Gun Activists Have A Stake Against Filtering Software [Censorware]
Both the American Civil Liberties Union and The American Library Association filed suit 3-20-2001 in Federal court to stop the Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA). This is the act that forces libraries and schools to use filtering software (censorware). You can read both complaints here: ACLU http://www.aclu.org/court/multnomah.pdf ALA http://www.ala.org/cipa/cipacomplaint.pdf Filtering software has been pushed as the solution to stopping children from viewing inappropriate materials, like pornography, on the Internet. However, the software has numerous flaws, the most basic being that it doesn't stop all of the pornography. More ominously, and more of a threat to our long term liberty is the fact that the software in many cases "blacklists" political and other material incorrectly. Seth Finkelstein, who just won the Electronic Freedom Foundation's Pioneer Award, details a few gun related sites that are blacklisted. If a school or library had the SmartFilter program installed, students would be blocked from viewing those sites. As a point of information- http://www.ayoob.com which is listed as "extreme" is the site run by the noted Police firearm's Instructor Massad Ayoob. The site is His Lethal Force Institute, which trains qualified citizens and police in armed self defense techniques. The other sites, are listed under the category of criminal skills. http://www.springfield-armory.com is the site for Springfield Armory an American producer of fine firearms. My recommendation is that everyone enter their favorite site's url at: http://www.securecomputing.com/cgi-bin/filter_whereV3.cgi and see if their site or company is blocked. Then I'd take whatever action, including the courts to have the incorrect designation removed. Regards, Matthew Gaylor- [Please post this to other RKBA forums and elsewhere if relevant.]
I just checked www.anonymizer.com --- they are blocked. So anon speech is dangerous for kids and library patrons, eh?
The reason anonymizer is blocked is because it functions as a proxy via which one can get to (presumably) any page on the web. The alternative would be to block *every* URL many times: once for the regular URL and once for the one that starts with www.anonymizer.com and once for each of the other proxy-type services out there (any number of places where you can surf the web in swedish chef, pig-latin, jive, backwards, via language translation, etc, work basically the same way - and I bet they're all blocked too). I don't think it's anonymous speech they object to; it's all the millions of proscribed sites that can be browsed via anonymizer. Bear On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote:
I just checked www.anonymizer.com --- they are blocked. So anon speech is dangerous for kids and library patrons, eh?
Quoting Harmon Seaver (hseaver@ameritech.net):
I just checked www.anonymizer.com --- they are blocked. So anon speech is dangerous for kids and library patrons, eh?
From the `you think that's bad' department:
A close friend confided to me that she's aware that the Canadian government is working with the publishers of various dictionaries to compile a list of words which in some rare circumstances could threaten national security. She expects that once the list is complete, officials will consider introducing legislation. Regards, Steve
A close friend confided to me that she's aware that the Canadian government is working with the publishers of various dictionaries to compile a list of words which in some rare circumstances could threaten national security.
She expects that once the list is complete, officials will consider introducing legislation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same: ----- "Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'." - Monty Python's _Life of Brian_ ----- :-) -landon [re-lurking]
On Wednesday, March 21, 2001, at 08:45 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
A close friend confided to me that she's aware that the Canadian government is working with the publishers of various dictionaries to compile a list of words which in some rare circumstances could threaten national security.
She expects that once the list is complete, officials will consider introducing legislation.
Surely they don't intend to outlaw using the words at all. Even outlawing the use of specific words in specific contexts would probably be difficult to enforce as a practical matter. The only way I can forsee this being used is as an enhancment charge like when a person is sometimes charged with carrying a gun during commision of a felony even if it's not displayed or used.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
Both the American Civil Liberties Union and The American Library Association filed suit 3-20-2001 in Federal court to stop the Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA). This is the act that forces libraries and schools to use filtering software (censorware).
Oddly enough, the san francisco public libraries are reading it as an act that prevents them from getting federal funds for internet access instead. Bear
Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
Both the American Civil Liberties Union and The American Library Association filed suit 3-20-2001 in Federal court to stop the Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA). This is the act that forces libraries and schools to use filtering software (censorware).
Oddly enough, the san francisco public libraries are reading it as an act that prevents them from getting federal funds for internet access instead.
Well, what it does is stops any fed funding for k12/libraries if they don't comply. And since both are heavily, almost totally dependant on e-rates it's a serious threat.
At 10:40 AM -0600 3/21/01, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
Both the American Civil Liberties Union and The American Library Association filed suit 3-20-2001 in Federal court to stop the Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA). This is the act that forces libraries and schools to use filtering software (censorware).
Oddly enough, the san francisco public libraries are reading it as an act that prevents them from getting federal funds for internet access instead.
