RSS
Net Porn Filters Just Don't Work
from the tell-us-again dept
Here's a completely reasonable opinion piece from SFGate talking about why internet porn filters are a waste of time - and why the Supreme Court shouldn't force libraries to install them. He points out that children, these days, are going to come across sexually explicit material no matter what they do. Putting up a porn filter that will block just a tiny bit of it on the internet isn't going to change that. This is, once again, a situation where parents need to take responsibility for properly educating their children. The amusing part of the article, though, is that he gets a VP of NetNanny, a filter company that supports the filtering requirement, to admit that his filters really don't work. "Ultimately, any kid that's determined to see this stuff will see it. There's nothing we or anyone can do to stop it."
4 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- DailyDirt: What's In A Name?
- Band Protests As A Copyright Troll Sues Its Fans
- Former Record Label Exec Ethan Kaplan: Duh, Of Course More File Sharing Leads To More Sales
- DOJ Argues Forcefully For Your Right To Photograph And Videotape Law Enforcement
- Sparkfun Explains Why It Provided Customer Info In Response To Subpoena
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Why stop there?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why stop there?
But, you knew that, didn't you?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
The Supreme Court is certainly not FORCING librarys to install filters.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
No matter what the library *can* install filters if they want to. However, the government is trying to require them to in all cases. So, if the Supreme Court sides with the government, then libraries will be forced to install filters if they want to keep receiving the money that lets them stay in business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment