Strollerderby : freedom of speech

Aussie Firewall: Stepping into Parents' Shoes?

JeanneSager — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:48:00 GMT

The "Great Aussie Firewall" is supposed to make browsing the internet safer for Australian kids. It could also put the Australians one step closer to becoming the most western country to boast a state-run internet filter.

This isn't new news - the Aussies announced last year they'd spend $189 million on the project, but after the recent decision by an Australian judge, declaring drawings of Bart and Lisa Simpson having sex as "child porn," I'm wondering how far our friends Down Under really need to go.

The most recent tests on six of the proposed filters found they missed three to twelve percent of material they should have barred and wrongly blocked access to one to eight percent of sites. The most accurate filters slowed browsing speeds up to eighty-six percent. So - they're blocking a lot of "bad" stuff, and some good stuff too - and they're slowing down the access of information for everyone (child or adult). And this is progress?

An Associated Press report on the issue quotes an Australian ethics professor who complains "net libertarians" believe freedom of speech is more important than limiting what children can access online.

What ever happened to knowing what your kids are doing? If the babymaking Duggars can monitor eighteen different kids' access to the 'net, why can't average families with two point four kids get their hineys to the family room and keep their eyes on the screen?

Image: Daily Mail

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Principal Censors Pro-Gay School Paper

The Longshots: Girls Can Play Football . . . and Make You Cry

Bart and Lisa Simpson Sex Ruled Child Porn

No More Bong Hits for Jesus

ChagHolland — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:26:00 GMT

While watching the Olympic torch relay in 2002, high school student Joseph Frederick unveiled a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Principal Deborah Morse confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Morse's suspension was not a violation of Fredrick's free speech.

First of all, I can't believe the Supreme Court had to rule on a stupid high school prank. Even though he was on a school field trip at the time, Fredrick was standing on a public street when he displayed the banner. His actions did not endanger his fellow classmates. This ruling has set a disturbing precedent for what students can or cannot say in the future.

But there is a small silver lining in the judges' ruling: they stated the judgment would have been different if the message on Frederick's banner had been political or social in nature. So for all you future rebels out there, stick with "Bomb Hits 4 Jesus -- Go USA!" and you should be in the clear.

Parents Steal Objectionable Books from School Library

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:04:00 GMT

Cuban parents in Miami-Dade County have good reason to dislike the book "Vamos a Cuba." According to Dalila Rodriguez, she took it from her son's school library because the book glamorizes life in Cuba and promotes inaccurate information about her home country. At one point, the school district banned the book, but was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who eventually got the book reinstated.

Of course the problem with civil liberties and freedom of expression is that it only works if you adhere to the principle even when it's inconvenient. While many people feel the ACLU goes overboard defending the rights of the KKK and other undesirables.

Book banning parents are certainly nothing new. However, this case presents the perfect conundrum for the pro-ACLU sort. What if misinformation that is destructive (culturally and racially) is communicated through books? Do parents have a right to keep those books from being read by their schoolchildren?