porn-free isp closing doors

[mojo]

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/02/14/ebrief.htm

02/14/2002 - Updated 03:19 PM ET

Town gets caught in a porn-less Net

Back in 1996, when residents of Blountsville, Ala., requested Internet service from the town's phone company, Blountsville Telephone Company CEO Rick Kiser hesitated. It wasn't about business. It was about religion and morality.

"I have spiritual and non-sectarian feelings that pornography is not good for people," says Kiser. "I feel like it's destructive for families." The Net provides access to it.

But being the only way the town's 1,800 people could get to the Net without paying long-distance charges to access another provider, Kiser decided to offer a service without porn. He had no idea how tough that would be.

There's nothing illegal about delivering filtered Net access; many providers offer the option. But Kiser didn't want to give users the choice. He felt it was a matter of principle not to profit from pornography.

It turns out, unknown to him, town residents didn't need a choice. The filters weren't working. Kiser learned that last year, after a mother complained that her son was getting to hard-core sites. It took till January to strengthen the filters; Kiser was pleased.

But townsfolk like Chuck Harmon, a programmer who spends more than 100 hours a month online, were livid when they logged on and found they could hardly get anywhere — including eBay and other non-porn sites: "Fifty-five percent to 65% of the Internet is totally gone," Harmon says. "They filter for everything that might be remotely objectionable to a 90-year-old lady. It smacks of censorship."

Blountsville.net was flooded with angry calls. Many of the 900 customers, it turns out, wanted unfettered access. Kiser responded — not by pulling off the filters but by pulling the plug. He decided that if he couldn't offer quality service without pornography, he wouldn't offer it at all. So next month, BTC is getting out of the Net access business entirely.

BTC customers now have another choice — a new local provider that is busy taking calls from people who want Net access. It'll be unfiltered, says Pete Hays of Urisp.net: "I talked to some ministers," he says. "One of them told me, 'Pete, God doesn't filter or censor man. You can't do what God doesn't do.' "

For his part, Kiser says he has heard from some customers as well. They're sorry to see the filters go.

---------------------------

kiser...the name seems to fit.

[xsiled2]

misers sheesh

[styleee]

Originally posted by chosenfool
"how come everybody wanna keep it like a geyser?"


heh heh!

ya, mon!

http://members.cox.net/mojorisin/images/smilierasta02.gif


oh oh oh oh
i know this one!

give it away give it away give it away now!

[Hoser]

I lived in Montgomery Alabama for six years (87-93). This story doesn't surprise me at all. The town always seemed behind the times, like they were in their own little world. When I was there you couldn't buy any type of men's magazine (Playboy, Penthouse, etc.) anywhere in town. I could buy them on the military base (this was before they got rid of the 'harder' magazines like Hustler).

The funny thing is that if you went north to Birmingham, there were adult book stores and strip clubs.

You can't live in a bubble forever, you eventually have to live in the real world.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I can understand this guy's problem. He owned the phone lines in town - he was the only one who could provide local internet access. His religious beliefs prevented him from providing access to porn.

In the early 90's I owned a BBS service. I was constantly being asked by people to start providing internet access. I refused for the same reasons. It's not because I thought I could stop the distribution of porn, I just didn't want to be helping its distribution.

Everyone always says Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. When one acts in a way that is consistent with their beliefs, they still get blasted.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
I can understand this guy's problem. He owned the phone lines in town - he was the only one who could provide local internet access. His religious beliefs prevented him from providing access to porn.

In the early 90's I owned a BBS service. I was constantly being asked by people to start providing internet access. I refused for the same reasons. It's not because I thought I could stop the distribution of porn, I just didn't want to be helping its distribution.

Everyone always says Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. When one acts in a way that is consistent with their beliefs, they still get blasted.
i can understand your point, but i guess i don't really agree with you.
it seems that you're comparing offering internet service (through which it would be possible for people to access pr0n) to running a bookstore in which people could purchase pornographic material. in that case, the owner/operator of the ISP is directly profiting by "selling" the pr0n. another example would be the Marriott family, which owns the Marriott hotel chain (Renaissance, Marriott, Courtyard, Residence Inn, Fairfield Inn, etc). i read in an article in the NYTimes a couple years ago that the Marriott hotel chain is one of the world's largest retailers of pr0n (maybe the largest...i don't remember the exact details) through selling in-room pay per view pr0n movies. the Marriotts, in case you didn't know, are strong Mormons (a religion that, of course, frowns on pr0n) -- that's why you'll find a Book of Mormon in every room of every Marriott property. however, they are making huge $$ every year off the sale of pr0n.
i disagree with this view, however. i would compare offering internet service to offering phone service. people can use phone service for lots of "non-christian" things (phone sex, for example). yet it's pretty much impossible to "filter" that out. moreover, i would argue that in giving people an open-ended resource, one is merely giving them tools. those tools can be used for good or for ill. and i don't think that it is the responsibility of the provider of tools to control how they are used. that should be each person's personal decision.
in addition, problems in this case were caused by the fact that people were not able to access a lot more than pr0n. this guy had a monopoly on local internet service, yet people could not even access ebay because of the filtering he was using. while i support his right to run his business as he saw fit, i don't think it's surprising that his business model failed. i don't think he's a victim here.....merely a product of natural market conditions.

