the following: "WBS Members of the same sex chat". There are no pictures on the page. The substring "sex" appears in the titles of a couple of other chats, for example: "The Park - Sexual Males with Males Chat". 4. http://www.tk.net/gaywisconsin/users/windsor.html The only appearance of the word "sex" is in the following: "Sex: Male". There is a photograph of the page owner's face. 5. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/7794/ The word "sex" does not appear on the page, but does appear in a meta tag. The page contains images of men in ripped jeans, some lascivious. I believe I caught a glimpse of a penis. 6. http://members.wbs.net/homepages/9/6/g/96grandprix.html Dead link. 7. http://members.wbs.net/homepages/a/s/i/asian4u.html The only appearance of the word "sex" is in the following: "Sex: Male". No interesting pictures. 8. http://members.wbs.net/homepages/p/e/e/peeps82.html The only appearance of the word "sex" is in the following: "Sex: Female". Photograph of a person's face. 9. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3923/books.html Text-only list of books Daryl is reading. Only appearance of "sex": "Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, by John Boswell" 10. http://members.wbs.net/homepages/g/a/2/ga29yo.html "Sex: Male" A couple of "suspicious" links: one dead, one to an apparently lascivious site now inactive. Just FYI. Paul Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:43:04 -0800 From: Koro Subject: Re: Fair is Fair, Jonathan Filtering Facts wrote: > > Jonathan Wallace wrote: > > >In other words, it seems you are willing to create a speech > >ghetto because of one nasty graphic. > > > >If blocking West Hollywood is, in your opinion, justified > >in the case that Geocities does not apply its own rules, > >why restrict the block to the gay area of Geocities? Why not > >block the whole Geocities site? There wouldn't be something > >about gay speech in particular, would there? > > Not for one link, no. But go to AltaVista and type in > +http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"adults only" > or > +http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"sex" > and you will find *hundreds* of hits. > > It's clear this isn't an isolated case. If WestHollywood didn't advertise > that they were a "clean site", I would say the burden should be more on CP. > It's the fact that WestHollywood says they are clean when they in fact are not. > > Now, if as someone suggested they were making a "good faith" effort to clean > up the porn, I'll admit CP might be wrong in this case. But I'd also have > to look into on average, *how long* does it take for them to "fix their > mistakes". Let's wait and see if the rest of the porn is cleaned up or not. Ah, so CP is justified in blocking thousands of sites because GeoCities falsely presents their WestHollywood section? I didn't know that fraud was a catagory that CP blocked. > >" 1) Would you allow your child to look at that picture of the man > >defecating on a woman's face? http://209.94.7.44/samp-2.html" > > > > > >So I also wouldn't have been particularly worried about > >him seeking ou particular picture, and I certainly > >don't need to see censorware installed in the library > >to protect him or me. > > Well a lot of people would be "particulary worried" about their child > seeking that out. That is why there are "harmful to minors" laws, why > certain types of content are not broadcast during certain hours, why adult > bookstores don't admit minors, why adult entertainment can be zoned by > communities, and why vending machines aren't allowed to carry porn in > California. > > You may not worry about your child seeing that in a public library, but > that's your vaules. What gives you the right to impose your values of free > speech absolutism on an entire community? Free speech absolutism is not a moral value, it is a principle that allows every individual to impose his or her own moral values to any situation. What is your problem with that? > Look, if a community doesn't have adult bookstores, doesn't sell skin mags > at the 7-11, doesn't have topless bars, why should they be *forced* to > accept pornography in the public library, at taxpayer expense, no less? Nobody is forcing libraries to carry porn. If they don't want to provide unfiltered internet access, they don't have to provide access at all. Why, for that matter, should they be forced to filter at taxpayer expense? -- KORO Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:24:30 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Fair is Fair, Jonathan Paul Spirito wrote: >On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:58:08 -0800 (PST), Filtering Facts wrote: > >>+http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"sex" >>and you will find *hundreds* of hits. > >On http://www.filteringfacts.org/filters.htm you say: > >"5) It must be possible for all keyword blocking to be turned off." > >You've done something roughly similar to keyword blocking (keyword searching >w/ implied condemnation). Let's take a closer look at the first few results >returned by the suggested search. Once again, I didn't say that. I get very tired of wasting my time correcting silly distortions of what I say. I did not "condemn" all those, sites, I was merely pointing out how easy it was to find lots of Geo-Porn that way. Try "adults only" instead of "sex", you'll get much better results. The reason I use that methodology is because it includes many non-geocities sites: these are links to porn found, or at one time found, on geocities, further showing just how prevelant the geocities porn is/has been. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:24:44 -0400 From: "Michael Sims" Subject: Re: David Burt as a free speech advocate David Burt wrote: > >Of course, if David were to argue so forcefully on his > >own pages, he would run the risk of being blocked by > >CyberPatrol in one or more of the three sex categories. > >Then adults in the Austin Public Library would be > >protected against his extremely effective and emphatic > >pro-censorship speech. > > I doubt I would be blocked by CP for that, but who knows. The > excerpt from "Gone Fishin" I used was heavily edited with ****s. I > *do* put some links to porn on my site, at > http://www.filteringfacts.org/cpblk.htm, where I give the URLs of > some examples of things that have been claimed blocked. This page > is not blocked. But Dave, you *just* argued that CP was justified in blocking WestHollywood because of links to porn, in your message "More West Hollywood Porn": > Here's some more porn links: > ... > (well, Ok, a couple are just links to porn links, but still..) Stay consistent, here! Either links to porn are justified for blocking, or they aren't. Yahoo certainly needs to stamped out, as one of the largest directories of skin mags extant. How about any search engine, which will produce links to porn sites upon request? What about tertiary links, say I link to Yahoo which links to porn? Do those need to be banned too? > Interestingly, there actually is a case of a pro-filtering site > using porn to make its point. The Library Watch site at > http://netwinds.com/library/ is not blocked by CP. However, the > sub-page containing examples of library porn at > http://netwinds.com/library/mcdl/samples/pictures.htm *IS* blocked. Yes, they availed themselves of CP's "ghetto option", where if you confess to CyberPatrol that you are bad and promise to place all naughty material in one location, they will censor only that and not ban your entire site. In fact David, you prove another interesting fact about CP: The actual block is on: http://netwinds.com/library/mcdl/sam instead of http://netwinds.com/library/mcdl/samples/pictures.htm so that any directory starting with "sam" would be blocked, not just the one page. And this is CP's targeted ghetto option. Of course, since this is a deeply interior page of a site, perhaps Chris Williams ha-s no other directories starting with "sam" off of "/mcdl", but the very fact that you can "opt in to censoring" and still get an overbroad block is enlightening. > The line of argument you seem to be pursuing is "100% consistency". > You make much of a few examples of inconsistency between filtering > criteria and library print collections. That's ground I ceeded a > long time ago. Of course they aren't going to be "100%" consistent. Actually, the consistency is between the First Amendment duties of the library as applied to books and as applied to the internet. You argue they are different, everyone else argues they are the same: libraries may not censor material. -- Michael Sims Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:42:23 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Geocities West Hollywood and the Austin Public Library David Smith wrote: > The fact is that APL is relying solely on the >discretion of Cyber Patrol to determine what can or can not be viewed >on the Internet access terminals. So what? Libraries do this *a lot*. When we bought the Business NewsBank CD-ROM, we relied on NewsBank to decide what business periodicals our patrons would see. I didn't ask them what criteria they used to exclude periodicals, and I don't think too many other librarians would either. Many libraries are now "outsourcing" selection of materials to private companies. In some public libraries, most books are in fact selected by a private company. In a few libraries, *the entire collection* is selected by a private vendor. Hell, in one California PL, the whole library is run by a private company. If the vendor is screwing up too much, like Baker & Taylor was when they were selecting all of Hawaii's books, you do what Hawaii did: you fire them. There is nothing new, unique or sinister going on here. The "letting a private company determine what users see" argument is a red herring. > >In one of our community round table meetings I brought up that Cyber >Patrol was fairly easy to configure once you learned how the program >works, and that perhaps the staff could be trained on how to manually >over-ride the CyberNOT list. While I am still pressing it as an >issue, the objection raised was that the library staff had too many >other responsibilities already and that management was reluctant to >create additional duties. > >While making one change at a central server would certainly be an >easier workload to manage, the APL is citing personnel issues, and not >Austin FreeNet as the reasons why. That's not what someone at APL who I won't name but would be the one to know said. He said APL would have server-based filtering but they couldn't because of the relationship with Austin Freenet. Are you saying this person is a liar? > >In Austin, the librarian can't do jack, except to direct the patron to >fill out a written complaint form. Big whoop, for something that you >say is easily compensated for . They don't really have the time or >training to sit with the patron and suggest alternate searching >strategies for the same information or to manually over-ride the block >on-the-spot. > Like I said, this is because the machines are run by AFN. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:42:07 -0800 From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: Censorware debating points [Piecing together Declan's last two, sandwiched by Jonathan's full post in between.] Declan raises a valid point as one for consideration. The more we post bad blocks on this list, knowing full well that at least some of the vendors are subbed to the list, the more we give them an opportunity to clean up their act (at least partially) before a court challenge ever begins. There are, however, some counterpoints. First, Declan has said, correctly, that f-c activity has helped to educate some journalists, which is a good thing. However, there has been another benefit as well. While I would prefer not to go into details, the list may take comfort in knowing that info gleaned in part from f-c has been used, successfully, to help keep certain libraries from installing censorware in the first instance. As a corollary, there are other libraries out there right now which are on the fence for one reason or another, but which have become much better educated in how to evaluate censorware, rather than just taking the vendor's word or being impressed by the maufacturer's demo. Again, f-c has played a part in this, as has TIFAP, Peacefire, SAFE, some others, and even David Burt. Second, with all the posts to f-c or works written by f-c members, no one has come close to fully exposing all of the "bad" blocks by the various vendors. As I recall, I was the one who turned the discussion back to Cyberpatrol after we spent some time on x-stop, Bob Turner's list and WebChaperone, among others, but I assure Susan Getgood that I know of *many* bad blocks (I haven't counted, but probably in the hundreds) still included in CP which have never been revealed here. To be more specific, David, I do *not* mean just hundreds of "clean" pages caused by the block of, for example, geocities/WestHollywood - I do mean hundreds of separate blocks. And that, btw, is without my having done a comprehensive test of CP, so undoubtedly there are lots more. The same is true for some of the other apps, even though I don't exactly spend all day every day testing them. IMO, it was worth turning the discussion back to CP, because they have released 4.0 since the last time we spent a lot of time with them. You all will recall that certain representations were made about how CP 4.0 would fix some of the problems which Susan admitted were present in 3.x. The exposes of 4.0 made here, let alone other info I have held back, should serve as a reminder that any vendor's claims, in all walks of life, should be taken with a healthy dose of salt. Third, even if a vendor were to completely clean up its list today, the net grows faster than any vendor can. Fourth, remember what happened to x-stop librarian edition after Jonathan's EthSpec piece, which did not come close to revealing all of the problems with the felony load. With the notable exception of AFA, most of x-stop's endorsers, including David Burt, have unendorsed the product. This is not to say, of course, that x-stop is completely dead in the water, but "we" have affected its momentum. Which leads to my *personal* view. It could be counterproductive from a litigation standpoint to post here every single bad block of every product. But there is so much wealth to share that it would not seriously hurt a hypothetical lawsuit to keep the issue in focus to some extent, particularly if tied to something new (a new product, the first installation of a product in a library, etc.), rather than just rehashing the old. Hardly a black and white statement, I know, but as both Declan and Jonathan have recognized, the question is not a simple one. -Jim At 05:35 PM 11/29/97 +0000, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I also concur in part and dissent in part. Here's why: You do not know what >censorware product the first lawsuit will include. Also, multiple lawsuits >may be filed against different libraries with different censorware products. > >Jonathan is correct to say that that by the time of trial sites listed in >the complaint, declarations, etc. may be unblocked. But far better, I'd >imagine, to have very many good examples to cite in the beginning than very >few. > At 04:13 PM 11/29/97 +0000, Jonathan Wallace wrote: >I concur in part and dissent in part. > >You are underlining a real risk; we've already seen Cyberpatrol > unblock many of the sites called to its attention. > >However, the first censorware case will involve one product. If we >keep entirely quiet about the blocking practices of other products, we >may inadvertently support a public impression that they are better >than the one under attack. > >In constitutional law, there is a doctrine called something like >"capable of repetition, yet evading review." I am sure Jim can >discuss it more exhaustively, but I suspect it would apply >to censorware litigation as follows. > >Postulate a lawsuit against a library using >CyberPatrol (actually, CyberPatrol is not likely to be >involved in the first censorware lawsuit, but it makes >a good example, because the facts are familiar.) >If Cyberpatrol is >constantly unblocking sites like EFF, MIT SAFE, and Sex, >Laws and Cyberspace, but its surfers are constantly making >new mistakes and adding protected, valuable sites to >CyberNot, the court will judge constitutionality not solely >based on what is blocked at the moment of trial. Inevitably, >by the time lawyers are arguing in a courtroom, CyberPatrol >would likely have unblocked many of the sites listed as >plaintiffs or referenced in the pleadings. Instead, the >judge should judge what has been blocked in the past, >what is currently blocked and the likelihood that protected >speech will continue to be added to CyberNot. > >Jim, I hope I'm close enough on this one that you don't >hand me my head on a platter. :{) > > > >Declan McCullagh wrote: >> >> Jim makes good points. I would add one. >> >> >> For the last year and a half, roughly, a very large portion of the traffic >> on f-c has been devoted to exposing censorware's follies. Blocking now.org, >> eff.org, heritage.org, dejanews.com, and so on. >> >> These posts have had an effect. Net-savvy reporters now know of the perils >> of such programs. But the secondary effect is that the censorware vendors, >> embarrassed, unblock the sites. >> >> Which is why free speech advocates may want to stop this practice. As court >> challenges to censorware in libraries are being readied, it may very well >>- be in the plaintiffs' best interests to be able to show judges that such >> software blocks an incredibly broad selection of innocuous material. >> >> So send your complaints to the lawyers (email me if you care), not the >> censorware vendors! >> >> -Declan > >-- > >----------------------------------------------- >Jonathan Wallace >The Ethical Spectacle https://www.spectacle.org >Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace https://www.spectacle.org/freespch/ > >"We must be the change we wish to see in the world."--Gandhi > Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:59:47 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: David Burt as a free speech advocate Michael Sims wrote: > >But Dave, you *just* argued that CP was justified in blocking >WestHollywood because of links to porn, in your message "More West >Hollywood Porn": > >> Here's some more porn links: >> ... >> (well, Ok, a couple are just links to porn links, but still..) Once again, I didn't say that. I was merely pointing out that this is supporting evidence. That's why I *mentioned* that they were only links in the first place! Obviously, "porn liks" covers a lot of ground, from one or two "incidentals" to "Dirty Dave's 500 smuttiest porn links!" >> The line of argument you seem to be pursuing is "100% consistency". >> You make much of a few examples of inconsistency between filtering >> criteria and library print collections. That's ground I ceeded a >> long time ago. Of course they aren't going to be "100%" consistent. > >Actually, the consistency is between the First Amendment duties of >the library as applied to books and as applied to the internet. You >argue they are different, everyone else argues they are the same: >libraries may not censor material. > But that's NOT the argument he was making! He was arguing that it was philosophically inconsistent. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:10:34 GMT From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) Subject: Re: Fair is Fair, Jonathan On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:24:30 -0800 (PST), Filtering Facts wrote: >Paul Spirito wrote: >>On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:58:08 -0800 (PST), Filtering Facts wrote: >> >>>+http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"sex" >>>and you will find *hundreds* of hits. >> >>On http://www.filteringfacts.org/filters.htm you say: >> >>"5) It must be possible for all keyword blocking to be turned off." >> >>You've done something roughly similar to keyword blocking (keyword searching >>w/ implied condemnation). Let's take a closer look at the first few results >>returned by the suggested search. > >Once again, I didn't say that. I get very tired of wasting my time >correcting silly distortions of what I say. I did not "condemn" all those, >sites, I was merely pointing out how easy it was to find lots of Geo-Porn >that way. Try "adults only" instead of "sex", you'll get much better >results. The reason I use that methodology is because it includes many >non-geocities sites: these are links to porn found, or at one time found, on >geocities, further showing just how prevelant the geocities porn is/has been. Let's review. Jonathan wrote: "In other words, it seems you are willing to create a speech ghetto because of one nasty graphic." You wrote: "Not for one link, no. But go to AltaVista and type in +http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"adults only" or +http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"sex" and you will find *hundreds* of hits." Challenge: Aside from the lack of clarity in your post, did you verify that the documents returned by those searches do in fact link to hundreds of lascivious pages in WestHollywood? Suggestion: If you'd spend a little time doing research worth a damn, maybe you wouldn't have to waste so much time backtracking later. Have you officially condemned the block of WestHollywood yet? Here's a research project for you (You're the head of "Filtering Facts", are you not? What does the name mean? Do you discover & publicize facts, or merely filter out inconvenient ones? Are you clever enough to invent such a double-entendre?): do a random (random! not +sex) survey of the proper list, that returned by url:www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ & determine the percentage of Full Nude, Part Nude, Sex Acts sites. As in the Bible, will ten innocent ones save this Sodom from the wrath of Burt? Paul http://www.nihidyll.com/gallery/Ishtar.png Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:07:29 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: gay speech in particular Jonathan Wallace writes: >>If blocking West Hollywood is, in your opinion, justified >>in the case that Geocities does not apply its own rules, >>why restrict the block to the gay area of Geocities? Why not >>block the whole Geocities site? There wouldn't be something >>about gay speech in particular, would there? David Burt responds: >Not for one link, no. But go to AltaVista and type in >+http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"adults only" >or >+http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"sex" >and you will find *hundreds* of hits. I didn't even bother doing the search on "sex." The West Hollywood area is devoted to people who want to put up home pages about homoSEXuality, SEXual discrimination, biSEXual communities, and so on. The question is not whether people write the word "sex." But, David, I did