Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Libraries and culture, from a trench

By unixrat in Culture
Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 12:44:55 PM EST
Tags: Technology (all tags)
Technology

Today (July 1, 2004) marks a new chapter for many libraries across the US of A. Today is the first day of mandatory Internet filtering, if your library accepts federal telecommunications funds.

Mine does.


(For a little background you can read the previous article I wrote on this subject here at K5.)

July 1, 2004 is the first day that filtering is mandated, due to CIPA. If your library accepts 'E-rate' funding (and many, if not most do), today must be the day that they turn the filters on. The filters must be on for everyone, regardless of the title of the legislation ("Children's" Internet Protection Act)

Here's the real story of the past few months, told from the perspective of a small library in Minnesota, although it can be applied to just about every library in America.

Northfield belongs to a library co-op, called SELCO. SELCO provides all of the IT and loan services for most of south-eastern Minnesota. You pay a yearly fee and SELCO handles a large chunk of these operations, which allows many smaller libraries to survive and even thrive. On the whole, it is a great service. Unfortunately, having SELCO handle these things also cedes them control over other things, like accepting E-rate funding.

Thus, the big question facing many libraries of accepting the federal funding with the filtering strings attached was taken out of our hands. SELCO accepted the funds and, by proxy, this means that we did too. We could not even debate the issue - it was chosen for us already.

Not that I didn't make an suggest to fund the internet connectivity ourselves. The problem stemming from that is that SELCO membership isn't cafeteria-style, it's all or nothing. While we could have branched out and purchased our own connections to the internet (and set up some IT people to administer it), we would still be on the hook to pay the SELCO IT bill, even if it wasn't used. The Northfield Public Library wasn't even close to having enough money to do this. (Unless, of course, we didn't want to purchase any books in the foreseeable future - a phyrric victory if there ever was one.)

Amount of influence I had on that decision: Zero.

The next step that I could see would be to see if I could take part in the selection of the filter to be used. My hope was to try and steer SELCO into choosing something like SquidGuard. Unfortunately, SELCO is a 9-5 organization and all public (cough) meetings took place 65 miles away, typically from 10 a.m. to noon. Not only that, but the filtering companies saw the blood in the water and were moving in on every library in a feeding frenzy. They scheduled dazzling promos and 'demonstrations' for SELCO, to influence their buying decisions. FOSS doesn't have that sort of marketing engine and didn't wind up on the administration radar. SELCO chose SonicWall.

Amount of influence I had on that decision: Zero.

After that, the only decision remaining for the library was what 'categories' to enable inside the filter. SELCO recommended that the members should block these categories:

    For Adults
  • Nudism
  • Pornography
  • Adult/Mature Content

I was also participating in a discussion list specific to Northfield, hosted by Northfield.org. I posted the SELCO recommendations to the list and it generated quite a bit of controversy, especially the ones for 17 and under. No one thought that 'Sex Ed' was a good candidate for filtering, since it may be a youth who needs this information most of all.

During the Library Board meeting in June, the board spent a good chunk of time debating the new rules and trying to form our own. The conclusions that we reached were these:

  • We would not accept the SELCO recommendations for 17 and under. We would not implement those categories - only the recommended 'Adult' filters would be used.
  • We drafted a 'Filter Challenge' document that lets patrons submit (anonymously, if they choose) a site to be permanently blocked or unblocked, regardless of filtering rules. This would try to counter the obvious shortfalls of the filter, both on sites missed and sites erroneously included. [My idea]
  • We decided to post large signs explaining patron rights and responsibilities under the new rules, including the ability to have the filter turned off upon request. (This was one of the CIPA 'features' that caused the Supreme Court to let the law stand, unlike the similar CDA)
  • A more restrictive set of filters could be enabled by a user or parent for a session, if they wanted.

Amount of influence I had on these decisions: Some, finally.

Along the way, we managed to include/fight/agree with the Mayor, the head of SELCO, the IT rep for SELCO, our state representative, the local newspaper, one of the large state newspapers (if registration required, use this PDF) and others. I feel it's safe to say that, between the costs of the filters and the time expended by ourselves and SELCO, a large chunk of the federal funding that we were trying to qualify for was wasted. A big thanks to the Big Chiefs in D.C. for that. (On the upside, I thought that I did a good job speaking out against filters in those two articles. *toot*)

What does the future hold? Well, SELCO managed to fall behind on the filter installation, so that we didn't get more than a week or so to preview the filters before they were to be turned on. Thus, we have no idea of the real impact on people's access. How much will be needlessly blocked? How much will slip through? No one knows. SELCO has admitted that they were able to foil the filters pretty easily and I know that any determined person could get around them in a matter of minutes. (How this reflects on the cost/performance of the money that was spent is left to the reader.)

Our representative was drawn into this because he was the author of a state bill that was far more reaching than the federal bill, putting us on the hook for 'naughty words' as well as 'naughty pictures'. To say that he has been less than forthcoming on the whole issue is an understatement. This MN bill would cost MN libraries a fortune to implement, especially if we had to scrap our existing systems to buy new ones that satisfy the new law. (The Northfield News reported called me to tell me that Cox's office (or Cox himself) had told her that the reason the MN law was proposed is that CIPA didn't cover schools. When informed that it did, they steadfastly insisted that the reporter was wrong. She wasn't. They are. And they're writing the laws)

So there you have it - a view of the last three or four months in the life of a library board member in Anytown, U.S.A. The fight over filtering is real, it is happening right now, and it could use your help.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o read the previous article I wrote on this subject here at K5
o CIPA
o SELCO
o SquidGuard
o SonicWall
o Victoria's Secret
o SI Swimsuit Edition
o Scarleteen
o Sexuality. org
o Northfield .org
o the local newspaper
o one of the large state newspapers
o this PDF
o he has been less than forthcoming
o This MN bill
o Also by unixrat


Display: Sort:
Libraries and culture, from a trench | 56 comments (34 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
finally! libertarians are useful! (3.00 / 9) (#3)
by rmg on Thu Jul 01, 2004 at 07:23:26 PM EST

for all you libertarians out there, this is your opportunity to fight the jackboot of statism!

here's the plan:


1. use your entrepreneurial skills to acquire monies, perhaps enlisting the help of some of your fellows.


2. set up an organization that distributes said monies to libraries, eliminating their dependence on the federal government.

yes, i realize there's no profit step in there and that might be a turn off for some of you, but damn it, some things are more important than money!

_____

stalinism

dave dean

dammit, rmg (2.50 / 6) (#19)
by Kasreyn on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 02:09:25 AM EST

why do you have to occasionally post something non-trollish like this?

is it just to torment us with the glimpse of the valuable contributor you could have been? Or do you just want to use your infamy to tarnish whatever position you champion?

isn't our suffering bad enough already?


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
How do you get non-trollish? (none / 2) (#36)
by Kwil on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 01:48:05 PM EST

Just because you're not the target, doesn't mean it's not a troll.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
oh, Kasreyn, (none / 1) (#48)
by livus on Sat Jul 03, 2004 at 02:55:14 AM EST

are you trolling us?

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
You're no libby - you missed the troll (none / 1) (#53)
by scruffyMark on Sat Jul 03, 2004 at 08:20:29 PM EST

I think he's trolling libbies by suggesting that there are things more important than money.

[ Parent ]
[heaves a sigh] (3.00 / 5) (#22)
by Kasreyn on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 02:16:36 AM EST

My mother, my girlfriend, and her mother all work in libraries. I'll ask them tomorrow if their libraries are doing this. None of them are on boards, and I don't know whether to empathize with you or look askance; according to them, library boards are uniformly stuffed with slackjawed meat-heads.

I still have the article my paper ran where they quoted sethf on CIPA. Yellowing, it's magnetted to my fridge with sethf's bit highlighted. For some silly reason I thought it might have reached someone other than me.