[welfareloser]

hm. i do understand. if he found out that some guy was doing bad things with child porn or something, he'd feel directly responsible.

and he's not obligated to offer net access, so more power to him for trying to do it his way.

not that it's what i would do. kiddie porn is bad, but restricting internet access just makes the internet access worthless (no ebay? gasp!) and you can only restrict things in a blanket fashion so far to try to prevent people from doing bad things that they may or may not do before it becomes a moral problem of a different sort.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
Everyone always says Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. When one acts in a way that is consistent with their beliefs, they still get blasted.
How is restricting choice consistant with Christian beliefs?!?
Being a Christian is about making choices, making the right ones. With no choice the practice of chosing can not be done.
God wants us to chose to worship him. Not for us to have no choice but to worship him. We gain strength in our faith by facing and defeating the chalenges placed before us, not by avoiding them for ourselves and others.

[Windsor]

Originally posted by Grimm

How is restricting choice consistant with Christian beliefs?!?
Being a Christian is about making choices, making the right ones. With no choice the practice of chosing can not be done.
God wants us to chose to worship him. Not for us to have no choice but to worship him. We gain strength in our faith by facing and defeating the chalenges placed before us, not by avoiding them for ourselves and others.

I don't know if that truly applies to this guy's situation, cause he's kind of in a rock and a hard place, if you will.

One one side, he's obligated by his morals and beliefs to not help spread porn, agreed? And in this case, he tried to be consistent with his beliefs.

Flip side: if he decides not to filter internet access, thats when he is in danger of getting blasted for being hypocritical.

I see it from the point of view that restricting choice was the better alternative for him because it didn't compromise his beliefs quite as much as allowing porn to be accessed via his phonelines/company.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Windsor
he's obligated by his morals and beliefs to not help spread porn, agreed?

not quite. that is a part of it, and i don't disagree, but there is another equal part of the conundrum in which he is making choices for others.

he restricted a whole lot of stuff so that innocent (but potentially guilty! gasp!) people couldn't do a lot of things. that isn't exactly how christian values are supposed to work, imo.

it's the whole "all the eight year old girls at our fine catholic school must keep a penny between their knees at all times and if the penny hits the floor we will be outraged because it's a sign of wanton sexuality" mentality that causes ppl to roll their eyes.

as grimm said, locking ppl in a room and not letting them do anything except what you think is the right and christian thing for them to do isn't really accomplishing much at all.

sometimes ppl confuse standing by their morals with enforcing their morals on others. i do see the other side here, i'm not ignoring it, but this is not a cut-and-dry case of him standing by his morals; it's muddier than that... agreed?

[Merlin]

You know, somehow I would have thought residents of "Blountsville" would be a lot more relaxed about things ;) ;)

[Windsor]

Originally posted by welfareloser




sometimes ppl confuse standing by their morals with enforcing their morals on others. i do see the other side here, i'm not ignoring it, but this is not a cut-and-dry case of him standing by his morals; it's muddier than that... agreed?


Yes, thats pretty much what I was trying to get at, that its not clear-cut enough for Grimm's statement to completely apply cause it seemed to blurry for me.