do the search you suggested for "adults only." There are, indeed, *hundreds* of pages which match the search you gave. It gave 264 hits. That's a fair amount. However, the search you gave is _wrong_. It finds any webpage which has the words "http," "www," "geocities," "com," "WestHollywood," and the phrase "adults only." (I think that's how AltaVista interprets it, anyway. It's hard to tell.) What you want is this search instead: +url:http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"adults only" ^^^^ How many "*hundreds*" of pages does that search find? Er, it doesn't. It matches eight pages. So what "adults only" content do they have? One is a guestbook that asks: "Where did you find out about my page? * The GeoCities index [...] * An adults-only Web page" One contains _links_ to "Adults Only - BDSM and Other Sex Sites." Apparently no actual adults-only material on this user's site. One is a "Gay Links" page, again with apparently no adults-only material on the user's page. It warns: "If you not 18+ then you don't go to below links." For our purposes, the emphasis is on the word "links." One is a gay fellow who summarizes his life story ("It was the longest period my mother was ever quiet, simply saying we should not tell my father"). And when he describes the type of man that attracts him, he is careful to note that he doesn't go for underage men. That's what gets him in trouble with David Burt, because he uses the two forbidden words: "I find short males as attractive as tall ones, thin as well as nicely padded large daddy bears, young and eager 'boys' (adults only)..." Three of Alta Vista's matches are "Oops! We couldn't find that file." One of those can be tracked back to its homepage, of a transgendered individual, who has a link to a gallery of hers. Snapshots of her sitting around her apartment. With clothes on. . That leaves precisely one site which legitimately warns for adults only, . It's a site by an Estonian guy who goes by "Stranger." He wants to get his nipple pierced someday and has a link to a "Strange Gallery": . That link is broken. His "adults only" gallery -- if in fact it is the alleged gallery which merited the "adults only" warning on his page -- does not exist. AltaVista lists fifty-two thousand webpages on the WestHollywood site. ("About 52050" it says.) Using your search, we find zero which need to be blocked. Zero! David, please tell me that your faith in porn-finding via search engines is at least a little bit shaken. Just a little. You put so much into finding smut and porn and filth by sheer URL-count, when you need to take a very close look at exactly what's being counted. The fact that you offered the search-suggestions that you did tells me that you don't even look at the screen very carefully. For your suggestion: +http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"adults only" none of the results returned on the first page are for GeoCities. You obviously didn't even look at the results -- but I'm sure you were happy to see the number 264, your totally irrelevant smut-count. >Here's some more porn links: >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4266/ "Neil's Gallery." A dozen pictures, all the links to which are broken. No porn here. >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/8332/index.html A guy who likes leather. GIFs of shirtless men and an iconic outline of a penis. Pictures of men without a lot of clothes, but not a single penis anywhere. "There is more to these photos, but had to crop to keep it 'CLEAN'". No porn here. >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6378/Walter.htm This one appears to have a real, genuine, penis-visible photo gallery. >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5686/geldingp.html The fellow mentioned above, who summarized his life story. No porn here. Obviously you're not even looking at these pages. All you had to do was click on this link and do a search on "adults only" to find that this person is not warning people away, but just telling what kind of man he likes. I repeat: "I find short males as attractive as tall ones, thin as well as nicely padded large daddy bears, young and eager 'boys' (adults only)..." >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/6405/ The Estonian guy mentioned above, w-ith the broken gallery. No porn here. >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9690/Ref.html "Oops! We couldn't find that file." No porn here. >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5859/links.HTM Links, nothing but. No porn here. >(well, Ok, a couple are just links to porn links, but still..) Please don't tell us that you're justifying blocking fifty thousand personal webpages because there are "a couple" that don't have porn of their own but rather "links to porn links." So far you've found _one_ site on WestHollywood with sexual pictures. One. CyberPatrol blocks fifty thousand West Hollywood pages. >Now, if as someone suggested they were making a "good faith" effort to >clean up the porn, I'll admit CP might be wrong in this case. Please do! Please tell us that CyberPatrol's blocking West Hollywood is wrong. I'd love to hear you say that it's overbroad for them to block FIFTY THOUSAND webpages because of one person's pages. Maybe then you'd retract your statement that "There is no compelling evidence that the number of bad blocks by any of the five recommended filters is significant." Fifty thousand bad blocks are pretty significant, aren't they David? Unless you have a thing against gay sites, of course. In fact, if we go by this "adults only" search pattern, we find 8 pages on WestHollywood out of 52,050 total. But, using these search patterns: +url:http://www.geocities.com/ +"adults only" +url:http://www.geocities.com/ we find 198 matches on GeoCities as a whole, out of 2,482,386. That's 0.0154% in the WestHollywood neighborhood, compared to 0.0342% in GeoCities as a whole. Or, if we substitute your other term "sex," instead of "adults only," we find 127,339 hits on GeoCities as a whole and 1916 on WestHollywood (first page listed: "STD's and Safer Sex"). Again, it's GeoCities as a whole that wins the smuttiness race, with 11.1% as opposed to 3.68%. I don't trust these numbers worth a damn, since Alta Vista is rather bad at giving counts. But that's kind of the point. David Burt's justification for every improper block Cyber Patrol makes, is to hit Alta Vista and do very cursory searches for smut -- without even looking at the pages they point to. So, if that's his rationalization method, we come back to Jonathan's original question: >>why restrict the block to the gay area of Geocities? Why not >>block the whole Geocities site? There wouldn't be something >>about gay speech in particular, would there? -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:11:23 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: gay speech in particular Jamie McCarthy wrote: > >But, David, I did do the search you suggested for "adults only." There >are, indeed, *hundreds* of pages which match the search you gave. It >gave 264 hits. That's a fair amount. > >However, the search you gave is _wrong_. It finds any webpage which has >the words "http," "www," "geocities," "com," "WestHollywood," and the >phrase "adults only." (I think that's how AltaVista interprets it, >anyway. It's hard to tell.) What you want is this search instead: > > +url:http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"adults only" > ^^^^ > >How many "*hundreds*" of pages does that search find? > >Er, it doesn't. It matches eight pages. No, the search is not "wrong", it was deliberately done that way. Why? Because it calls up *links* to WestHollywood Sites. This is important corroborating evidence for the argument that this site is/has been riddled with porn. Eg: 1. Gay Place: Gay Home Pages For Adults Only nbsp; GAY HOME PAGES: FOR ADULTS ONLY. Some of these sites may employ age verification system, i.e., "AdultCheck." There is usually a fee to obtain http://gayplace.com/pages/web_announce/restricted/ - size 10K - 21-Aug-97 Contains a link to: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/3029 (no longer exists) 2. FAO (for adults only) FAO - For Adults Only. This page contains links to sites that may contain adult-oriented and/or sexually explicit material. If you are offended by such... http://www.tuakk.fi/kurssit/kuas/oppilaat/o_jose/FAO.HTM - size 31K - 30-May-96 - English Contains a link to: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/1089/ 3. Xwar's Adult List2 Adult, Links, Big http://www.pitt.edu/~azkst/adult-links2.html - size 44K - 21-May-97 - English Contains a link to "Hard Sex" http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/1908/ (no longer there) And that's just the first three examples! What's clear here is that there has been *a lot* of porn on this site. It *does* appear that Geocities is cleaning it up, so I would agree that if they continue to do this, CP should re-review them. But it does appear that Geo has not practiced good content management. >That leaves precisely one site which legitimately warns for adults only, >. > That's a very creative method of counting "adult sites", Dave. Obviously most people would count some of the others as adult too. But who wants to waste anymore time doing that? I didn't even bother to check out all the ones I could have, since there is no need. I have a lot better things to do than count the nubmer of porn sites, debate which are "hard" and which are "soft", whether or not links count or how many links there have to be for it to "count", or how long the links have been there, etc, etc. Look, drop the WestHollywood argument, trust me, it's a loser, Dave. Do you really think a library board or a city council cares about this kind of minutia? All I would have to do is produce a few of the examples I so easily produced, and it would be neutralized. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 21:10:54 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: Re: gay speech in particular David Burt writes: >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/3029 (no longer exists) >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/1089/ >"Hard Sex" http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/1908/ (no longer there) >And that's just the first three examples! Um, you just found three examples of porn which IS NOT ON West Hollywood. (The second link contains no sexually explicit material.) Should we be impressed? >What's clear here is that there has been *a lot* of porn on this site. ^^^^^^^^ Has been. What's clear here is that you have a mammoth double-standard. Whenever a censorware vendor screws up and blocks something stupid, you forgive them _immediately_ upon their correcting the error. No matter how many times this is repeated, you continue to forgive them as quickly as the errors are found and corrected. Indeed, when anyone suggests that these products might not be all that great because so many mistakes have been turned up, you consistently argue that the mistakes _don't_count_ because they have been corrected. Here is how you forgive Cyber Patrol for blocking inappropriate sites: * The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think-tank: "Thi was briefly blocked by mistake." * A pagan page: "...these sites were unblocked." * The Jewish Bulletin: "...it has been unblocked." * A Massachussetts soccer league: "...briefly blocked by mistake." * An MIT free speech site: "Currently, this site is not blocked..." And so on, and so on. I won't list all the previously blocked sites you don't even bother to comment on but simply note that they are "Not Blocked" (anymore). And, you dismiss complaints by noting that they are simply too old for you to pay attention to: "The lists are also very out of date: 'CyberPatrol's list is dated February 24, 1997...'" You will forgive Cyber Patrol any number of mistakes, as long as they eventually fix up the more egregious ones (like the Electronic Frontier Foundation or the AOL Sucks site). As soon as the mistakes are removed, they're erased from their record as far as you're concerned. Yet you haven't produced even a handful of porn on WestHollywood. One page with two sex gifs (since removed), and one site that has a dozen dirty pictures (not removed...yet). All the rest of the smut that you have found is pages that are _gone_. Missing. In the past. It appears that GeoCities has done a damn good job of locating and removing their mistakes before you've even found them. Yet, because GeoCities has located and removed ALL BUT ONE of the sites which you have described, you say that: >it does appear that Geo has not practiced good content management. ^^^ "Not"!? This boggles the mind. You've managed to find ONE site with sexually explicit pictures, out of fifty thousand pages, and you say that the company doesn't have a very good record. Astounding. If you counted past errors as sufficient to damn a company, there wouldn't be a single censorware product you could hang your hat on. Every one of them is nowhere near as good at implementing its stated policies as GeoCities has apparently been. >Look, drop the WestHollywood argument, trust me, it's a loser, Dave. My name's Jamie. >Do you really think a library board or a city council cares about this >kind of minutia? All I would have to do is produce a few of the examples >I so easily produced, and it would be neutralized. I'm sorry -- what was it you were going to show the library board? Was it the many examples of NON-PORN you found? Or the examples of porn that USED to be there, but is now gone? Heck, if you want to play that way, fine by me. You drag out the links that used t-o be there (but aren't anymore), and I'll drag out the blocks of yesteryear. Do you think your library board will approve a product that would block the EFF? the National Organization for Women? Nizkor? a slang site? an abortion site? a conspiracy-theory site? Whichever way you want to play it is fine by me. Just be consistent. Either you're living in the past or you're not. In either case, I think that any court that knows its way around the First Amendment would recognize that you can't block over FIFTY THOUSAND webpages in order to stamp out your non-porn that isn't there anymore. -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:17:19 +0000 From: "David Smith" Subject: Updated info : Cyber Patrol in Austin Public Library just an fyi, I have updated my web pages concerning the installation of Cyber Patrol in the Austin Public Libraries. Who Watches The Watchmen : http://www.realtime.net/~bladex/apl.htm Recent additions since October include : * a summary report of the research conducted by APL into the use of filtering software, the problems involved, and alternate solutions that other libraries are using around the country; * a pilot program to temporarily remove the filters from four terminals during January and February; * the appeal of my Open Records Act request for a City of Austin Legal Department's memo which allegedly outlines their position on the use of filtering software in public libraries; * additional legal opinions on the installation of filtering software in public libraries, including the City of Coppell, TX; * media coverage of Austin Public Library. I am most interested, at this time, in feedback and evaluation of the pilot program. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. David Smith david_smith@unforgettable.com http://www.realtime.net/~bladex File under : Internet activist Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:26:48 GMT From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) Subject: Re: Geocities West Hollywood and the Austin Public Library On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:42:23 -0800 (PST), Filtering Facts wrote: >> >The fact is that APL is relying solely on the >>discretion of Cyber Patrol to determine what can or can not be viewed >>on the Internet access terminals. > >So what? Libraries do this *a lot*. When we bought the Business NewsBank >CD-ROM, we relied on NewsBank to decide what business periodicals our >patrons would see. I didn't ask them what criteria they used to exclude >periodicals, and I don't think too many other librarians would either. Yes, & when a library purchases a book by Thomas Pynchon, they rely on him to decide which words go on what page, & in what order. If a library hired Susan Getgood to take a scissors to their Pynchon collection, that would be quite a different matter. Once you purchase an internet connection (certainly *not* mandated constitutionally) your patrons have access to all materials unless you spend additional time & funds to prevent that access. The difference between "acquisitions policy" and "censorship" seems pretty bloody clear to me. Earlier, Burt wrote: >Do you really think a library board or a city council cares about this kind >of minutia? All I would have to do is produce a few of the examples I so >easily produced, and it would be neutralized. I don't know about library boards, but I'll bet you're right city councils. Hell, they're just the Congress writ small. That's why we have a Bill of Rights. And I think you'll find that real courts (as opposed to the kangaroo kind you and your EIE & FFL friends favor), *do* care about such minutiae as burning down a village of 26,964* sites in order to roast an absent pig -- or even a few live ones. No, blocking the sites does not remove them from the web -- neither does banning Pynchon in Boise unpublish him in New York. A library may be the only point of access for poor people in the community, & I expect the courts to look askance at such bludgeoning attempts at governance. My wish is to see you on the stand. You are eager to testify -- as an expert in the subject -- aren't you? Paul *Users' directories in WestHollywood have one of the following forms (see http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ & http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/blocks.html): http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/abcd/ http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/abcd/ http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Village/abcd/ where a is an integer from 1-9, and b,c,d are integers from 0-9. There are few vacancies (http://www.geocities.com/cgi-bin/homestead/new_join?hood=WestHollywood), only 36 in WestHollywood & "suburbs". This gives a total of 26,964 sites. http://www.nihidyll.com/gallery/Ishtar.png Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:55:18 +0000 From: "David Smith" Subject: Re: Geocities West Hollywood and the Austin Public Library > Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:42:23 -0800 (PST) > From: Filtering Facts > Subject: Re: Geocities West Hollywood and the Austin Public Library > > David Smith wrote: > > > > The fact is that APL is relying solely on the > >discretion of Cyber Patrol to determine what can or can not be viewed > >on the Internet access terminals. > > So what? I wasn't heading for the out-sourcing issue, but rather the "so what" is the issue of accountability and who really is in charge of what can or can not be seen at a library Internet access terminal. I say that the bottom line responsibility lies with the library, not the software vendor, and that the APL needs to develop a system that allows them to manually over-ride blocks. I don't understand why you are jumping on me for this argument. Do you disagree that a public library needs a system to over-ride blocks? If you don't like what and how a vendor blocks, fire them, and install a new software package? What's your beef? > > > >In one of our community round table meetings I brought up that Cyber > >Patrol was fairly easy to configure once you learned how the program > >works, and that perhaps the staff could be trained on how to manually > >over-ride the CyberNOT list. While I am still pressing it as an > >issue, the objection raised was that the library staff had too many > >other responsibilities already and that management was reluctant to > >create additional duties. > > > >While making one change at a central server would certainly be an > >easier workload to manage, the APL is citing personnel issues, and not > >Austin FreeNet as the reasons why. > > That's not what someone at APL who I won't name but would be the one to know > said. He said APL would have server-based filtering but they couldn't because > of the relationship with Austin Freenet. Are you saying this person is a liar? Frank Bridges has always been honest and straightforward in his dealings with me. I have no reason to doubt his integrity. At the 10-2 and the 10-23 community round table meetings that I attended the issue of installing a central server was brought up. Both times APL staff (Brenda Branch and Frank Bridges) said they were not going to do an end-run around Austin Free Net and damage their relationship by doing so. When I followed up this statement with a question, what about training the library staff members on how to unblock a site on the spot, this is when they raised the objection about the already overburdened workload of their staff members. David Smith david_smith@unforgettable.com http://www.realtime.net/~bladex File under : Internet activist Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 19:07:23 -0800 From: Jonathan Wallace Subject: Re: Fair is Fair, Jonathan At this point, I think your message, appended below, has been adequately answered by other people on most points, but I wanted to zoom in on the following: "You may not worry about your child seeing that in a public library, but that's your vaules. What gives you the right to impose your values of free speech absolutism on an entire community?" This is a remarkable and entertaining debating tactic used by the small-f fundamentalists. The First Amendment imposes certain values, which you tar as "absolutist", on any publicly funded entity, including the library. Your community lacks the right to determine that only Christian texts, or Republican ones, are stocked in the public library. When anyone steps forward and says, "Lets have a diversity of books in the library" (a comment that should be so self-evident that it need not be made), someone is sure to respond: "What gives you the right to impose your values of free speech absolutism on an entire community?" But when the speaker imposes his own values on the library, that's not absolutism? You're a funny guy. Note I have now answered the question you accuse me of ducking. Filtering Facts wrote: > > Jonathan Wallace wrote: > > >In other words, it seems you are willing to create a speech > >ghetto because of one nasty graphic. > > > >If blocking West Hollywood is, in your opinion, justified > >in the case that Geocities does not apply its own rules, > >why restrict the block to the gay area of Geocities? Why not > >block the whole Geocities site? There wouldn't be something > >about gay speech in particular, would there? > > Not for one link, no. But go to AltaVista and type in > +http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"adults only" > or > +http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ +"sex" > and