…and this is a 
City workers in Birmingham are not reading this right now
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: July 29, 2008 10:29 AM, by PZ Myers
The Birmingham city council has put up blocking software to lock out atheist websites, which is OK — they've got to crack that whip and keep their employees focused on the work at hand, of course. Unfortunately, they apparently aren't doing this to improve productivity, but simply to shut down a point of view some bureaucrat doesn't like.
The authority's Bluecoat Software computer system allows staff to look at websites relating to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions but blocks sites to do with "witchcraft or Satanism" and "occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism".
I'm always peeved at this inconsistent categorization. If you're going to group undesirable topics under the heading of "Forms of mysticism", then atheism does not belong there, but Christianity and Islam do, right along with witchcraft, the occult, voodoo, and New Age nonsense. I suppose we could even stretch that category to cover pornography, since it largely seems to consist of imaginary bodies airbrushed and photoshopped into an impossibly ideal form.
Comments
Posted by: Baba | July 29, 2008 10:36 AM
Sounds like a version of the Trollcage! AKA the Cyber Gulag!
Posted by: Cronan | July 29, 2008 10:38 AM
Seems the National Secular Society is considering legal action.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/
Only in Birmingham!
Posted by: Richard Harris | July 29, 2008 10:38 AM
It's outrageous! The bozo responsible for this ban should've been consistent & prevented access to the religious sites, as you've rightly pointed out.
But doesn't this action by the City contravene US law against promotion of religion? Oh shit, I thought it'd be Birmingham, Alabama. No, it's Birmingham, UK!
I bet the feckin' Submissionists (followers of the prophet Muhammad, piss be upon him) are behind this.
Posted by: Greg Esres | July 29, 2008 10:38 AM
I thought you were talking about Birmingham, Alabama.
Posted by: Mcstabbity | July 29, 2008 10:40 AM
"I suppose we could even stretch that category to cover pornography, since it largely seems to consist of imaginary bodies airbrushed and photoshopped into an impossibly ideal form."
In magazine form, perhaps. But that argument becomes more difficult to make regarding internet pr0n. A large chunk of it appears to be amateurish, non-photoshopped, and non-surgically enhanced. But no one has to take my word for it, of course. Feel free to research the matter (especially if you happen to have a wife/girlfriend like mine who likes that sort of thing).
Posted by: Ric | July 29, 2008 10:41 AM
Can we leave the pornography out of this please? Why pick on pornography because some religious idiots want to censor atheists?
Posted by: Adam | July 29, 2008 10:44 AM
The aim of this is to provide greater control for individual line managers to monitor internet usage, and for departments, such as trading standards and child protection, to gain access, if needed, to certain sites for business reasons.
I think I see their point. Obviously the Child Protection Departments need access to the Catholic web sites.
Posted by: El Herring | July 29, 2008 10:47 AM
This is my home town, so I'm a bit annoyed at this. The nonsense is getting too close to home for my liking. I'm writing to the city council to tell them exactly what this particular local atheist thinks about their ridiculous double standards.
Posted by: ssjessiechan | July 29, 2008 10:49 AM
"I think I see their point. Obviously the Child Protection Departments need access to the Catholic web sites." - #17
We should look on the bright side. Obviously they feel threatened by our ideas, but they've tacitly admitted we're no danger to children.
Posted by: John Vreeland | July 29, 2008 10:50 AM
It's BIRming'am, West Midlands, not BIRming HAM, Alabama.
Posted by: Bjorn Watland | July 29, 2008 10:51 AM
I block people at my work from Pharyngula, but also from MySpace, FaceBook, Google, MSN, Yahoo, Ask.com, and any other site which isn't needed for people to do their jobs. I'm a jerk like that.
Posted by: Cronan | July 29, 2008 10:53 AM
The article mentions that this gormless bunch of Brummies use BlueCoat, a web filtering application. At my last job they also used the same software. Effectively, they present you with a bunch of categories, you choose which ones you don't want to see. When this was implemented a large number of sites became blocked; simply because of poor categorisation by the BlueCoat folks.
