Todd's Views: Internet Censorship

This page covers three topics:
1. Internet censorship by the government
2. Internet censorship by corporations
3. Protecting the First Amendment

Government Censorship of the Internet
"Instead of censoring Web pages, why not just rate them? They do it with movies, why not with Web pages?"

I wrote that back in 1995. I proposed a number of rating codes and some simple HTML tags that would have made filtering content easy. Well, since then several companies have done exactly that, offering filtering solutions that fit with any browser and tags that are recognized by several 'net portal systems like AOL and MSN. The interesting fall-out from self-regulation has been that, in some cases, traffic is actually increased to a site because the rating tags are picked up by web spiders and sites rated for certain content are returned quicker in response to searches on some services, especially services for kids.

If you're interested in rating the pages on your site, check out:

Corporate Censorship of the Internet
I once had a run-in with a company whose name I used on my web site. Now that I don't work for DHL Airways, Inc., let's talk some smack about them, ok? I had put my bookmarks on my web page. That made it easier for me to keep track of the technical info sites I used regularly. When I was working from home, I'd still have access to that bookmark list. Had I given it some thought, it might have occurred to me that that bookmark list also contained some links that referenced systems internal to DHL. No big deal -- those links were to systems behind proxies and firewalls and whatnot, links that were useless to an outside agent. Had I realized this, I would have removed them anyway, just to be safe. With me so far?

Their first request to remove those references was perfectly understandable, and I complied with no argument. Their next request, that I not use their name at all, seemed to go a little overboard and in fact was in no way a legal request, but being the flexible kind of guy that I am, I went ahead and changed my page anyway. Now the way I changed it the second time was to replace the company's name with "[censored]". I found this to be a humorous little jab back at an HR Director that OBVIOUSLY had too little to do, too much time on his hands, and a desperate need to bully someone. Actually, to be accurate, that's exactly what the problem was. The HR Director at the time was notorious for treating anyone that wasn't a VP or above like trash, but that's another story... Ok, so now that company's name is no where on my web site at all. Life should be pretty dandy now, right?

So, to make a long story short, I replaced the highly offensive material (heavy sarcasm there) with the text you now find on my main page, along with the American flag.

Now you're probably saying to yourself, "Todd! Why would you buckle like that?" Well, at the time my boss and my boss' boss, both of whom were friends of mine, were under some pressure to either rectify the situation or fire me. They went to bat for me, told the HR Director that under no circumstances would they fire me, and I showed my appreciation by making the requisite changes to my page. Even if the enemy I'm fighting is an egotistical asshole who seriously needs to be reminded that he can't push just anyone around at their slightest whim. It was wasting my friends' time and causing them stress, and that's a good enough reason for me. But I also told them to communicate to that HR Director that if I heard even one more word about it, I'd start a lawsuit that would scorch the very foundations of DHL. And y'know what? I haven't heard another word. And y'know why? Because THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY DAMNED WEB PAGE ANYWAY!!

Protecting the First Amendment
I used to have an additional snippet about how I though the First Amendment was perhaps a bit too broad and that hate propoganda shouldn't be covered. I still think hate propoganda should not be protected speech, but after the 9/11 and Bush's extreme abuse of his powers to wrest every possible Constitutional protection from the people of this nation, I have backed off that position enormously. Without the ability to speak freely, this nation would not exist in its current form. There would be no ability to express warnings in the face of threats, irritation at incompetence, anger at abuses, outrage over injustices, and alarm in response to despicable treasons. In short, George W. Bush, in his attempt to curtail Freedom of Speech, is attempting to protect himself while he rapes our nation. Protect your First Amendment rights. Speak out against the Patriot Act and all similar legislation that chips away at the most cherished right of every American citizen.