And Now The Government Says Filters Don't Work?

from the depends-on-the-situation-apparently dept

It's always fun to see how arguments change over time. A few years ago, when the federal government put in place a rule that schools and libraries needed to put internet filters on all computers if they wanted to keep receiving federal funds, there was a lawsuit claiming that filters don't work very well and they tend to block out lots of perfectly legitimate content. The government, on the other hand, argued that filters work well enough and there was nothing wrong with mandating them. Eventually, the Supreme Court agreed, and said the federal government could mandate filters. Now, in a separate case concerning the "Child Online Protection Act" (which has been bouncing around the courts for 8 years), that has been twice hit by Supreme Court injunctions over the likelihood that the law is unconstitutional, it seems that the ACLU will be arguing that filters are just dandy as a solution to protecting kids, while the federal government (thanks to data a bunch of search engines freely handed over) will be arguing that filters suck and are ineffective. So, which is it? Either filters are ineffective and useless at protecting kids or they're important tools that need to be in place to protect our kids? Apparently, it all depends on which court case we're dealing with at the moment.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    chris (profile), 24 Oct 2006 @ 6:44am

    public access == anonmymity

    that's the problem with computers at libraries and internet cafes. if a person is using a computer to do something that someone considers wrong, you can't track them down if they use public terminals.

    it's better to confine everyone to their homes and offices so they are eaiser to track down when they surf for the wrong stuff.

    so what if poor kids don't get a chance to use the net for kid stuff (like myspace). so what if people can't do legitmate research. so what if that's the only way that you can expose your company's wrongdoings anonymously.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.