I'm guessing that the Brummies selected a category that looked reasonable (i.e. "paranormal") without going into the details of what that meant.
Posted by: Quidam | July 29, 2008 10:55 AM
Bluecoat software? That's a California company. My expereince with web blocking software is that when you block a category then all sorts of loosely related sites get blocked too.
I don't think we should blame Birmingham too much - yet. The problem is more likely with the company that defined the categories and put Wicca and atheist sites in the same category but separate from religious sites.
My money is on Birmingham simply adding the category 'religious sites' to the block list. Any takers?
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 29, 2008 10:56 AM
It certainly takes a special kind of idiot to list not believing in other peoples gods in the same league as "occult practices" and "voodoo rituals".
This is the kind of stuff that needs more attention, people shouldn't get away with this stuff as if it's "just a mistake". I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be "just a mistake" if they put Islam or Christianity in the blocked group.
Posted by: Sam B | July 29, 2008 10:56 AM
Soo... Net Neutrality anyone?
Posted by: Amplexus | July 29, 2008 10:59 AM
Websites with a-theistic views:
So I imagine a website about deep sea fishing that doesn't mention Poseidon is an a-theistic explanation of ocean ecosystems?
A deep-sea fish website might also dispel crytpo zoology sightings of sea serpents.
Posted by: amphiox | July 29, 2008 10:59 AM
You have been mislead by the pedants responsible for the Oxford dictionary, PZ.
"Mysticism" actually means "whatsoever views that are not similar to my own."
Posted by: niennie | July 29, 2008 11:01 AM
Bjorn: "I block people at my work from...google..."!
Google is the epitome of productivity, unless your employees don't need accessiblity of information.
And agreed on the point about poor categorization ( If you're going to group undesirable topics under the heading of "Forms of mysticism", then atheism does not belong there, but Christianity and Islam do, right along with witchcraft, the occult, voodoo, and New Age nonsense. )... what were they thinking?
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | July 29, 2008 11:01 AM
Interestingly, they also run filtering for their library computers, with some bizarre categories being blocked. I wonder if atheism is banned in Birmingham's libraries now too?
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | July 29, 2008 11:04 AM
Grrr. Didn't end the quote. Everything from "Nope," onward above was mine...
Posted by: SC | July 29, 2008 11:04 AM
Is Vodou recognized by any European states as a religion?
Posted by: Sarcastro | July 29, 2008 11:05 AM
If you're going to group undesirable topics under the heading of "Forms of mysticism", then atheism does not belong there, but Christianity and Islam do, right along with witchcraft, the occult, voodoo, and New Age nonsense.
Not all religion is mystical. I mean, yea Sufis are mystics but the great mass of Islam is not. Gnosticism was mystical in nature but most modern forms of Christianity are not. Buddhism... yea, that one's pretty much mystical. Hell, one could make a good argument that, for instance, Timothy Leary's Circuit Model of consciousness is an atheistic - or, at most, materialistic pantheist - mysticism.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | July 29, 2008 11:13 AM
mysticism: (from my Webster's dictionary)
noun. 1) the doctrine... that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation and love without the medium of human reason.
2) any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining knowledge of spiritual truths through intuition acquired by fixed meditation.
3) vague, obscure, or confused thinking or belief
Yup, that's atheism in a nutshell. Riiiiiiiiight.
Posted by: SEF | July 29, 2008 11:13 AM
Any bets over into which category astrology has gone? It ought to be in the paranormal woo along with the religious garbage, while atheism ought to go into any rationalist category which might exist (along with science).
Posted by: leki | July 29, 2008 11:13 AM
The brummies aren't allowed to visit atheist sites, hey?
Birmingham is always in the news for something or another. A few years ago there were riots at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre over a play that depicted a rape in a sikh temple; there have been issues with honour killings; gun crimes have doubled (highest concentration of guns in the UK is Birmingham).
