Slashdot Log In
VDARE Fights Blocking By Censorware
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Oct 19, 2006 04:23 PM
from the fighting-inconvenience-with-inconvenience dept.
from the fighting-inconvenience-with-inconvenience dept.
Bennett Haselton writes "The anti-immigration site VDARE is publicizing the fact that it has been blocked as a 'hate site' by several Internet blocking programs, although some of them backed off and un-blocked it after receiving a letter from VDARE's lawyer. Since blocking software is bound to remain in use in most public schools for the foreseeable future, this raises the question: Is it possible for a blocking company to define a 'hate site' in a consistent way, without including conservative groups that might file a First Amendment lawsuit if their sites were blocked from public school computers? See what VDARE says about the content on their own site, and how blocking software companies have handled this issue in the past and what they might do this time." This is the first in a series of article by Bennett Haselton, writing for us from the Peacefire group. Read on for the rest of his piece.
The anti-immigration site VDARE.com is publicizing the fact that their site is blocked as a "hate site" by several different blocking programs. They don't name the programs, although they say that four companies used to block VDARE and "backed off after receiving a lawyer's letter".
It seems to be working, since according to the online lookup forms provided by WebSense, N2H2, SurfControl and SmartFilter, only SmartFilter lists the site under "hate speech"; the rest either don't categorize it or list it in innocuous categories. (N2H2 lists it as "Web Page Hosting/Free Pages", which makes no sense -- but not only that, N2H2 is now owned by the same company that makes SmartFilter, which means the company has VDARE listed one way in one product, and a different way in another.)
VDARE says they decided that showing legal muscle was a good way to get unblocked, after reading about an experiment Peacefire did in which we found that censorware companies would block sites with anti-gay content when they thought the sites were run by individuals, but would not block the *exact same content* when it was hosted by "mainstream" groups like Focus on the Family. Concludes VDARE: "The obvious reason for the double standard is that the foundations have lawyers on staff, and volunteer lawyers, and the Censorware companies are afraid of them." True -- although we did nominate AFA.net as a "hate site" at about the same time, and it did get blocked by Cyber Patrol, so it is possible if the content is extreme enough.
I'm against blocking VDARE, even from people under 18, but only because I'm against such blocking in general. Polls show that most people under 18 are more liberally-minded about race than their parents, suggesting that if you want to end racism, give minors more rights and freedom of information, not less. There was a big flap when it came out that in some Islamic schools in New York, parents had their children taught with textbooks which said that "the Jews killed their own prophets" and "you will find them ever deceitful", but without more civil rights for people under 18 to seek information for themselves, there's not much that anybody can do about it.
But as for whether VDARE really should be listed as a "hate site", the site owner himself says that VDARE is not "white nationalist", but adds, "We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as 'white nationalist'". Well even if VDARE itself claims not to be 'white nationalist', if they host white nationalist writings, it's still accurate to classify the site as a place where such content is located. VDARE itself is also listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. VDARE's founder insists they are merely anti-immigration, not white nationalist, although he admits he once thought about adding a chapter to his anti-immigration book Alien Nation about the "last white family" (not the "last non-illegal-immigrant family") to leave Los Angeles.
Like BoingBoing.Net did before them, VDARE is retaliating against the block by encouraging people to learn how to get around blocking software. I wonder if they looked closely at our site first, since we fight censorship from the point of view of advocating greater civil rights for minors, which would probably not be a popular view with VDARE's ultra-conservative base. And if that's not enough, I'm planning to contact WebSense, SurfControl, and any other company that doesn't currently list VDARE as a "hate site", and ask them why not. So, VDARE sends us traffic, and this is how we repay them.
It seems to be working, since according to the online lookup forms provided by WebSense, N2H2, SurfControl and SmartFilter, only SmartFilter lists the site under "hate speech"; the rest either don't categorize it or list it in innocuous categories. (N2H2 lists it as "Web Page Hosting/Free Pages", which makes no sense -- but not only that, N2H2 is now owned by the same company that makes SmartFilter, which means the company has VDARE listed one way in one product, and a different way in another.)
VDARE says they decided that showing legal muscle was a good way to get unblocked, after reading about an experiment Peacefire did in which we found that censorware companies would block sites with anti-gay content when they thought the sites were run by individuals, but would not block the *exact same content* when it was hosted by "mainstream" groups like Focus on the Family. Concludes VDARE: "The obvious reason for the double standard is that the foundations have lawyers on staff, and volunteer lawyers, and the Censorware companies are afraid of them." True -- although we did nominate AFA.net as a "hate site" at about the same time, and it did get blocked by Cyber Patrol, so it is possible if the content is extreme enough.
I'm against blocking VDARE, even from people under 18, but only because I'm against such blocking in general. Polls show that most people under 18 are more liberally-minded about race than their parents, suggesting that if you want to end racism, give minors more rights and freedom of information, not less. There was a big flap when it came out that in some Islamic schools in New York, parents had their children taught with textbooks which said that "the Jews killed their own prophets" and "you will find them ever deceitful", but without more civil rights for people under 18 to seek information for themselves, there's not much that anybody can do about it.
But as for whether VDARE really should be listed as a "hate site", the site owner himself says that VDARE is not "white nationalist", but adds, "We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as 'white nationalist'". Well even if VDARE itself claims not to be 'white nationalist', if they host white nationalist writings, it's still accurate to classify the site as a place where such content is located. VDARE itself is also listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. VDARE's founder insists they are merely anti-immigration, not white nationalist, although he admits he once thought about adding a chapter to his anti-immigration book Alien Nation about the "last white family" (not the "last non-illegal-immigrant family") to leave Los Angeles.
Like BoingBoing.Net did before them, VDARE is retaliating against the block by encouraging people to learn how to get around blocking software. I wonder if they looked closely at our site first, since we fight censorship from the point of view of advocating greater civil rights for minors, which would probably not be a popular view with VDARE's ultra-conservative base. And if that's not enough, I'm planning to contact WebSense, SurfControl, and any other company that doesn't currently list VDARE as a "hate site", and ask them why not. So, VDARE sends us traffic, and this is how we repay them.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
New category (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a historical pattern of the "hate" bans leaning "a certain way," if you know what I mean, and with a broad brush. Some sites are also the target of campaigns to have them labeled as "hate" by political opponents.
I don't think VDARE would be able to argue that they don't foster political controversy, though I'm sure the new category would elicit some argument. I used to follow links there from time to time, and while I would categorize them as "strident" I don't think I could honestly condemn them as a "hate" site, anymore than (and probably less than) I could CNN or Reuters.
One of the biggest problems with blocking is that definitions of "offensive" vary from person to person.
Re:New category (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that a new category would be a perfect solution.
Throw everyone with a militant opinion (whether it is "save the trees" or "i hate spics") and let the individual network admins sort out what they do and don't like.
P.S. Just so that we're all working from the same definitions, here is what wikipedia has to say about hate speech [wikipedia.org]
"Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, moral or political views, etc."
If you disagree with that definition, feel free to say why, but "because I disagree" or "people are overly sensitive" isn't a valid response.
P.P.S. Political/Nationalist extremists are just as bad as the religious fundies.
Parent
Re:New category (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:New category (Score:4, Informative)
Most masterial identified in a category available for blocking by censorware is speech, and many categories are entirely, or mostly, 1st Amendment protected material.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You cannot by law, make the constitution irrelevent to certain people. The best you can do is say the context of the speech caused something to happen to someone else and hold them acountible for that action. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theator won't get you into trouble unless people react to it. and the amount of trouble you do get in, would be roughly aportional to thier reaction.
Now, I'm not sure why t
Speech as speech versus actions as speech. (Score:4, Interesting)
Cite please.
There aren't, that I know of, any Federal laws against hate speech, when it is simply "speech" and not action-producing. It is still protected as political speech, just like anything else. There are certain types of "speech" which are prohibited if they incite particular actions, but they prohibited by virtue of being actions-as-speech rather than speech per se. This has broad historical basis in the prohibitions against inciting riots, and the "fire in a crowded theater" example.
Neither one is really a type of speech being against the law, when the speech is considered independently of the action it provokes. This may seem like an academic point, but it is not. It's the difference between it actually being illegal to say something due to subject matter, and being illegal to say something in a particular time and place, to a particular audience, in order to produce a particular effect. Both situation and motivation play into its prohibition.
There is a very big difference between saying that you can't deny the Holocaust, period, and saying that you can't tell a bunch of people at a white supremacist rally to go out and kill Jews. The second case is clearly an incitement to violence and thus isn't just speech, it's also action-causing in a direct and predictable way. The first case is blatantly censorious and (although it is the case in many European countries,) would not pass Constitutional muster in the U.S. -- even if a simple majority of Congress and the President wanted to make it illegal.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree because the definition itself is an immensely
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Best story about boneheads I ever heard was about a group of SHARPS (SkinHeads Against Racial Prejudice) that went to Chicago for a KKK rally... they had ridden on their scooters, and parked on the street right in front of the podium... the cops came up to them and told them that they couldn't park *their*, however they could park on the sidewalk right next to the podium... so there they sat... revving their engines everytime the guy started ranting...
