Blogtrek

Library internet filters won't work

Today the Supreme Court said that libraries can be required by law to put Internet filters on their computers to block patrons from viewing "adult" material. I don't think this will work. There appears to be no way a program can distinguish "adult" from non-"adult". Words won't work. Words such as suck, screw, ass, and ball have, in addition to their filterable meanings, other meanings that have absolutely nothing to do with sexual activity, for example. Not even breast or naked will work because these words have non-sexual meanings, for example, the chicken breast. It will instead block access to non-"adult" sites, for example sites on naked-eye astronomy, meaning astronomy without a telescope. These filters want you to have your clothes on, but your telescope has to be on too? Further, knowing these filters are in existence, both legitimate web site owners and porno site owners will change their words to avoid the filters; for example, fcuk, baull and so forth. Our language will be debased and distorted as we will not be able to say screw as in a light bulb any more but will have to say something like smew. Furthermore, filter makers will reconstruct these sites to block these words, and then porno site owners will avoid these blocked words, and so forth. It is just like with spam. Eventually, pornographic web sites will be harmless because they will be 100% gibberish and the pictures will be featureless blurs. And maybe so will all other sites. I agree with people who say that people will not access "adult" sites in a public place, where the neighbor down the street could be watching. Maybe we need to protect children from sexually explicit sites. But we also need to ensure that our language stays clear with words chosen to express a thought of the expresser rather than to avoid a filter. I urge municipalities, state governments, and Congress not to pass laws that would require libraries to install filters.