Remember the raid of January 2007? Birmingham police rounded-up a bunch of folks who were planning to kidnap a British soldier (muslim group, muslim soldier). That was big, big news.
I've visited Birmingham several times and there is this huge chasm between ethnicities. People are screaming on all sides about what language to teach in schools, how many mosques are allowed per block, whether or not the 'english' way of life is disappearing. Hot spot of discontent and animosity, but an awesome festival and music scene.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | July 29, 2008 11:15 AM
Bingo!
User manual for the software (non-corporate version, I'm presuming).
http://www1.k9webprotection.com/support/files/K9Manual.pdf
The image on page 22 shows the default categories blocked by their software; it includes such joys as:
"Abortion"
"Intimate apparel/Swimwear"
"Sex education"
"Sexuality alternative lifestyles"
and:
"Alternative spirituality/Occult"
Also, in their FAQ, they state:
Q: "Is Blue Coat affiliated with any political or religious organization?"
A: "No. The people at Blue Coat who work on the K9 project are parents. Because of our work on the software we make for corporations, we know what harmful stuff is out there on the Internet. We don't want your kids - or our kids - running into it."
http://www1.k9webprotection.com/support/faq.php
So yup, looks like a deliberate action on the part of Blue Coat. Be interesting to see how Birmingham react to this one.
Posted by: Boris | July 29, 2008 11:22 AM
Let me get this straight, they can surf web-sites with graphic torture images and descriptions including being hung from a cross, descriptions of incest and other immoral tales we find in the bible, they can even surf web-sites dedicated to christian snuff films (the passion) but no Robert Ingersoll?
Posted by: El Herring | July 29, 2008 11:26 AM
Armchair dissident - I can tell you exactly what the average Brummie will make of this:
(shrugs shoulders)
"Ooo cares?"
Posted by: Moggie | July 29, 2008 11:33 AM
I haven't taken much notice of the web filtering world for the past few years, but back when this sort of software started to make the news, it was reported that some of the software companies responsible had a heavily rightwing Christian slant, which was reflected in their blocklists. I suspect that the council are just clueless but innocent victims, here: it's not like atheism is a particularly minority or controversial viewpoint in Brum.
As for Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society saying "Witchcraft these days is called Wicca, which is an actual legitimate and recognised religion": it's a pity he didn't add "of course, it's at least as ridiculous as the others, but it shouldn't be singled out for blocking".
Posted by: wÒÓ† | July 29, 2008 11:39 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: Obrien | July 29, 2008 11:40 AM
PZ'z Post is hilarious.
He bans, he deletes, he alters, and now he is whining about points of view that someone does not like being blocked.
If people like PZ actually had political power, you would see oppression such as never been seen.
In this country, that is.
Posted by: True Bob | July 29, 2008 11:40 AM
Hmm, as we saw so recently, witchcraft is also a christy belief. Why are those poor,downtrodden, meek christers being persectued?!!1!1!!
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 29, 2008 11:41 AM
Finally, proof that our right-wing government rags on the Chinese government out of sheer jealousy.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 29, 2008 11:44 AM
PZ, It's just a rack.
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | July 29, 2008 11:46 AM
PZ'z Post is hilarious.
He bans, he deletes, he alters, and now he is whining about points of view that someone does not like being blocked.
If people like PZ actually had political power, you would see oppression such as never been seen.
In this country, that is.
I take it you have actual evidence of PZ altering comments or articles? Deletion is understandable; it's his blog, he can allow or remove whatever he likes.
Could you define "oppression" for us, though? I suspect your definition, Obrien, is like the one used by many religious people. That definition is, of course, "I have a right to impose my beliefs on other people. When I'm asked to stop telling other people how to think and act because they don't conform to my beliefs, that's oppression."