Of course... before they arrived, they removed all th
slashdot=hate speech (Score:5, Interesting)
See how this works? Constant attacks on religion of all types, and as extreme as it gets, complete with stuff pretty close to threats..I've seen it here. Hate speech? Looks like it to me following this dubious "logic". Is it cool to block slashdot?
How about those "everything hispanic is just so damn cool" sites, the bronze warrior aztlan overlord la raza reconquista sites?(despite them all wanting to move here and theior own nations are cesspools) Are they being blocked by these softwares? They go so far as to want to kill off all the whites in the south west US, I've read some on their sites, I've seen pics of posters some of them have carried at rallies, complete with graphical representations of white folks with their heads cut off by bronze warrior machetes.. Blocked? Are they? The US attorney general is a member of a hispanic separatist organization! I have seen quite a bit of "hate speech" there at those sites following these strict guides. How about Free Republic and D.U.? You honestly want to say you (anyone you, not being specific at all) haven't seen a variety of "hate speech" there?
And so on.
Here's some reality. You have to be 100% pro gay or be classed as a hater. You have to be 100% zionist and pro everything israel does or you are a "hater" (that's a HUGE one in this society, go on, admit it) You have to be 100% pro ultra radical feminism or you are a hater. You have to either bend over and spread 'em with a smile on your face for clinton or bush or you are a hater. And so on.
There's a HUGE list, and if you look close EVERYONE ON THE PLANET has some semblence of "hate speech" naughty thoughts and the occassional "hate" scribble or "hate" utterences, so let's just block everything and go back to living in caves and grunting. Then instead of hate speech we can engage in mass "club love" and be "sharing" with the "multicultural" neighbors.
As to the original example in the article, it appears you can be pro anything, anything at all, any other race or tribe or ethnicity, other than having european heritage in your family tree. Then that becomes "hate speech".
Screw that, screw "current political correctness"..because that is the root of all hate. Want to see the simply best possible examples of the most intolerant and bigoted people on the planet, just in general terms, I mean just raw extremism, no matter the subject being discussed, where there exists only black and white but never the shades of gray? Go to any university and watch the young folks there when they discover politics.
Been there, done that,guilty as charged. Learn from history and learn from the mistakes of youth, because YOU will be making them, a lot of them. You just won't see it for many years, that's all.
Parent
Re:slashdot=hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, young people tend to have more extreme views than older people. That's why societies with a larger proportion of young people tend to have more radical governments (and why Western governments are becoming more conservative as their populations get older). Young people are also more impressionable. (my opinion - unsubstantiated)
I think freedom of speech is a really difficult (yet important) issue. It's certainly *not* as simple as "everyone should be able to say whatever they want."
"You have to be 100% pro gay or be classed as a hater."
I'm not sure what pro gay actually means, but from the examples you cite I gather there are many aspects of political correctness that you do not agree with. P.C. does need to be recognised as an agenda, whether or not you agree with it (personally, I think it has some good and bad aspects). It's agenda could probably be described as "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything," which is probably a bit simplistic, but if everyone practiced it would probably result in a more harmonious society.
A big problem facing our society is lack of respect and manners, and if people were a little more tolerant, and a little less quick to point the finger ("How about those "everything hispanic is just so damn cool" sites") I reckon that'd go a long way.
I suggest you chill out a bit. There are problems with what people say. Israel ain't perfect, Hispanics ain't perfect, the West (whatever that means) ain't perfect. Let's accept that, and not get too hung up on the minority of dickheads in each society - how's that sound?
Parent
Re:New category (Score:4, Insightful)
According to this, Slashdot and many other web forums are just filled with "hate speech", since they constantly have comments like "Bush sucks", "neocon", "liberal", etc. In fact, just about any political speech these days could be considered "hate speech" according to this definition, since political viewpoints are so polarized.
Parent
Re:New category (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, as this situation illustrates, many views that people regard as racist don't facially demand unequal treatment. I think we would all recognize a site that called for seperate schooling for children of different races as endorsing prejudice even though it is cast as a neutral policy. You might try to argue that any site demanding people be seperated based on race or similar categories is inherently prejudicial but this won't fly either. After all a website that advocated seperate sex schooling on the grounds that boys and girls distract each other from learning could be non-prejudiced despite calling for seperation based on sex.
Ultimately the issue is that 'prejudicial' is a subjective standard. Something is prejudicial if it call for unwarranted different treatment of one group or another. For instance most people don't think calling for adult men who have sex with 13 year olds to be sent to jail is prejudiced. However we do think that calling for adult men who have sex with other men to be sent to jail would be prejudiced. The difference being that in the first case we think having sex with a 13 year old warrants being treated differently but having sex with another man does not.
This is ultimately why I detest restrictions on hate speech. It boils down to nothing but a list of positions that the society has deemed to be sufficently distasteful. While I happen to agree that most positions now deemed hate speech are horrible I am firmly against society imposing it's judgement through censorship or legal enforcement.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does the statement "save the trees" contain anything about burning down housing developments, or anything about radical animal liberation? The vast majority of people who would use that phrase would support things like planting more trees and reducing logging, not burning down housing developments. You seem very confused. I'm not e
Re: (Score:2)
It would be better to name that catagory "dissent". Then people would know exactly what they were blocking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> where it's subjective to label them as "hate."
No need, everybody with a clue understands that "hate speech" is newspeak for "disagrees with liberal orthodoxy" because it certainly doesn't have anything to do with supressing "hate". Go look at ANY website where 'progressives' (also known as liberals (US), Democrats, socialists depending on country and audience) hang out. Hate will drip from th
Censorship by "recommendation engine." (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you've got the right idea. Really, we need to make web "censorship" -- if we need to do it at all -- more of a recommendation-based system. Sort of like the reverse of Amazon's "you might like this if..." system. If somet
this seems out of place (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, I don't know what the article-publishing mechanism is. I wouldn't imagine you'd design it as just a button labeled "Publish" and no edit controls, but I don't really see any evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I mean, I don't know what the article-publishing mechanism is. I wouldn't imag
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I look forward to further slashdot articles such as "Ask Slashdot: What knitting needles are best for sweaters?" and "Everybody Loves Raymond Picked Up for Nth Season".
Re:this seems out of place (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you missed it, because it has always been that way.
I was under the impression it was for discussion of issues relating to science and technology.
No. It's "News for Nerds." Nerds are interested in more than just science and technology.
By the way, how could you miss the technology angle? This is about how the use of technology impacts society, and the ethical questions surrounding technology. Sounds like perfect nerd/technology discussion fodder to me.
I look forward to further slashdot articles such as "Ask Slashdot: What knitting needles are best for sweaters?" and "Everybody Loves Raymond Picked Up for Nth Season".
Yeah, because the internet will run out of space if slashdot posts too many articles. Oh noes! Somebody is interested in reading something that you don't approve of!
Parent
Re:this seems out of place (Score:5, Interesting)
I sure would. I decline spend the effort necessary to figure out just exactly what one group of shitheads contends separates them from a similar group of shitheads, and where exactly these shitheads want the shithead line drawn. I simply draw it around both, and sleep well at night for doing so.
Parent
First amendment rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see no rights violation here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
the Supreme Court held that students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate"
Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico
"Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their remo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was under the impression that the constitution placed restrictions on the government; ISPs are private companies, and so surely can drop whatever site they like.
I see no rights violation here.
Indeed; the only potentially iffy aspect is that public institutions use these filters. However, surely the complaint would be against those institutions, not the filtering companies. The institutions can attempt to persuade the companies to modify the
So, then, sue. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The first amendment isn't only supposed to apply to those with deep enough pockets to protect themselves.
pro 2nd amendment often blocked too (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to be a pro-gun site and not be blocked, too. You need not necessarily be promoting violence or have any images of people even using guns, much less anything that's been shot by a gun. All you need to do is show guns positively and the blockers think, "Oh, horrors! Kiddies might go on a rampage!" and you're on the blacklist. Of course, anti-gun sites are fine, and get right through. Hard for a schoolkid to get any balanced information.
If one is going to filter (let's just assume for the moment that filtering is inevitable), then one needs to distinguish between responsible sites that talk about the political issues involved and the ones that glorify the elements of that issue that some find unsavory. There's a big difference between NRA.org and WatchMeBlastEverythingThatMovesIntoBloodyPulp.net - you can't lump them together as "gun sites" and block both.
Re:pro 2nd amendment often blocked too (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup. It's the one civil right that isn't politically correct.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> WatchMeBlastEverythingThatMovesIntoBloodyPulp.net
> - you can't lump them together as "gun sites" and block both.
But the anti-gun nuts really and truly cannot see any difference, any more than the "religious right" can see any difference between a gay porn site and a liberal site advocating tolerance for homosexuality.