you will find *hundreds* of hits. > > It's clear this isn't an isolated case. If WestHollywood didn't advertise > that they were a "clean site", I would say the burden should be more on CP. > It's the fact that WestHollywood says they are clean when they in fact are not. > > Now, if as someone suggested they were making a "go-od faith" effort to clean > up the porn, I'll admit CP might be wrong in this case. But I'd also have > to look into on average, *how long* does it take for them to "fix their > mistakes". Let's wait and see if the rest of the porn is cleaned up or not. > > >" 1) Would you allow your child to look at that picture of the man > >defecating on a woman's face? http://209.94.7.44/samp-2.html" > > > > > >So I also wouldn't have been particularly worried about > >him seeking out that particular picture, and I certainly > >don't need to see censorware installed in the library > >to protect him or me. > > Well a lot of people would be "particulary worried" about their child > seeking that out. That is why there are "harmful to minors" laws, why > certain types of content are not broadcast during certain hours, why adult > bookstores don't admit minors, why adult entertainment can be zoned by > communities, and why vending machines aren't allowed to carry porn in > California. > > You may not worry about your child seeing that in a public library, but > that's your vaules. What gives you the right to impose your values of free > speech absolutism on an entire community? > > Look, if a community doesn't have adult bookstores, doesn't sell skin mags > at the 7-11, doesn't have topless bars, why should they be *forced* to > accept pornography in the public library, at taxpayer expense, no less? > > > > >"2) If a filter only blocked porn sites (let's for the sake of argument > > define that as sites selling adult entertainment that had "Adults Only" > > warnings), AND the list was published, would this be acceptable in a > >public library: > >> "a) For minors > >> "b) For Adults" > > > > > >When we have shown so emphatically right here on this list > >that all censorware is created through an extremely flawed > >process, and that no better process is possible, questions > >about perfect solutions have no reality to them. > > > > You're still not going to answer the question! > > The question is important because it is really the core of the entire question: > Are communities obligated to offer pornography in their public libraries > when they don't want? > > By insisting on phrasing your response in terms of the fact that the filters > don't work, you are really ducking that question, and thus really refusing > to address the core issue. > > Oh, and BTW, I'll answer everyone of your hypos: > > >"Would you still be opposed to the torture of suspects > >by the police if they tortured only the guilty?" > > Nope. I suppose you could make an exception under the "ticking bomb" > senario if you were conviced enough lives really depended on it, but that > situation would be extremely rare. > > > > >"Would you still defend strong crypto if the government > >read only the email of criminals?" > > I defend the right of the government to snoop when they have the proper > warrent, yes. > > > > >"Would you be in favor of the death penalty if we only > >executed the most egregious murderers?" > >(https://www.spectacle.org/1297/death.html) > > What's so hypo about that? This is what my state does. No, I'm opposed to > the death penalty entirely. Although, I suppose a convincing case can be > made for executing terrorists since it has been shown that keeping > terrorists in prison often leads to further acts of terrorism to free them. > > ***************************************************************************** > David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG > David_Burt@filteringfacts.org -- ----------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wallace The Ethical Spectacle https://www.spectacle.org Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace https://www.spectacle.org/freespch/ "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."--Gandhi Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 17:00:09 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Geocities West Hollywood and the Austin Public Library David Smith wrote > >I wasn't heading for the out-sourcing issue, but rather the "so what" >is the issue of accountability and who really is in charge of what can >or can not be seen at a library Internet access terminal. > >I say that the bottom line responsibility lies with the library, not >the software vendor, and that the APL needs to develop a system that >allows them to manually over-ride blocks. > >I don't understand why you are jumping on me for this argument. Do you >disagree that a public library needs a system to over-ride blocks? If >you don't like what and how a vendor blocks, fire them, and install a >new software package? What's your beef? > You're right, I am needlessly jumping on you. Sorry, I guess I'm just in ultra-defensive mode right now. My apologies. I'm glad you have some respect for Frank Bridge. He certainly is highly respected in our profession, both as a person and as a library sys admin, and by librarians on both sides of the filtering issue. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:47:09 +0100 From: "Charles Arthur, The Independent" Subject: Return of the Disinterested Observer (was: Re: Fair is Fair, Jonathan) David Burt wrote: >Decided to pull "you can't define pornography" out of the cliche attic, eh? >I think it's pretty clear that there is a body of work that is: a) sexually >explict, b) the primary purpose of which is to titilate, and c) lacks any >other serious value. I think almost everyone would agree that they can >identify such material, such as pictoral essays with titles like "Anal >babes >gang bang", "Wide open sorority sluts", "Girls who like it up the butt", >"Guys with huge meat", etc. Have to say at this point that (as we say prosaically in Britain) that David Burt is getting pissed on in the ongoing argument. Jonathan Wallace has answered the two questions set by DB, who hasn't replied in kind; the Geocities/WHollywood case has been very persuasively made, not in DB's favour. And now this. I'd have to disagree with (c). There is a really serious value in these works, which is that it shows the existing market in the US right now for porn - and therefore has a valuable role in showing just where a whole chumpful of society is going. I quoted the Guardian piece recently (putting the US porno industry, including films, books, and bits at $8 bn annually). That piece suggested that camcorders have let the porn film market explode. I think it's really very interesting; and it would be worthy of examination to understand why people are taking the chance to put weird pics of themselves on the Net where tens, hundreds, millions of others can see them. Why? Make a fascinating PhD. 'Course, you couldn't research it in David's library. Charles -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Independent newspaper on the Web: http://www.independent.co.uk/ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:44:00 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Return of the Disinterested Observer (was: Re: Fair is Fair, Jonathan) Charles Arthur wrote: > >Have to say at this point that (as we say prosaically in Britain) that >David Burt is getting pissed on in the ongoing argument. Jonathan Wallace >has answered the two questions set by DB, who hasn't replied in kind; the >Geocities/WHollywood case has been very persuasively made, not in DB's >favour. What have you been putting in your tea, old chap? I answered his, he didn't answer mine. > >And now this. I'd have to disagree with (c). There is a really serious >value in these works, which is that it shows the existing market in the US >right now for porn - and therefore has a valuable role in showing just >where a whole chumpful of society is going. > I quoted the Guardian piece recently (putting the US porno >industry, including films, books, and bits at $8 bn annually). That piece >suggested that camcorders have let the porn film market explode. I think >it's really very interesting; and it would be worthy of examination to >understand why people are taking the chance to put weird pics of themselves >on the Net where tens, hundreds, millions of others can see them. Why? Make >a fascinating PhD. > 'Course, you couldn't research it in David's library. > Yes, you could argue that sexual titilation is "serious value" to somebody. That's not an argument to many people would find compelling, though. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:13:32 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN David Burt identified some allegedly sexually explicit material on GeoCities, in the WestHollywood area: >Here's some more porn links: >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4266/ >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/8332/index.html >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6378/Walter.htm >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5686/geldingp.html >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/6405/ >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9690/Ref.html >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5859/links.HTM >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4033/nasty.html Two days ago, I pointed out that David had been unable to find _any_ porn pages except one. None of the URLs he gave led to sexually explicit material, except for this ONE page: >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6378/Walter.htm And now I would like to point out that this link is no longer valid. As this last URL falls, so does David's argument that there is sexually explicit material on the West Hollywood site. We don't need to argue over whether there's a lot or just a little. There is-n't ANY. (That he's found.) David, do you still defend Cyber Patrol for blocking those fifty thousand pages, even though you cannot identify even ONE page which deserves to be blocked? Note that I'm playing by David's own rules. Under those rules, a vendor is immediately forgiven for all previous mistakes as soon as they are corrected. No matter if they be flagrantly in contrast with the company's own public statements. No matter how long those mistakes were in effect. No matter whether a pattern of mistakes can be detected. Any mistake which has been corrected is whitewashed completely clean. I've elaborated on this in the last few days, but in a nutshell, consider Cyber Patrol's blocking of the Heritage Foundation, a totally inappropriate block which, according to Declan, persisted for eight months. On his page which explains that anti-filterers are all untrustworthy flibbertigibbits he waves away the eight-month-long error with this one sentence: "This site was briefly blocked by mistake." It is only fair, of course, to give GeoCities the same allowance that Microsystems Software gets. To demonstrate this, I will counter David's claims, mimicking the way he countered anti-filterers': I have carefully examined many of the more sensational claims about what GeoCities offers in the West Hollywood area, and found that almost without exception these claims have three things in common: 1) The claim is made by someone with a strong bias against the West Hollywood area. 2) The evidence is derived under uncontrolled, unscientific conditions. 3) The claim cannot be independently verified. There are a few isolated cases of sexual pages being mistakenly allowed into GeoCities. Considering that GeoCities is responsible for hundreds of thousands of webpages, occasional errors are almost inevitable. But the GeoCities management has proven very responsive to removing these sexually explicit sites when they occur, and there is no evidence that the number of such sites is large. 1. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4033/nasty.html Not Porn 2. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4266/ Not Porn 3. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/8332/index.html Not Porn 4. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6378/Walter.htm This page was briefly porn by mistake. 5. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5686/geldingp.html Not Porn 6. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/6405/ Not Porn 7. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9690/Ref.html Not Porn 8. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5859/links.HTM Not Porn The not-so-subtle implication of this sort of biased writing is that the person making the original claims must have been crazy or a baldfaced liar to proffer so many mistakes. Since David has refused to respond to people who call him a liar, let me not say that. Let me instead say that I am making exactly the same implication that he is making about Declan McCullagh, TIFAP, Peacefire, and SAFE on and its subpages. Take that as you will. I'm doing this to try to make a point about what I feel is misleading writing on David Burt's part; I'm also trying to make the point that GeoCities is a lot more responsible for cleaning up its mistakes than CyberPatrol has been (response time of hours instead of months). But my main point is that David's "rule" whereby a company is immediately forgiven as soon as it corrects a mistake, is ridiculous. Especially if a long-term pattern of flagrant and inexplicable violations of the company's own stated guidelines is demonstrated. -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:56:38 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN Jamie, I think you have too much time on your hands. Jamie McCarty wrote: >David Burt identified some allegedly sexually explicit material on >GeoCities, in the WestHollywood area: > >>Here's some more porn links: >>http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4266/ >>http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/8332/index.html >>http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6378/Walter.htm >>http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5686/geldingp.html >>http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/6405/ >>http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9690/Ref.html >>http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5859/links.HTM > >>http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4033/nasty.html > >Two days ago, I pointed out that David had been unable to find _any_ >porn pages except one. None of the URLs he gave led to sexually >explicit material, except for this ONE page: > >>http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6378/Walter.htm > >And now I would like to point out that this link is no longer valid. > >As this last URL falls, so does David's argument that there is sexually >explicit material on the West Hollywood site. We don't need to argue >over whether there's a lot or just a little. There isn't ANY. (That >he's found.) > >David, do you still defend Cyber Patrol for blocking those fifty thousand >pages, even though you cannot identify even ONE page which deserves to be >blocked? > > >Note that I'm playing by David's own rules. Under those rules, a vendor >is immediately forgiven for all previous mistakes as soon as they are >corrected. No matter if they be flagrantly in contrast with the >company's own public statements. No matter how long those mistakes were >in effect. No matter whether a pattern of mistakes can be detected. >Any mistake which has been corrected is whitewashed completely clean. > >I've elaborated on this in the last few days, but in a nutshell, consider >Cyber Patrol's blocking of the Heritage Foundation, a totally >inappropriate block which, according to Declan, persisted for eight >months. On his page which explains that anti-filterers are all >untrustworthy flibbertigibbits >he waves away the eight-month-long error with this one sentence: > > "This site was briefly blocked by mistake." > >It is only fair, of course, to give GeoCities the same allowance that >Microsystems Software gets. To demonstrate this, I will counter >David's claims, mimicking the way he countered anti-filterers': > > I have carefully examined many of the more sensational claims about > what GeoCities offers in the West Hollywood area, and found that > almost without exception these claims have three things in common: > > 1) The claim is made by someone with a strong bias against > the West Hollywood area. > 2) The evidence is derived under uncontrolled, unscientific > conditions. > 3) The claim cannot be independently verified. > > There are a few isolated cases of sexual pages being mistakenly > allowed into GeoCities. Considering that GeoCities is responsible > for hundreds of thousands of webpages, occasional errors are almost > inevitable. But the GeoCities management has proven very responsive > to removing these sexually explicit sites when they occur, and there > is no evidence that the number of such sites is large. > > 1. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4033/nasty.html > Not Porn > > 2. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4266/ > Not Porn > > 3. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/8332/index.html > Not Porn > > 4. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6378/Walter.htm > This page was briefly porn by mistake. > > 5. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5686/geldingp.html > Not Porn > > 6. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/6405/ > Not Porn > > 7. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9690/Ref.html > Not Porn > > 8. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5859/links.HTM > Not Porn > >The not-so-subtle implication of this sort of biased writing is that >the person making the original claims must have been crazy or a >baldfaced liar to proffer so many mistakes. > >Since David has refused to respond to people who call him a liar, let >me not say that. Let me instead say that I am making exactly the same >implication that he is making about Declan McCullagh, TIFAP, Peacefire, >and SAFE on and its >subpages. Take that as you will. > > >I'm doing this to try to make a point about what I feel is misleading >writing on David Burt's part; I'm also trying to make the point that >GeoCities is a lot more responsible for cleaning up its mistakes than >CyberPatrol has been (response time of hours instead of months). > >But my main point is that David's "rule" whereby a company is >immediately forgiven as soon as it corrects a mistake, is ridiculous. >Especially if a long-term pattern of flagrant and inexplicable >violations of the company's own stated guidelines is demonstrated. > >-- > Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org > http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ > > > > > ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:15:47 -0400 From: "Michael Sims" Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN David Burt wrote: > Jamie, I think you have too much time on your hands. I'm sure he doesn't. It's a shame that people must take the time to expose a whole series of Burt lies, while you can simply spout some more, but I'm certain if left unexposed, some people might believe some of the things you say, and that's just not right. If this is the best defense you can offer for your previous PORN assertions on Geocities, why do you bother to make them in the firt place? Isn't it obvious that your lies will be promptly and ruthlessly exposed? -- Michael Sims Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 18:42:53 -0500 From: Jim Ray Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:15 AM 12/2/97 -0400, Michael Sims wrote: >David Burt wrote: > >> Jamie, I think you have too much time on your hands. > >I'm sure he doesn't. ... I agree with Michael (and Jamie, and this *doesn't* happen too often). I'd also note that Burt's is an evasive non-answer if I ever saw one. Jamie spent some time, sure, in countering your prevarication, but the time was well spent IMO if "filtering facts" was reduced to that kind of response. We're used to REAL flamewars around here. Thanks Jamie. JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQEPAwUBNIScYTUhsGSn1j2pAQG1CgfOJDlDS+xxbEjKI4DQXs6qbrflLa6VX6ph WLfOyeUu7r3HSoxk+Y3VAFRiRwzc6n+a771mcKl+WK1VJ6epVHlltGZpUmMuYIJD 40KVRT/J7zymL/9RNCf4sG5J9ryFtWNRJBr40p9eJCoAGuVeXNNt4gLyX1i6KIy2 +zJlQill/ZoSwv1eWDrlJx3ftyE6KrcadjUMItMu7Yk3LzecZETierPSZUa8wZYI /pHQXKX6wLsExRfqgmtQ9r/Bc1/GgxRS1wOBnQHh5ZuJ9VP/aWDqt5Z6cFN5DlAb DBwIItWopvNEFC/H3MmfqO15emsFZNpU8ho4wl7tWFWMqg== =jFVo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:04:56 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN David Burt writes: >Jamie, I think you have too much time on your hands. Well, I'm flattered. Now if you could just take a few seconds, David. You've stated loudly that you'll answer any hypothetical question, that you won't back down from hypotheticals (like "have you stopped beating your wife?"). This question should be easier since it's a real one. Do you still support those fifty thousand webpages, written about gay and lesbian topics, being blocked from public libraries, despite there not being a single page of pornography or sexually explicit material that anyone can find? "Yes" or "no," please. (And whatever commentary you have time for.) -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:59:48 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN Like I said before, it has been conclusively proven that WestHollywood is not a "clean" bad block, that there are heavy mitigating circumstances, that there is porn on the site and in the past there seemed to have been a lot more, that GeoCities appeared to be cleaning it up, and that in light of this I thought CP should re-review the site. You seem to forget that GLAAD has a representitive on the CP oversite committee. This person by now is obviously aware of the WestHollywood block. Are you saying this GLAAD rep must be a "gay uncle tom"? Jamie, you place an incredible amount of importance on whether or not the blocking of one site by one filter is appropriate. You act as thought the whole outcome of the filtering debate depends on it. I don't see any need to continually engage you in this kind of time-consuming "house-to-house fighting" over individual sites. You seem to spend hours researching sites and writing long posts about them so that you can grimly contest each sub-subpage to the last .jpg. I have a lot more interesting and productive things to do, like scrape off the gunk from behind the fridge or scrub out the toilet. At 10:04 PM 12/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >David Burt writes: > >>Jamie, I think you have too much time on your hands. > >Well, I'm flattered. > >Now if you could just take a few seconds, David. You've stated loudly >that you'll answer any hypothetical question, that you won't back down >from hypotheticals (like "have you stopped beating your wife?"). This >question should be easier since it's a real one. > >Do you still support those fifty thousand webpages, written about gay >and lesbian topics, being blocked from public libraries, despite there >not being a single page of pornography or sexually explicit material >that anyone can find? > >"Yes" or "no," please. (And whatever commentary you have time for.) > > >-- > Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org > http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ > > > > > ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 14:22:05 GMT From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:59:48 -0800 (PST), Filtering Facts wrote: >Jamie, you place an incredible amount of importance on whether or not the >blocking of one site by one filter is appropriate. You act as thought the >whole outcome of the filtering debate depends on it. WestHollywood contains nearly 27,000 sites, each maintained independently, & each with its own directory & subdirectories (i.e. CyberPatrol is technologically capable of greater selectivity. They even claim to human-review each block.). This thread began because you claimed only a few bad blocks had been documented. Here are thousands in one fell swoop. If you'll concede the point -- that products you recommend block large numbers of sites contrary to their own stated criteria -- then we can move on. As to having better ways to spend your time, such as cleaning the toilet: I agree. If your organization had a board of directors, they should fire you. You've made a complete mess of it. Instead of providing an honest critique of filtering products, you've become an ineffective apologist for them. Even if civil libertarians win the day in court, vis a vis libraries, there will remain a great many parents who wish to limit their children's access at home, & who will need accurate, unbiased information on the available products. They won't find it at filteringfacts.org. One final question: Why not just admit that WestHollywood is a massive cock-up that ought to be corrected as soon as possible? Would it kill you to write something like, "Certain filtering products (e.g. CyberSitter) are explicitly anti-gay; however CyberPatrol claims not to be, & even has a representative from GLAAD on its oversight committee. It is therefore perplexing to find that they block the entire WestHollywood neighborhood of Geocities, containing nearly 27,000 gay-themed sites, few, if any, of which harbor lascivious material. In fact, Geocities has a policy against such material, & the company has shown perspicacity in enforcing it. The one actively explicit site that I was able to find was taken down within hours." Paul http://www.nihidyll.com/gallery/Ishtar.png Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:43:34 -0500 From: "J. Lasser" Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN In the wise words of Filtering Facts: > Jamie, you place an incredible amount of importance on whether or not the > blocking of one site by one filter is appropriate. You act as thought the > whole outcome of the filtering debate depends on it. Well, one of Jamie's (and my) contentions is that bad blocks are endemic. You disagree, and claim that "there's no evidence" that this is the case. Jamie's providing exactly that evidence, which you simply wish to ignore. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Burt. > I don't see any need to continually engage you in this kind of > time-consuming "house-to-house fighting" over individual sites. Fine. Then when Jamie or Bennett or Declan or anyone else finds a bad block, just accept that it's a bad block and move on. > You seem to spend hours researching sites and writing long posts > about them so that you can grimly contest each sub-subpage to the > last .jpg. Well, that's a darn sight better than spending hours of research to try to defend a block, and then demean your opponents for doing the same thing. Or is Mr. Wallace right, and you only do a keyword search of blocked pages, disregarding any sort of context for the word? You can't have it both ways, Mr. Burt. Really. Jon Lasser -- Jon Lasser (410)383-7962 jon@lasser.org http://gwyn.tux.org/~lasser/ PGP=2047/0x4CDD6451 "Flap your ears, Dumbo! The feather was only a trick!" Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:35:08 +1100 (EST) From: "Danny Yee" Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN > Jamie, you place an incredible amount of importance on whether or not the > blocking of one site by one filter is appropriate. One site!! I love it. Tell me, Burt, do you think that censorware is justified in blocking the .com "site"? This .com site has all kinds of nasty stuff in, so surely such a ban would be justified, using your logic. Danny. Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:54:09 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN David Burt wrote, regarding the block of West Hollywood: >I thought CP should re-review the site. Presumably that means you'd support them unblocking it. I guess we're in agreement then. I'm not sure why you've been arguing so vehemently that it's fine for them _not_ to unblock it. Your left hand doesn't seem to know what your right hand is doing. You defend this totally improper block, even to the point of stating out-and-out falsehoods: >it has been conclusively proven that WestHollywood is >not a "clean" bad block, that there are heavy mitigating circumstances, >that there is porn on the site and in the past there seemed to have >been a lot more (If "it has been conclusively proven...that there is porn on the site," you'd be able to point to one such page.) Anyway, I'm glad we're in some sort of agreement, even if much of what you say still puzzles me. The only thing left is to get you to stop identifying West Hollywood as one site. As someone else pointed out, i-t's _thousands_ of sites, run by _thousands_ of different people. I wonder if you'll be willing to change the pages on filteringfacts.org which assert that the number of bad blocks is "not significant." Isn't the improper blocking of _thousands_ of separate websites pretty significant? -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 19:36:33 -0800 From: Koro Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN Jamie McCarthy wrote: > > David Burt wrote, regarding the block of West Hollywood: > > >I thought CP should re-review the site. > > Presumably that means you'd support them unblocking it. > > I guess we're in agreement then. I'm not sure why you've been arguing > so vehemently that it's fine for them _not_ to unblock it. Your left > hand doesn't seem to know what your right hand is doing. You defend this > totally improper block, even to the point of stating out-and-out > falsehoods: > > >it has been conclusively proven that WestHollywood is > >not a "clean" bad block, that there are heavy mitigating circumstances, > >that there is porn on the site and in the past there seemed to have > >been a lot more > > (If "it has been conclusively proven...that there is porn on the site," > you'd be able to point to one such page.) > > Anyway, I'm glad we're in some sort of agreement, even if much of what > you say still puzzles me. The only thing left is to get you to stop > identifying West Hollywood as one site. As someone else pointed out, > it's _thousands_ of sites, run by _thousands_ of different people. > > I wonder if you'll be willing to change the pages on filteringfacts.org > which assert that the number of bad blocks is "not significant." Isn't > the improper blocking of _thousands_ of separate websites pretty > significant? I'd doubt he'll ever change it - honesty simply isn't in his nature. In fact, I'd even bet that he thinks the claim isn't even deceptive. You see, his claim is completely true, but horribly misleading. The WestHollywood block is just one *block*, (no matter how many sites it contains) and he claims that the number of bad *blocks* is insignificant. His claim doesn't take into account that one block can take out an indefinate number of sites. So far, the worst CP blocks shown on this list have been an entire ISP and a large section of GeoCitties. Those two combined probably include over 100,000 sites total, but it is still only two blocks. David will always see this as nothing more than minor collateral damage. -- KORO Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:47:08 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN Koro writes: >I'd doubt he'll ever change it - honesty simply isn't in his nature. In >fact, I'd even bet that he thinks the claim isn't even deceptive. > >You see, his claim is completely true, but horribly misleading. The >WestHollywood block is just one *block*, (no matter how many sites it >contains) and he claims that the number of bad *blocks* is >insignificant. I may have misparaphrased David. Let me try again with a direct quote. David Burt writes, "There are a total of 45 sites that Cyber Patrol is said to have blocked at one time or another." (The context makes clear that when he says "blocked," he means "improperly blocked.") Not 45 blocks, 45 sites. That quote is from . Unless the word "site" was redefined while I was sleeping, the West Hollywood area is comprised of not one but several thousand sites, totalling over fifty thousand webpages. So that claim is wrong by roughly two orders of magnitude. (Actually, I'd conservatively guess three orders of magnitude, but let's take one thing at a time.) I invite David to correct that error, either by adjusting the number, or by explaining that he uses the word "site" to mean tens of thousands of webpages run by thousands of unrelated people. -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 00:24:05 -0800 From: Koro Subject: Re: 50,000 pages blocked for NO PORN Jamie McCarthy wrote: > > Koro writes: > > >I'd doubt he'll ever change it - honesty simply isn't in his nature. In > >fact, I'd even bet that he thinks the claim isn't even deceptive. > > > >You see, his claim is completely true, but horribly misleading. The > >WestHollywood block is just one *block*, (no matter how many sites it > >contains) and he claims that the number of bad *blocks* is > >insignificant. > > I may have misparaphrased David. Let me try again with a direct quote. > > David Burt writes, "There are a total of 45 sites that Cyber Patrol is > said to have blocked at one time or another." (The context makes clear > that when he says "blocked," he means "improperly blocked.") > > Not 45 blocks, 45 sites. That quote is from > . So he's *really* lying though his teeth. :-) -- KORO Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:31:30 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: ACLU Michael Sims wrote: > >David continues to ignore the solution put before him before, of >polarized screens. Michael, who lacks the most basic knowledge of the way a public library actually works, continues to insist that the solution is simple as a $79 polarized screen, despite the fact that it has been explained to him truely making a computer screen private costs between $500-$2000. >David likes to have it both ways - can't have PORN openly, because it >would cause terrible disruption and >can't have PORN where thought pol- , er, librarians, CAN'T see it, >because that too would cause a ruckus. In order to maintain this >fiction, he will cheerfully ignore any evidence or solutions >presented which might serve to undercut his conclusion. As was explained to you earlier, creating special private booths cause many more problems that it actually solves, the very dubious "solution" of providing the brand new entitlement of a "right" to a private space with the public space of a library. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:37:39 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: ACLU Jeanne A E DeVoto wrote: >At 2:15 PM -0800 12/7/97, Filtering Facts wrote: >>>Seriously? Librarians send people around the building to look over people's >>>shoulders and check on what they're reading? >> >>If the behavior is disruptive enough, yes. There are people who misbehave >>in public places. The tear out pages of books, harrass other patrons, shave >>in the bathroom sink, etc., etc > >David, I am not talking about shaving in the bathroom or destroying books. >I'm talking about *reading*. Sitting in the library quietly reading >something a librarian or other official disapproves of is not, in itself, >disruptive behavior, no matter how much you'd like to define it that way. Yes but reading "Huck Finn" is light years from viewing a porno mag. That's the point: a difference in degree equals a difference in kind. One activity is not a disruption, the other is not. > >>Obviously, you haven't seen the way computers are deployed in too many >>public libaries. They are usually placed in such a way that it is >>impossible to hide what's on the screen > >Well, yes, I imagine so. It's pretty near impossible to hide a book I'm >reading from fellow library patrons, too, if they choose to come near me >and peek over my shoulder; some libraries have carrels, but many just have >tables, and you can't really protect yourself from snoops. > >Same situation with computer screens in many libraries (although surely >putting the computers facing a wall isn't that difficult or costly, and for >that matter polarizing screens are cheaper and much easier to use than >censorware); it's possible for people to spy on what others are looking at. Not true. See my earlier post "Private Spaces in the Library". The real cost is $500-$2,000 per station > >So? Does that mean the people being spied on are "disruptive"? Does the >same go for people reading "Mein Kampf" in a typical suburban library with >open table seating where you can't hide the book you're reading? > >>A library is a public place, and there are rules for what conduct is >>acceptable. > >What *conduct* is acceptable, yes. What you're allowed to read, no. > "Reading" that consists of the public display of offensive imagery is very different from reading text, which is unlikely to be offensive. Again, I seriously doubt you would get away with looking at a stack of "Hustler" magazines in a typical public library. Let's get some perspective here: It's dirty pictures we are really talking about, despite forced "slippery slope" arguments to the contrary. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:43:51 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: ACLU Michael Sims wrote: >David Burt wrote: > >> >By the way, Mr Burt, you have still not answered: >> >a)WHY Barnes&Noble should not be blocked, since they are commercial >> >vendors of works found to be pornographic. >> >> Because I think most people would take a look at B&N as a whole. >> Millions of non-obscene books vs. 1 or 2 which in some jurisdictions >> have found to be obscene. Big difference between that and "House of >> Porn". Here again you are using flimsy "because I can find one or >> two exceptions" reasoning. > >How can you argue this David? I mean really, HOW? Li-zard's >hypothetical is exactly the argument you continue to defend with >regard to Geocities, except that Geocities is BETTER off, because >you cannot point to ANY material there which has been found obscene, >nor do they sell the material on their web pages, and even marginal >material is quickly eliminated - a much, much better status than >Barnes and Noble. How can you possibly tear into Lizard's argument >with the same reasoning that we have so successfully used to tear >into yours? Flimsy "one or two exceptions" reasoning indeed! > My what a selective memory you have! You conviently "forgot" I said I thought GeoCities should be re-reviewed, since they seemed to have been doing a responsible job of cleaning up the porn that recently riddled their site. It wasn't "any" material, Michael, it was shown that there were *dozens* of porn sites on WestHollywood in recent months, which had since been removed (or should I say, "taken out and lynched", as you like to?) ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:04:31 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: A slippery slope David Burt: >Let's get some perspective here: It's dirty pictures we are really >talking about, despite forced "slippery slope" arguments to the contrary. Perhaps you could point to which of the dirty pictures at West Hollywood you think merit banning the entire 50,000-page site, David. You _do_ still advocate the use of Cyber Patrol as a censoring tool in the adult section of libraries, don't you? And they _do_ still block the entire West Hollywood site despite no porn being there, right? >You conviently "forgot" I said I thought GeoCities should be re-reviewed Irrelevant; you advocate the use of Cyber Patrol. If you want to change your mind and start advocating some hypothetical program that CyberPatrol may or may not Jekyll-and-Hyde change itself into, that's fine, but you need to say so explicitly. As for now -- you recommend the use of Cyber Patrol, as it is today, right now, this minute, in public libraries. You can't support the use of Program X in public libraries and then say "but I don't need to explain the faults in Program X, since it might get better in future." Perhaps I'll put up a website that advocates putting up Hustler on display, in public places in public libraries! With a disclaimer where I note that their decision to use nude models is not something I fully support and that I think that decision should be reviewed. And of course I'll have a page pointing out all the good things Hustler has done ("look, on page 37 of the November issue, there aren't ANY bad things at ALL on THAT page"). As it stands, Cyber Patrol is a product that blocks many, many sites inappropriately. This is apparently part of the nature of the program, and indeed of all filtering programs produced to date. It won't change that fact, any more than Hustler will turn into a fundamentalist religious magazine (hmm, maybe I chose the wrong analogy). Anyway, WestHollywood just happens to be a particularly glaring one, since (need I repeat it?) there are FIFTY THOUSAND PAGES BLOCKED FOR NO PORN. But there are more things besides West Hollywood, you can count on that. In any case, it is most certainly _not_ a slippery slope argument we're talking about, since (as I will point out again) the product currently blocks FIFTY THOUSAND PAGES because of NO PORN. What planet are you coming from when you think you can fool us all by saying: It's dirty pictures we are really talking about, despite forced "slippery slope" arguments to the contrary. If you think the issue is dirty pictures and only dirty pictures, please name me a single product that can be configured to block dirty pictures and only dirty pictures. It sure ain't Cyber Patrol. Oh, and it's time to do another check (since the online engine doesn't tell us enough). As of now, "http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ IS on the CyberNOT list" but I don't know what categories it's blocked as; anyone want to double-check this for me? -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:19:05 -0400 From: "Michael Sims" Subject: Re: A slippery slope Jamie McCarthy wrote: > Oh, and it's time to do another check (since the online engine > doesn't tell us enough). As of now, > "http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ IS on the CyberNOT list" > but I don't know what categories it's blocked as; anyone want to > double-check this for me? WestHollywood is blocked under Full Nudity, Partial Nudity, and Sexual Acts. (As of today.) Uh, Dave, those *are* the, uh, PORN categories, right? The dirty pictures categories? The ones you suggest libraries use? Reminder to those following the thread: Geocities enforces the same code of conduct (basically, "no PORN") on everyone who puts up webpages - they have an even stricter code for one neighborhood intended for children. Why is the area devoted to gay/lesbian issues blocked, and other neighborhoods such as TimesSquare escape unscathed? As a side note, the NYTimes has a story regarding censorware and the Summit at: http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/120797internet-review.html No part of it posted due to fear of extensive jail time. -- Michael Sims Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 21:02:47 -0500 From: David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Subject: Re: ACLU From: David_Burt@filteringfacts.org To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: ACLU Michael Sims wrote: >David Burt wrote: > >> >By the way, Mr Burt, you have still not answered: >> >a)WHY Barnes&Noble should not be blocked, since they are commercial >> >vendors of works found to be pornographic. >> >> Because I think most people would take a look at B&N as a whole. >> Millions of non-obscene books vs. 1 or 2 which in some jurisdictions >> have found to be obscene. Big difference between that and "House of >> Porn". Here again you are using flimsy "because I can find one or >> two exceptions" reasoning. > >How can you argue this David? I mean really, HOW? Lizard's >hypothetical is exactly the argument you continue to defend with >regard to Geocities, except that Geocities is BETTER off, because >you cannot point to ANY material there which has been found obscene, >nor do they sell the material on their web pages, and even marginal >material is quickly eliminated - a much, much better status than >Barnes and Noble. How can you possibly tear into Lizard's argument >with the same reasoning that we have so successfully used to tear >into yours? Flimsy "one or two exceptions" reasoning indeed! > My what a selective memory you have! You conviently "forgot" I said I thought GeoCities should be re-reviewed, since they seemed to have been doing a responsible job of cleaning up the porn that recently riddled their site. It wasn't "any" material, Michael, it was shown that there were *dozens* of porn sites on WestHollywood in recent months, which had since been removed (or should I say, "taken out and lynched", as you like to?) ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:14:09 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked CP recently told me that WestHollywood and DejaNews will not be unblocked. WestHollywood continues to offer a parade of shifty porn sites. Here are the latest examples: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2060/10ptease.html http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/4457/black.html http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3216/warning.html http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5183/ http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6458/adult.html WestHollywood is a notorious haven for quick buck, fly-by-night porn sites and click farms. They constantly come and go, but they are always there in one subdirectory or another. Doing a search for "http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood" and "porn" or "smut" or "adults only" or "xxx" usually results in hundreds of hits: old links from porn link sites and shut down porn sites. Ample proof of the volume of porn sites on WestHollywood. There is no way to seperate the adult content on DejaNews from the other content. The posts are retrieved as "record numbers", eg recnum=8613025, rather than files in specific subdirectories, and appear to be concatenated into on-the-fly URLs. There appears to be no way to rate the content without either a) using word blocking or b) rating every post! ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:55:37 -0800 From: Lizard Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked At 10:14 PM 12/9/97 -0800, Filtering Facts wrote: >CP recently told me that WestHollywood and DejaNews will not be unblocked. >WestHollywood continues to offer a parade of shifty porn sites. Here are >the latest examples: >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2060/10ptease.html >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/4457/black.html >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3216/warning.html >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5183/ >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6458/adult.html > >WestHollywood is a notorious haven for quick buck, fly-by-night porn sites >and click farms. They constantly come and go, but they are always there in >one subdirectory or another. Doing a search for >"http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood" and "porn" or "smut" or- "adults >only" or "xxx" usually results in hundreds of hits: old links from porn link >sites and shut down porn sites. Ample proof of the volume of porn sites on >WestHollywood. > But you admit that at least some, probably a majority, of sites in that directory are NOT pornographic. So here we see the problem. Places like GeoCities offer web access to the masses, far more cheaply than many ISPs do...you don't even need an ISP to have space on GeoCities, you can just get a friend to upload the pages for you. So Cyberpatrol, etc, end up blocking 'the masses', the 'little people' who have no other platforms -- leaving the web a bland wasteland of corporate sites. As small ISPs are consumed, places like GeoCities will be the only source of personal or idiosyncratic web sites. But, blocking them all is OK, because (gasp) *some* of them *sometimes* contain material which *some* people consider to be naughty. Gee, I can buy pseudo-victorian porn at my local B. Daltons. Better ban the whole bookstore -- there's some dirty books in there! >There is no way to seperate the adult content on DejaNews from the other >content. The posts are retrieved as "record numbers", eg recnum=8613025, >rather than files in specific subdirectories, and appear to be concatenated >into on-the-fly URLs. There appears to be no way to rate the content >without either a) using word blocking or b) rating every post! So let them rate every post. Or admit they're blocking material with 'redeeming social value'. Dejanews is invaluable for research -- anyting you might want to know, someone, somewhere, has posted to Usenet. Blocking all of it because there's some pornographic text (NO BINARIES!) is an obscenity in itself. (It has no redeeming social value, and I'm sure not a few book-burners get excited at the thought of all those people being denied liberty, hence, prurient appeal) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:45:39 GMT From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked We drank Mersault, ate lobster Bombay with mango Chutney. Then David Burt declaimed: > Doing a search for >"http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood" and "porn" or "smut" or "adults >only" or "xxx" usually results in hundreds of hits: [...] >There is no way to seperate the adult content on DejaNews from the other >content. The posts are retr "record numbers", eg recnum=8613025, >rather than files in specific subdirectories, and appear to be concatenated >into on-the-fly URLs. There appears to be no way to rate the content >without either a) using word blocking or b) rating every post! Some call it a sling blade. Others, a reductio ad absurdum of filtering software. DejaNews may be the most valuable research utility on the web. It's also text-only, so I would have to use VERY large fonts to expose casual passerby to "inappropriate" material. Or they would have to peer over my shoulder -- really, an offense against me, no? Please clarify. You've made much of a librarian's ability to tweak the software. Are you defending the classification of DejaNews under "Sex Acts (Text)" (true), or are you defending the blocking of it in libraries? + You still haven't explained why, given your logic, all of Geocities isn't blocked. An AltaVista search on: +url:www.geocities.com +smut -url:www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ returns 873 hits, while +smut +url:www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ returns 6. Your sloppy search methodology (you did use +'s, or equivalent?): +"http://www.geocities.com" +"smut" returns 3751 documents. That's a lot of "smut" -- of course, it isn't *gay* smut. Paul P.S. You might want to see some real lesbians making love: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/1769/lesbianpics.html http://www.nihidyll.com/gallery/Chthonian_Youth.jpg [best viewed with Netscape] Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:47:48 +1030 (CST) From: Mark Newton Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked David Burt excreted: > CP recently told me that WestHollywood and DejaNews will not be unblocked. > WestHollywood continues to offer a parade of shifty porn sites. Here are > the latest examples: [ 6 URLs deleted ] > WestHollywood is a notorious haven for quick buck, fly-by-night porn sites > and click farms. They constantly come and go, but they are always there in > one subdirectory or another. Doing a search for > "http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood" and "porn" or "smut" or "adults > only" or "xxx" usually results in hundreds of hits: old links from porn link > sites and shut down porn sites. Ample proof of the volume of porn sites on > WestHollywood. But hang on, David: Just a couple of days ago you were explaining why you wouldn't block Barnes and Noble, even though they sell "porn" to children, because (a) there's no way to filter their catalogue to separate the porn from the non-porn, and (b) the overwhelming majority of B&N web pages are non-porn. You were asked for a threshold of "proportion of porn to non-porn" needed to justify blocking of a site. None has been forthcoming. Now we look at WestHollywood: Out of thousands of sites, you've shown us 5 (count 'em!) which meet *someone's* definition of porn (and you have to draw a pretty long bow -- More on that later). Based on that justification, you're coming into fight-censorship to tell us that it's ok for CyberPatrol to block WestHollywood in its totality. So, just like Barnes and Noble, we have a server containing tens of thousands of pages with (a) no filtering to separate porn from non-porn, and (b) an overwhelming majority of non-porn pages. This is IDENTICAL to the B&N case you were asked to answer last week. You've provided five examples: Worst case, that means that one hundredth of one percent of WestHollywood is unacceptable for minors by SOMEONE's definition. I'll allow that there are some pages you won't have found, so let's give you a factor of ten fudge-factor and say that one TENTH of one percent of WestHollywood could corrupt the minds of our youth. DOES THAT JUSTIFY BLOCKING ALL FIFTY-THOUSAND PAGES?! CP's answer to this is to say, "That's ok, we'll just put a `porn' label on all 50,000 pages without giving a shit about whether they're porn or not." Isn't that fraudulent, David? Or is censorship ok when it's easier than doing the Right Thing? Now, to address the pages themselves: I don't know if you bothered to look at the links you presented to us. Let's consider them for a moment: 1. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2060/10ptease.html Lots of bare chests and muscles, but no actual porn. No genital exposure, no nothin'. Where people are shown below the waist, they're wearing pants. NO PORN, DAVID! 2. Single page, no links to anywhere really. About the worst thing on it is what can best be described as a postage-stamp-sized cartoon of a person bent over waiting to be buggered... but no actual buggering, and IT'S A GOD-DAMNED CARTOON, DAMMIT! NO PORN, DAVID! 3. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3216/warning.html Pure information. No pictures. Did you hear that, David? The page is full of buttons sending surfers to IRC listings, an event calendar, a guide to coming out, the Red Ribbon AIDS awareness campaign, support groups, safer sex information... all the things that everyone, censorware vendors included, say they think children *do* have a right to see! NO PORN, DAVID! 4. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5183/ NO PORN! There is an "XXX PHOTOS" link, but it carries the following note: "The following photos have been censored. To see these and other photos please e-mail me to see the un-cencored ones." The rest of the page consists of photos of a rather obese individual dressed in a singlet and shorts, with large black blobs covering their naughty bits. A bit gut-wrenching, but not exactly pornographic. (and anyway, it'd be a tall stretch to say that any of *these* pics would be arousing even if they weren't censored :-) NO PORN, DAVID! 5. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6458/adult.html Biographies of adult movie stars (male). Contains info about each listed "star" followed by two or three non-porn publicity photos. The largest amount of flesh you see here is a bare chest. Once again, where the models are shown below the waist at all (rarely) they're wearing pants. NO PORN, DAVID! Yet again you have been caught out lying to us, David. You've claimed that WestHollywood is infested with uncontrollable porn, fit to decimate the minds of our youth. But the "evidence" you present doesn't actually contain any porn! Amazing! Did you think that nobody on f-c would bother to follow up your links? I leave f-c once again free to challenge you by asking why you consider it acceptable to defend CyberPatrol's blocking of over 50,000 web pages for NO PORN. Enquiring minds are eagerly awaiting your answer. > There is no way to seperate the adult content on DejaNews from the other > content. The posts are retrieved as "record numbers", eg recnum=8613025, > rather than files in specific subdirectories, and appear to be concatenated > into on-the-fly URLs. There appears to be no way to rate the content > without either a) using word blocking or b) rating every post! Once again, isn't this just like the defence of Barnes and Noble (Booksellers and porn vendors) you posted a few days ago? Christ, David, if we can't expect honesty, can't we at least expect *consistency*? - mark -------------------------------------------------------------------- I tried an internal modem, newton@atdot.dotat.org but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton ----- Voice: +61-4-1958-3414 ------------- Fax: +61-8-83034403 ----- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:5-6:11 -0400 From: "Michael Sims" Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked Paul Spirito wrote: > We drank Mersault, ate lobster Bombay with mango > Chutney. Then David Burt declaimed: > >There is no way to seperate the adult content on DejaNews from the other > >content. The posts are retrieved as "record numbers", eg recnum=8613025, > >rather than files in specific subdirectories, and appear to be concatenated > >into on-the-fly URLs. There appears to be no way to rate the content > >without either a) using word blocking or b) rating every post! > > Some call it a sling blade. Others, a reductio ad absurdum of > filtering software. DejaNews may be the most valuable research > utility on the web. It's also text-only, so I would have to use VERY > large fonts to expose casual passerby to "inappropriate" material. > Or they would have to peer over my shoulder -- really, an offense > against me, no? Indeed. Although DejaNews is blocked under Full Nudity, Partial Nudity, and SexActs, (as of five minutes ago), the entire domain is absolutely 100% PORN-FREE. Here's a clue-gram for you David, before you start searching: DejaNews does not archive binaries. In simple terms: NO PICTURES AT ALL. Only pure, 100% unadulterated ASCII text. On the other hand, DejaNews *certainly* contains text which meets 10 of the 12 CP categories - everything *except* the Full Nudity and Partial Nudity categories. So out of 12 categories, 10 of which it should be blocked under, and 2 of which it should not, CP has blocked it under those 2 and one of the others. Score: 1 out of 12 correct. They would have done better to pick randomly. Let's sum up: David is defending censoring adult access to pure text in public libraries on the grounds that it is somehow inappropriate, or harmful, or creates an offensive environment, or something like that. -- Michael Sims Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:53:13 -0800 From: Jonathan Wallace Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked Agreed. Dejanews is a major research tool. A product which blocks it shouldn't be installed in public libraries. Lizard wrote: > > At 10:14 PM 12/9/97 -0800, Filtering Facts wrote: > >CP recently told me that WestHollywood and DejaNews will not be unblocked. > >WestHollywood continues to offer a parade of shifty porn sites. Here are > >the latest examples: > >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2060/10ptease.html > >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/4457/black.html > >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3216/warning.html > >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5183/ > >http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6458/adult.html > > > >WestHollywood is a notorious haven for quick buck, fly-by-night porn sites > >and click farms. They constantly come and go, but they are always there in > >one subdirectory or another. Doing a search for > >"http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood" and "porn" or "smut" or "adults > >only" or "xxx" usually results in hundreds of hits: old links from porn link > >sites and shut down porn sites. Ample proof of the volume of porn sites on > >WestHollywood. > > > But you admit that at least some, probably a majority, of sites in that > directory are NOT pornographic. > > So here we see the problem. Places like GeoCities offer web access to the > masses, far more cheaply than many ISPs do...you don't even need an ISP to > have space on GeoCities, you can just get a friend to upload the pages for > you. So Cyberpatrol, etc, end up blocking 'the masses', the 'little people' > who have no other platforms -- leaving the web a bland wasteland of > corporate sites. As small ISPs are consumed, places like GeoCities will be > the only source of personal or idiosyncratic web sites. > > But, blocking them all is OK, because (gasp) *some* of them *sometimes* > contain material which *some* people consider to be naughty. > > Gee, I can buy pseudo-victorian porn at my local B. Daltons. Better ban the > whole bookstore -- there's some dirty books in there! > > >There is no way to seperate the adult content on DejaNews from the other > >content. The posts are retrieved as "record numbers", eg recnum=8613025, > >rather than files in specific subdirectories, and appear to be concatenated > >into on-the-fly URLs. There appears to be no way to rate the content > >without either a) using word blocking or b) rating every post! > > So let them rate every post. Or admit they're blocking material with > 'redeeming social value'. Dejanews is invaluable for research -- anyting > you might want to know, someone, somewhere, has posted to Usenet. Blocking > all of it because there's some pornographic text (NO BINARIES!) is an > obscenity in itself. (It has no redeeming social value, and I'm sure not a > few book-burners get excited at the thought of all those people being > denied liberty, hence, prurient appeal) -- ----------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wallace The Ethical Spectacle https://www.spectacle.org Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace https://www.spectacle.org/freespch/ "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."--Gandhi Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:01:41 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: A Message from the Zundelsite Jamie wrote: >David Burt tells me: > >>But take heart, disliking speech so much you are willing to chuck your >>principles is the first step to becoming a good censor. I'm sure in >>time you'll make a fine one. > > > >So, I'm curious, David, can you please tell us why you're so eager to see >me accused of something -- anything -- as long as it makes me look bad? >You're not trying to make ad hominem attacks to distract from the issue >of library filtering, are you? Uh oh. You figured me out. That's right, I'm so desparate to escape out from under the weight of your crushing rhetoric that I'll do anything. Yeah, in your dreams. > >And can you please tell us how you reconcile recommending that libraries >use a tool that blocks FIFTY THOUSAND PAGES because of NO PORN, and then >turn around and say: Jamie, you *know* the above statement is false. There is and always has been porn on WestHollywood. >As I wrote yesterday morning: > >>If you think the issue is dirty pictures and only dirty pictures, >>please name me a single product that can be configured to block >>dirty pictures and only dirty pictures. > >You have said you'll answer all hypothetical questions posed to you. >These should be easier; they're real. No. So what. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:25:28 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked Mark Newton wrote: >Now, to address the pages themselves: I don't know if you bothered to >look at the links you presented to us. Let's consider them for a moment: > >1. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2060/10ptease.html > Lots of bare chests and muscles, but no actual porn. No genital > exposure, no nothin'. Where people are shown below the waist, they're > wearing pants. NO PORN, DAVID! Bullshit. How come the page was killed then? Look, it's not there anymore. > >2. Single page, no links to anywhere really. About the worst thing on > it is what can best be described as a postage-stamp-sized cartoon of > a person bent over waiting to be buggered... but no actual buggering, > and IT'S A GOD-DAMNED CARTOON, DAMMIT! NO PORN, DAVID! Bullshit. There is a aninmated gif of a naked woman. > >3. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3216/warning.html > Pure information. No pictures. Did you hear that, David? The page > is full of buttons sending surfers to IRC listings, an event calendar, > a guide to coming out, the Red Ribbon AIDS awareness campaign, support > groups, safer sex information... all the things that everyone, censorware > vendors included, say they think children *do* have a right to see! > NO PORN, DAVID! Bullshit. The page reads "The material on this server is adult oriented, sexually explicit and related to XXX material. This site provides access to images of nude adults possibly engaging in sexual acts, and other material of an adult nature. Access is made available only to those who accept the terms of the following agreement:" Click on through to http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3216/a1739.html and it says "This page contains male nudity" The hard core pics have been hastily removed, leaving only the soft-core ones. > >4. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5183/ > NO PORN! There is an "XXX PHOTOS" link, but it carries the following > note: "The following photos have been censored. To see these and other > photos please e-mail me to see the un-cencored ones." The rest of the > page consists of photos of a rather obese individual dressed in a singlet > and shorts, with large black blobs covering their naughty bits. A bit > gut-wrenching, but not exactly pornographic. > (and anyway, it'd be a tall stretch to say that any of *these* pics would > be arousing even if they weren't censored :-) NO PORN, DAVID! The porn here was *very* recently "softened". > >5. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6458/adult.html > Biographies of adult movie stars (male). Contains info about each > listed "star" followed by two or three non-porn publicity photos. The > largest amount of flesh you see here is a bare chest. Once again, where > the models are shown below the waist at all (rarely) they're wearing > pants. NO PORN, DAVID! I did at one time see nudity on this site. It also has *lots* of links to hard core sites, as- well as a lot of explicit language > >Yet again you have been caught out lying to us, David. You've claimed >that WestHollywood is infested with uncontrollable porn, fit to decimate >the minds of our youth. But the "evidence" you present doesn't actually >contain any porn! Amazing! Did you think that nobody on f-c would >bother to follow up your links? > Yawn. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:35:43 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked Jonathan Wallace wrote: >Agreed. Dejanews is a major research tool. A product which blocks >it shouldn't be installed in public libraries. > No, sites like Dejanews are just going to have to "get it" that they need to do a better job of content management. One of the filtering vendors was telling me the other day how excited they were about making money selling filtering to ISPs. As the ISP market continues to consolidate and parents demand filtering on ISPs and continue to buy home filters, and schools and libraries, and now colleges too continue to buy filters, sites will start to realize they will have to "play along" if the expect to reach a mass audience. This is a natural consequence of the Internet going mainstream. The Internet cannot truly become a mass medium until it is zoned and rendered family friendly. A variety of efforts to bring this about are going in both state and federal government, as well as private industry. You guys can slow this down, but you cannot stop it. Time to wake up smell the coffee. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:01:23 -0800 From: Lizard Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 07:35 PM 12/10/97 -0800, Filtering Facts wrote: >This is a natural consequence of the Internet going mainstream. The >Internet cannot truly become a mass medium until it is zoned and rendered >family friendly. Translation:The Internet cannot become a mass medium until the only thing which makes it valuable is destroyed. Then let us never permit the Internet to become a mass medium. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNI9lkjKf8mIpTvjWEQJ7WQCg8phc5ilhNbclQRElA3ayXO03FXUAnRAW e319a4slLjijvatLjYhEbXHL =DXnM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 21:04:16 -0800 From: Koro Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked Filtering Facts wrote: > > Bullshit. How come the page was killed then? Look, it's not there anymore. [...] > Click on through to http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3216/a1739.html > and it says "This page contains male nudity" The hard core pics have been > hastily removed, leaving only the soft-core ones. [...] > The porn here was *very* recently "softened". [...] > I did at one time see nudity on this site. It also has *lots* of links to > hard core sites, as well as a lot of explicit language David, I seem to remember a mesage you posted to this list complaining that our claims of mis-blocked sites were not 'reproducable' or some such nonsense. The exact quote of your complaint reguarding our methods is as follows: "1) The claim is made by someone with a strong bias against filters. 