Well, what it does is stops any fed funding for k12/libraries if they don't comply. And since both are heavily, almost totally dependant on e-rates it's a serious threat.
No surprise to most members of this list that this government trend toward withholding money it has taken in other ways is a serious threat to freedom. The imposition of speed limits by Washington was an obvious example of this: highway taxes were collected, coercively of course, and then not given to states which failed to toe the Washington line. "We are not restricting speech, as that would violate the First. We are simply withholding highway funds to any state which does not follow our speech guidelines." "We are not banning guns. The American Medical Association has classified firearms as a disease agent, so we are not providing Medicare to any person who willingly exposes himself to this disease agent. Remove all guns from your house and your Medicare payments will be restarted." When the State has the power to take monies and then decide how and when to dole them back out, it is using its coercive powers to regulate behavior just as surely as if it had banned behaviors outright. The -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:10:03AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
No surprise to most members of this list that this government trend toward withholding money it has taken in other ways is a serious threat to freedom.
I believe the original rallying cry was: "No Taxation Without Representation" Conditional representation (of which taxation is clearly but a part) should be provably unconstitutional. Wait, I forgot. I thought we were still in a republic. Never mind. jim -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
In the city I presently live in, Oshkosh, WI, we have a system of city government in which we have no real representation whatsoever. The city council is elected at large -- meaning we have no ward alderman, and, in fact, most of the time all the council members are from the newer burbs where the more affluent live. The city council then elects the mayor. This is a city of just over 50K. This is supposed to be "progressive". I can't wait until the states and the fed go this route. Seems to me to be totally unconstitutional -- taxation w/o representation to the core -- but what do I know. Jim Burnes wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:10:03AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
No surprise to most members of this list that this government trend toward withholding money it has taken in other ways is a serious threat to freedom.
I believe the original rallying cry was:
"No Taxation Without Representation"
Conditional representation (of which taxation is clearly but a part) should be provably unconstitutional.
Wait, I forgot. I thought we were still in a republic.
Never mind.
jim
-- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At 08:17 AM 3/22/01 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
In the city I presently live in, Oshkosh, WI, we have a system of city government in which we have no real representation whatsoever. The city council is elected at large -- meaning we have no ward alderman, and, in
fact,
most of the time all the council members are from the newer burbs where the more affluent live. The city council then elects the mayor. This is a city of just over 50K. This is supposed to be "progressive". I can't wait until the states and the fed go this route. Seems to me to be totally unconstitutional -- taxation w/o representation to the core -- but what do I know.
That's a quantization issue ---you are recognizing a 'ward' but the 'at large' election means the city is the unit of quantization. If you got 'ward' voting someone could complain that smaller units were fairer, etc. In some places whether or not you feel 'represented' might include whether your religion (sex, albedo, etc.) was 'represented' by either a representative who looked like you or who held a formal position given to those of your type. (cf the protestants' representation in various (catholic) north ireland legal bodies) Another interesting facet of 'representation' is how obligated your 'representatives' are to act as their electors wish, and penalties they face for violating constitutions. And whether subsets are 'allowed' to leave and form their own representative bodies (cf LA vs. the Valley, FRY, US civil war) .......
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:10:03AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
When the State has the power to take monies and then decide how and when to dole them back out, it is using its coercive powers to regulate behavior just as surely as if it had banned behaviors outright.
Right. If only the big-government fetishists would think through this (not that it would change things) -- why not just let the Feds tax at 100 percent and dole out money to worthy causes, with strings attached? -Declan
At 11:27 PM -0500 3/28/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:10:03AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
When the State has the power to take monies and then decide how and when to dole them back out, it is using its coercive powers to regulate behavior just as surely as if it had banned behaviors outright.
Right. If only the big-government fetishists would think through this (not that it would change things) -- why not just let the Feds tax at 100 percent and dole out money to worthy causes, with strings attached?
The difference between 100% and 70% is not great. It serves the same purpose. (Many estimate the tax burden to be in this ballpark, considering that income to non-governmental agencies is taxed at a high rate (usually the max, 50 % combined federal and state), then the income and dividends to employees and shareholders is further taxed at a high rate (30-45%). Tack on property taxes, utility taxes, 8% sales taxes, energy taxes, special use permit taxes, boat taxes, luxury taxes....) These united states have allowed themselves to become something far, far worse than what the colonists were revolting against. A kleptocracy, with a Potemkin facade of freedom. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Quoting Tim May (tcmay@got.net):
(Many estimate the tax burden to be in this ballpark, considering that income to non-governmental agencies is taxed at a high rate (usually the max, 50 % combined federal and state), then the income and dividends to employees and shareholders is further taxed at a high rate (30-45%). Tack on property taxes, utility taxes, 8% sales taxes, energy taxes, special use permit taxes, boat taxes, luxury taxes....)
