What the censorship?

[Patroclus]

I go to a private Christian college in Santa Cruz, CA. I got an e-mail from my buddy Jorge that our IT department has blocked The Onion (http://www.theonion.com), a satirical periodical. I was quite upset. I became even more upset when I found out that a host of other sites had been blocked as well. I have yet to talk to the IT department (they will not be available again until monday), but a buddy of mine in the know speculates that the school bought the services of a third-party blocker, and probably a Christian company's system at that.

Of course, I do not know for sure, but it raises an interesting question. Is there any room for censorship in the Christian life. I say "no." But what do you think?

[Patroclus]

After posting this, I got to thinking that this might be put to better use in one of the Religion sections. Perhaps a mod will want to move this.

[Piebald]

Yes, when it comes to things like Pornography. But The Onion? Even though it's occasionally blasphemous and uses profanity... I still think that's a little extreme. Some of these filter programs don't realize that there are Christian adults as well as Christians children benefiting from their program.

Though, the Onion has been putting up advertisements for some rather nasty products lately...

[Piebald]

Perhaps a mod will want to move this.

Aren't you a mod, Pat?

[Patroclus]

Yes, I am a mod, but I do not moderate this forum; so I can't move the thread.

[yxboom]

You can try it.

[yxboom]

You should be able to :hrm:

[Woman]

I'd be very nervous about anyone or any entity that thought an adult was unable to read a humor site like The Onion without dooming their soul. And if you have access to "naughty" sites and don't waste time there, isn't that being Faithful? What Faith does it take to have the church baby-sit you by censoring?

[Patroclus]

Hmm, see what happens when I assume?

[Patroclus]

I totally agree with you ma'am.

[dizzle]

As long as TWeb isn't being blocked....

[spl_cadet]

I think that some things harmful to a Christian should be blocked. Then again, I come from the Catholic Church which had the Index of Prohibited Works till just recently (only a few decades ago).

[Patroclus]

I think that some things harmful to a Christian should be blocked.

For instance?

[The Laughing Man]

This is a private college we're talking about and they can do pretty much anything [legal] they dang well please. If they don't want their private property used for something they believe is against their basic beliefs (be it blocking certain websites, refusing to allow certain demonstrations, etc.), it's their choice.

I think they're doing people a favor by blocking "the Onion."

BTW, blocking does not equate to censoring. The websites are still there and people can still access them elsewhere if they so choose.

All in all, chalk it up to the "T.N. Factor" - if you don't like it, Tough Noogies.

[Woman]

Is this a private elementary school? Or an institute of higher learning? If The Onion freaks them out to the point they feel they must make an effort to protect their students from reading it, then this is NOT a place where you are going to get anything even resembling a well rounded education. You can be sure if your free time is being controlled that the content of the course-work is too. Probably your library is a "Lite-version."

I'd be interested to know how any American can support censorship. When the authority (gov. or theo.) wants to keep you from reading, examining, questioning, comparing, etc. you are in trouble. Unfortunately, and you can ask any nation that has lost its freedom, the squeeze is often calculated to keep you from even realizing how compliant you've become, ho complacent over "little things" until it's too late.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 08:10 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42173#post42173)
Patroclus:

For instance?

Anything the will incite lust. That's kinda my main problem :teeth: (What can I say? I'm a 17-year old male).

[Jaltus]

Actually, you just need to be male above the age of 11 or so.

Anyway, it could be that the software has a list of approved sites instead of blocked ones. The school I was at installed that first, and then realized what a hassle it was to do research. They quickly changed to a system that had selected sites blocked.

[Patroclus]

Today @ 08:17 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42177#post42177)
Jinx72:

This is a private college we're talking about and they can do pretty much anything [legal] they dang well please. If they don't want their private property used for something they believe is against their basic beliefs (be it blocking certain websites, refusing to allow certain demonstrations, etc.), it's their choice.


Normally I would agree. I have also defended that position in papers and in practical application around my friends. Private institutional choice comes up quite frequently. However, I have always defended it on the premise that "a student knows what he or she is getting into before that person goes to the school." The Onion has never been a problem before. So to change the policy on allowable sites during the semester, I believe, is wrong. The school has a rule against pornography--fine, I agree with that--we were told about that from the beginning. However, we have never been warned about any other web sites.

BTW, blocking does not equate to censoring. The websites are still there and people can still access them elsewhere if they so choose.

I know, but it sparked the question in my mind.


Today @ 08:57 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42198#post42198)
spl_cadet:



Anything the will incite lust. That's kinda my main problem :teeth: (What can I say? I'm a 17-year old male).

What about the other six deadly sins? Remember, in the Catholic tradition, lust is the least of the seven deadly sins. Put pride and envy on top, then how many websites will you have to block?


Today @ 09:03 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42206#post42206)
Jaltus:

Actually, you just need to be male above the age of 11 or so.


No joke.


Anyway, it could be that the software has a list of approved sites instead of blocked ones. The school I was at installed that first, and then realized what a hassle it was to do research. They quickly changed to a system that had selected sites blocked.

This is what I figure. But they should review the sites before doing carpet blocking. Other people have had difficulty doing certain research assignments because of this.

[Woman]

Cadet - LOL - heck, a 17 year old male can't BE protected from things that give him lustful thoughts!!! Everything gives him lustful thoughts!

:eek:

[The Laughing Man]

Patroclus:

However, we have never been warned about any other web sites.

I doubt the administration is obligated to do so.

[Patroclus]

I doubt the administration is obligated to do so.

No, they sure don't. But they should not have told us that we have the freedom to use the Internet as long as we are not looking at porn.

[SynchroKnight]

A thought just occured to me (I know...scary).

What if this whole censorship thing at your school has nothing to do with barring student access to certain sites, but everything to do with the university's image?

Would perspective parent send their children to a school that didn't filter its computers? Would the university stand a better chance of gaining more admissions (and money) if they made it known they practice certain forms of censorship?

[$cirisme]

Be nice to the IT people, we're overworked and underpaid. :bawl:

[Patroclus]

What if this whole censorship thing at your school has nothing to do with barring student access to certain sites, but everything to do with the university's image?

Would perspective parent send their children to a school that didn't filter its computers? Would the university stand a better chance of gaining more admissions (and money) if they made it known they practice certain forms of censorship?

I know this sounds horrible, but if a parent is that worried about it, I don't want them to send their kid here. If they want an incubator, I know where they can get plexiglass and a space-heater. College is not the place for that, though some of it is inherent.

Be nice to the IT people, we're overworked and underpaid.

Yeah, our IT head should be nice too. The guys he has under him are actually really great, but he is a pain in the I am editing myself to work with. He will not allow students to call him. He insists on students using the e-mail service to get ahold of him. That is fine when the computers are working, but otherwise, there is no other choice, and he doesn't get it.

[Epoetker]

Cadet - LOL - heck, a 17 year old male can't BE protected from things that give him lustful thoughts!!! Everything gives him lustful thoughts!

Yes, but at least they'll be filtering out the multivariate nigh-impossible body images that porn sites like to inflame lust for. The point is not to destroy lustful thoughts but encourage them toward more realistic and attainable sources.

[Woman]

A thought just occured to me (I know...scary).

What if this whole censorship thing at your school has nothing to do with barring student access to certain sites, but everything to do with the university's image?

Would perspective parent send their children to a school that didn't filter its computers? Would the university stand a better chance of gaining more admissions (and money) if they made it known they practice certain forms of censorship?

Maybe the kind of parent who has always thought it someone else's job to teach morals and ethics to their kids...whould be perfectly happy sending their legally adult offspring to an institution who won't let them read things with bad words.

On the other hand, parents who have shown their children, by example, how responsible, loving adults behave should not be concerned that reading The Onion (which the last time I looked was certainly not porn) is going to turn them into serial killers.

Don't you find it odd that there are 19 year olds fighting and dying in Iraq who could come home and go to a school where they weren't allowed to use their own discretion online?

[Patroclus]

Don't you find it odd that there are 19 year olds fighting and dying in Iraq who could come home and go to a school where they weren't allowed to use their own discretion online?

Wow, this reminds me of a song...

"The eastern world
it is exploding--
violence flaring,
bullets loading.
You're old enough to kill
but not for voting..."

What also is funny is that one of our freshman just said the same thing you did, Ma'am.

[Sher]

Although I didn't vote, I would say yes to the poll, but no based on your o.p. The poll is too vague and really doesn't represent your point here. I think there should be censorship for Christian children and a bit less for young teens, decreasing as they mature (note I didn't say get older).

As for the o.p., I think this is a bit too much, IMO. The porn sites... I get that. The others, well I guess that is up to the school but it seems a bit silly.

However, I know that some are turned in college from how they were raised in a Christian home, to an agnostic/secular lifestyle, by the influences they came across. Maybe this is what the school looked to avoid ::shrugs::

[Patroclus]

However, I know that some are turned in college from how they were raised in a Christian home, to an agnostic/secular lifestyle, by the influences they came across. Maybe this is what the school looked to avoid ::shrugs::

Perhaps, though it seems an impossible task. I go to a Christian school, and though it does not seem to happen as much, I know of at least one theology major who became a universalist over his course here.

[flipper]

That sucks almost perfectly for you, Patroclus, because this week's Onion is a bit of a doozy. You'll have to go find a paper copy which I'm sure isn't hard when you're a student.

It's not exactly pro-war, though. The point/counterpoint is particularly excellent.

POINT: This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTERPOINT: No It Won't

[Patroclus]

For now, I can view it from my office computer.

[Patroclus]

They just lifted the block on The Onion. However, I also got a list of the categories that ehy are blocking:

I. Sex
A. Adult Themes
B. Nudity
C. Lingerie/ Bikini
D. Pornography
E. Sexuality

II. Questionable activities
A. Copyright Infringement
B. Misc. Questionable
C. Computer Hacking
D. Tastelessness
E. Intolerance/ Extremism
F. Violence
G. Profanity
H. Weapons and Bombs

[flipper]

I like the the concept of Section II.

I especially enjoy II B.

And II E seems downright subjective. Does that mean Mr. B. Enyart will be blocked?

[Patroclus]

Those are excellent questions. As a matter of fact, I am a member of the student senate, and it has fallen to me to write the Senate resolution against the blocking. I am doing some note-taking right now, and here are a few of them:

I. Sex
A. Adult Themes - Art, the Bible, etc.
B. Nudity - I can't look at Edward Munch, Michaelangelo, DeVinci or Dahli's work anymore.
C. Lingerie/ Bikini - Is it bad for our married couples to shop at Victoria's Secret?
D. Pornography - Because we are obviously not adult enough to make good decisions, and actually dealing with the issue is too touchy
E. Sexuality - I wonder what this will mean for our human sexuality class? Can I look-up The Song of Solomon online?

II. Questionable activities
A. Copyright Infringement - Yeah, right
B. Misc. Questionable - Absolutely, Fidel. May you live forever
C. Computer Hacking - Look out Cirisme, my school is coming to get you
D. Tastelessness - Like forgetting to tell the students who are paying through the nose to come to this school that their ability to do research in certain topics will be seriously impeded; like neglecting to inform such students that they shall not be treated like responsible adults?
E. Intolerance/ Extremism - "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me" (John 14:6). Isn't Christianity, by definition, exclusive?
F. Violence - So will I, or won't I be able to access the book of Judges online?
G. Profanity - v. trans. b. "To misuse, abuse (what ought to be reverenced and respected [perhaps students of your institution]); to violate, defile, polute." As our trust has been abused, and our intelligence, violated, I find this action to be profane
H. Weapons and Bombs - For those evangelical students who might want to blow something up

[quetzalphoenix]

I went to Grove City College for my undergrad and the admin there was big on censorship, of the Internet as well as the school paper. The interesting thing about it all was that we were constantly told that we were the best and brightest, hope of America (and the Republican party, of course:shifty: ) ... yet they didn't trust us enough to dialogue like adults about difficult issues.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are good reasons to block Internet sites (liability being one of the reasons my current seminary does so), but I think it needs to be framed in the proper perspective. If the students don't know that you are doing this out of concern for the weaker ones among the body (certainly not everyone has the same level of maturity), then you will be sending a message that is out of character with the optimism of Christ's message about our regeneration.

When it comes to dialogue, however, that's where I get really nervous. I think that there is censorship of a less totalitarian, more subversive sort, going on in the church today. To take the example of the current war...I think that there is some self-censorship from those of us who have grave concerns about the method and purpose of the United States in this conflict. (For reasons that I alluded to in my first paragraph.)

