TOPICS
OF INTEREST
CENSORSHIP
CYBERNOT LIST
THE COMMITTEE
THE CENSORED
BAIT AND SWITCH
ABSURD REASON TO CENSOR
COURT RULINGS
SOLVING A PARADOX
PROGRAM OF ACTION
YOU ARE YOUR CHILD'S
FILTER
Related
Links Electronic
Frontier Foundation
Freespeech.com Homepage
Technical Law Journal Computer
Professionals/Social
Responsibility
Teens Fighting
Censorship-Peacefire Privacy
and Cyber Liberties-EPIC Internet
Freedom- I.F.E.A.
Ethical Spactacle Homepage
As
a free speech advocate, I want to alert as
many netizens as possible to the alarming
increase in censorship on the Internet.
Just as Hollywood and the Media restrict
their messages to satisfy the taste of the
politically correct, without regard for
the majority, now a similar elitist
mindset is working overtime to accomplish
the same thing in Cyberspace. The means
for silencing this time is not controlling
airtime, but rather filtering software
programs such as CyberPatrol, CyberSitter,
and Surfwatch,
along with "terms of service" policies
from ISPs like those recently imposed on
subscribers of America Online. Censorship
is a warning of the coming politically
correct New World Order.
CENSORSHIPRecently I upgraded my computer system
with more memory and a new 56k modem. One
of the free software packages that came
with the modem was something called
"CyberPatrol." I knew very little about
this software, except that it was suppose
to protect children from pronography on
the Internet. Unlike most people, I've learned not to
take things at face value, but instead ask
questions before deciding anything. This
approach has saved me many tears. Users of
filtering devices that limit Internet
access should be fully aware of their
limitations before they use them. If they
are not, they cannot legitimately
participate as informed consumers. So
before installing CyberPatrol on my
computer, I wanted to know just what I was
being protected from if I installed
it! I went to the homepage of the company
that puts out this filtering software, The
Learning Company at Cambridge, Mass., and
clicked the CyberPatrol icon, which was in
the shape of a police shield. After
writing an e-mail request for a list of
all the websites they are blocking
(read
censoring), I was basically told
that their "CyberNot" list was not for
public consumption.
CYBER NOT
LISTThe
"CyborNot" list is a list of all the
websites that are censored by the
"CyberNot Oversight Committee" who decides
what sites get censored based on a set of
criteria they deem appropriate. To my
dismay, many sites that have been censored
have more to do with political, social, or
religious speech than with
pronography! I
asked the thought police at CyberPatrol to
provide me with a complete list of every
website and newsgroup that was being
blocked regardless of their content or
category and here is their
reply: "Hi, I'm sorry but i can not (sic) give you
that proprietary information. Please visit
http://www.cyberpatrol.com/ for more
information. Hope this helps. (Unsigned)"
THE COMMITTEEThis e-mail only helped to raise my
curiousity as to what this outfit was up
to? Any above board company would not
hesitate to disclose information the
public has a right to know. And I had a
right to know what websites I would be
prevented from interacting with if I
install their software. If the committee wanted to stop people
from visiting these websites, they would
be happy to inform anyone what sites they
were trying to discourage. So there is an
obvious contradiction between what they
say (don't visit
these dangerous sites), and what
they are doing
(keeping these sites
secret). The CyberNot Oversight
Committee wants to select the censored
websites, but want to keep that secret. My
guess is, they think they know what is
best for you and your children , but they
want to keep that a secret too.
THE CENSOREDAfter surfing around I was amazed at
the number and variety of sites that were
or have been censored by CyberPatrol and
other censoring outfits. Among these were:
The
American Family
Association,
a group of southern fundamentalist
churches; The SPOTLIGHT, a populist
national subcription newspaper that has
been in existence for over twenty years;
Glide United Methodist Church; some of the
Quakers webpages, also known as The
Society of Friends; David Duke homepage,
who is a Christian Republican officeholder
from Louisiana; and Zero Population Growth
website. According to the Ethical Spectacle site
which appears to be libertarian,
CyberPatrol blocks the premier Usenet
archive and search engine, Deja News.