I feel the need to channel cts for a sec. Forgive me.

my flag's flying at half mast

another victory for small-mindedness and paternalistic corporate government

another defeat for responsible adults and independent thinkers

/cts :-(


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
good (1.63 / 11) (#23)
by the77x42 on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 04:59:03 AM EST

the internet could use some filtering. gone are the days when you actually had stuff that would inform you. nowadays any talentless hack can jimmy up some crap flash site and have the whole world oogle at their contentless tripe.

information age my ass; it's the capitalism age. buy this penis enlarger pump, your dick is your brain anyway.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

Nearly sigged! (none / 2) (#24)
by MeowChow on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 06:12:18 AM EST

I don't do the whole sig thing, but if I did, I might sig the following: "buy this penis enlarger pump, your dick is your brain anyway."

Just saying...

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised it hasn't been dinged (2.00 / 4) (#28)
by kero on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 09:43:23 AM EST

for being too librarian...

Lets see... (2.16 / 6) (#30)
by TheWake on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 10:16:40 AM EST

You are a member of the libray board as stated in the previous article. You now wine about having filtering software mandated for the library and the relative helplessness you had in the choice. Take a step back and look at your rant.

First you complain about giving up some decisions to SELCO. SELCO may have problems, but you admit that leaving SELCO is a bad idea then complain about your library staying in the co-op.

Next you rant about the filter selection process. Did you go to one of the public meetings? Did you even try? Is a vacation day of your time worth giving away your voice? You opted out of this decision don't complain about the results.

Finally you shine some light on the details of the filter policy and the path the library board took to get there. You finally end up with your views closer to the final decision and you claim only to have some influence on that decision. This is how the board should work, or do you see the library as your little fiefdom and the board should do what you want no questions asked?

Welcome to the world of collective decision making.

As for internet filters for libraries, I feel the library has a duty to implement filtering of some sort. There is a duty to select the content for inclusion in the library and exclude other items. Internet content needs to be selected just as video content, or books. Why should I be able to use the library computer for some stuff, when I could not access similar material in print, audio or video?

IHBT (3.00 / 4) (#32)
by unixrat on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 11:03:43 AM EST

This is how the board should work, or do you see the library as your little fiefdom and the board should do what you want no questions asked?

This is exactly how a board should work and this article is a recount of how the fight against mandatory government filtering is going. There are many sides to the battle over filtering - this is one of them. It's also an insight into how the process works and what one person can do against something like this.

As for internet filters for libraries, I feel the library has a duty to implement filtering of some sort.

I would too, if...

  1. We could implement the filters in a way that we choose, not some remote federal paper-pusher.
  2. Filters actually worked (crazy, I know), and filtered what they said that they would. The current state of filters is nothing more than expensive wish-making. They block valid content and easily permit that which they claim to block. It is a waste of valuable time and money, but we have no choice.

Once we get to choose how to implement it and can pick from a filter that works, let's talk filtering. Until then, I'm fighting against these terrible wastes.

[ Parent ]

I actually seem to agree with you more than not (none / 1) (#34)
by TheWake on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 12:40:39 PM EST

The filtering is only mandatory if you take the federal government's money. Stop implying that your library has absolutely no choice in the matter. Every source of funding will present it own inherent hoops to jump through. The insight in the last part of your article is the valuable part for sure. I was glad to have read it.

I would [support filters] too, if... We could implement the filters in a way that we choose, not some remote federal paper-pusher.

Per your third point you can. You and the rest of the board have chosen to outsource IT and control over some IT decisions, such as choosing the filtering software. Did you go to the public meetings while the co-op was making this decision on your library's behalf?

Your library board still had to make a policy decision about the filtering software configuration and operation. The federal legislators only require you to make such a policy and implement it within thier guidelines if the library takes the federal money. If the library can not live with the conditions then it shouldn't accept the money.

I would [support filters] too, if... Filters actually worked (crazy, I know), and filtered what they said that they would.

Then work with the vendor and the co-op go make the filters better or put up with them the way they are. You seem to be fixated on "All filters are bad." not "Can we make the filter work well?". In other words work to deliver a quality library to your patrons in spite of the rules of the funding game. If you raise enough concerns via the co-op and other libraries do the same the filters should get to the point that they will do what is needed.

