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 http://www.spectacle.org Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace http://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?" (http://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 http://www.spectacle.org Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace http://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?" >(http://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 http://www.spectacle.org >Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace http://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?" > >(http://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 http://www.spectacle.org Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace http://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 l