Boston situation

[CMUNSON]

Dear Chuck:
     
The following was forwarded to me.  I see reference to "censorware" as 
pertaining to some of the companies in the filtering or blocking arena.  We 
at Net Nanny agree that there should be no censorship of the Internet.  We 
believe that the Individual has the right to determine what should or 
should not be presented on his/her terminal.
     
Net Nanny allows YOU, the owner, to decide what you do or do not want sent, 
typed or received on your PC.  We allow you total access to our FREE data 
base, if you want, or you can define your own data base.  Anything that is 
blocked inadvertently may be removed from Net Nanny's data base at the 
owner's discretion.
     
We are the only software company that allows 2-way screening and to 
capability of deciding what is right for your situation.  We also do not 
believe that customers should be charged for any data base update.  All of 
our data bases, (both good and bad lists) are free of charge to all owners 
of our product.
     
Please feel free to send any comment you may have on these issues to me.  
     
Thanks.   :)
Gordon.
Gordon a. Ross - CEO/President
Net Nanny Software International Ltd. 
Suite 108 - 525 Seymour Street
Vancouver, B.C.  Canada   V6B 3H7
     Tel:  (604) 662-8522
     
     
     Dear Gordon:
     
     Thanks for your letter. Maybe I have been hasty to lump all Internet 
     filtering products into one bag, but they still scare me. I believe it 
     was CyberPatrol that I tested, which I discovered filtered out many 
     sites with non-mainstream views. You have to understand why some of us 
     librarians, who believe in the right of access to information, should 
     be concerned about filtering software. It is easy for those with 
     political agendas to force upon a tax-supported institution a 
     "solution" for whatever public hysteria currently plagues their little 
     minds.
     
     I really can't understand why anyone would want to screen the Internet 
     automatically for oneself. In my experience, if you want to find 
     something shocking, you have to dig for it.
     
     I believe that the main purpose of these products is to act as silent 
     censors for parents. 
     
     I feel that kids should have the same rights to access the web as 
     their parents. When I was a kid in Kansas City, I was able to roam the 
     adult stacks of the local public library freely and I checked out 
     adult books without restrictions. I read about some disturbing things 
     and stuff I didn't understand, but that is part of growing up and 
     learning about the world.
     
     Most of the discussion about kids and the Internet have revolved 
     around the parent's "rights" to control what their kids surf. What 
     about the kid's rights? What about the 13-year-old who is wondering 
     about his gay feelings and is home-schooled by his Christian 
     fundamentalist parents who have installed a NetSitter product. Doesn't 
     he have a right to look for information that is at odds with his 
     parent's religious beliefs (or ideology)? I am not alone in advocating 
     a child's right to learn about the world unfettered by stupid 
     restrictions.
     
     Some would argue that these products should just "ban porn," but 
     several of these filtering products have already shown how easy it is 
     to build into the product screening on other topics (politics, 
     sexuality, profanity, drugs, etc.). 
     
     Let people surf the web and think for themselves.
     
     Everybody.
     
     I could wish your business luck, but I can't. You should devote your 
     efforts to other software that is more socially useful. I also hope 
     that no libraries buy your product, because it would be unethical.
     
     Chuck Munson