Censorware Project which can be viewed on
the same site, also says CyberPatrol
blocks a great many sites that do not
deserve to be. Another page fighting censorship is
Peacefire.org which appears to be on the
left. It states that the following sites
have been censored at one time or another
by CyberPatrol, which is the leading
censorer of Internet sites, but gets a lot
of company from
Cybersitter:The
Electronic Frontier Foundation; Animal
Rights Resource site at Environlink; Queer
Resources Directory, a homosexual
publication; AIDS Authority and HIV/AIDS
Info Center, both dissiminate health
information; Planned Parenthood; NOW; and
M.I.T. Student Association for Freedom of
Expression. Actually, the list of
censored sites must be quite extensive,
but only full disclosure will tell us how
pervasive censorship really is. This list includes left-wing,
libertarian, populist, militias and
pro-gun advocates, foundamentalist, and
the right-wing, which is hit hardest. But
the point is, regardless of their
ideology, these individuals and groups
have nothing to do with pronography and
should not be censored just because some
politically correct czar thinks so. What may not be obvious to those on the
right is that those on the left can be
politically INcorrect too. The politically
correct thought police want to form the
minds of our young people to be neither
left nor right. It wants `dumbed-down'
humanoids for the twenty-first century who
fit into a very narrow mentality where
conflect does not exit, but neither does
`the educated man', individual or group
identity, nor spiritual expression. The
elitist thought police, who are still in
the process of defining what will be
acceptable or objectionable, want to
prevent any intellectual stimulation or
original thinking that will be disruptive
to the creeds they are devising for the
New World Order under the guise of
political correctness. So the censoring -
of newsgroups and websites that stray too
far to the left or to the right of the
narrow p.c. theology - becomes a form of
behavior modification. By accepting their
censorship you are being conditioned in
accordance with their thinking. This censorship is not unrelated to the
punishment of thought and speech, which
gave birth to "hate crimes." Let's say you
punch someone in the face. That is a
behavior that is called "assult" and is
punishable. The law punishes behavior
only. The thought you had or the words you
said when you punched the other person
should,according to the thought police,
determine if this action be punished as
prescribed by law or recieve even greater
punishment. It all depends on whether or
not they dislike what you said.They want
to separate speech from action and punish
it as a crime in itself. When a society
punishes its citizens for their speech,
instead of behavior, it imitates a
totalitarian state.
BAIT AND SWITCHIt is unfortunate that good folk like
the fundamentalist Christians who think
they are trying to do the right thing,
cannot see through the bait and switch
deception of the thought police. The bait
being offered is a promise to protect
their kids from indecencies on the
Internet. For the past several years the
religious right, as their media friends
call them, and other parents have opposed
the low level of morality, the high level
of violence, the glorification of drugs
and alcohol, and the promotion of sexual
promiscuity. All of these run counter to
their beliefs. Dispite political and grass
roots efforts, little has changed. The pat
answer the media always gives to any
complaint is, "If you don't like what you
see, turn the channel." The filtering programs must have seemed
like the answer to their prayers. Out of a
frustration with trying to raise their
children properly in the midst of the
contradictory `popular culture,' these
trusting souls were lead to believe
censorship was a solution, if they called
it "blocking" or "editing". Little did
they realize that their own allies'
websites, (like The American Family
Association, The Society of Friends, and
pro-life groups) were being censored by
these same filters. By niavely accepting
censorship as their solution, they become,
in effect, their own enemy. The `religious
right' should stop and think before
calling for censorship on various forms of
"immorality" because there are forces that
will be happy to accommodate them for
their own cynical reasons. The thought
police weren't after pronography nearly as
much as speech that does not pass their
litmus test of political correctness.