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | July 29, 2008 11:46 AM
Given that it is Terry Sanderson, he probably did, but the BBC just took it for granted ;-)
That may well be the case here. Certainly in 2007, the guy responsible for web-filtering at K9-Blue Coat (the web-filtering software in question) appears to be one John Carosella. I don't know that he's right-wing, but he is catholic. It appears that he helped to produce a film called "Article VI, Faith. Politics. America", which has a blog here:
http://article6themovie.blogspot.com/
In the last entry (Feb 2008, posted by Mr Carosella), he discusses whether it was right for the Catholic Church to threaten to deny Communion to John Kerry. Despite apparently being of the opinion that there's too much religion in American politics, he concludes that the Catholic Church really should have done so. The apparent irony doesn't seem to occur to him.
Besides that, you just have to look at some of the categories they have, I mean, "Intimate Apparel/Swimwear". This is one inseparable category: you can't block "Intimate apparel" (which I'm presuming is lingerie and the like) without block "Swimwear" (which you can go to the local pool to see). Similarly the categories they block by default for various age ranges: these are all moral decisions.
I did find it ironic, browsing around their web-page, that they're all in favour of parents controlling what their children can or cannot see on the internet (not a bad thing), but then advocate handing the decision as to what fits in to what shoe-box of "good" vs "bad" over to a private company.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 29, 2008 11:48 AM
Oops, gotta read that more carefully. I assumed it was Birmingham, Alabama. Scratch my first comment.
Posted by: Michelle | July 29, 2008 11:48 AM
I'm wondering... Since this internet connection's paid with taxpayer money... This is illegal discrimination, right?
Posted by: Cujo359 | July 29, 2008 11:49 AM
There's really no need to bother with that rhetorical stretch. Porn and online gambling are normally prohibited, if only because they're potentially addictive and have nothing to do with work without resorting to analogies or metaphors.Meanwhile, this is a clear case of discrimination against particular points of view. It should either be that all sites that focus on religion should be off limits, or none.
I'd prefer that employees had the choice to view what they want, as long as it's not interfering with their work.
Posted by: mds | July 29, 2008 11:51 AM
If you want to see what category Blue Coat considers a site to be, if you visit http://sitereview.bluecoat.com/sitereview.jsp?url=<url of site> it will tell you, and also let you propose corrections.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 29, 2008 11:52 AM
@Obrien
The only one who can possibly be "oppressed" in a secular state is the religion that managed to infiltrate the secular state in the first place.
Posted by: Richard Harris | July 29, 2008 11:52 AM
Obrien, PZ's point is there's f***-all difference between the religions mentioned, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and the cult of Wicca. Religions are merely cults with more members.
The previously named religions are, to rationalists, essentially indistinguishable from witchcraft. In other words, they're all a load of crap. There aren't any feckin' gods, angels, witches, devils, goblins, or fairies.
And atheism dosn't involve any superstitious crap.
Posted by: Janine ID | July 29, 2008 11:53 AM
Obrien, many thanks to you pointing out how PZ censures everyone here. Your concerns have been noted and left on the side of the road.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | July 29, 2008 11:56 AM
I work for a county school board in the US. We use Bluecoat as well. Employees go through the same proxy that students use.
Among the categories that are blocked:
* Government/Legal
* Computers/Internet
* Reference
The Panda's Thumb is blocked under "Newsgroups/Forums", but Answers in Genesis isn't. Daily Kos is blocked under "Political/Activist Groups", but Free Republic isn't. Somehow, they missed Pharyngula.
The zinger? Most of these are apparently from a default blocklist, as things that are specifically forbidden are added to a different category: "PCS-Blocked-Sites". Among the blocked sites are YouTube, MySpace, and Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is blocked because we pay for Grolier's, and they want to force people to use it.)
Then again, this is also a school board that made news recently. Luckily, thanks to the efforts of the Church of the FSM, they decided not to pursue the issue. (I was planning to take off my ID badge, re-enter as a visitor, and attend the meeting.)
There's a reason so many of my coworkers have cellular data cards. I VPN to my home computer, but they've announced that they're planning to lock down all ports other than 80 and 443.