2) The evidence is derived under uncontrolled, unscientific conditions. 3) The claim cannot be independently verified." Your claims are made by you, a person with a strong bias towards filters. Your evidence was derived under uncontrolled unscientific conditions, as evidenced by the drastic changes you claim have occured in the sites. And last but definately not least, your claims cannot be independantly verified, as we can see with the mysterious disapearing porn. I guess we can ignore these examples of the existance of porn for the same reasons you ignore our examples of the lack of porn on other sites. -- KORO Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:00:46 -0800 From: Lizard Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:19 PM 12/10/97 -0600, hayden@phoenix.net wrote: >> The ability of anyone to post anything and reach the same potential >> audience as anyone else. > > > >BUT NOT ponography--can t we find a way to prosecute those who break the law >without censoring the net? > Most pornography is NOT illegal. That which is -- is. There is no need to 'find a way' to prosecute them -- there have been several succesful prosecutions for electronic distribution of obscenity and child pornography. I do not agree with obscenity laws, but even if I did, there would be no need to make new ones -- the existing laws can and have been applied to the Internet. Of course, it's a trivial matter to move porn offshore, and a lot of it is. You can't arrest someone in Denmark for putting material which is legal in Denmark on a server in Denmark. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNI+PnTKf8mIpTvjWEQLGsgCg5NbHtflvdySRD1QM6lJd6xnWJaUAniX6 DtOmPn5rUxp6xqX+z1MVD6Sb =RimH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 02:07:57 -0500 (EST) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Filtering Facts wrote: > No, sites like Dejanews are just going to have to "get it" that they need to > do a better job of content management. One of the filtering vendors was The filtering vendors in the audience are suffering from the same problem that David is: the architecture of the Internet has not been designed to serve their needs. That is, it's designed to spread information efficiently, not make it easy to sort for "pornographic content" or whatnot. I'm typing this from the terminal room of IETF, which is the standards-setting body for the Internet, so I guess I'm thinking technically right now. -Declan Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 19:21:03 +1100 (EST) From: "Danny Yee" Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked Bookshops such as Barnes & Noble are just going to have to "get it" that they need to do a better job of content management. One of the scissor vendors was telling me the other day how excited they were about making money selling scissors to bookshops. As the publishing market continues to consolidate and parents demand bowdlerised books from bookshops and continue to buy scissors for home use, and schools and libraries, and now colleges too continue to buy scissors, bookshops will start to realize they have to "play along" if they expect to reach a mass audience. This is a natural consquence of books going mainstream. Books cannot truly become a mass medium until they are zoned and rendered family friendly. A variety of efforts to bring this about are happening at both state and federal level, as well as in private industry. You can slow this down, but you cannot stop it. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. Danny. > No, sites like Dejanews are just going to have to "get it" that they need to > do a better job of content management. One of the filtering vendors was > telling me the other day how excited they were about making money selling > filtering to ISPs. As the ISP market continues to consolidate and parents > demand filtering on ISPs and continue to buy home filters, and schools and > libraries, and now colleges too continue to buy filters, sites will start to > realize they will have to "play along" if the expect to reach a mass audience. > > This is a natural consequence of the Internet going mainstream. The > Internet cannot truly become a mass medium until it is zoned and rendered > family friendly. A variety of efforts to bring this about are going in both > state and federal government, as well as private industry. You guys can > slow this down, but you cannot stop it. Time to wake up smell the coffee. > > ***************************************************************************** > David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG > David_Burt@filteringfacts.org > Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 19:58:23 +1030 (CST) From: Mark Newton Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked David Burt wrote: > Mark Newton wrote: > > >Now, to address the pages themselves: Whoa, not so fast there, Dave. You deleted a lot of stuff before this bit. Let me put it to you again: 1. You have defended Barnes and Noble by saying that censorware vendors shouldn't block it even though it sells what is essentially porn to children. (cut-n-paste for your sig: "David Burt supports childrens' exposure to commercial porn vendors!") 2. The reasons you gave for this were: (a) Barnes and Noble consists of thousands of individual pages (greater than one per book) and it'd be unreasonable to separately rate them all, and (b) the overwhelming majority of Barnes and Noble's web site is non-porn. 3. Geocities in general, and WestHollywood in particular, also suit (a) and (b) above. Despite this, and even though you use (a) and (b) to defend Barnes and Noble, it's apparently alright for censorware vendors to block 50,000 web pages consisting of thousands of sites just because of the possibility that one day one of those pages might contain porn. How do you justify your stance on this? To my mind, there are two possible reasons you support the blocking of WestHollywood and -the non-blocking of B&N: 1. WestHollywood supports homosexuality and you're deeply homophobic; or 2. You're a stooge for the censorware vendors. The reason you support the blocking of WestHollywood is because the filterware vendors currently block WestHollywood. The reason you oppose blocking B&N is because none of the censorware vendors currently block B&N. The fact that you're using essentially the same foundations and logic flow to come to two completely different conclusions apparently doesn't bother you. Furthermore, I'd predict that if a filterware vendor started to block B&N tomorrow, you'd respond to posts on fight-censorship by saying that it was all perfectly justified because they're selling porn to children, and similarly change your stance if they all removed WestHollywood from their blacklists because only 0.1% of WestHollywood contains porn. I think the second possibility is *marginally* more likely, but it's a bit hard to pick. Care to clarify? > >I don't know if you bothered to > >look at the links you presented to us. Let's consider them for a moment: > > > >1. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2060/10ptease.html > > [...] NO PORN, DAVID! > > Bullshit. How come the page was killed then? Look, it's not there anymore. I just looked and it is. I have flushed my caches, too. Allow me to describe the page for you: The background is a grainy photo of the head and shoulders of muscle-bound oaf in his mid-twenties. There is a spinning yellow 3-D smiley-face at the top of the page. There is a link to a link farm, and a couple of links to images of bare-chested men. There is a banner ad, and a couple of entry fields for a search tool. There's a web counter which doesn't work because it's stuck at "0000". All there on my screen right now, Dave -- Exactly the same as it was when I checked out your shitlist this morning. The page has not been killed. Oh yeah, nearly forgot: It contains no porn. > >2. Single page, no links to anywhere really. About the worst thing on > > it is what can best be described as a postage-stamp-sized cartoon of > > a person bent over waiting to be buggered... but no actual buggering, > > and IT'S A GOD-DAMNED CARTOON, DAMMIT! NO PORN, DAVID! > > Bullshit. There is a aninmated gif of a naked woman. Let us clarify that, David: There is an animated GIF of a postage- stamp-sized cartoon of a woman who flashes. That animated GIF (which showed up as a Netscape broken link icon this morning - Mea culpa) is *also* a hand-drawn cartoon. It's about ten animation frames long; The last couple expose "naughty bits"; In total, those "naughty bits" consist of less than fifteen pixels. You get about the same amount of detail (and substantially more size) from this: (note: all models are over 18. And they *look* over 18 too, which is the really important thing!) O |-- | /---O //// \ Trust me, Dave: it's not porn. > >3. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3216/warning.html > > Pure information. No pictures. Did you hear that, David? The page > > is full of buttons sending surfers to IRC listings, an event calendar, > > a guide to coming out, the Red Ribbon AIDS awareness campaign, support > > groups, safer sex information... all the things that everyone, > > censorware vendors included, say they think children *do* have a > > right to see! NO PORN, DAVID! > > Bullshit. [ ... ] > Click on through to http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3216/a1739.html > and it says "This page contains male nudity" I should add here that for someone who claims that people can't be trusted to rate their own pages, you seem very quick to believe that a page contains male nudity when it quite clearly DOESN'T, merely on the say-so of the page's maintainer. Anyway, mea culpa: I didn't spend hours exploring the site looking for one, *JUST ONE!* picture of a naked man. But did you look at the pictures? Ah, apparently you did: > The hard core pics have been > hastily removed, leaving only the soft-core ones. Hastily? HASTILY?! I'm amazed: I have this mental image of a group of half-dressed men huddled around a PC putting up a gay website furtively looking over their shoulders and yelling, "Quick! Here comes CyberPatrol! Stash the porn!" David: Have you *AT ANY TIME* seen hard core porn on that page? Supplementary question: Do you consider that the current contents of the page to be porn? (summary: six men, two shown from the waist up, the other four clotheemove offense. Has all the purient appeal of a Calvin Klein advertisement, and substantially less than a Victoria's Secret catalog). Is this how stupid the whole deal is getting, David? Do we have to start counting square centimetres of clothing to work out whether something is porn or not? Do you wish to see a return to the 1950's Australian practice of having beach inspectors carrying rulers to make sure that womens' bathing costumes covered sufficient amounts of skin? I mean, fer christ's sake! I've looked over all the examples you have shown me and the absolute WORST I've seen is a bare male chest. Is this really the best you can do? Can you really justify blocking 50,000 pages when they have a "penis quotient" of zero? > >4. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5183/ > > NO PORN! There is an "XXX PHOTOS" link, but it carries the following > > note: "The following photos have been censored. To see these and other > > photos please e-mail me to see the un-cencored ones." > > The porn here was *very* recently "softened". Yer, right, David. And you'd accept that from us if this argument was being fought in the opposite direction, wouldn't you? Oh, that's right, we've tried that before and you demanded independent verification. (Question: How many hours per day do you spend searching for porn so that you can make claims like this? Given that you've made comments in this mailing list to the effect that exposure to pornography causes psychological damage, when should we stop taking you (moderately) seriously and start assuming that you're suffering from an occupational health and safety problem which has lead to a total detachment from reality?) > >5. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6458/adult.html > > NO PORN, DAVID! > > I did at one time see nudity on this site. Yer, right David. I *really* believe this. You must understand how absurd this looks, surely? And, please, tell us: How many times have you looked? I have this vague suspicion that the only reason online porn is profitable is because you keep paying for it. >It also has *lots* of links to > hard core sites, Name one. Then explain why that leads to the entire WestHollywood collection (let me repeat: THOUSANDS of sites) being blocked. I mean, why not block the sites at the other end of the offending links instead? > as well as a lot of explicit language What, like "bullshit"? If language is the problem, why is it blocked under SexActs? > >Yet again you have been caught out lying to us, David. You've claimed > >that WestHollywood is infested with uncontrollable porn, fit to decimate > >the minds of our youth. But the "evidence" you present doesn't actually > >contain any porn! Amazing! Did you think that nobody on f-c would > >bother to follow up your links? > > > > Yawn. You are right, of course: This is all very tiresome. In the interests of preventing you from duping others with your intellectual dishonesty, it is necessary to get down to specifics and expend megabytes over the disposition of five URLs. But we must return to the big picture at some point, so here we go: You're using five individual URLs to justify the blocking of the entire WestHollywood heirarchy. At WORST (and this is stretching it, you'll have to admit), I would have thought that those five URLs would be blocked instead, but the censor's appetite is too voracious for such fine morsels. In the spirit of rationality, can you point us to a single WestHollywood URL which contains imagery which (a) would be unsuitable for the underwear page in a clothing catalog or a freeway billboard, *AND* (b) hasn't been dithered or obscured to remove potentially offensive bits? There can be two outcomes to this: 1. You can provide such a URL. In that case, you'll be asked to tell us why that URL isn't blocked instead of the entire WestHollywood heirarchy. Current we think it's because CyberPatrol is bankrolled by homophobic fanatical religious zealots, and we really want a better explanation than that. 2. You can't provide such a URL. In that case, you'll be asked to tell us why you defend the fact that any part of WestHollywood is blocked at all. Now, given the hours each day you spend porn-surfing, I'm sure you can settle this. Accepting even for one moment that the material you have pointed us at so far isn't pornographic, can you do any better? Enquiring minds want to know. Now, the scorecard: pages containing hand-drawn thumbnail pictures burt thinks might be porn 1 pages which once contained porn, but for which no evidence can be found: 3 pages which burt can't actually find: 1 Out of five URLs I read this morning, you think that the one containing the animated gif is pornographic. Out of the remaining pages you can still find, it seems that you're not displeased with the contents o-f those pages as such, more with the pages they link to (pages, I might add, which are not under the control of the blocked webmasters). The one remaining site will reopen for contention when you remember how to drive your browser, but trust me: it contains no porn. Have we really reduced a list of five porn-ridden URLs to a cartoon GIF with genitals one pixel wide? Yow. - mark -------------------------------------------------------------------- I tried an internal modem, newton@atdot.dotat.org but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton ----- Voice: +61-4-1958-3414 ------------- Fax: +61-8-83034403 ----- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:42:27 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: 50,000 blocks because of NO PORN I asked David Burt: >> can you please tell us how you reconcile recommending that libraries >> use a tool that blocks FIFTY THOUSAND PAGES because of NO PORN He replied: > Jamie, you *know* the above statement is false. So you're saying I'm a liar. That's fine, but I just wanted to make it clear. > There is and always has been porn on WestHollywood. That's odd. In another post, concerning the "porn pages" you claimed to have found just the other day, you wrote: > How come the page was killed then? Look, it's not there anymore. [...] > The hard core pics have been hastily removed [...] > The porn here was *very* recently "softened". [...] > I did at one time see nudity on this site. So if there is porn on West Hollywood, where is it? I'd think you could just point to it. Instead, you come up with rationale like searching on the word "sex" or whatever, thus finding links on other pages that _purport_ to link to something on West Hollywood that might be vaguely related to sex. (Like, say, homoSEXuality or SEXual preference or documents urging a reform of laws allowing discrimination on the grounds of biSEXuality. There may be real filth mixed in there, too, but you don't know unless you check the pages out for yourself, which you've shown an apparent and surprising unwillingness to do.) Meanwhile, you ignore the people who point out that the exact same search finds orders of magnitude more smutty stuff on the rest of GeoCities. WestHollywood is, if anything, the cleanest part of the GeoCities neighborhood. Heck, it looks clean to me. Even David Burt can't find any porn there. As Paul Spirito writes: > Your sloppy search methodology (you did use +'s, or equivalent?): > > +"http://www.geocities.com" +"smut" > > returns 3751 documents. That's a lot of "smut" -- of course, it isn't > *gay* smut. So why has Cyber Patrol's management told you personally that they will continue to block West Hollywood and not the rest of GeoCities? It wouldn't be a bias against gay and lesbian content, would it? Last time I asked that question, David didn't really answer it: he just pointed out that GLAAD has a representative on the Cyber Patrol oversight committee. But the bias is staring us in the face, and this nonanswer doesn't explain it away. (I should point out that in 1996 we "learned the oversight group never actually sees the previously top-secret 'Cybernot' list. They don't know what's *really* banned." Has that changed? ) Now that Cyber Patrol has repeated its intention to _continue_ to block the West Hollywood neighborhood, and (as of this writing) _only_ blocks West Hollywood, despite the fact that their number-one supporter can find NO PORN on the site, and despite the fact that his tea-leaf techniques to find "suspected porn" turn up many times more hits on the rest of GeoCities -- it's time to ask that question again. Is West Hollywood being blocked as "PartNude FullNude SexActs" not because of alleged explicit sexual content, but rather because it's a place for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals? At this stage, that's a perfectly legitimate question, and I think it deserves an answer. One way to answer it would be to come up with some objective metric by which West Hollywood would have a better proper-to-improper-block ratio than, say, the rest of GeoCities. David Burt has tried to present such metrics, and has failed. Others are welcome to try. If that question can't be answered, what does that mean for the public libraries that use this product -- not for the children's room, but to censor what adults can see? This post is going not only to fight-censorship but also to the filt4lib mailing list, to Susan Getgood (who works at the company that makes Cyber Patrol), to wehocl@geocities.com (listed as an email contact for the West Hollywood community) and to glaad@glaad.org. I realize I'm jumping all of you into the middle of a long discussion, so if you'd like clarification of what's been said already, I'll be happy to oblige. For the record, my repeated use of the term "NO PORN" is with tongue in cheek. I'm sure there are one or two sexually explicit pages in the West Hollywood area, perhaps as many as a dozen -- next to 50,000 that are perfectly acceptable! I believe that ratio will stand up to any other diverse community on the web, including GeoCities in toto. (And David, if you quote the above paragraph, please quote it in its entirety. Thanks.) I went to the trouble of explaining in an earlier post how I was making the "NO PORN" judgement using exactly the same standards that David Burt uses to determine that there are only "a few isolated cases of innocent sites being mis-classified." Having thoroughly explained my tongue-in-cheekness at that point, I haven't bothered to repeat the "David Burt rules" under which I've been operating. I'll do so now. The most important "David Burt rule" is that bad blocks in the past do not "count"; only those at this very moment here and now "count." Using that twisted logic, he writes that "There is no compelling evidence that the number of bad blocks by any of the five recommended filters is significant." By using the present tense, he dismisses the hundreds of bizarrely blocked sites (such as NOW, the Quakers, and a soccer league) that we've seen earlier. He then goes on to say with a straight face that "There are a total of 45 sites that Cyber Patrol is said to have [wrongly] blocked at one time or another." Since David Burt has no qualms about calling me a liar, I'll return the favor. Both of the last quoted sentences are lies. As I said before, his figures are off by at least two orders of magnitude. There are thousands of wrongly blocked sites in the West Hollywood area alone. And (since a "bad block" is different from a "site" I suppose) there are about fifty thousand bad blocks in West Hollywood. Anyway, if we use the "David Burt rule" that writing in the present tense allows one to ignore all previous evidence of wrongdoing, then West Hollywood is squeaky-clean. Even David Burt can't find any porn. The point is that we need to be honest in how we measure both sexually explicit content, and improper blocks. I'll cheerfully own up to the handful of pornographic pages that are (probably) on West Hollywood, if David Burt will own up to the fifty thousand other pages that are (certainly) improperly blocked -- for no objective reason given so far except that they are pages about alternative sexuality. And the West Hollywood area is just _one_ entry in Cyber Patrol's mammoth database. Fifty thousand improper blocks is a microcosm. -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:28:58 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked Mark Newton writes, to David Burt: > 1. WestHollywood supports homosexuality and you're deeply homophobic > 2. You're a stooge for the censorware vendors. The reason you support > the blocking of WestHollywood is because the filterware vendors > currently block WestHollywood. The reason you oppose blocking B&N > is because none of the censorware vendors currently block B&N. The > fact that you're using essentially the same foundations and logic > flow to come to two completely different conclusions apparently > doesn't bother you. >I think the second possibility is *marginally* more likely, but it's a >bit hard to pick. Care to clarify? For the record, I think the second possibility is much more likely. It takes an awfully deep bigotry to influence a discussion about such rarified topics as these, and David's shown no evidence of any bigotry. I don't even think we need to consider Cyber Patrol's makers to be bigots to explain why their product blocks gay sites that can't be distinguished from nongay sites by the stated criteria. It can simply be a case of them pandering to the (perceived) marketplace. They might estimate that they'll get a lot more bad press if they let a handful of gay porn pages slip through, than if they simply block fifty thousand non-sexually-explicit gay pages and ignore the complaints. They also estimate that nobody in their right mind would complain about Barnes and Noble remaining unblocked, no matter what B&N does. And those estimations would probably be correct. Our job is to reverse things, and to make blocking fifty thousand non-explicit pages at least as PR-negative as letting a tiny handful remain unblocked. It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it. Welcome to the free market... Meanwhile, I suspect David Burt will continue to back his small list of chosen censorware vendors no matter what they do, because he is incapable of realizing that there is _no_ vendor which, given the state of the art in filtering technology, can- do an acceptable (and Constitutional) job. The word "stooge" has unwanted connotations I think, but he's clearly a big supporter of theirs and will remain so regardless of how bad they are shown to be. -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:31:27 -0400 From: "Michael Sims" Subject: Re: 50,000 blocks because of NO PORN Doubt this will get through to filt4lib, but still... Jamie McCarthy wrote, re: CyberPatrol's banning of the Geocities WestHollywood neighborhood under the Full Nudity, Partial Nudity and Sexual Acts categories: > So why has Cyber Patrol's management told you personally that they > will continue to block West Hollywood and not the rest of GeoCities? > > It wouldn't be a bias against gay and lesbian content, would it? > > Last time I asked that question, David didn't really answer it: he > just pointed out that GLAAD has a representative on the Cyber Patrol > oversight committee. But the bias is staring us in the face, and > this nonanswer doesn't explain it away. > > (I should point out that in 1996 we "learned the oversight group > never actually sees the previously top-secret 'Cybernot' list. They > don't know what's *really* banned." Has that changed? > e.kingd om.0796.article> ) The oversight committee meets for a few hours every two months. Microsys currently has 40,000 entries on their blacklist. Each entry may be as extensive as the gigabytes blocked under Geocities/WestHollywood. Most entries ARE entire domains. 