In short concentrate on plaing the game better rather than changing the rules. There is much more to gain by using good filters than by fighting the fed on this. Especially since we both seem to agree that good filters are desireable.

The fiefdom comment came about because the first half of the article read (to me anyway) as a rant about no one listening to you and then you still seemed to complain when you appeared to have had lots of influence. Perhaps I read too much into that part.

[ Parent ]

Lesser of two evils is still evil. (none / 2) (#37)
by unixrat on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 02:55:15 PM EST

In short concentrate on plaing the game better rather than changing the rules.

Sorry, dude. The rules suck. I'll fight the rules anyday over trying to make the best of a bad situation.

[ Parent ]

If you are absolutely sure... (none / 1) (#38)
by TheWake on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 03:23:51 PM EST

Good luck fighting the fed. In the mean time don't complain about the sucky filters, unless you try to make them better. Since you can't opt-out of the fed's rules without the library leaving the co-op, you are in for a long battle that you may not win. Free money with no strings attached isn't likely to happen, ever.

Besides, with or without this requitement:

  • Your library will offer internet access.
  • This access will need to be controlled by the library.
  • The library's control will most likely be implemented through a software filter of some sort.
Therefore why aren't you trying to make a better filter?

[ Parent ]
I object with gusto (none / 1) (#42)
by levesque on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 07:04:19 PM EST

don't complain about the sucky filters, unless you try to make them better

Complaining is important as part of an attempt to make things better, it may be all you have, it may be small or insignificant but it is still a basic ingredient of change. Attempting to hand out complaining rights is bound to be unproductive.

I also reserve the right to complain about complaining for complaining's sake.

[ Parent ]

Re: duty to filter (none / 2) (#40)
by KrispyKringle on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 04:19:46 PM EST

As for internet filters for libraries, I feel the library has a duty to implement filtering of some sort. There is a duty to select the content for inclusion in the library and exclude other items. Internet content needs to be selected just as video content, or books. Why should I be able to use the library computer for some stuff, when I could not access similar material in print, audio or video?

Why is there a duty to select content for inclusion and exclude others? I don't think this is nearly as given as you assume; there is an obvious duty to spend available funds to best effect, but this doesn't translate into the duty to specifically exclude certain material (in other words, material that is either most popular, most intellectually stimulating, or most valuable by some other standard should be purchased, while other material should not). However, in the case of filtering, it actually takes away valuable resources to provide filtering while limiting rather than expanding the resources available to library patrons. While BSDM Internet pornography may not appeal to a very large segment of the population, and therefore not be worth spending mony on, you've yet to present a good reason why we should actually spend money on preventing patrons from accessing it.

The small subset that would like to access it has, of course, every right to do so, and I've yet to see any substantive argument that children are harmed by accidentally encountering porn (I've seen plenty of anecdotes claiming to show this, but many, if not all, seem instead to show harm to the child through the overreaction of the parents, or through the notion that the child has somehow done something wrong). At best, then, filtering is an unnecessary intrustion and a waste of funds. At worst, it can be used to hamper political speech, limit public discourse, and obstruct the course of democracy. I hope that doesn't sound too grandios.

[ Parent ]

For the sake of argument (none / 2) (#43)
by QuantumG on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 08:33:28 PM EST

Libraries have always discriminated. If a library has the decision between buying a collection of historic poetry and a bunch of old MAD magazines it will usually choose the former. The reason being that the former is considered more valuable by some standard. So if the upfront cost of filtering access to less valuable material is less than the ongoing cost of providing access to that material then the savings can be spent on access to more valuable material.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
Only problem is your argument is flawed (1.75 / 4) (#44)
by Qwaniton on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 08:46:48 PM EST

It doesn't cost anything more to not filter the web than filter it, you idiot.

When playing Devil's Advocate or advancing those "for the sake of the argument..." arguments, they have to make sense. Yours does not.

You fail it.