And, of course, when it comes to your post's original question (and the vagueness that some others have pointed out), I have further wonderings... when you say Christianity, do you mean the Church as an institution? The Kingdom of God as it extends across/into secular institutions? Interpersonal relationships and families? Etc. And, as I should have done myself in the beginning of this post, define "censorship"? Because of course, that's an easy thing to do.... :smile:

[Patroclus]

The Kingdom of God as it extends across/into secular institutions? Interpersonal relationships and families? Etc. And, as I should have done myself in the beginning of this post, define "censorship"? Because of course, that's an easy thing to do....

Good questions. I'll answer those tomorrow. I am too busy right now. The following is the Senate Resolution against the web-blocking.

Associated Student Body Senate Resolution number 1 of 2003-2003 Academic Year

The Associated Student Body Senate of **** College recognizes the importance of living a life of purity in the sight of God. We recognize that, as Christians and leaders, it is our responsibility to set ourselves apart from the world in action, word, and integrity. We also recognize that leadership also requires, at times, certain self-restrictions that benefit, not only ourselves through character development, but also those around us and under our charge. We place before us, as goals, the five student outcomes of **** College: Character Development, Leadership Development, Ministry Development, Intercultural Awareness and Professional Excellence.
It has been brought to our attention that a recent vote by the Board of Trustees of **** College has enabled the blocking of numerous websites, therefore allocating substantial funding to a third party system, impeding the research process for students, impeding the acquisition of certain **** Outcomes, failing to address the greater issues of sin with individuals and breaking the trust of the student handbook by asserting greater restrictions in mid-semester without ample warning to the student body or faculty. While it is the right of private institutions to levy policy and restrictions, regardless of this nation’s constitution, such significant and sudden action, without the input of those people who are affected, is contrary to the culturally embedded American values thereof. Therefore, inasmuch as the private institution has every legal right to levy such policy and restriction, we, of the Associated Student Body Senate, entrusted with advocating for the student body to the administration that serves it, seeing that the aforementioned policy and restriction raises certain ethical, cultural and logical questions, assert our right speak out in like regards.

Of the first, that substantial funds were paid to a third party to enable this program: The new policy and restriction directly affect students, particularly those that are in certain psychology classes and/or other research projects. Also it is plausible to consider that student fees and tuition were used in the funding of this new policy and restriction. Moreover, in the period of time that the policy and restriction has been in place, students have already found ways around it—in short, the allocated money has been wasted. Therefore, We, the ASB Senate, find the action inappropriate.

Of the second, that student research is impeded: Whereas **** College is an academic institution, impeding the academic process is not in the best interest of the students. Therefore, We, the ASB Senate, find the action inappropriate.

Of the third, that the acquisition of certain **** Outcomes is impeded: By this action, character is no longer developed by a process of trial, error and accountability; rather, it is foreclosed. We believe that the best leaders do not govern by dictation. We believe this policy does not take into account the cultural aspect of art and free speech. Furthermore, by breaking the trust in the student handbook, which speaks of no such formal restrictions, the trustees have not shown professional excellence. Therefore, We, the ASB Senate, find the action inappropriate.

Of the fourth, that the greater issues of sin are not dealt with on an individual basis: While We recognize that issues of sin with regards to pornography, sexual activity outside of marriage, violence, etc., are life-controlling issues, We believe that the best method of curbing this problem is to deal with the affected individuals, leading to a spiritually, mentally, emotionally and physically healthier individual by the time of graduation. This action bypasses any such opportunity of intervention. Therefore, We, the ASB Senate, find the action inappropriate.

Of the fifth, that this action breaks the trust of the student handbook by asserting greater control and restriction mid-semester without ample warning to students or faculty: Even though the 2002-2003 **** Student Handbook states, “Each student is responsible and accountable for his/her actions and activities involving computers, networks and Internet services and for his/her computer files, passwords and accounts on the **** campus” (29), the action imposes formal and institutional restrictions on all **** Students, even those who have been personally responsible. To the **** Student Body, the Student Handbook is the social contract between the students and the institution from year to year. Furthermore, when restrictions are made known at the beginning of a semester, it falls upon the student to decide whether or not the institution is the best choice for him or her. However, when the restrictions of the institutions change mid-semester, it becomes problematic for the student to leave if the student feels that it is not in his or her best interest to stay at the institution. The institution leaves itself liable to accusations of accepting students under false pretences. Therefore, We find that the action leaves the Institution in breach of the social contract—the 2002-2003 **** Student Handbook—and self-impugned for accepting students under false pretenses, and We, the ASB Senate, find the action inappropriate.

