It turns out that almost all of the major US political parties and candidate websites are blocked by internet filtering software.

Several places in Colorado use Cyber Patrol, which filters out anything from Al Gore, George Dubbya Bush, the Democrats and the Republicans. Just to make the little political parties feel better, they also block Nader and Buchanan.

Just what does this say about the United States political structure? Is it the equivalent of pornography or hate speech? Besides the humerous slant you can take on the subject, how can public access computer systems such as those in public libraries using filters actually use such filtering software? How can information from my own government be considered "bad" and "harmful to children"? How can low-income people find information about the government and the political system when they are blocked from receiving it?

RANT MODE ON
I dislike filtering. I do not like someone dictating to me that I should not read something. I think censorship is totally wrong. As a parent of three kids, it is my responsibility to guide my children through the information overload. If public systems allow children to use public access terminals, they should get a signed disclaimer from the parents that notifies them about the possibility that the kids may find porn, hate speech and other crap on the internet. It would then fall to the parents to allow or restrict the kids from accessing the public terminals, or even better, to get the parents to take the time to go to the library with their kids and be a part of their learning experience. Parents need to stop relying on other people or technology to raise their kids, then bitch about the results.
/RANT MODE OFF

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.