September 2002
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30
Aug   Oct

Since schools started using the Internet, there have been arguments about filters.  Naively, I thought the arguments were about access to porn sites and such, so they always seemed silly; of course you block those.

But one concern is always that filters might keep kids out of legitimate sites, by blocking any Britanicca page that mentions sex, for example.  It never crossed my childlike mind that such blocking might not be inadverdant until I saw this article at Wired:

Last fall, high school students in John Elfrank-Dana's class decided to write a research paper on terrorism. The subject was personal: Located just a quarter-mile from the World Trade Center towers, students and teachers were forced to flee their school on Sept. 11.

But the filtering software in place at Murry Bergtraum High School blocked access to websites with the word "terrorism," Elfrank-Dana said.

I have to assume someone put this word on a filter list for reasons not related to porn, since I don't want to even think about the concept of terrorism as kinkiness.  Maybe the recent fuss about the NEA's suggested study plans for 9/11 gives a clue to this filter's purpose. 

If you block words like this, then why not 'privatize' or 'pro-choice', depending on your particular agenda?  This kind of filtering could really reduce the mind-share of undesirable concepts.

sez Doug Murray 12:04:04 PM   comment []

Is there a theme here?

sez Doug Murray 9:12:22 AM   comment []