Raising the question (Score:3, Funny)
You mean it begs the question?
Wait a minute . . .
WTF! A Slashdot summary that gets it right? What next? Dogs and cats living together?
Wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it seems to me that the companies filtering sites are the ones being trampled on by lawyers, forced by threat of litigation to back off their initial judgement that the page contained racist ideas. It sounds like it's THEIR rights being interfered with here.
After a quick reading of a few things on the site, I'd say that if it's not racist, it teeters on the edge of it.
Not what I thought (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not only anti-immigration (which is un-American IMHO), they sound like a bunch of racists. But should they be blocked?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wanted to get that clear.
of course it's impossible (Score:3, Interesting)
however, that doesn't mean:
1. you should stop trying
2. you should consider getting it perfect as your goal
it is wrong to block a site that shouldn't be blocked
it is also wrong to allow unfettered access to the web by kids in school
but you can't stop doing one wrong without committing the other, so that there exists a tension between two perfectly valid goals, where you always have to be careful about what you block, mindful of the fact that no matter what you do, you won't get it perfect
but there are a lot of people out there who are idealists, who believe that if you can't do something perfect, you shouldn't try to do it all. there are also a lot of people who are only capable of looking at wrongs completely out of context. in other words, they see a downside, a negative, but they don't understand that for some thankless challenges in life, there is a downside no matter what you do, and the goal is not get something upside, or even a wash, but to just minimize the downsides. and yet some people therefore:
1. don't recognize the nature of the problem, and oppose an action just because a downside exists (nevermind that it is impossible for a downside not to exist for some problems in life)
2. don't recognize that acting imperfectly in some problems beats not acting at all. but because they can't be perfect, they'd rather not act, but they only wind up compounding the problem, simply because of their idealism
the fact that these tensions between two competing wrongs exist for some tasks in life doesn't mean you stop trying, but it does mean that you unfortunately must continually whether withering criticism from howling idealists who just don't understand the nature of the dilemna
Conservative Groups? (Score:2, Funny)
I mean, it's the American Left that gets its way via the courts, since it can't achieve anything at the ballot box. Well, apart from Diebold conspiracy theories.
Oh, and as a refection of the Slashdot demographic, I fully expect this post to be modded -1000000, Offtopic.
Please clarify (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's conceivable that the organization could file lawsuits citing the First Amendment against public schools, public libraries, or other government entities that provide public internet access through a filter.
It's far more likely that the organization would file lawsuits based on some form of defamation tort against the filtering businesses themselves, since "hate speech" does h
All censoring violates the First Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, take something which we, for the most part, can equally identify: Pornography. Now define it. If you're reaching for a dictionary, note that it will use the word "obscene" or somesuch - a subjective, qualitative adjective. To make the impossible even harder on yourself, try to come up with a strict definition that would clearly differentiate pornography from nude art. You can't.
There is a reason that former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart came up with the famous case-law definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it." I cannot think of a more ambiguous definition for something which we know so well, and if we can't even come up with a suitable definition for something so clear as pornography, how ever could we come up with a clear definition for anything else?
VDARE's views... (Score:3, Insightful)
When did it become fashionable (Score:4, Insightful)
All have to say is... (Score:4, Interesting)
There goes my karma, but I don't care. The message that the image portrays speaks for itself. My ancestors were here first. Someone should tell these guys that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So which argument should we follow, "We were here first" or "We were here last"? Because you may not have been as first as you think you are, and hell, we're probably related anyway.
Hate Speech is Protected (Score:3, Interesting)
Political extremists, racism, zealotry... we should be exposing kids to this, and explaining why it is wrong; not hiding them from it to the point where they don't recognize it when they see it. My children shouldn't need to use the Internet at home to do their research.
I am fundamentally opposed to limitations on speech. I believe that censorship is almost universally wrong, and suppression of ideas has no place in a school setting.
Raven
Maddox's 2 cents (Score:3, Informative)
observations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your tax dollars at work (Score:3, Interesting)
For some categories, we have half an hour discretionary time per day we can use for anything but porn, hate sites, etc. Personally, I'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course you can. Provided you follow the 11th Commandment, you can do it with impunity. That, in fact, is the tech person's main form of power. The tech person rarely has the skills to be a politici
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This one doesn't quite make sense to me. If someone supports "open borders", doesn't that mean they think people should just be able to walk over the border at will and go wherever they want? Maybe they're not "pro-illegal-immigration", but it seems like they want the laws changed so that anyone can immigrate with no restrictions whatsoe