40,000 entries is 700 8.5" by 11" pages of URLs. Obviously no real review is possible whether or not the committee has direct access. At the one review meeting which Microsys reports on, http://www.microsys.com/cyber/cp_oc2.htm , they discussed pagan sites and nude beaches. GLAAD, you are only hurting yourself by being part of their review committee. You are lending your reputation to Microsys as a shield against allegations that CyberPatrol hits gay/lesbian sites harder than others, without actually having any power to change anything. The sensible course would be to withdraw from the committee. > And the West Hollywood area is just _one_ entry in Cyber Patrol's > mammoth database. Fifty thousand improper blocks is a microcosm. Precisely. If the GLAAD rep had sole possession of the plain-text blacklist, and 24 hours a day to spend reviewing it, and every suggestion for changing blocks was automatically accepted by Microsys, that person still couldn't significantly change the content of it. Every block you take off today can be added back on tomorrow. As I recall we've tried to pin down Ms. Getgood on whether or not the oversight committee has full access to the blacklist. She eventually said yes, after much wrangling. Declan requested an examination of the list under a non-disclosure agreement - Getgood scoffed. -- Michael Sims Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:37:10 -0500 From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked >> No, sites like Dejanews are just going to have to "get it" that they need to >> do a better job of content management. One of the filtering vendors was > >The filtering vendors in the audience are suffering from the same problem >that David is: the architecture of the Internet has not been designed to >serve their needs. That is, it's designed to spread information >efficiently, not make it easy to sort for "pornographic content" or >whatnot. No, its the architecture of society that does not suit their needs. They have a narrow parochial agenda that is simply not shared by the world in general. They can get the attention of corrupt little local governments (such as congress) but that is it. >I'm typing this from the terminal room of IETF, which is the >standards-setting body for the Internet, so I guess I'm thinking >technically right now. I can confirm this, Declan did indeed show up in his National Security Agency jacket. Phill Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:56:21 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Re: 50,000 blocks because of NO PORN At 09:42 -0500 12/11/97, Jamie McCarthy wrote: >Last time I asked that question, David didn't really answer it: he >just pointed out that GLAAD has a representative on the Cyber Patrol >oversight committee. But the bias is staring us in the face, and this >nonanswer doesn't explain it away. > >(I should point out that in 1996 we "learned the oversight group never >actually sees the previously top-secret 'Cybernot' list. They don't >know what's *really* banned." Has that changed? >om.0796.article> ) At the "Kids on the Net" summst week, the GLAAD folks came close to endorsing CyberPatrol because (they told me) the company was eager to discuss bad blocks and policies with them. My gay activist friends (some of whom have been blocked by CyberPatrol) say this is a sign that GLAAD has been drawn "into the process" to the point it's difficult for them to criticize censorware vendors who have a habit of blocking lesbigay-themed sites. Perhaps at the least GLADD could condition their continued participation on the "CyberNOT oversight committee" on being able to review the top-secret blacklist. -Declan Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:01:32 -0700 From: "Loren R. Javier" Subject: Re: 50,000 blocks because of NO PORN Thank you for all of this information. Declan mentioned this to me while I was in Washington, DC, which has really gotten me to want to re-test the software. If Cyber Patrol is blocking ALL WestHollywood on Geocities, that would be bad. MY PERSONAL WEB PAGE is on WestHollywood...and believe me, there is nothing pornographic about it, unless people consider support information, links to the Flinstones, Nanci Griffith and ElfQuest might be pornographic. I will send a message to both Dick Gorgens and Susan Getgood (although I see that Susan is cc'd on this e-mail) to see what is going on. If they are blocking complete areas without regard to content and have made a judgement that WestHollywood=gay=porn, then this can seriously jeapordize our position on the oversight committee. GLAAD is a member of the oversight committee in an effort to take a proactive role in educating the industry and to serve as a voice for the gay and lesbian community. We want to continue working with industry, but we are needing to see stronger results. This would indicate a step in the opposite direction. Let me speak with Cyber Patrol and do some research on my own and I will share my results with you all. Sincerely, Loren R. Javier Interactive Media Director GLAAD At 10:31 AM -0400 12/11/97, Michael Sims wrote: >Doubt this will get through to filt4lib, but still... > >Jamie McCarthy wrote, re: CyberPatrol's banning of the Geocities >WestHollywood neighborhood under the Full Nudity, Partial Nudity and >Sexual Acts categories: > >> So why has Cyber Patrol's management told you personally that they >> will continue to block West Hollywood and not the rest of GeoCities? >> >> It wouldn't be a bias against gay and lesbian content, would it? >> >> Last time I asked that question, David didn't really answer it: he >> just pointed out that GLAAD has a representative on the Cyber Patrol >> oversight committee. But the bias is staring us in the face, and >> this nonanswer doesn't explain it away. >> >> (I should point out that in 1996 we "learned the oversight group >> never actually sees the previously top-secret 'Cybernot' list. They >> don't know what's *really* banned." Has that changed? >> > e.kingd om.0796.article> ) > >The oversight committee meets for a few hours every two months. > >Microsys currently has 40,000 entries on their blacklist. Each >entry may be as extensive as the gigabytes blocked under >Geocities/WestHollywood. Most entries ARE entire domains. > >40,000 entries is 700 8.5" by 11" pages of URLs. > >Obviously no real review is possible whether or not the committee has >direct access. At the one review meeting which Microsys reports on, >http://www.microsys.com/cyber/cp_oc2.htm , they discussed pagan sites >and nude beaches. > > >GLAAD, you are only hurting yourself by being part of their review >committee. You are lending your reputation to Microsys as a shield >against allegations that CyberPatrol hits gay/lesbian sites harder >than others, without actually having any power to change anything. >The sensible course would be to withdraw from the committee. > > >> And the West Hollywood area is just _one_ entry in Cyber Patrol's >> mammoth database. Fifty thousand improper blocks is a microcosm. > >Precisely. If the GLAAD rep had sole possession of the plain-text >blacklist, and 24 hours a day to spend reviewing it, and every >suggestion for changing blocks was automatically accepted by >Microsys, that person still couldn't significantly change the content >of it. Every block you take off today can be added back on tomorrow. > >As I recall we've tried to pin down Ms. Getgood on whether or not the >oversight committee has full access to the blacklist. She eventually >said yes, after much wrangling. Declan requested an examination of >the list under a non-disclosure agreement - Getgood scoffed. > > >-- Michael Sims ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Loren R. Javier Interactive Media Director GLAAD Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation javier@glaad.org2244 fax: 415.861.4893 GLAAD is a national organization that promotes fair, accurate and inclusive representation as a means of challenging discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. ~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "GLAAD" and "Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation" are registered trademarks of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Inc. Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:35:02 -0700 From: "Loren R. Javier" Subject: Re: 50,000 blocks because of NO PORN At 10:56 AM -0500 12/11/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >At the "Kids on the Net" summst week, the GLAAD folks came close to >endorsing CyberPatrol because (they told me) the company was eager to >discuss bad blocks and policies with them. My gay activist friends (some of >whom have been blocked by CyberPatrol) say this is a sign that GLAAD has >been drawn "into the process" to the point it's difficult for them to >criticize censorware vendors who have a habit of blocking lesbigay-themed >sites. > >Perhaps at the least GLADD could condition their continued participation on >the "CyberNOT oversight committee" on being able to review the top-secret >blacklist. Hi, Declan You actually had my head spinning when you off handedly mentioned Geocities blocking at the Summit. Again, I will reaffirm that GLAAD's presence on the oversight committee is to take a proactive role in being the voice for the gay and lesbian community. At the same time, we want to SEE results and not just act as a shield for Microsystems. So, it might interest everyone that I just sent a letter to both Dick Gorgens and Susan Getgood letting them know that our presence on the committee is bring re-examined as I do some research into the subject. I have also asked that I be able to see list of blocked sites and that I would keep it private. Again, GLAAD wants to give Microsystems the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, we will not act as a shield to do what they wish. Best, Loren ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Loren R. Javier Interactive Media Director GLAAD Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation javier@glaad.org2244 fax: 415.861.4893 GLAAD is a national organization that promotes fair, accurate and inclusive representation as a means of challenging discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "GLAAD" and "Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation" are registered trademarks of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Inc. Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:43:38 GMT From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) Subject: Re: 50,000 blocks because of NO PORN On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:31:27 -0400, Michael Sims wrote: >Microsys currently has 40,000 entries on their blacklist. Here's a challenge to CyberPatrol: 1) Turn over the plaintext of the blacklist to a trusted third party, under a non-disclosure agreement. That is, a third party trusted by both CyberPatrol & its critics -- say, one mutually agreed upon by Susan Getgood & Declan McCullagh. 2) Let the third party verify that the plaintext blacklist is in fact equivalent to the encrypted blacklist that ships with the product. 3) Let the third party select a random sample of 400 entries from the blacklist, & let these be published. 400 entries are only 1% of the list -- not enough to give CyberPatrol's competitors an advantage, but sufficient to reasonably assess the accuracy of the product. Is Microsys proud of its product or not? Paul http://www.nihidyll.com/gallery/Tornado.jpg Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:10:10 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked > > Mark Newton wrote: > > > > >Now, to address the pages themselves: > >Whoa, not so fast there, Dave. You deleted a lot of stuff before this >bit. > >Let me put it to you again: > > 1. You have defended Barnes and Noble by saying that censorware > vendors shouldn't block it even though it sells what is essentially > porn to children. (cut-n-paste for your sig: "David Burt supports > childrens' exposure to commercial porn vendors!") > 2. The reasons you gave for this were: (a) Barnes and Noble consists > of thousands of individual pages (greater than one per book) and it'd > be unreasonable to separately rate them all, and (b) the overwhelming > majority of Barnes and Noble's web site is non-porn. > 3. Geocities in general, and WestHollywood in particular, also suit > (a) and (b) above. Despite this, and even though you use (a) and (b) > to defend Barnes and Noble, it's apparently alright for censorware > vendors to block 50,000 web pages consisting of thousands of sites > just because of the possibility that one day one of those pages might > contain porn. > >How do you justify your stance on this? Because: 1) B&N exercises editorial control over what it sells. 2) There are legit reasons for claiming the "porn" sold at B&N has "serious value". Not exactly what I'd call a killer analogy, Mike. > > >To my mind, there are two possible reasons you support the >blocking of WestHollywood and the non-blocking of B&N: > > 1. WestHollywood supports homosexuality and you're deeply homophobic; or When all else fails, accuse the other person of being a bigot. Zzzzzzzzzz. > > 2. You're a stooge for the censorware vendors. The reason you support > the blocking of WestHollywood is because the filterware vendors currently > block WestHollywood. The reason you oppose blocking B&N is because > none of the censorware vendors currently block B&N. The fact that > you're using essentially the same foundations and logic flow to come > to two completely different conclusions apparently doesn't bother you. > Furthermore, I'd predict that if a filterware vendor started to block > B&N tomorrow, you'd respond to posts on fight-censorship by saying > that it was all perfectly justified because they're selling porn > to children, and similarly change your stance if they all removed > WestHollywood from their blacklists because only 0.1% of WestHollywood > contains porn. When that fails, accuse the other person of being a shill. Zzzzzzzzzz. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:04:02 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked Declan wrote: >The filtering vendors in the audience are suffering from the same problem >that David is: the architecture of the Internet has not been designed to >serve their needs. That is, it's designed to spread information >efficiently, not make it easy to sort for "pornographic content" or >whatnot. > Not an unsurmountable problem, given suffecient resources or well-designed government regulation. Besides, look at all the jobs in filtering companies it's created. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:18:21 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject:0,000 blocks because of NO PORN Jamie wrote: > >Meanwhile, you ignore the people who point out that the exact same >search finds orders of magnitude more smutty stuff on the rest of >GeoCities. WestHollywood is, if anything, the cleanest part of the >GeoCities neighborhood. Heck, it looks clean to me. Even David Burt >can't find any porn there. > This is nothing short of amazing. Let's do the math: 1) There are 1,100,000 members on geocites. 2) There are 26,000 on WestHollywood. 3) +http://www.geocities.com +smut =3028 3028/1,100,000 =.03% 4) +http://www.geocities.com +porn =7688 7688/1,100,000 = .07% 5) +http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood +smut =481 481/26,000 = 2% 6) +http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood +porn =1007 1007/26,000 = 4% Do the math: Westhollywood has nearly *10 TIMES THE PORN* as geocities as a whole. Case closed! ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:12:07 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: Re: Endless hair splitting. David Burt replies to me: > > WestHollywood is, if anything, the cleanest part of the > > GeoCities neighborhood. > > This is nothing short of amazing. Let's do the math: > > 1) There are 1,100,000 members on geocites. > 2) There are 26,000 on WestHollywood. > 3) +http://www.geocities.com +smut =3028 > 3028/1,100,000 =.03% > 4) +http://www.geocities.com +porn =7688 > 7688/1,100,000 = .07% > 5) +http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood +smut =481 > 481/26,000 = 2% > 6) +http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood +porn =1007 > 1007/26,000 = 4% > > Do the math: Westhollywood has nearly *10 TIMES THE PORN* as > geocities as a whole. Case closed. I invite everyone to do the searches for themselves, and _look_ at the results. First, realize that Alta Vista isn't the most reliable metric in the world, as I pointed out on fight-censorship the other day. See e.g. Second, though David Burt apparently and surprisingly seems to use Alta Vista searches as his principal smut-measuring tool, he doesn't know how to construct a proper search. What he wants to do is go to the Advanced Search, click the "precise count" checkbox, and enter "host:www.geocities.com and url:http://www.geocities.com/ and smut". As it turns out, this doesn't change the percentages much (at least right now; I might -get different results in an hour). But third, and most importantly, if there's so much porn, why can't David Burt find any of it? The answer is that this single-word-search porn-measuring metric is fatally flawed. It doesn't find sexually explicit images or stories. It just finds people talking about material having to do with sex in some way or another. And in a "neighborhood" specifically for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people, it shouldn't surprise anyone that people talk a lot about sex. Speaking broadly, that's what they have in common: issues relating to sexuality. In a neighborhood set aside for computer nerds, the topic of computer networking would come up a lot. I'm sure I could find a lot of hits for "Ethernet" in the SiliconValley neighborhood, but that doesn't mean I'm going to find photos of naked 10baseT plugs -- especially if the terms of service expressly forbid such material. In browsing the neighborhood, for example, I found a lot of photos of transgendered people, pre- and post-operative, who wanted to show the world how sexy they looked. With their clothes on! That, and other non-sexually-explicit discussion of issues relating to homoSEXuality, biSEXuality, and so on, is emphatically _not_ the sort of material public libraries should be blocking adults from viewing. Nor children, in my opinion, but especially not adults. Anyway, in an effort to find *10 TIMES THE PORN*, I repeated the first (flawed) query David gave above, "+http://www.geocities.com/ westhollywood +smut", so I could see exactly what he was counting. The first entry is indeed an actual WestHollywood page (it's a collection of links, NO PORN). The next seventeen are not WestHollywood pages at all. (How can he justify blocking 50,000 webpages based on finding pages not even on that site?) Then there's one page with one _link_ to a possibly-explicit gay site (NO PORN). Then sixteen not on WestHollywood. Then one links page (NO PORN), then one offsite, then two links pages (NO PORN), then thirty-one offsite, and then Alta Vista did something weird and I couldn't see any more listings. (See above, re "reliable.") When I say "NO PORN," what I mean is no sexually explicit material of any kind. I guess the question is whether children and adults will be harmed by looking at _lists_of_links_ to sexy sites, without actually seeing any sex itself. And whether that alleged harm justifies blocking fifty thousand innocent webpages. But the undeniable fact is that David claims "*10 TIMES THE PORN*" when he cannot point to a single pornographic page. On his last attempt, he was reduced to pointing out five or six pages, which