I don't think, therefore I
[ Parent ]
everyone else understood the argument (none / 1) (#58)
by QuantumG on Sat Jul 17, 2004 at 09:54:40 PM EST

you didn't. I think that makes you the idiot not me.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
Why bother arguing? (none / 3) (#45)
by godix on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 09:26:18 PM EST

The reason they picked the poetry is that they only had the resources to pick ONE of them, it's entirely possible that if the library had the money they'd get the poetry AND the Mad magazines.

Instead of your flawed example try this example, a library hires a guard to stand at the doors and deny entry to anyone carrying a MAD magazine. Now does this sound like an intelligent use of resources for a library? This is exactly what filtering does, it involves a continous cost to make sure that something absolutely does not enter the library and is different than spending money to bring something into the library.

They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet...
- Michael Moore describing Americans, wonder why people thinks he hates America?
[ Parent ]

It's not the money (none / 1) (#46)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Sat Jul 03, 2004 at 12:37:03 AM EST

It's the shelf space.

For example, remember the NYU library that was in the news a while back for kids killing themselves? You could fit a small office building in the atrium the kids used to kill themselves - a tremendous waste of resources. What hurts NYU is not the wasted money, though, since they could afford to make hundred dollar bill bonfires if they thought it would attract even more students. The problem is that they are running out of space to put books. Last I heard they were trucking requested books in from distant warehouses daily.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

Unless you factor in bandwidth (none / 1) (#47)
by livus on Sat Jul 03, 2004 at 02:53:09 AM EST

and come to think of it, given limited number of terminals, also they are choosing what type of patron to facilitate.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
I doubt it. (none / 1) (#51)
by KrispyKringle on Sat Jul 03, 2004 at 04:47:51 PM EST

The cost of implementation is pretty high here. They're choosing commercial solutions like SonicWall rather than SquidGuard or Privoxy, plus they're paying extra to IT staff, plus the extra time the librarians spend administering and turning this on and off. How much bandwidth do you think is really wasted in any given library on looking at porn? Seriously, what fraction of the total do you really think is used on pornography? I don't know what kind of library you frequent, but at the ones I go to, I can't imagine anybody looking at porn in the open there.

If this made it cheaper to provide more valuable services, I think librarians would be jumping on the bandwagon rather than opposing it.

Yes, I agree that given the choice between spending money on one thing or on another, libraries must try to use some sensible criteria for determining what is a worthwhile expenditure. But my point still stands, I think; spending money on filters is not enabling anybody to do anything. It's money spent to hamper some people that could be better spent on anything, be it back orders of MAD Magazine or hand-cut copies of works of Shakespear.

[ Parent ]

well, I agree, but I still wonder (none / 1) (#52)
by livus on Sat Jul 03, 2004 at 07:14:05 PM EST

when you factor in the US thing about sueing people, I would think some sort of filter would be necessary in any case to protect the library from being sued by someone (eg their child accessed porn there).

I do know someone who claims that the incidence of porn downloading in the library where they work is high, and from what Ive seen of the local university computer labs, I'd be willing to believe that there is some level of porn downloading.

Personally I'm completely against it of course. Justtrying to look at the rationale behind it. I'd expect actual librarians to oppose it because of what it is and what it does, rather than on a cost basis.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Perhaps... (none / 1) (#54)
by KrispyKringle on Sun Jul 04, 2004 at 08:35:06 PM EST

Perhaps there is some rational for some supporters, but I doubt it. Maybe I'm cynical, or maybe I'm just flat-out biased, but the only rational that the Christian right needs--and unfortunately this voting contingent has the ear of our supposed-representatives in office--is that such-and-such (Internet porn, video games, the Internet itself, other religions, secularism, single parents, homosexuality, comic books, naked breasts on the statue of justice in Washington, and Harry Potter books) is evil, ungodly, and a sin against nature, and therefore should be banned. That's it. They don't need anything more, because if the Bible says it (or if some crackpot preacher says the Bible says it) then it must be true.  

[ Parent ]
What about the enablers? (none / 1) (#55)
by livus on Sun Jul 04, 2004 at 10:17:21 PM EST

Are the majority of USians actually Christian Right? I'd always assumed that it was mostly made up of people who enable them without necessarily believing all that stuff. The alternative's a scary thought.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Who said anything about majority? (none / 2) (#57)
by KrispyKringle on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 02:57:51 AM EST

Our country is currently controlled by a minority. The current administration--and their allies in Congress and even the lofty, impartial Supreme Court--holds to social viewpoints most often in the minority (John Ashcroft--who's covering of the naked breast of the Statue of Justice in the Justice Department building made his fundamentalist religious beliefs infamous--wants to start a new war on pornography, and abstains from drinking, smoking, caffiene, and dancing). They favor corporate leeway when it comes to environmental restrictions, contrary to most Americans' desire for some form of environmental protection. If course, these are both open to interpretation; the administration claims it favors environmental protection as well--after all, who's anti-environment?--and holds some viewpoints, like opposition to gay marriage, that are held by a majority in this great country, so focused on freedom and personal liberties though we may be.

But whether or not this is a minority administration, it is certainly capable of pushing a few minority agendas here and there (do a majority of Americans demand stronger copyright protections, lower standards for safe levels of mercury in drinking water, or better tax exemptions for Bush's corporate pals?).

I know I'm going to get bitchslapped for my liberal propogandizing here, but the germane point I intended to make, before going on this rant, was just that the Christian Right is capable of pushing through minority agendas now and again, especially when such an agenda is designed to protect our children from the evils of Internet pornography and free speech.

[ Parent ]

Didn't think it was that bad really (3.00 / 8) (#33)
by nebbish on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 12:01:37 PM EST

Until I saw that sex ed sites are banned for under 17s. Yet another branch of information on contraception and STDs is blocked.

That is bad.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

depends on your demographic (none / 2) (#49)
by misanthrope112 on Sat Jul 03, 2004 at 04:43:36 AM EST

If you're a religious fundamentalist, then blocking sex-ed and contraception information is a good thing. There are plenty of people who are grinning ear to ear over this.

[ Parent ]
Missing words? (none / 1) (#56)
by Nursie on Mon Jul 05, 2004 at 07:05:34 AM EST

"If you're a religious fundamentalist, then you might think blocking sex-ed and contraception information is a good thing."
IMHO though, you would probably be wrong. And stupid. And living in a dreamworld. And a fundamentalist of course, so the previouys comments are probably a given.

"There are plenty of people who are grinning ear to ear over this."
They probably don't even realize how much they are encouraging teenage pregnancy and STI's. 'tards.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Cox is a naughty word (3.00 / 8) (#35)
by rustv on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 01:12:33 PM EST

It's ironic that a guy named "Cox" would want to block naughty words on the internet. Nobody would be able to access his campaign website from a public computer!

Or, is he suggesting that we only filter naughty words that are spelled exactly like what is expected? If that's the case, then he's a fuggin' reterd.

____
"Don't tase me, bro." --Andrew Meyer

If? (none / 1) (#50)
by trezor on Sat Jul 03, 2004 at 11:08:37 AM EST

    If that's the case, then he's a fuggin' reterd.

IF?

'Nuff said.


--
Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

[ Parent ]
Reenactment of the ideal Ashcroft Nation (2.90 / 22) (#39)
by K5 ASCII reenactment players on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 04:14:44 PM EST

Ow!  Uncle Earl, are you sure that this 
is how you do naked Greco-Roman rasslin'?
  \
   \         So far as you'll ever know, Billy.
    \        Now brace yourself for the
     \       Pounding Cougar hold.
      \           /
       \        O
        \      /|Z
           O__B=|
           / /_ |\


The way I see it... (3.00 / 7) (#41)
by skyknight on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 04:39:43 PM EST

This only really sucks for people who are too poor to own a computer of their own and/or have a high speed connection at home. Their life already sucks, and now they've got one more shackle on them.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
Libraries and culture, from a trench | 56 comments (34 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!