[molecularfire]

I'm not sure what to think of this situation. On the one hand, I'm really against censorship. However, I feel bad for the guy. He was stuck in a situation where he had to either sell out one belief or the other. He picked the one that was easier for him to live with. One thing I'll give him, he didn't try to rationalize out making the technically easier and more profitable option to making it right. He had beliefs and stuck to his guns... and if he got screwed over so be it. Gotta respect that. :)

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Windsor



Yes, thats pretty much what I was trying to get at, that its not clear-cut enough for Grimm's statement to completely apply cause it seemed to blurry for me.

we agree :cheers:

or close enough for guvmint work, anyway....

i guess we're both standin in the middle and leaning slightly toward opposite directions...

hmmm...

yep. you're close, but i'm definitely more right than you are. (j/k) :P

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by molecularfire
I'm not sure what to think of this situation. On the one hand, I'm really against censorship. However, I feel bad for the guy. He was stuck in a situation where he had to either sell out one belief or the other. He picked the one that was easier for him to live with. One thing I'll give him, he didn't try to rationalize out making the technically easier and more profitable option to making it right. He had beliefs and stuck to his guns... and if he got screwed over so be it. Gotta respect that. :)

this also kinda strikes me as a case of of some dippy peta member screaming about fur coats and egg mcmuffins while wearing leather shoes.

was he making any attempt to block 900 numbers on his phone service?

[molecularfire]

was he making any attempt to block 900 numbers on his phone service?

Dunno. We could assume either way on this without more info. Also, I'm not sure the analogy is right, because in doing this, he's taking a lot of slack, and obviously didn't have the option of doing whatever he wanted. I don't know too many peta members that didn't have a choice over what kind of shoes they wear. In the case of Peta members, they can wear whatever shoes they wanted, and just let their desires sell out their beliefs. He's in trouble for the exact opposite. He tried to do what he thought was right, and when he found out that a lot of people didn't agree with him, let them do things their way. He's not going out there insulting other people's beliefs... He just didn't like the way the game was being played, so he picked up his toys and went home.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by molecularfire


Dunno. We could assume either way on this without more info. Also, I'm not sure the analogy is right, because in doing this, he's taking a lot of slack, and obviously didn't have the option of doing whatever he wanted. I don't know too many peta members that didn't have a choice over what kind of shoes they wear. In the case of Peta members, they can wear whatever shoes they wanted, and just let their desires sell out their beliefs. He's in trouble for the exact opposite. He tried to do what he thought was right, and when he found out that a lot of people didn't agree with him, let them do things their way. He's not going out there insulting other people's beliefs... He just didn't like the way the game was being played, so he picked up his toys and went home.

i think it is a perfect analogy. he isn't in trouble, and he has a choice. he picked up his toys and went home over internet porn, but he's not going to over phone sex?

[Grimm]

Originally posted by Windsor


I don't know if that truly applies to this guy's situation, cause he's kind of in a rock and a hard place, if you will.

One one side, he's obligated by his morals and beliefs to not help spread porn, agreed? And in this case, he tried to be consistent with his beliefs.

Absolutely NOT agreed. He is obligated by his morals and beliefs to refrain from looking at pr0n. He is obligated to teach those morals in his offspring. He is obligated by his morals to encourage others to do the same. He is obligated by his morals to allow others to make their own choice. By denying that choice to others he has defied the will of God, that we chose the right path for ourselves. We should be encouraged to chose the right path but not be restricted from taknig another if we chose.

Originally posted by Windsor

Flip side: if he decides not to filter internet access, thats when he is in danger of getting blasted for being hypocritical.

Well, he may be blasted, but only by hypocrites. People who want to restrict your access to anything do it to control you. To restrict your free will, something that even God doesn't do.
If he sold pr0n at a gas station, that would be one thing, pr0n is pr0n, that magazine or tape is for only one thing. I can see him not wanting to do that, it's his choice. The Internet is a form of communication. It can be used for many things. Give a person the tool and hope they chose the right path, it's between them and God. The hypocrytes are the ones that don't want you to make any choices, which is what God wants you to do.

Originally posted by Windsor

I see it from the point of view that restricting choice was the better alternative for him because it didn't compromise his beliefs quite as much as allowing porn to be accessed via his phonelines/company.
Apparently I failed to communicate to you that choice is a good thing. He chose to disallow any choices for ohter people. He made a bad choice. He kept others form the oppertunity to build their character by making the right choice. So now they will jump out there into the WWW without the guidance he could have provided by setting up a home page that would have encouraged then to NOT visit pr0n sites. It is ok to try to convince and guide others. Now he has lost that oppertunity because he made a step down the wrong path. So how many will suffer for his arrogance? How many could he have saved from taking the wrong path if he had really stuck to his faith instead of caving into the temptation to control others? None? One? 900? We will never know.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Grimm

Absolutely NOT agreed. He is obligated by his morals and beliefs to refrain from looking at pr0n. He is obligated to teach those morals in his offspring. He is obligated by his morals to encourage others to do the same. He is obligated by his morals to allow others to make their own choice. By denying that choice to others he has defied the will of God, that we chose the right path for ourselves. We should be encouraged to chose the right path but not be restricted from taknig another if we chose.

