web blocker saying we have nudity?

I’m getting reports that people cannot connect to darklock.com because
their web blockers block it for nude content. I can’t figure that one
out. Does anyone know which ‘web blocker’ people could be talking about
and how it would categorize us as having nudity?

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

maybe it was referencing the old version of the site. Didn’t you have some
comics on there with nude pictures or curse words on the page or something?

There are a lot of ‘web blockers’. Best thing to do is to ask which one the
person is using and figure out how to have it reevaluate your site.


Rodney Blackwell

“Shena Delian O’Brien” <shena@darklock.com> wrote in message
news:ci9o2r$o49$1@server1.darklock.com
> I’m getting reports that people cannot connect to darklock.com because
> their web blockers block it for nude content. I can’t figure that one out.
> Does anyone know which ‘web blocker’ people could be talking about and how
> it would categorize us as having nudity?
>

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

Shena Delian O’Brien wrote:

> I’m getting reports that people cannot connect to darklock.com because
> their web blockers block it for nude content. I can’t figure that one
> out. Does anyone know which ‘web blocker’ people could be talking about
> and how it would categorize us as having nudity?
>

I know that webcodefocus.com (which is hosted on darklock.com) is
blocked by the local school district for “nudity”. You can look all over
my site, you will not find anything depicting or discussing nudity.

I have spoken with the local school district and asked what I can do to
have my site un-blocked and they said nothing.

Again, an example of ineffective legislation affecting an innocent
person and limiting their rights. (but that’s a different thread ;-)).

-Mike K.

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

“Mike King” <webdiscuss@webcodefocus.com> wrote in message
news:ci9q1u$rs1$2@server1.darklock.com

> Again, an example of ineffective legislation affecting an innocent person
> and limiting their rights. (but that’s a different thread ;-)).

I didn’t know there was a “right to have your website shown on a local
school disctrict” somewhere.

Is that inalienable or is that one of those new fangled constitutional
rights :slight_smile:


Rodney

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

Rodney Blackwell wrote:
>
> I didn’t know there was a “right to have your website shown on a local
> school disctrict” somewhere.
>
> Is that inalienable or is that one of those new fangled constitutional
> rights :slight_smile:

It’s my right to not be censored by our government. (unjustly, I might add).

-Mike K.

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

“Mike King” <webdiscuss@webcodefocus.com> wrote in message
news:ci9qf0$t26$1@server1.darklock.com
> Rodney Blackwell wrote:
>>
>> I didn’t know there was a “right to have your website shown on a local
>> school disctrict” somewhere.
>>
>> Is that inalienable or is that one of those new fangled constitutional
>> rights :slight_smile:
>
> It’s my right to not be censored by our government. (unjustly, I might
> add).

Says who?

Do we get to make up our own rights now?

Rodney

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

The school is an extention of the gov’t, by censoring his website they is
violating the first amendment. the sticky part is since its a school, they
can restrict it, since the value of a safe school outweighs any value
presented by his website.

Brian

“Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in message
news:ci9rki$hs$1@server1.darklock.com
> “Mike King” <webdiscuss@webcodefocus.com> wrote in message
> news:ci9qf0$t26$1@server1.darklock.com
> > Rodney Blackwell wrote:[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> I didn’t know there was a “right to have your website shown on a local
> >> school disctrict” somewhere.
> >>
> >> Is that inalienable or is that one of those new fangled constitutional
> >> rights :slight_smile:
> >
> > It’s my right to not be censored by our government. (unjustly, I might
> > add).
>
>
> Says who?
>
> Do we get to make up our own rights now?
> –
> Rodney
>
>[/color]

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

“Brian Wilmot” <bwilmot@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:ci9rps$ld$1@server1.darklock.com
> The school is an extention of the gov’t, by censoring his website they is
> violating the first amendment.

That would be a BIG stretch to say that.

Mike still has a right to his free speech on his website. The school nor
the government is stopping the website from existing.

The school NOR the government is required to HELP him speak. They don’t have
to show his website anywhere.

That’s like saying just because I have the right to free speech, I have the
right to access to the radio and TV, so I can say whatever I want.

It just ain’t so.

I can make my own TV show in my home, but no network is required to
broadcast it (or not “censor” it depending on your view) because of the
first amendment.


Rodney

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 02:17 pm, Rodney Blackwell wrote:

> That’s like saying just because I have the right to free speech, I have
> the right to access to the radio and TV, so I can say whatever I want.
>
> It just ain’t so.
>
> I can make my own TV show in my home, but no network is required to
> broadcast it (or not “censor” it depending on your view) because of the
> first amendment.

Well Cable public access has to let you broadcast :wink:


John R. Marshall - KC9ETP

“They take a hot dog, split it, fill it with cheese, and put bacon on top,
and for an extra 50 cents, they’ll cover the whole thing with chili. This
is food for people who just don’t fuckin’ care anymore.” - Drew Carey

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

Rodney Blackwell wrote:
>>
>>It’s my right to not be censored by our government. (unjustly, I might
>>add).
>
> Says who?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press;…”

-Mike K.

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

“Mike King” <webdiscuss@webcodefocus.com> wrote in message
news:ci9usp$278$3@server1.darklock.com
> Rodney Blackwell wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>It’s my right to not be censored by our government. (unjustly, I might
>>>add).
>>
>> Says who?
>
> “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press;…”[/color]

That hasn’t happened. So what’s your point?


Rodney

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

Mike King wrote:
>
> “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press;…”

BTW - I don’t think it’s a huge issue that my website is being
“censored”. I understand that we want to prevent illicit material from
being shown to young school students, so school boards take action to
try to stop it.

However, I think that I should have some redress if my website is
mistakenly blocked. Which I don’t. (I talked to my state representative
about it).

I also think that it’s another example of legislation (OCPA) being
ineffective and affecting innocent people negatively. I guarantee you
that I could get at least 100 porn sites to show on that same school
computer that will not show you my website. I don’t think that the idea
of trying to prevent children from seeing illicit material is a bad
idea. I just think we need to be more careful in legislation. Like when
there doesn’t exist sufficient technology to block illicit material, yet
we make a law saying that all schools MUST use technology to block
illicit material. It’s an ineffective law. Why have it on the books?

-Mike K.

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

“Mike King” <webdiscuss@webcodefocus.com> wrote in message
news:ci9v80$47e$1@server1.darklock.com

> I also think that it’s another example of legislation (OCPA) being
> ineffective and affecting innocent people negatively. I guarantee you that
> I could get at least 100 porn sites to show on that same school computer
> that will not show you my website. I don’t think that the idea of trying
> to prevent children from seeing illicit material is a bad idea. I just
> think we need to be more careful in legislation. Like when there doesn’t
> exist sufficient technology to block illicit material, yet we make a law
> saying that all schools MUST use technology to block illicit material.
> It’s an ineffective law. Why have it on the books?

Because people are not perfect. Laws get changed, updated, made better all
the time.

You start with a law that says what you think you need it to.

Things change, people find ways around it, and you adjust the law.

Just because you can find a way to break the law, doesn’t mean the law
shouldn’t exist.

Just make the law better. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.


Rodney

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

No the schoolas a public institution can’t block your access. Just like
public libraries and filters. They would ahve to garantee that people could
still get access to all acceptable content. Censorship through access is
just as ilegal as censorship of the actual document.
“Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in message
news:ci9sr9$169$1@server1.darklock.com
> “Brian Wilmot” <bwilmot@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:ci9rps$ld$1@server1.darklock.com
> > The school is an extention of the gov’t, by censoring his website they
is
> > violating the first amendment.
>
> That would be a BIG stretch to say that.
>
> Mike still has a right to his free speech on his website. The school nor
> the government is stopping the website from existing.
>
> The school NOR the government is required to HELP him speak. They don’t
have
> to show his website anywhere.
>
> That’s like saying just because I have the right to free speech, I have
the
> right to access to the radio and TV, so I can say whatever I want.
>
> It just ain’t so.
>
> I can make my own TV show in my home, but no network is required to
> broadcast it (or not “censor” it depending on your view) because of the
> first amendment.
>
> –
> Rodney
>
>
>

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

“Mike King” <webdiscuss@webcodefocus.com> wrote in message
news:ci9qf0$t26$1@server1.darklock.com
> Rodney Blackwell wrote:
>>
>> I didn’t know there was a “right to have your website shown on a local
>> school disctrict” somewhere.
>>
>> Is that inalienable or is that one of those new fangled constitutional
>> rights :slight_smile:
>
> It’s my right to not be censored by our government. (unjustly, I might
> add).

