> is it not the case that schools already have a filter on their PCs? Is
> it not the case that if you were to look for [[category:erotic]] it
> would be dynamically filtered out?

But won't there be other forms of content that are liable to be of
concern to schools? E.g. illicit drugs, contraception, detailed
descriptions of serial killer crimes, photos of mass graves, etc. There
are plenty of things that people may get upset about, for a wide variety
of reasons and beliefs.

Maybe what's needed is a generalised approach, where you say on a
picture / article / whatever, that something may be offensive because of
the following reasons, tick all that apply:
[ ] sexually explicit
[ ] contains swear words
[ ] contains recreational drug use
[ ] contains graphic depiction of dead people
... etc

Then a user could say, either:
a) I wish to censor _myself_ for the following categories of content.
b) I wish to censor the following usernames and/or IP addresses for the
following categories of content, _and_ I am the legal guardian or have a
legal duty-of-care towards these users, _and_ I represent the
organisation which is paying in its entirety for this Internet access.

Then when someone attempt to access some content which violates the
above restrictions, it puts up a big warning sign, and says "you cannot
access this content because it contains <type of censored content>,
which was censored by <you/other person's username>, and this censorship
was put in place on <date>". That way it's clear what's blocked, and
why, and by whom.

Therefore, this allows:
* People to censor themselves - i.e. censor what they and they alone
* Schools to censor content for teachers and/or students.
* Employers to censor content for employees.
* Parents can censor content for their children.

However, neither you, nor the government, nor an ISP, have any right to
censor what I see on a connection that I pay for, until such time as
you're willing to foot the bill (in its entirety) for my net connection,
and are willing to accept a legal duty-of-care (e.g. adopt me / take on
employment obligations including paying me the minimum wage +
superannuation / enrol me in a recognised qualification that you run as
a registered educational site / etc) ... a simple principle, but one
that Senator Conroy & the UK ISPs & various other nanny-staters might do
well to consider.

Sound fair? Hopefully such an approach would balance the needs of
different groups (such as schools, parents, etc) who may have legitimate
concerns, against the needs of those who value personal freedoms and
personal responsibility.

-- All the best,

Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Reply via email to