Posted by: clinteas | July 29, 2008 11:56 AM
@ 31,Obrien :
//PZ'z Post is hilarious.
He bans, he deletes, he alters, and now he is whining about points of view that someone does not like being blocked.//
Im trying to find all the logical fallacies amassed in that one sentence,but Im struggling !
Mate,people here install killfiles,because PZ wont ban or delete any lunatics' posts at all,unless they really behave like the worst kind of troll.
Posted by: Bjorn Watland | July 29, 2008 11:57 AM
I block Google, because people only need access to US county websites to look up information from real estate documents. We have an allow list of sites, rather then a deny list.
Posted by: Saving Abel | July 29, 2008 11:58 AM
Has anyone seen Christopher Hitchens debate? I've heard he is going to be debating D'Souza in St. Lous September 10th. I found this website www.godontrialdebate.com
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | July 29, 2008 11:59 AM
Janine @ #43:
Don't you mean: "We appreciate your concern. It is noted, and stupid"?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 29, 2008 12:01 PM
Fortunately, they can't really shut out "atheistic views." For, "atheistic views" range from mere indifference, to critiques of religion, and on to formal declarations that there is no god. The latter they can ban. They can hardly prevent skepticism, not caring about mystical beliefs, etc.
If this,
is punctuated as intended, it would not seem that atheistic views are labeled as a "form of mysticism". The punctuation would be categorizing "voodoo rituals" as one of a number of forms of mysticism. It's confusing, because "atheistic views" comes between two mystical belief systems, making one wonder if they intended to include all three labeled "beliefs" as forms of mysticism. The punctuation doesn't support that reading, however.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 29, 2008 12:02 PM
"I suppose we could even stretch that category to cover pornography, since it largely seems to consist of imaginary bodies airbrushed and photoshopped into an impossibly ideal form."
Desecrating the body of Christ and the holy text of Islam is one thing, but your blog readers will not tolerate your insults of their masturbatory fantasies.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 29, 2008 12:13 PM
Wait a second, Birmingham UK?
Does this software ban annoying accents?
Posted by: SEF | July 29, 2008 12:14 PM
Yes it does. You're making a rookie US / Oxford comma mistake. In English English there isn't a comma between the last two items (before the or/and) in such a list. So they're calling all three preceding things examples of mysticism.Posted by: Steven Mooney | July 29, 2008 12:15 PM
Ha, I thought you meant Birmingham, AL. I live here, so naturally I was thinking, "yeah, that sounds about right." I was briefly angry, just not at all surprised. Somewhat more shocking for it to be the other one, though.
Posted by: CSBSH | July 29, 2008 12:15 PM
"I suppose we could even stretch that category to cover pornography, since it largely seems to consist of imaginary bodies airbrushed and photoshopped into an impossibly ideal form."
I see that you're not very familiar with internet porn, Mr. Myers. :)
Posted by: Scrofulum | July 29, 2008 12:16 PM
I'm a tad gutted that a UK council is showing such respect to irrationality. On the other hand, it's a good sign that such stances are a rare enough occurrence to make the news, and with a negative slant as well.
By the way, I'm quite interested in this 'pornography' you speak of. Does anyone know where I can purchase a pornograph to play it on?
Posted by: Neural T | July 29, 2008 12:18 PM
I suppose we could even stretch that category to cover pornography, since it largely seems to consist of imaginary bodies airbrushed and photoshopped into an impossibly ideal form.
Dude, you just tole me there's no Santa Claus.
Posted by: Phro | July 29, 2008 12:20 PM
Hey! At least air-brushed porn is based on SOMETHING real, right?
Posted by: SEF | July 29, 2008 12:21 PM
I checked an astrology site (for which I'd just googled) against BlueCoat and it came back with: "This page is currently categorized as Society/Daily Living" - which was further defined as:
Then I finally bumped into the actual classification page.
Posted by: oriole | July 29, 2008 12:23 PM
Obrien: "If people like PZ actually had political power, you would see oppression such as never been seen."
