February 15, 2003

More on considering "How Appealing" pornography

So I've spend a good portion of yesterday evening and today investigating "How Appealing" is pornography, where the NetSpective censorware. had (that? the?) blogspot.com site as pornography. I've suggested some tests and we'll see what happens.

Note the How Appealing blog has a nice item on me, "Seth Finkelstein to the rescue".

I should note my concurrence with the the earlier statement:

My thoughts exactly: A former Pennsylvania state court appellate judge emails to observe, "The classification of your blog as 'pornography' by screening software is further evidence supporting the findings in Chief Judge Becker's opinion in [ the District Court Decision striking down CIPA ]"

If you want some irony, compare what NetSpective is saying in contrast, that "... NetSpective WebFilter Meets Federal CIPA Standards ....", that "... NetSpective WebFilter(TM) URL filtering solution fulfills all CIPA filtering requirements. ...."

Notably, accuracy seems NOT to be one of those requirements (and I'm serious here, that's one reason the law was, and is likely to be, struck down).

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in censorware | on February 15, 2003 11:58 PM (Infothought permalink) | Followups
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage