Profanty filter another form of censorship

Subject: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:50 AM

Tried to log on in my lunch hour at school today but was blocked. This happens because there is a thread title which gets picked up by the systems profanity filter. From reading the threads there are a lot of people like me who log on in spare time at work and there are a lot of organisations with inet use policies which prevent accesssing offensive material.

It's an easy way to keep me and who knows how many people off of the forum at all. Is it worth it in order to be able to post titles such as we have seen in the last week or so? We can all choose not to read particular threads if we think they will offend us, but this current wave is stopping me read any threads I do not already have trace on.

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: kendall
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:15 AM

If you can't post without using profanity, what does that tell you?

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Tracey Dragonsfriend
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:16 AM

kendall - the poor chap is trying to get to the site & being blocked by other's rude titles, not post profanity himself!

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:17 AM

Why don't you ask the powers-that-be to turn off the filter on the machine you're using? It's quite easy for them to do (at least it is on our filter) -- and US law (CIPA, NCIPA) states that we must turn off the filter if requested to do so by someone over the age of 17.

Of course, I don't know about the laws where you are.

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:19 AM

That was meant to be in the editorial sense, not aimed at anyone in particular.

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:58 AM

Rap - different for a library and at work when the site you are trying to reach is personal use - even if it is on break.

Robbie - try bookmarking the "messages since last visit" page

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 11:18 AM

There are some proposals circulating to attempt to address this situation equitably and practicably. I'm open to PMs about it. Be nice-- I don't respond well to rants or soapboxing.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 12:54 PM

ANybody care to help me out with the functions of a profanity filter? Does it know that "motherf---er" is motherfucker? Will it block more clinical words? I mean if we were to discuss "The Vagina Monologues" what would happen? How about if we use the word breast or tit in the innocent sense? Can we not put the name of Dick Greenhaus in the thread title?

Once you start on this there is no end to it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:05 PM

Being blocked from work? Tough...   Time and place...   So find somethign else to do with your break, and hit the Mudcat from home...

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:30 PM

On a practical note. Would these filters (such as the school one above) still reject a thread title like F*** etc?

Perhaps it is sensible - for this purely practical reason only and leaving morality and personal taste out of it - to refrain from posting these words in thread titles and elsewhere on our forum?

Subject: RE: Profanity filter another form of censorship
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:01 PM

Yeah, but why are there now THREE theads on the same damn subject?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:03 PM

"Would these filters still reject a thread title like F*** etc?"
Most likely not...

"for this purely practical reason only"
What practical reason?

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:07 PM

This thread is on-topic and not personalized to JM, Joe.

~S~

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:11 PM

Do these filters block content in a message even if the title is innocuous? It is my understanding that some do. Information please.

Some filters block a lot more than profanity and pornography. Trying to reach a friend at the California Dept. of Motor Vehicles during the day is difficult because some messages and attachments other than those that are profane and pornographic are blocked. Not sure of the range of material blocked; but some is on a security basis.

In some school systems, the filtering is set at a central location (city public schools) . A new system is being set up that will require uniformity as it is linked across the province (Alberta), but I don't know if it will be carrying outside mail.

As I understand it, each state or province can set its own rules (see comment above by Rapaire).

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:15 PM

What practical reason?

That the originator of this thread had their access blocked.

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:24 PM

Oh well... That's between them and the tech people at work... I don't see it as a Mudcat issue at all....

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:39 PM

I was on a board once that had a SERIOUS bad word filter. It would have filtered out Dick's name, and words like cockatiel....could get around it by typing spaces or asteriks between the letters. I finally just gave up on it.

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:28 PM

My daughter, formerly in the school system, tells me that the firewall is city-wide in the public school system. It picks up on breast, etc.
Teachers trying to get info on breast cancer and the like had to go to a system manager to get temporary releases from the firewall. If he was not available, there could be a wait. A 'SERIOUS' filter, as Sorcha calls it.

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:37 PM

Oh well... That's between them and the tech people at work... I don't see it as a Mudcat issue at all....

Well it was Robbie who had his access blocked and he does think it is. So I will not pay too much attention to your judgement and pay more attention to his problem. Perhaps others agree and will be prepared to do what they can to help him?

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: mandoleer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:43 PM

Friend of mine was on a chat room, and someone couldn't post the name of his town - kept getting kicked out. Then she had a flash of inspiration, and told him to spell it with a k. So he typed in Skunthorpe and got in all right. I've met a filter that even blocked any URL with escort in, or brewery!

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:46 PM

Don't hesitate, Legislate!

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:56 PM

Context is all...

Of there are dirty words in folk songs, and his work place doesn't want him surfing places with dirty words, tough titties... It's HIS problem, not Mudcats....

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:00 PM

Hey, does "motherfu**cker" get past the filters? I don't mind adding something to a thread title, but I don't like taking away.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:04 PM

"M0therf*cker"

Probably gets by them too...

Or
Mutha-faka

Or Motherf#cker

The list of 'cheats' is probably 5 times longer than the list of 'bad' words....

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:04 PM

I'm still waiting to hear if the filters block "Dick Greenhaus."

Spaw

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:25 PM

Nope. There's no hope. Give Greenhaus a guitar if you like, but not in my living room. I have a G-rated living room. I do like to hear him in suitable quarters, however.

But hey, if the Mudcat Forum was started as an adjunct to the Digital Tradition, how can we justify tidying up bawdy songs - given the tradition of the Digital Tradition?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorsh
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:34 PM

Jeez, How did I get to be the poster child for dirty songs? I sing them when I think it's appropriate, and I suspect they come to less than one percent of my repetoire.

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:48 PM

What's "profanity" got to do with those kind of words anyway?

The word means "irreverant, disrespectful of religious beliefs" and stuff like that. You could f and blind all day without uttering a single profane expression.

Anyway, what was the thread title which classified as profane by this computer program?

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:20 PM

Aw, Dick. Don't feel bad. You can sing in my living room, any time you like. My mother-in-law would think you're cute...
So would my wife.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: GUEST,Mike Hunt
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:23 PM

You can imagine the challenge I give the filters !!

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:39 PM

Profane- "to debase by a wrong, unworthy or vulgar use" appears as a subsidiary meaning in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. In the minds of many people, irreverant and vulgar are scarcely separable and 'profane' has been debased to embrace both.

The thread was (shhh-) 80724: Mf

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:00 PM

Clinton Hammond, with his usual delicacy and empathy, said:

Context is all...

Of there are dirty words in folk songs, and his work place doesn't want him surfing places with dirty words, tough titties... It's HIS problem, not Mudcats....

The initial poster is by implication asking for either
(a) cooperation from all Mudcatters in thread-naming and/or content, or
(b) some form of censorship, I suppose in the form of editing of problem words in posts or subject lines.

Either of those presupposes a degree of kindness and cooperation with Catters who have such problems. Frankly, the chances of EVERYBODY (which it would take) exercising judgment and kindness to achieve item (a)is slim, nil, and none. Zero. Zip. Nada. There are some here, unfortunately, who would probably go out of their way to insert "objectionables" just for the pure meannness of it.

Such restraint, even aside from filtration problems, would be appreciated by a lot of Catters, I think.

Now, how far the Mudcat powers that be are willing to engage in the censorship and/or rewriting that would be necessary to meet the problems of those who might be in RobbieWilson's position in a real question in my mind.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:07 PM

Would "Bush" count as "profane?

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:27 PM

If you think it's 'mean' Dave, I'll HAPPILY insert such 'objectionables'...

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:51 PM

Given the abysmal attitude of some of the posters to this thread, and the fact that there are those who would be dumb if all swear words were removed from their output, I'd say you're on a loser Robbie.

Damn shame that on a common interest site, it's apparently impossible to persuade some members to cooperate in keeping thread titles filter friendly.

Store it in memory, my friend, against the day when one of them asks for sympathy, understanding, or cooperation. The day will come, and you'll know just how to respond.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:44 PM

Thinking this over, Clinton is right.
Given the nature of the people who set up editorial firewalls, there is no way for a website to guarantee that their content will not trigger a blockage.

On the Lighter side: Dick Greenhaus- I typed your name into Word, and it got the red underscore (so does mine). Wysiwyg, Sorcha, Catspaw, Rapaire and Oesterreich also are unacceptable. Lets all change our names to Jones, folks!
Of course, if someone puts Jones on the DO NOT PERMIT list---

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 09:48 PM

All that red underscore means is that the word is not in the spellcheck dictionary. You can add the word, and you'll not see the red underscore again.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 10:08 PM

What you are asking for is exactly the kind of hypocritical, mealy-mouthed bowdlerisation for which people are always (unfairly) slagging off the early collectors like Sharp and Baring-Gould, who had to moderate material so that it could be published at all. They were more honest than the objectors here, who seem motivated mainly by trivial self-importance at best; bigotry at worst.

Access from work? Luxury! Many of us actually have to pay for internet use with real money (and buy our own computers), and work god-knows how many extra shifts for that privilege. We are free of the "net nanny" filters, of course, as almost everybody else could be if they weren't so keen on getting something for nothing. I realise that there are some people who are unemployed and can can only get in via the local library. There are disadvantages to free access, and one of them is the possibility that you might be denied exactly what you want. Live with it.

The self-righteous hypocricy demonstrated in these recent threads is beyond belief.

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 10:09 PM

Dave, with a simple example, I was attempting to show that a filter or firewall can be set to pick up on any word or phrase. No problem at all to block email from your mother-in-law. As Clinton said, it is not Mudcat's problem.

When I was working, maybe half of the words in a technical report would get the red line. No point in entering them into spellcheck because the next report would add many more. I never have used spellcheck; cruciverbalists don't need it.

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 11:13 PM

In the words of the immortal Christy Moore:

"tough shit, Paddy!!"

Mick

Subject: RE: Profanty filter another form of censorship
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 11:42 PM

Dearest BOB...the K.N.O.B.....

Robbie -

There is a "heirarchy" in "news-groups" and internet "discussion forums"

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to weave a negative profile of your ignorance about the MC/DT since your offical "log-in" a short-time-ago.

Somehow I believe...you are part of the "new-guard" posing as an "old-guard" trying to pretend to be a NewBy

Sorry, your mother disowned you.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

---

Please see the solution Dick Greenhause proposed in this thread (click), and post your comments on the proposal there. In short, we'll tag questionable threads and offer a filter link people can use to screen them out. I'm going to close this thread because a three-thread discussion is just too confusing.
-Joe Offer-