Filtering: beyond porn (was:Re: CDA

[andrew mutch]

John Creech wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Burt, David wrote:
> 
> > I'll just say this one last time.  There are "grey areas" in free
> > speech, such as flag burning, slander, libel, false advertising, and
> > filtering.
> 
> case law isn't gray.  you refuse to accept that the law clearly,
> succintly, and thoroughly supports a legal position in opposition to your
> own social/cultural/political/religious agenda.
> 
> John Creech

Recognizing that case law opposes filtering and "gray areas" may not be
a legal but social definition, the reality is that, with the exception
of flag burning, those other "gray areas" have nothing to do with
censorship based on content.  The Supreme Court recognizes, as should
free speech advocates, that when you began mucking around with content(
what people are saying, not how they are saying it) you are quickly
sliding down a very slippery slope.  If you can justify censoring ideas
because you find them offensive, well, you don't have much of an
argument against the person who wants to censor your speech.

If you can accept content-filtering, as many apparently do, then when
you choose your filtering software, why not go with the stuff produced
by the "agenda" groups who look to block out gay/lesbian, NOW, etc. as
well as the "dirty" stuff?  If someone is going to impose their values
via the filtering software, it might as well be someone who spends
serious time on it and has a stated position.  At least I would know
what's being censored as opposed to the willy-nilly,
whatever-is-offensive this week approach that too many libraries are
taking.  

Andrew Mutch