The Really stupid thing is that the schools contract out to private
companies for the blocking service and in that way claim it is not the
government that is doing the censoring so the constitutional issue does not
apply.

Gary Stein

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

“Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in message
news:ci9sr9$169$1@server1.darklock.com
> “Brian Wilmot” <bwilmot@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:ci9rps$ld$1@server1.darklock.com
>> The school is an extention of the gov’t, by censoring his website they is
>> violating the first amendment.
>
> That would be a BIG stretch to say that.
>
> Mike still has a right to his free speech on his website. The school nor
> the government is stopping the website from existing.
>
> The school NOR the government is required to HELP him speak. They don’t
> have to show his website anywhere.

You are absolutely correct as to the government or anyone is under no
obligation to help some speak or be heard. However the courts have held
there is a difference in these types of cases because the state has to take
an action in order to block access to someone’s site thus the government is
actively preventing me from speaking. This is no different then ordering the
cops to stop me from making a speech in a public park the courts have ruled.
But this applies only to government, no private network or ISP or home lan
is prevented from censoring any site they see fit to censor.

That is why the first two defense of children acts were found
un-constitutional by the US Supreme Court.

Gary Stein

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 12:56 pm, Shena Delian O’Brien wrote:

> I’m getting reports that people cannot connect to darklock.com because
> their web blockers block it for nude content. I can’t figure that one
> out. Does anyone know which ‘web blocker’ people could be talking about
> and how it would categorize us as having nudity?

Your at ev1 servers right? Maybe the past user of your IP had some porn on
it? Blocking by IP might explain what Mikes site is caught by it too.
(Assuming your using a shared IP for the sites on your server)


John R. Marshall - KC9ETP

“They take a hot dog, split it, fill it with cheese, and put bacon on top,
and for an extra 50 cents, they’ll cover the whole thing with chili. This
is food for people who just don’t fuckin’ care anymore.” - Drew Carey

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

I think she’s at ServerBeach, but that’s a good point about banning by IP.

They may have blocked the IP that crapcomix is on, which happens to be the
same as darklock.

“John R. Marshall” <kc9etp@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:cia8g8$jbk$1@server1.darklock.com
> On Wednesday 15 September 2004 12:56 pm, Shena Delian O’Brien wrote:
>
>> I’m getting reports that people cannot connect to darklock.com because
>> their web blockers block it for nude content. I can’t figure that one
>> out. Does anyone know which ‘web blocker’ people could be talking about
>> and how it would categorize us as having nudity?
>
> Your at ev1 servers right? Maybe the past user of your IP had some porn on
> it? Blocking by IP might explain what Mikes site is caught by it too.
> (Assuming your using a shared IP for the sites on your server)
>
> –
> John R. Marshall - KC9ETP
>
> “They take a hot dog, split it, fill it with cheese, and put bacon on top,
> and for an extra 50 cents, they’ll cover the whole thing with chili. This
> is food for people who just don’t fuckin’ care anymore.” - Drew Carey
>

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

Well I wrote to WebSense, a company I know is blocking us in their
software, and they re-classified the domain under InfoTech. Hopefully
that will fix it…

Re: web blocker saying we have nudity?

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:56:39 -0700, Shena Delian O’Brien wrote:

> I’m getting reports that people cannot connect to darklock.com because
> their web blockers block it for nude content. I can’t figure that one
> out. Does anyone know which ‘web blocker’ people could be talking about
> and how it would categorize us as having nudity?

Nudity, eh? Talk to Roland? :slight_smile:

-lisa