AN ABSURD REASON TO CENSORIn reviewing the long list of criteria
CyberPatrol uses for censoring websites
and newsgroups, many indicate a
authoritarian mindset. For example, under
Intolerance category, Cyber Patrol wants
to prevent ethnic groups from taking pride
in their heritage by imposing the
non-senseical and invasive criterium that
says if a website shows a picture or text
as more favorable to one group over
another group, that website should be
censored! Applied to the real world this shows
that truth and reason do not stand in the
way of the thought police. Of course
members of any group celebrating its
identity will communicate in some way
their preference for their own kin. That
is only natural. What group who celebrates
its culture and heritage is going to say
that they are lower than everyone else?
And if they say they are `equal' to all
other groups, then the group would not
have a basis for celebrating itself. Even
government agencies have diversity days
for employees in which different groups
take turns celebrating their groups
identity and history, with the possible
exception of White males who are not
always given this same opportunity. But if we allow CyberPatrol to impose
this absurd criterium on these diversity
celebrations that are encouraged by
government and corporations alike, they
would not be allowed on the Internet. So
perhaps we will not be able to see
St.Patrick's Day parade or read about it
on the Internet because of this criterium.
Nor will Jews be allowed to display
pictures or text that claim they suffered
more than other groups during World War
II. According to this criterium, holocaust
museums are unfit for Internet
consumption. The Black Muslims would also
have a hard time surviving on the Internet
if censorship were executed across the
board based on this criterium.
COURT RULINGSThe CyberPatrol software in your
computer functions as a means to silence
an assortment of free expression without
disclosing what websites you are losing
access to. This does not seem to be very
American. In fact, it is probably an
infringement on the right of free speech
guaranteed to all Americans. Recently the Supreme Court held that a
content-based Internet regulation intended
to prevent the transmission of material
harmful to minors was unconstitutional
because it suppressed speech adults were
constitutionally entitled to send and
receive. The court said:"...it is true
that we have repeatedlly recognized the
government interest in protecting children
from harmful materials. But that interest
does not justify an unnecessarily broad
suppression of speech addressed to
adults." (ACLU v Reno) This would include
political and religious speech. And a
Virginia district court ruled that,"...(a)
library may not selectively restrict
certain categories of Internet speech
because it disfavors their content."(see
Mainstream Loudoun v Loudoun County
Libraries.) Both cases can be found at
www.techlawjournal. com/censorship. It appears this is exactly what the
thought police at AOL, CyberPatrol and
other places are doing. They are
selectively censoring religious and
political speech because they disfavor
their content. To make matters worst,
politicians like Sen.McCain (R-Az) have
just succeeded in passing a law that
REQUIRES censorship by public institutions
in order to receive certain Federal funds
(see The Communications Decency Act.1998).
When politicians like McCain disregard our
constituional rights we should waste no
time in booting them out of office. But
the above laws do not apply to
corporations. They can make any policies
they like just so long as they are not
directly in violation of existing law. For
corporations the only solution is a
boycott of all of their products.
SOLVING A PARADOXWhile most censorship has been imposed
on the political right, many sites from
the left have been also. While I expected
"www.stormfront.org", the flagship of
White Nationalism, to be promptly punished
with censorship by the thought police, I
did not expect to find homosexual and
feminist sites censored, since CyberPatrol
claimed to have these groups represented
on their CyberNot Oversight Committee.
This presented a paradox that I was
obliged to unraval. The answer lies in any of three
possibilities or a combination of them.
First, the banning of both right and
left-wing sites fits into the New World
Order theory with its narrow strip of
politcal correct thought that must not be
violated, as discribed above. Secondly,
because there were so many right-wing
sites censored it was encumbered upon the
thought police to censor some sites on the
left in an attempt to appear objective and
fairminded. Finally, and somewhat
intriguingly, a report by Bruce Meeks and
Declan McCullagh, which I found near the
end of my research, indicates that the
CyberNot Committee with its left-wing bias
membership was not doing most of the
censoring at the time of the report.
According to
"Keys to the Kingdom", although there
were homosexuals and feminist on the
committee, they were not privy to all the
censored sites. It seems the oversight
committee meets every few weeks but "the
oversight group never actually sees the
previously top-secret `CyberNot' list.
They don't know what's *really* banned."
So essentially the committee is there for
appearances, while the real censorers do
their dirty deeds in secret behind closed
doors.. The insidious thought police at
CyberPatrol and A.O.L. are in full gear
because they do not sense much opposition.
Their deception to protect children while
they attack freedom is working. The faster
they move now the greater hold they will
have - until Americans wake up to what is
going on. Since we passively accepted the
take-over of our television sets and
classrooms, they assume we are still
asleep and we will let it happen again.
Once the thought police gain control they
will never let go, and we will have
ourselves to blame for the suppression of
speech that will also be the burden of our
progeny.
PROGRAM OF ACTION
Here
are some of the things you can do right
now as a concerned
netizen.BOYCOTT
AMERICA ONLINE. If you subscribe to
AOL, cancel your subscription and join
another ISP who does not censor. The
thought police at AOL are very opposed
to equal time for Whites. Recently
after purging many webpages belonging
to White males, they refused to remove
one that belonged to an anti-White
radical Mexican group, dispite repeated
requests to exercise fairness. So if
you are White and Proud don't give you
dollars to AOL. There are many good ISP
like Mindspring that do not censor and
some even charge less. Check around.
(see AOLsucks newsgroup for war stories
on AOL DELETE
CYBERPATROL or any other filtering
software that does not let you choose
the sites to block or that adds to the
list of blocked sites without your
knowledge. While you're at it, send
them e-mail letting them know you
oppose their lack of honesty by not
disclosing what the people have a right
to know. E-MAIL
ANY WEBSITE that has been blocked
and let them know you are in solidarity
with them against the forces of
censorship. They will surely be pleased
to hear from you. Hopefully they will
contack each other and explore the
possibility of a class action suit for
violation of thier civil
liberties. GET
ON NEWSGROUPS dealing with social,
cultural, political and religious
issues and awake others to this
censorship. Tell them about the big
bait & switch and who the real
targets are. WRITE,
E-MAIL, fax, or call the corporate
headquarters of CyberPatrol's sponcers
to let them know that you are
disappointed they lent their good name
for questionable purposes.
A
T & T, GTE,
and IBM
allow
their logos to be used on the
CyberPatrol page. Many other companies
have also endorsed CyberPatrol. Make no
mistake about it, The Learning Company
and its CyberPatrol division are slick.
Their software is appealing. They were
undoubtedly skillful in getting people
at these corporations to support their
"humanitarian" objectives. These
corporations were taken in, just as
many of us were. Now they must be
awaken too - by you.
YOU ARE YOUR CHILD'S
FILTER Finally,
a word to those who do not want to
support censorship but still feel that
they must do something to prevent their
children from some of the smutty sites
on the Internet. First, preventing
access to smut on the Internet will not
do much to eliminate its presence. It
is readily available in and around
schools, newsstands, and on television.
Secondly, it has been shown that these
filters really do not work as well as
some claim. (Please see
www.cpsr.org/faq for more
details.) Thirdly,
and most importantly, the best defense
against outside corruption is to teach
your child good character. The folks at
Peacefire.org, which is a teen website
fighting censorship says it nicely:
"...no other human being except you
knows best what is and isn't
appropriate for them. (your children)
By learning to use the Internet with
your child....you can instill in them
the values that you want them to
use..." in any situation when you are
not present. This
would be far more effective than
shifting this responsibility to the
thought police at CyberPatrol or AOL.
Technology cannot substitute for your
guidance, particularly when those who
produce that technology tend toward a
totalitarian mindset. They do not care
about your children, I promise you.
They care about what they want to
achieve, which is a society that is not
better but, in fact, much worst for
your children than what we have
now. Until
they make a filtering program that you
can totally control and one that no one
can add to without your knowledge, your
children's welfare is your
responsibility. This goes beyond using
stop-gap measures that wind up working
against you instead of for you. If you
draw the line, then you know the
limits. If you let some stranger take
this responsibility from you, then you
are at their mercy. All things
considered, there is too much at stake
to let this happen. ©
W.Thoreau; September 1998 Email:
[email protected] |