Well, he may be blasted, but only by hypocrites. People who want to restrict your access to anything do it to control you. To restrict your free will, something that even God doesn't do.
If he sold pr0n at a gas station, that would be one thing, pr0n is pr0n, that magazine or tape is for only one thing. I can see him not wanting to do that, it's his choice. The Internet is a form of communication. It can be used for many things. Give a person the tool and hope they chose the right path, it's between them and God. The hypocrytes are the ones that don't want you to make any choices, which is what God wants you to do.

Apparently I failed to communicate to you that choice is a good thing. He chose to disallow any choices for ohter people. He made a bad choice. He kept others form the oppertunity to build their character by making the right choice. So now they will jump out there into the WWW without the guidance he could have provided by setting up a home page that would have encouraged then to NOT visit pr0n sites. It is ok to try to convince and guide others. Now he has lost that oppertunity because he made a step down the wrong path. So how many will suffer for his arrogance? How many could he have saved from taking the wrong path if he had really stuck to his faith instead of caving into the temptation to control others? None? One? 900? We will never know.
i have to disagree with you on a couple points here grimm.
i think that if he felt that he would be violating his christian beliefs by providing a pipeline through which people could access pr0n, then that is his choice.
i agree with you that the internet is merely a form of communication, which can be used either positively or negatively (and of course, everyone has different opinions about what negative usage is). and as stated above, i do not personally think that he "needed" to try to present filtered access to please God.
however, i would argue that he was not "defying" the will of God by trying to filter access. while i believe that God does give all of us the right to have free choice, that does not mean someone who is a follower of God has to give people unfettered choice within a private venue that they privately own.
again, i disagree with his understanding of what the internet is and how much responsibility he has, as a christian providing internet service, to control content, but i do not think that he's subverting God's will.

[mojo]

here's what i get from this:

good fuzzy, personal feeling for himself=yes
good business decision=no

he can feel like he "didn't contribute" and stuff. but that won't pay bills. and the next people are going to provide the service and it will be just as likely that the same customers will still access the stuff. so it wouldn't have really made a difference in the end. so it's just his personal thing.

peeps couldn't even access ebay and stuff...so it seems that someone really didn't think his solution out too well.

[molecularfire]

When I hear the word "phone"... phone sex isn't a word that really pops into my head. When I hear the word "internet" porn is one of the first words that pop into my head. Furthermore, phones have been around long before phone sex was around. The internet, while it has done a lot of good, has gained a lot of popularity because of internet porn. I guess the guy could've just not got involved in any company (let's face it, anything you do can be used by someone to do bad) but he probably decided that he'd do more good than bad by helping to supply the town with phone sevice. I'm not sure if I was him, I could come to the same conclusion about providing internet access. I know that I'm making some assumptions about the guy. I'm assuming that he's a good guy that is doing what he thinks is right. You could assume that he is a hypocrite that wants to deprive the town of e-bay... either ways, neither of us know enough to know.

Your analogy, however, is still quite a stretch because what shoes a person wears doesn't affect anyone but themselves. This guy is CEO of a company that is pretty important to this town. The decisions he makes will not only affect him, but a lot of other people. He has to not only think about himself, but others as well. Furthermore, he isn't doing anything to prevent people from getting internet access, he's just not getting involved in it. I didn't read anything about him getting in the way of the new company that will supply the town with internet access. The town still gets what it wants, and he gets to be able to look himself in the mirror when he shaves in the morning.


I don't know if this is the best way to deal with the situation but I can't think of any other way for him to reconcile his beliefs with reality. If you have any alternative ideas on how he could have dealt with the situation, I'd be glad to hear it. :)

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by molecularfire
When I hear the word "phone"... phone sex isn't a word that really pops into my head. When I hear the word "internet" porn is one of the first words that pop into my head. Furthermore, phones have been around long before phone sex was around. The internet, while it has done a lot of good, has gained a lot of popularity because of internet porn.

what the phone was originally intended for doesn't mean that it isn't used for dirty porn, stalking, harrassment, etc. a lot of ppl think of the word carrot after repeating the number 5 twenty or so times... i don't see where you associating "internet" with "porn" is an argument for anything.


Originally posted by molecularfire
I guess the guy could've just not got involved in any company (let's face it, anything you do can be used by someone to do bad)

exactly my point. if porn is bad and he doesn't want to contribute in any way, he shouldn't be a phone provider either. it's okay cuz there isn't as much porn going over the phone lines? i don't think so... the internet will do more harm than good, unlike phones, which do more good than harm? again, i don't think so...