That's quite an impressive haul. How do they do it?
These united states have allowed themselves to become something far, far worse than what the colonists were revolting against.
A kleptocracy, with a Potemkin facade of freedom.
Well, Tim, it isn't a facacde so much as a prevalent attitude. As far as I can tell, the majority of people play a big game of make-believe. They act as though they are free while voluntarily limiting their behaviour to a very narrow range. Fortunately, there's enough entertainment out there to keep everyone happy. Regards, Steve -- Cephalopodia is the key insight.
At 6:10 AM +0000 3/30/01, Steve Thompson wrote:
Quoting Tim May (tcmay@got.net):
(Many estimate the tax burden to be in this ballpark, considering that income to non-governmental agencies is taxed at a high rate (usually the max, 50 % combined federal and state), then the income and dividends to employees and shareholders is further taxed at a high rate (30-45%). Tack on property taxes, utility taxes, 8% sales taxes, energy taxes, special use permit taxes, boat taxes, luxury taxes....)
That's quite an impressive haul. How do they do it?
I think I explained pretty well the mechanics of how the taxes are piled on at each stage. If you mean "how do the sheeple let themselves be fleeced?," the answer lies in creeping statism. The boiling frog metaphor. Each special interest group thinks it is "getting something" as the size of government grows.
These united states have allowed themselves to become something far, far worse than what the colonists were revolting against.
A kleptocracy, with a Potemkin facade of freedom.
Well, Tim, it isn't a facacde so much as a prevalent attitude. As far as I can tell, the majority of people play a big game of make-believe. They act as though they are free while voluntarily limiting their behaviour to a very narrow range.
Fortunately, there's enough entertainment out there to keep everyone happy.
"Everyone happy"? Disproved by just a single counterexample, and there are a lot of folks out there unhappy enough with things to <fill in favorite examples here>. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Quoting Tim May (tcmay@got.net):
That's quite an impressive haul. How do they do it?
I think I explained pretty well the mechanics of how the taxes are piled on at each stage.
If you mean "how do the sheeple let themselves be fleeced?," the answer lies in creeping statism. The boiling frog metaphor. Each special interest group thinks it is "getting something" as the size of government grows.
But, sometimes a frog jumps out. What happens then? Do the JBTs then point their guns at the frog saying, "Right, you! Back in the pot! Boiling water is good for you."
Fortunately, there's enough entertainment out there to keep everyone happy.
"Everyone happy"? Disproved by just a single counterexample, and
Pedant.
there are a lot of folks out there unhappy enough with things to
Demonstrate?
<fill in favorite examples here>.
I'll invoke the WTO protests and the resulting LEA response as a good example of how far such unhappiness leads to change. Now that the army has their Instant Microwaved Student Ray 'o Death Cannon, demonstrations of that kind may soon be history. As for other forms of `protest' such as has been done by the likes of the Unibomber or McVeigh, the state capitalises on the hysteria and expands, as per incrementalism. What, then, is left for the starry-eyed idealist to do? Write code, says the Cypherpunk screed. Regards, Steve -- Cephalopodia is the key insight.
At 06:10 AM 3/30/01 +0000, Steve Thompson wrote:
Quoting Tim May (tcmay@got.net):
(Many estimate the tax burden to be in this ballpark, considering that income to non-governmental agencies is taxed at a high rate (usually the max, 50 % combined federal and state), then the income and dividends to employees and shareholders is further taxed at a high rate (30-45%). Tack on property taxes, utility taxes, 8% sales taxes, energy taxes, special use permit taxes, boat taxes, luxury taxes....)
That's quite an impressive haul. How do they do it?
xTians say, the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world that he did not exist. Parley-vous "hidden taxes?"
These united states have allowed themselves to become something far, far worse than what the colonists were revolting against.
A kleptocracy, with a Potemkin facade of freedom.
Well, Tim, it isn't a facacde so much as a prevalent attitude. As far as I can tell, the majority of people play a big game of make- believe. They act as though they are free while voluntarily limiting their behaviour to a very narrow range.
Fortunately, there's enough entertainment out there to keep everyone happy.
It works on the honor system - please honor the system. Your own private entertainment is optional. Reese
Regards,
Steve
-- Cephalopodia is the key insight.
Shop Smart! Shop S-Mart!
participants (11)
-
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Fog Storm -
Harmon Seaver -
Jim Burnes -
landon dyer -
Matthew Gaylor -
Ray Dillinger -
Reese -
Steve Thompson -
Tim May