[KLUG Advocacy] RE: CIPA unconstitutional -- my simple idea ...

[Adam Williams]

>>Some control is necessary, if no options are volunteered, the government
>>will come to a point of implementing their own rating and ranking system
>>"for your protection".
>>This problem has a very wide base with residual impact with any
>>decision.  There really is no easy answer.
>It has been proven that COTS filtering products are filled with
>political agendas and poor site selection.  And at the other extreme,
>the good filters have very expensive subscription services as they are
>designed for corporations.

And corporations have an entirely diffrent agenda than a library.

>What we need is not another filtering product or subscription service. 
>We need a technology enabler to allow users to choose whom they get
>their filtering lists from.  Technical companies should NOT be deciding
>the content lists, people should by being able to choose who they get
>their lists from.**  The former is the "facist" model, the latter is the
>"democratic" model.

I like this "select a filter" idea,  and it actually would be trivial to 
implement using something like squid.  But it doesn't solve the "computer 
next to me" problem.  The person to my right may view something I find 
offensive, I'll see it out of the corner of my eye, and I'll be offended 
(Oh my!).  This may help,  but in the end I still think it is just a 
"problem" we are going to have to live with. 

>>[ **NOTE:  My Libertarian ideals are showing.  E.g., I use the same
>argument with healthcare -- your employer should NOT be telling you
>where you can get your health insurance, you should be able to choose
>from a wealth of organizations and have your premiums pre-taxed.  Again,
>the former is "facist," the latter is "democratic." ]
>This could get a bit difficult in public institutions though.  E.g., the
>NEA is an ignorant lobbyist organization for the Democratic Party IMHO. 

Oh no!  The NEA is not for the Democratic Party?  I often vote for 
Democrats, and my wife is a public school teacher.  The NEA is way too 
stupid, backward, and ignorant to be "for" anyone, at least successfully.  
I'm a "liberal" but I certainly wish they didn't consider themselves in my 
camp.  The only thing the NEA is "for" is the bloated egos of the educrats 
that make up their board.

>So in the case of libraries and schools, maybe they would be required to
>subscribe to more than one list by law 

But it doesn't help the small fringe groups that can't afford to 
onstruct their own lists, or (some by their very nature) don't have a 
cental organ to do so.

>-- so there isn't a political
>agenda (like the NEA pushes).  Or in larger states, like here in
>Florida, California, NY, Texas, etc... the state department of education
>could possibly generate their own?  Heck, why can't the parents indicate
>what filtering list should be used for their kids?

I hope the Michigan Department of Ed doesn't try.  Oh my gosh.... Please!
Send in the corporotists.
 
>I mean, isn't that what freedom all about?  Protecting people who want
>to be protected, but not forcing those who don't???

Hmm,  I'm not sure thats what freedom is about.  But thats another thread.