ACLU being retarded yet again.

**deathgodusmc** · 08-17-11, 11:10 AM

"The 36-page complaint filed Monday notes that Camdenton's software blocks sites like ones belonging to the plaintiff organizations, which provide information for preventing anti-gay bullying and other student resources like access to gay-straight alliances. But at the same time, the district's censorship doesn't cut off access to comparable anti-LGBT sites, ACLU says."

ACLU Sues Missouri School District, Alleges Illegal Censorship Of LGBT Websites

Ok so let me get this straight. The filtering software recognises the difference between pro gay sites and anti gay sites? Last time i knew they filtered for words in general. Either way though these kids are at fucking SCHOOL. Why are we concerned with them surfing the fucking web? Open a god damn book and learn something.

**SmokenScion** · 08-17-11, 11:18 AM

The Interwebs have information too. Its really a series of tubes.

Nearly all of the papers I had to do for School were off of the Intertubes (lol) Books are old and Boring, Especially when you can't use a Search button. Or instantaeoulsy find all other works by author, and read them, now.

**SmokenScion** · 08-17-11, 11:27 AM

Do you think some of the work the ACLU does is good? cause I kinda like my Civil Librities. You also can't Like Some, and not like others, you kinda have to take them as a whole.

**deathgodusmc** · 08-17-11, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

The Interwebs have information too. Its really a series of tubes.

Nearly all of the papers I had to do for School were off of the Intertubes (lol) Books are old and Boring, Especially when you can't use a Search button. Or instantaeoulsy find all other works by author, and read them, now.

Great but that should be saved for home use and college. I do agree the books were boring but they serve a purpose.

**deathgodusmc** · 08-17-11, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Do you think some of the work the ACLU does is good? cause I kinda like my Civil Librities. You also can't Like Some, and not like others, you kinda have to take them as a whole.

No i dont like them. It would be one thing if they did good with what they do but instead they spand most of their time drumming up shit like PETA.

**SmokenScion** · 08-17-11, 11:38 AM

Shall we do a search for ACLU and Veterans? No. pity.

**SapiensErus** · 08-17-11, 11:48 AM

I use the internet all the time at school. There is a lot of downtime when you can use the internet; for many people in America they only have internet access at school or similar organizations. Aslo, the article is not focused at people in school, it is software used by many organizations including schools.

And people who might be LGBTQ may go looking for resources; which are blocked (for no good reason as it is not porn or what have you). I can understand schools not wanting their students to use their resources for things that might be a problem for some (porn, etc.) but information and counseling about sex and sexuality should be available.

The argument is that they specifically blocked things they deemed morally offensive (resources for LGBTQ) but not things of a similar topic but not morally offensive to them (anti LGBTQ). So it was not censoring based on the words in the title, or porn, or___, it appears they were excluded because someone found it morally offensive.

I may not always agree with PETA or the ACLU; but they are right on here.

**deathgodusmc** · 08-17-11, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Shall we do a search for ACLU and Veterans? No. pity.

Go ahead as i previously stated i have issues with them acting like PETA. Far to often they fight things that make no sense and i dont give or recieve pity. The word is in my vocabulary stictly for a defintion purpose.

**deathgodusmc** · 08-17-11, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I use the internet all the time at school. There is a lot of downtime when you can use the internet; for many people in America they only have internet access at school or similar organizations. Aslo, the article is not focused at people in school, it is software used by many organizations including schools.

And people who might be LGBTQ may go looking for resources; which are blocked (for no good reason as it is not porn or what have you). I can understand schools not wanting their students to use their resources for things that might be a problem for some (porn, etc.) but information and counseling about sex and sexuality should be available.

The argument is that they specifically blocked things they deemed morally offensive (resources for LGBTQ) but not things of a similar topic but not morally offensive to them (anti LGBTQ). So it was not censoring based on the words in the title, or porn, or___, it appears they were excluded because someone found it morally offensive.

I may not always agree with PETA or the ACLU; but they are right on here.

I would like to see proof that the filter allows anti gay sites and not gay sites before i will decide if they are right or not. I seriously doubt the filter is doing that.

**SmokenScion** · 08-17-11, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I would like to see proof that the filter allows anti gay sites and not gay sites before i will decide if they are right or not. I seriously doubt the filter is doing that.

According to the complaint filed Monday, Rothert wrote a letter to district officials in May requesting that Camdenton lift its sexuality filter or switch to a new Internet filtering software, noting that the current filtering is a violation of the First Amendment. Officials first denied using URL Blacklist as its filtering software, but later admitted its employment and agreed to unblock specific sites noted in Rothert's letter, but declined to lift the entire "sexuality" category ban, according to the document filed Monday.

Its not an Issue of Whether the software is working correctly, its an issue of whether or not the Blacklist filters are constitutional or not, for use in Public schools.