On the basis that no significant student input was consulted before making the decision to enable this action, We, the ASB Senate, recognize that our cultural beliefs as Americans—the democratic process, the equalization of all members of society, the voice of the governed and the abhorrence of censorship—have been severely offended by this action. As this action was not orchestrated in harmony with the student body, We, the ASB Senate, find the action inappropriate.

Lastly, We, the ASB Senate, find the action to be poorly reasoned. While we believe that such materials and activities such as pornography, copyright infringement, the making of weapons or bombs and computer hacking to be sinful, lawless, dangerous and a threat to network security, respectively, certain other criteria are too vague, possible leading to future oppressive control, or ignorant of the presence of such themes and content in society, culture and Christianity. For instance, adult themes and sexuality permeate the Bible; nudity is a convention of art that can be found in even the oldest civilizations; lingerie can be enjoyed by married couples; Christianity, by definition is extremist; History is replete with violence; and it is more profane to disrespect or disregard the adult student body, who, “Having been created in the image of God automatically gives us worth, and therefore makes us worthy of respect” (2002-2003 **** Student Handbook, pg. 20), by breaking trust. Therefore, we the ASB Senate, find the action inappropriate.

Having found the action of blocking numerous websites inappropriate inasmuch as the institution has allocated substantial funds to a third party system, impeded student research and the academic process, impeded the acquisition of several of the **** Outcomes, is failing to address the greater issues of sin with individuals and breaking the trust of the student handbook by asserting greater restrictions in mid-semester without ample warning to the student body or faculty, We, the Associated Student Body Senate of **** College of the 2002-2003 Academic Year, and the undersigned thereof, do formally oppose said action and encourage the incoming Senate to do likewise, should the issue remain.

Having affirmed this resolution by a vote, the undersigned Student Senators do give their assent to the aforementioned complaint.

[flipper]

Very good, Mr P. You are a credit to free thought (in this case, the Christian kind).

I can quite understand your school restricting access to porn and whatnot - my place of work does the same - and that is quite reasonable.

However, these sorts of catch-all blanket bans are actually quite insulting in a place that is supposed to encourage academic inquiry and critical thought. They are also generally quite nonsensical.

[Patroclus]

Very good, Mr P. You are a credit to free thought (in this case, the Christian kind).

Thanks!

I can quite understand your school restricting access to porn and whatnot - my place of work does the same - and that is quite reasonable.

However, these sorts of catch-all blanket bans are actually quite insulting in a place that is supposed to encourage academic inquiry and critical thought. They are also generally quite nonsensical.

I agree.

[Patroclus]

An update:

As it turns out, I was lied to about exactly who made the decision. Also, the institution does not want to block all the items on the criterea list, just pornography.

We had a very interesting Senate meeting yesterday.

when you say Christianity, do you mean the Church as an institution? The Kingdom of God as it extends across/into secular institutions? Interpersonal relationships and families? Etc. And, as I should have done myself in the beginning of this post, define "censorship"? Because of course, that's an easy thing to do....

Begin with the KOG. From there, it extends into and across secular institutions, and into families. If Christianity (theoretically) is a reflection of the KOG, then it stands there as well. So, my overall question is, "Is it right for a Christian to impose censorship upon another Christian?"

By censorship, I mean the act of preventing the out-going or incoming communication from one person, or people, to another person or people.

[tgamble]

03-30-2003 @ 09:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48419#post48419)
Patroclus:

They just lifted the block on The Onion. However, I also got a list of the categories that ehy are blocking:

I. Sex
A. Adult Themes
B. Nudity
C. Lingerie/ Bikini
D. Pornography
E. Sexuality


I'm surprised tha doesn't include the onion. Don't they have a disclaimer saying that it's not intended for people under 18?

E. Intolerance/ Extremism

Does that include sites like godhatesfags.com or chick.com?