Not just porn filtering

[CMUNSON]

Jon Knight said:
>The recent discussions on the benefits or otherwise of filtering have 
>seemed to concentrate on the topics of pornography and sexuality, both of 
>which hit "moral buttons" for some people.  However are the filterers 
>removing access to other types of material which some people have in the 
>past viewed as questionable when found on the Internet?  I'm specifically 
>thinking of things like drug chemistry, bomb making, locksmithing and 
>maybe political/religious views? 
     
     Yes, some of the censorware, especially Cyberpatrol, screens out these 
     things. Yes, there have been actually incidents. Two of the sites I've 
     been involved with, which contain mostly political content, have been 
     blocked by CyberPatrol. I've got webmaster friends who have had sites 
     blocked. CyberPatrol has a filter for "Extremism".
     
     Sadly this has been abused in weird ways. Several sites were blocked 
     by CyberPatrol because they had information on the infamous "Anarchist 
     Cookbook," which is a 25-year-old compendium of bomb-making and 
     drug-making information. Did these sites carry an online version of 
     the book? No, they had essays AGAINST the Cookbook, saying that it has 
     dangerously inaccurate information, that is is widely available in 
     bookstores despite rumors to the contrary, and that is contain 
     misleading, false, and defaming information about modern anarchism.
     
     CyberPatrol claimed that one of their "temporary researchers", read 
     underpaid online smut surfers goofed up. When asked by one of the web 
     sites to be removed from the filter list, CyberPatrol relented after 
     persistent emails.
     
     This is just one case example of how filters can be malicious, be it 
     deliberately or accidentally.
     
     
>Certainly for the first two in that list I remember getting information 
>from both my parent's book collection at home and also the school library 
>when I was a child.  This was both for school work and for personal 
>interest.  Neither have turned me into a drug crazed terrorist, but both 
>are on touchy subjects in some regions.
     
     Most libraries contain printed information that could be useful to 
     would-be bomb-makers. Why does a different medium justify all of this 
     hysteria?
     
     One possibility is that it is part of an ongoing attempt to discredit 
     non-corporate, non-mainstream information sources which have found the 
     Internet to be the leg up they need to compete with "reputable" 
     sources like Reuter, AP, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. I'm involved 
     with several grassroots Internet projects (print, Tv, radio) which are 
     attempting to become alternatives to the mainstream media. Some of the 
     librarians on this list talk about facilitating access to "quality" 
     information. Does this mean information from brand-name sources like 
     the Washington Post, or something smaller and less established?
     
     Obviously the answers to these questions are fodder for another 
     discussion.
     
>Unlike pornography, where many libraries collection development policies 
>do exclude the paper forms, these topics often have information available 
>in paper form and often these paper forms _are_ accessible to minors. If 
>librarians are going to be passing over responsibility for filtering to 
>commerical organisations, I think its important to consider the less 
>"sexy" (no pun intended) information that might be blocked from 
>electronic access that has obviously been considered OK in the past.
     
     Is porn available in libraries in the UK?
     
>Basically filtering != censoring porn is the message I think.
     
     It's obviously more than that, as all the hoopla gives evidence.
     
     Chuck