Delta to filter its wi-fi access
Ah yes, where libraries try to stand up for the intellectual freedom rights of their users, the airline industry falls flat on its face. Delta Air Lines announced today that it will filter (for "pornographic surfing") on its onboard wi-fi access in response to some concerns (undoubtedly expressed by the same people who want to ban Harry Potter) expressed by customers and staff. The original plan was that flight attendants would intercede on behalf of other passengers when someone was looking at something inappropriate. So much for that. Goodness knows they never intercede for other reasons (like exceedingly loud chatter, baby screaming, people having inappropriate conversations very loudly, people kicking other people’s seats, people spraying hairspray while seated in the 10" wide seats…need I go on?).
Hmm. OK. So this is very interesting to me. I wonder where this slippery slope will lead the company. I wonder which filter they will choose. I wonder when the first lawsuit will occur. Delta has pockets a lot deeper than libraries, after all (err, well, at least they used to).
October 8th, 2008 at 4:19 am
I was a little surprised at your comment about those of us who believe private companies have to right to filter pornography being the same folks who want to ban Harry Potter books.
While I am certainly not a fan of the Harry Potter series, I do not believe in banning books. The two beliefs are very different, especially in libraries.
It is generalizations like these that make me cringe, not decisions like the one made by Delta.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:23 am
why does an airline have any responsibility to intellectual freedom rights? You can’t fall flat on your face for not upholding something that isn’t relevant to your interests- in any case, the airlines are a highly unionized and turbulent industry to the point that the first lawsuit without filtering would surely be a sexual harassment lawsuit based on forced exposure of staff to explicit sexual material. Buy a magazine and go to the bathroom if you HAVE to get your jollies on an airplane
October 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I respect the comments of those who disagree with me, but I feel strongly that we all, no matter what industry or profession, have a profession to uphold the right to intellectual freedom. My question about filters is always the same for those who say they want filters (including those who would filter but say they would never ban a book): Do you truly believe that an imperfect filter software system (and they are all imperfect; no one, not even the companies argues with that) will never, ever, ever block access to material that someone has a constitutional right to access? It will, and when it does, that person has the right to legal action against whoever blocked their access to that material – be it a commercial or public entity. The next time you’re on a plane, and your kid is doing research on breast cancer for a homework project using their wi-fi and can’t get to the most respected sources on that subject, then you tell me if that’s an OK trade-off for possibly, potentially not viewing what some person, someday, that you just happen to be sitting near, might potentially view – what the airline defines as pornography. By the by, “pornography” will still get through, just as what should get through doesn’t. Also stop for a moment and think about who’s defining what is “pornography” for purposes of the filter. The airline? No. The passengers? No. It’s the filtering company – software and data entry people with no expertise that would qualify them to determine what is and is not “pornography.” People seem to largely be unaware of that, and I find that with this kind of factual information people can sometimes change their view.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Surely there’s some middle ground. The freedom of speech implies the freedom to read, to hear, to see. As a practical matter, it seems we should accept a freedom not to. It’s easy not to read. It’s more difficult not to hear or see. I think we tolerate content in print that we blanch at in pictures. It’s in the nature of pictures, in the nature of us. Also, there’s the notion of public and private. Some things are private. We have doors on rest rooms, require minimal clothing in public. You can’t pee just anywhere. You can’t make love in the park, during the day anyway. Public libraries are usually public places. An airplane is an intimately public place. It doesn’t seem indecent to ban the viewing of lewd material in these public places. Looking at explicit sexual material strikes me as a private matter. It’s a matter of civility. Sexual content is freely had in many ways, and that’s the important issue, not that some people object to having it beamed in their faces in public. Filters can be a pain sometimes, but they do aid civility in shared spaces. Perhaps Delta can hand out free copies of Fanny Hill to disappointed passengers?