CDA

[Ronnie Morgan]

At 11:26 AM 6/27/97 +0000, Dianne L Parham wrote:
>So now that we know that kids can learn to make drugs on the Internet, I 
>imagine we should filter out everything that is remotely drug related.  
>Darn, that would eliminate information on penicillin, but a small price 
>to pay.  And we know violence leads to negative child hood behavior, so 
>we need to edit out anything related to violence, including guns, 
>football, basketball.  Let's see, we have to be sensitive to the Southern 
>Baptists banning Disney, so out go those sites.  So where does it end, 
>Ronnie, where does it end????  I agree with the woman who said we are 
>spending so much time fretting about pornography and we have children 
>dying from drugs, violence, and starvation.  Why are putting so much 
>energy into a topic that would bore the socks off most kids?  Of 
>course, the kids can't access the Socks website because the 
>Republicans and dog lobbysts find it offensive.  Dianne 
>Parham, San Diego Public Library, speaking for myself and myself alone

I understand what you are saying, and as I said, it is a very VERY fine
line, but there is a line.  Something CAN be worked out to make EVERYONE
happy, we just have to work together!

But, to answer your questions, I would love for any drug reverences to be
filtered, for my home use.  But for a library, I wouldn't filter it because
"viewing" information, or even pictures, of drugs (and I am assuming
illegal drugs) will not hurt a child.  It, at the very least, may spark
some curiousty to try some, but the simple act of viewing will not do them
any harm.  Porn on the other hand will, they never have to "do" any of it,
but, viewing the stuff will harm them.  Maybe not one or two pictures, but
if they form a habit of viewing it, harm has been done.

As for your other examples, I agree that the software companies should not
have the control over exactly what is filtered.  I have seen a couple of
good suggestions as to what should be done, but here is my vision of the
future.  Every web site will rate themselves based on a rating system, and
your web browser will allow you to select which of those ratings you wish
to allow or disallow.  The browser can also be set to not allow access to
any site that has not rated itself.

I believe this function is already there (I'd have to double check that),
all that would be needed is to somehow force all web sites to rate themselves.

This would eliminate any of this "why did cyberpatrol block access to my
site?" stuff if you are rating your own site.  Only you would know what
exactly your site is about.

The ONLY problem I can see with this is those people who rate thier sites
as being "ok" (for the sake of arguement) when it actually is something
most people would want blocked.  There should probably be some non-biased
organization who would check into complaints about a particular site, and
some how force them to properly rate themselves.

And of course, any of this can be turned off at any time.  

Ronnie