included a total of one cartoon gif with about fifteen pixels of digital naughtiness. That was it, no other dirty images found. As someone on fight-censorship pointed out, David's "penis count" is zero. Zero. Not one. No porn. Is it "splitting hairs" to point out that someone who claims to have found *10 TIMES THE PORN*, who claims over 1000 webpages of porn by last count, cannot point to a single page of porn? Not being able to find a single pornographic page, out of 50,000, is about as clean as you get, I think. > Jamie, I think the people on this list will find this infinite hair > splitting over a single site rather boring, as do I. 50,000 webpages by 26,000 people is a "single site"? If it's hair-splitting to speak up for 26,000 people and insist that they not be shoved under the rug as a "single site", call me a hair-splitter. > This is the last time I'm going to comment on it. I see. (Cc'd back to f-c; because Cyber Patrol is installed in a growing number of public libraries, this thread is relevant on both f-c and filt4lib. Either moderator, feel free to tell me to quit crossposting. Cc'd to Loren Javier of GLAAD. Bcc'd to WestHollywood admins.) -- Jamie McCarthy jamie@mccarthy.org jamie@voyager.net homepage: http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ fan of: http://www.nizkor.org/ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:46:41 -0500 From: "J. Lasser" Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked In the wise words of Filtering Facts: > >Let me put it to you again: > > > > 1. You have defended Barnes and Noble by saying that censorware > > vendors shouldn't block it even though it sells what is essentially > > porn to children. (cut-n-paste for your sig: "David Burt supports > > childrens' exposure to commercial porn vendors!") > > 2. The reasons you gave for this were: (a) Barnes and Noble consists > > of thousands of individual pages (greater than one per book) and it'd > > be unreasonable to separately rate them all, and (b) the overwhelming > > majority of Barnes and Noble's web site is non-porn. > > 3. Geocities in general, and WestHollywood in particular, also suit > > (a) and (b) above. Despite this, and even though you use (a) and (b) > > to defend Barnes and Noble, it's apparently alright for censorware > > vendors to block 50,000 web pages consisting of thousands of sites > > just because of the possibility that one day one of those pages might > > contain porn. > > > >How do you justify your stance on this? > Because: > 1) B&N exercises editorial control over what it sells. > 2) There are legit reasons for claiming the "porn" sold at B&N has "serious > value". > > Not exactly what I'd call a killer analogy, Mike. Do the same copies of "Hustler" sold at Barnes & Noble lose their "serious value" when published on the web? Do the same copies of "The Joy of Gay Sex" sold at B&N lose _their_ "serious value" when published on the web? Do the sites at GeoCities WestHollywood GAIN "serious value" if they were sold in a book which B&N carried? Have you noticed that the definitions and applications of "editorial control" practiced by B&N and any of the 'net filters are ENTIRELY different? Hell, even Hustler exercises "editorial control." The catch here is that for the two steps you posted above to work, you have to believe that the organization which exercises editorial to determine which works have "serious value" is a legitimate organization to make such determination. You consider B&N to be a reputable measure. You don't consider Hustler to be. You consider CyberSitter to be a reputable measure; you don't consider GeoCities (whose policy is to exercise "editorial control" only in response to complaints, as far as I understand it) to be such a measure. For those people on this list who aren't entirely opposed to all filtering on principle, most of those people do NOT consider any of the filtering companies to be quite so reputable. Jon Lasser -- Jon Lasser (410)383-7962 jon@lasser.org http://www.tux.org/~lasser/ PGP=2047/0x4CDD6451 "Flap your ears, Dumbo! The feather was only a trick!" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:07:08 -0400 From: "Michael Sims" Subject: Re: 50,000 blocks because of NO PORN David Burt tried again: > This is nothing short of amazing. Let's do the math: > > 1) There are 1,100,000 members on geocites. > 2) There are 26,000 on WestHollywood. > 3) +http://www.geocities.com +smut =3028 > 3028/1,100,000 =.03% > 4) +http://www.geocities.com +porn =7688 > 7688/1,100,000 = .07% > 5) +http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood +smut =481 > 481/26,000 = 2% > 6) +http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood +porn =1007 > 1007/26,000 = 4% > > Do the math: Westhollywood has nearly *10 TIMES THE PORN* as > geocities as a whole. Um, no. You do realize that the above searches turn up any mention of Geocities and smut/porn? For example, I write: "I have a webpage at http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/blahblah but I can't put up any smut or porn on it." What that sentence, this email now matches under all four of your searches. When it is archived on vorlon.mit.edu, and AltaVista's spider finds it sooner or later, it will add one more hit to *each* count you have above. If this email is replied to, each different digest it appears in on vorlon will also count as another hit. What relation does this bear to the amount of PORN in any Geocities neighborhood? Beats me. David, you can't find any PORN, Geocities being the most ruthless enforcer of content guidelines I've ever seen, so you're trying statistics; but you're trying statistics with a bunch of people that are at least as bright and a whole lot better at using search engines. That's not a battle I'd want to fight. -- Michael Sims P.S. - Out of curiousity, I started looking for explicit pics on Geocities. I found two pages in 20 minutes, both "hidden" (not linked from the main directory page or anywhere else) and neither in WestHollywood. Also a page of HOT links in WestHollywood, no PORN but definitely the promise of some, somewhere else on the WWW. I won't post the URLs - the maintainers have hidden from the content police so far, why spoil their streak. Also amusing: someone has anonymously posted Burt's "Why Geocities and Dejanews..." email to alt.censorship. And this tidbit from 1996, specially for you dedicated readers who follow-through to the end of my posts: http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=5465155&server=db96q3 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:42:12 -0800 From: Koro Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked Filtering Facts wrote: > > > > Mark Newton wrote: > > > > > > >Now, to address the pages themselves: > > > >Whoa, not so fast there, Dave. You deleted a lot of stuff before this > >bit. > > > >Let me put it to you again: > > > > 1. You have defended Barnes and Noble by saying that censorware > > vendors shouldn't block it even though it sells what is essentially > > porn to children. (cut-n-paste for your sig: "David Burt supports -> > childrens' exposure to commercial porn vendors!") > > 2. The reasons you gave for this were: (a) Barnes and Noble consists > > of thousands of individual pages (greater than one per book) and it'd > > be unreasonable to separately rate them all, and (b) the overwhelming > > majority of Barnes and Noble's web site is non-porn. > > 3. Geocities in general, and WestHollywood in particular, also suit > > (a) and (b) above. Despite this, and even though you use (a) and (b) > > to defend Barnes and Noble, it's apparently alright for censorware > > vendors to block 50,000 web pages consisting of thousands of sites > > just because of the possibility that one day one of those pages might > > contain porn. > > > >How do you justify your stance on this? > Because: > 1) B&N exercises editorial control over what it sells. So does Playboy. > 2) There are legit reasons for claiming the "porn" sold at B&N has "serious > value". The same goes for Playboy as well. Otherwise it would meet the Miller test for obscenity. BTW, the "'porn' sold at B&N" is considered obscene according to several counties around the country, which means that their courts beleive that it has no "serious value". Would you defend the blocking of such material in libraries? > > > >To my mind, there are two possible reasons you support the > >blocking of WestHollywood and the non-blocking of B&N: > > > > 1. WestHollywood supports homosexuality and you're deeply homophobic; or > > When all else fails, accuse the other person of being a bigot. Zzzzzzzzzz. > > > 2. You're a stooge for the censorware vendors. The reason you support > > the blocking of WestHollywood is because the filterware vendors currently > > block WestHollywood. The reason you oppose blocking B&N is because > > none of the censorware vendors currently block B&N. The fact that > > you're using essentially the same foundations and logic flow to come > > to two completely different conclusions apparently doesn't bother you. > > Furthermore, I'd predict that if a filterware vendor started to block > > B&N tomorrow, you'd respond to posts on fight-censorship by saying > > that it was all perfectly justified because they're selling porn > > to children, and similarly change your stance if they all removed > > WestHollywood from their blacklists because only 0.1% of WestHollywood > > contains porn. > > When that fails, accuse the other person of being a shill. Zzzzzzzzzz. When all else fails, dodge the question. -- KORO Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:43:43 -0800 From: Koro Subject: Re: 50,000 blocks because of NO PORN Filtering Facts wrote: > > Jamie wrote: > > > >Meanwhile, you ignore the people who point out that the exact same > >search finds orders of magnitude more smutty stuff on the rest of > >GeoCities. WestHollywood is, if anything, the cleanest part of the > >GeoCities neighborhood. Heck, it looks clean to me. Even David Burt > >can't find any porn there. > > > > This is nothing short of amazing. Let's do the math: > > 1) There are 1,100,000 members on geocites. > 2) There are 26,000 on WestHollywood. > 3) +http://www.geocities.com +smut =3028 > 3028/1,100,000 =.03% > 4) +http://www.geocities.com +porn =7688 > 7688/1,100,000 = .07% > 5) +http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood +smut =481 > 481/26,000 = 2% > 6) +http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood +porn =1007 > 1007/26,000 = 4% > > Do the math: Westhollywood has nearly *10 TIMES THE PORN* as geocities as a > whole. What an accurate study. So you claim that every single site that contains the words smut or porn is porn? I believe your site, filteringfacts.org, mentions the words quite often. In fact, according to AltaVista, you have a total of 12 pages at your site. AltaVista also says 3 of those pages contain the words smut or porn. So according to your own methods and reasoing, 1/4 of the pages on your site contain porn. For that matter, you never really use the word porn, you use "pornography". If we do a search on that word and smut, we get 9 pages. Thus, by your own methods and reasoning, 2/3 of your site is devoted to porn. However, as far as I know, there is no porn at all on your site. -- KORO Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:04:08 -0500 From: "Robert A. Costner" Subject: Re: 50,000 blocks because of NO PORN At 11:18 AM 12/11/97 -0800, Filtering Facts wrote: >Do the math: Westhollywood has nearly *10 TIMES THE PORN* as geocities as a >whole. > >Case closed! There appears to be an argument here that since there are 1,100,000+ Geocities web pages, and they keep changing, it is really too difficult to try to rate them all. Additionally to the argument is being added that since four percent (and certainly less than ten percent) of the web pages in the WestHollywood section have content that is "objectionable" it is far easier to block the entire area rather than actually rate the pages on a user by user basis. I had a 45 minute conversation with the President of Solid Oak (Cybersitter) about a year ago. Basically he said that it would cost him tens of thousands of dollars each month to make updates to Cybersitter, and he wasn't going to lay out the money. The main problem I see with filters in general is that they are not implemented well. Using today's web filters is like using a context editor of 20 years ago for writing letters. Filter software needs to go through several iterations of development before the product becomes acceptable even for what it claims to do. Since I am a programmer, I have a fair grasp of many of the difficulties involved. All filter programs I've seen use a database. While a database of "bad" sites is a good implementation, I could write a program that uses no database but examines the site on the fly to decide if it should be blocked. While much slower than a database referenced block, it would have a similar accuracy to today's filtering programs. This doesn't say much for a database of blocked sites. Even if a heuristic method had twice the error rate of database based blocking, it would filter Geocities' WestHollywood section perhaps 10 times more honestly than the total block Mr. Burt is defending. If the software claims to have a database of rated sites, it should actually rate the sites. On today's computers, 1,100,000 Geocities sites is not that large. Using proper database technology, a database of 20 million cyber-not URL's could easily be searched in less time that it normally takes for a web page request to connect and start responding. Databases searches for the current implementations of lists of "bad" sites can be done in less time than it takes to get your finger off of the enter key. There is no technology problem with implementing a larger database of blocked sites. Even if you suggest that a database of some massive size must be used, the filtering software and database are still going to have an installation requirement far less than that of other professional programs such as Microsoft Office, WordPerfect, etc. If spellchecking software had the same accuracy as web filters, no one would use or purchase the product. Today's implementation of filtering technology is just unacceptable. -- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746 Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh@efga.org http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 14:25:03 +1030 (CST) From: Mark Newton Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked David Burt wrote: > Mark Newton wrote: > > > 3. Geocities in general, and WestHollywood in particular, also suit > > (a) and (b) above. Despite this, and even though you use (a) and (b) > > to defend Barnes and Noble, it's apparently alright for censorware > > vendors to block 50,000 web pages consisting of thousands of sites > > just because of the possibility that one day one of those pages might > > contain porn. > > > >How do you justify your stance on this? > > Because: > 1) B&N exercises editorial control over what it sells. Geocities exercises editorial control over what they host: They have a very strict "No porn" policy whereby they terminate the accounts of customers who distribute pornography. B&N, on the other hand, has editorial controls which mandate that they will include their entire catalog online, even those parts of it which have been ruled legally obscene by courts in jurisdictions they sell into. Geocities (and consequently WestHollywood) seem to fit your criteria better than Barnes and Noble. > 2) There are legit reasons for claiming the "porn" sold at B&N has "serious > value". When you can show us that WestHollywood actually contains any porn at all, I'd be more than happy to take this point up with you. For the time being, you have been totally unable to show us anything that could be classified as pornographic -- I repeat, all of the photographs at all of the URLs you have provided are no worse than what we see every single day in billboard advertisements for mens underwear next to freeways and plastered on the sides of bus shelters. Is Calvin Klein pornographic too? What's more, as other participants in this list have pointed out, many of the publications sold by B&N have been held by courts to have absolutely no serious value -- They've been banned in Canada and several counties across the United States. Some items carried by B&N's Internet catalog have been ruled legally obscene in many jurisdictions. Hence even if you can show us honest-to-goodness porn on WestHollywood, I'll continue to contend that WestHollywood is in fact quite a bit more likely to fit your above criteria for a "good site" than B&N,- since WestHollywood has never been ruled legally obscene by any judge anywhere. Hence I conclude that your reasons above are baseless. In the worst case, both WestHollywood and Barnes and Noble can be treated equally by your two points above. In a more realistic sense, WestHollywood is more suitable for children because it contains 50,000 web pages with NO PORN. Therefore if WestHollywood's ban can be justified by your twisted logic then I contend that Barnes and Noble can be banned by the same logic, and your contention that it would be unacceptable to ban the bookseller while the ban on WestHollywood is fair and reasonable is intellectually dishonest. Care to comment? > Not exactly what I'd call a killer analogy, Mike. Who's Mike? BTW, in addition to failing to explain why WestHollywood is any different from B&N, you've also remained conspicuously silent on why DejaNews is any different from B&N. To address your criteria: (1) DejaNews exercises editorial control by not carrying binaries groups, meaning they have NO PORN as a fait accomplis; and (2) DejaNews is one of the Internet's most oft-used research resources, so it is not possible to claim that it has no "serious value". Care to comment further on why DejaNews is blocked, or does the topic cause you too much discomfort? Cognitive Dissonance can be terrible sometimes, can't it? - mark -------------------------------------------------------------------- I tried an internal modem, newton@atdot.dotat.org but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton ----- Voice: +61-4-1958-3414 ------------- Fax: +61-8-83034403 ----- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:03:08 -0800 From: "Jeanne A. E. DeVoto" Subject: Re: Why WestHollywood and DejaNews won't be unblocked At 11:10 AM -0800 12/11/97, Filtering Facts wrote: >1) B&N exercises editorial control over what it sells. No, it doesn't. Barnes & Noble is a bookstore, not a publisher. The legal distinction is not trivial. In any case, each site owner does exercise editorial control over his or her site; the objection would be a nonsequitor even if it weren't factually wrong. >2) There are legit reasons for claiming the "porn" sold at B&N has "serious >value". Ah. So are we to take it that in your opinion, it is inappropriate for censorware to block sexually explicit material that has "'serious value'"? (Yes or no, please, and I would greatly appreciate an answer sans insults, nonsequitors, and Alta Vista search tallies.) -- Morning people may be respected, but night people are feared. Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 01:10:19 -0500 (EST) From: Jeffrey Hutzelman Subject: Re: 50,000 blocks because of NO PORN > This is nothing short of amazing. Let's do the math: > > 1) There are 1,100,000 members on geocites. > 2) There are 26,000 on WestHollywood. > 3) +http://www.geocities.com +smut =3028 > 3028/1,100,000 =.03% > 4) +http://www.geocities.com +porn =7688 > 7688/1,100,000 = .07% > 5) +http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood +smut =481 > 481/26,000 = 2% > 6) +http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood +porn =1007 > 1007/26,000 = 4% > > Do the math: Westhollywood has nearly *10 TIMES THE PORN* as geocities as a > whole. Sure, let's do the math... For the sake of argument, let's assume that (1) Your +smut and +porn searchs don't turn up any duplicates. That is, no page matches both searches. (2) All the matches found by your searches really _are_ porn. Then WestHollywood contains 481+1007 = 1488 pages that are porn. While GeoCities as a whole contains 3028+7688 10716 pages that are porn. Thus, 1488/10716 = 13.8% of the porn on GeoCities is in WestHollywood. Obviously, the rest of the service must be much worse... -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA I don't speak for CMU. Thankfully, they don't speak for me either. Oh - and I'm not a lawyer, either... Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:15:12 +0000 From: "David Smith" Subject: Cyber Patrol's Alleged Anti-gay bias Has Cyber Patrol unfairly blocked gay-themed sites in the past? I find that a single block for West Hollywood is insufficient evidence to justify the accusations of an anti-gay bias. What other examples exist? The GLAAD site hasn't updated their website, and so their report isn't available, but does it mention Cyber Patrol? Today's New York Cyber Times quotes Cyber Sitter and Planet View as two GLAAD targets, but not Cyber Patrol. David Smith david_smith@unforgettable.com http://www.realtime.net/~bladex File under : Internet activist Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:24:26 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts Subject: Barnes & Noble In answer to the devastating (not) replies about B&N: WestHollywood does not exercise editorial control over the content. It's like a bulletin board: people post whatever they want. B&N does. All the material is carefully selected *by the organization*. WestHollywood and B&N would be analogous if the books were placed in B&N by the patrons. But they aren't. One source of information is tightly controlled and shaped by a corporate hierarchy. The other is shaped by anarchy. This is what I mean by "editorial control". You are comparing apples to oranges, and the analogy is absurd. The reason why WestHollywood is blocked is the lack of editorial control, a problem B&N doesn't share. That said though, I wish CP would just go ahead, bite the bullet and remove the block on WestHollywood. For all the grief this one single block is causing, it really doesn't seem like a good idea. ***************************************************************************** David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG David_Burt@filteringfacts.org Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:46:09 +0000 From: "David Smith" Subject: Re: FC: CyberPatrol blocks 50,000 gay sites; response from GLAAD > [Part of an ongoing discussion about the entire lesbian and gay area of > Geocities (perhaps 50,000 sites) being blocked by CyberPatrol. GLAAD sits > on CyberPatrol's advisory committee; their response is at the end. > --Declan] > Note of clarification -- 50,000 web pages, not sites. This number came from an Alta Vista search engine query. There are an estimated 26,000 individual sites in the West Hollywood neighborhood, though no one from Geo Cities has confirmed this statistic. David Smith david_smith@unforgettable.com http://www.realtime.net/~bladex File under : Internet activist