Originally posted by molecularfire
I'm assuming that he's a good guy that is doing what he thinks is right. You could assume that he is a hypocrite that wants to deprive the town of e-bay... either ways, neither of us know enough to know.

i'm assuming he's a good guy too. and nobody's assuming he wants to deprive the town of ebay. that's not even an issue.


Originally posted by molecularfire
Your analogy, however, is still quite a stretch because what shoes a person wears doesn't affect anyone but themselves. This guy is CEO of a company that is pretty important to this town. The decisions he makes will not only affect him, but a lot of other people. He has to not only think about himself, but others as well. Furthermore, he isn't doing anything to prevent people from getting internet access, he's just not getting involved in it. I didn't read anything about him getting in the way of the new company that will supply the town with internet access. The town still gets what it wants, and he gets to be able to look himself in the mirror when he shaves in the morning.

if you're gonna protect beef cows and not leather cows, that's dippy. just like preventing internet porn and not phone porn is dippy.

but if you still don't like the analogy, ignore the anology, and focus on the point: why some big moral stance on the internet but not phones?

he wouldn't be doing anything to prevent ppl form having phone sex if he stopped beign a provider, someone else would provide it and his hands would be clean. same situation. he's not being an intentional hypocrite, but if these are his morals, then he's not being very effectively moral, either.


Originally posted by molecularfire
I don't know if this is the best way to deal with the situation but I can't think of any other way for him to reconcile his beliefs with reality.

he's NOT reconciling his beliefs with reality. that's the problem.

[mojo]

Originally posted by molecularfire
When I hear the word "phone"... phone sex isn't a word that really pops into my head. When I hear the word "internet" porn is one of the first words that pop into my head. that's cuz you're a perv :P

this reminds me of that joke:

a guy goes to his shrink and takes the inkblot test.

his shrink holds up one blot and asks "what does this make you think of?"

the man answers "sex."

he holds up another and asks the same question.

"sex"

another, "sex."

after a time, the doctor says, "you know what the problem is? you're obsessed with sex."

the patient says "oh ya? well you're the one with all the dirty pictures!"

[leemaj]

i dont see what the problem is...in the past year or so ive encountered a pr0n site maybe 4 or 5 times by accident....and i spend hundreds of hours online

[molecularfire]

what the phone was originally intended for doesn't mean that it isn't used for dirty porn, stalking, harrassment, etc. a lot of ppl think of the word carrot after repeating the number 5 twenty or so times... i don't see where you associating "internet" with "porn" is an argument for anything.

First of all, the association of the internet with porn is the whole core of this debate. The internet is what it is today, in part because of the porn industry. The internet has done a lot of good, but it has also made porn widely available and the flow very hard to control. I'm pretty sure more people would agree that there is a link between the internet and porn than between the word carrot and the number 5.




exactly my point. if porn is bad and he doesn't want to contribute in any way, he shouldn't be a phone provider either. it's okay cuz there isn't as much porn going over the phone lines? i don't think so... the internet will do more harm than good, unlike phones, which do more good than harm? again, i don't think so...

First of all, I don't think that the internet will do more harm than good. The internet is a good thing in my opinion. However, unlike with phones where you have to call a phone sex number to get it, the internet has lots of pop up windows advertising porn. I've been looking for a good program to kill pop-up windows (btw: if anyone knows of any good ones, I'd be interested in that knowledge)myself. What the internet does is it provides a source of porn for children that is difficult to trace, and can occur without the child's intention.


but if you still don't like the analogy, ignore the anology, and focus on the point: why some big moral stance on the internet but not phones?

The reason why I focused on the analogy was because it was a way to attack the guy with a knife designed for someone else. Now that it is dead, yes, let's move on.


he's NOT reconciling his beliefs with reality. that's the problem.

I agree with you. I don't see this as the perfect solution either. However, I myself am unable to come up with a better alternative, and so far neither have you. It's easy to find flaws in an idea. It's a lot harder to come up with a flawless idea. I'm defending the guy because he's doing his best, and that's all I feel I can ask in someone. Like I said before... if you can come up with a better idea, I'd love to hear it. :)

[mojo]

Originally posted by leemaj
i dont see what the problem is...in the past year or so ive encountered a pr0n site maybe 4 or 5 times by accident....and i spend hundreds of hours online the rest of the time it's on purpose, i'm sure ;)