You mean "the likes of which have never been seen."
Your poor reading skills are perhaps not surprising, Obrien, in light of your ignorance of proper English usage. PZ only made a comment about a category error, viz. the inclusion of "atheism" under "forms of mysticism"; he didn't complain about the choice of blocked websites.
Try reading PZ's post again, Obrien, but this time turn off your anti-rational Christian fundie filter first.
Posted by: The Mongoose | July 29, 2008 12:24 PM
From the said classification page:
54 - Religion
Sites that promote and provide information on conventional or unconventional religious or quasi-religious subjects, as well as churches, synagogues, or other houses of worship. Does not include sites containing alternative religions such as Wicca or witchcraft (Alternative Spirituality/Occult) or atheist beliefs (Political/Activist Groups).
Well that explains it all then.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 29, 2008 12:26 PM
Hmm, well okay. I'm no rookie, though, having no pretensions at all to do anything other than recognize the spellings that the English use.
Seems to me to be an ambiguous way to punctuate, though I suppose the English simply use different constructions when they want to set off a generalization to show that it applies to the entire list.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: C R Stamey | July 29, 2008 12:28 PM
Thanks for the heads up. I am in st. Louis and have waited for this opportunity. I will spread the word.
Posted by: firemancarl | July 29, 2008 12:30 PM
Woot! Who knew the Taliban was alive and well in Birmingham,Talibana?
Posted by: aleph1=c | July 29, 2008 12:33 PM
My school district blocks the weirdest things:
1. wolfram/mathematica; reason: spam (huh?)
2. John Conway's game of life; reason: games (it's a math site)
3. Los Angeles County voter information; reason: adult lifestyles (WTF?)
4. Edwin Meese v. Playboy; reason: uses the word "playboy"
I suppose government offices and schools have the right to block anything they want as long as there is no discrimination based on blah blah, but the current state of blocking technology is ridiculous. I am constantly having to request that a site be unblocked because I want to use it for educational purposes. Then, in a few days, the site is automatically reblocked. I often have to change my lesson plans on the fly. It's very frustrating.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 29, 2008 12:35 PM
So, by default does Obrien agree with the above?
Whatever.
Fucking loser.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 29, 2008 12:35 PM
What sort of idiot came up with these classifications?
"Blue Coat Category Descriptions
22 - Alternative Spirituality/Occult
Sites that promote and provide information on religions such as Witchcraft or Satanism. Occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism are represented here. Includes sites that endorse or offer methods, means of instruction, or other resources to affect or influence real events through the use of spells, incantations, curses and magic powers. This category includes sites which discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events.
Examples: churchofsatan.com, astroawareness.com, ghostpix.com"
Posted by: jagannath | July 29, 2008 12:37 PM
Frankly, I am highly offended and will now access loads and loads of porn in protest (Will wank too but only in protest) of the casual dismissal of porn in the same category with religion. I call for public protest and demand the position of professor Myers to be given a true pornoholic.
Do they not teach in the UMM that internet was made for porn.
Posted by: SteveM | July 29, 2008 12:44 PM
#11:
I don't think you quite understand what PZ is commenting on. It is not that his blog is blocked, it's that it is blocked for ideological reasons and not productivity. No one is calling you a jerk for limiting your employees to sites they need for their jobs, but that is not what Birmingham is doing. They can visit all kinds of religious sites not related to their jobs, but not atheist sites or other "mystical" sites. Suppose you allowed your employees to only access Democrat sites but not Republican sites (or the equivalents in your own nation)? Then you would be a jerk.
Posted by: Katrina | July 29, 2008 12:45 PM
According to the BlueCoat website, Pharyngula is listed under "Reference" along with the rest of Sb.
Interestingly, RichardDawkins.net is listed under the category "Religion."
http://sitereview.bluecoat.com/sitereview.jsp
Posted by: jj | July 29, 2008 12:50 PM
Re: #40,
Fortunately, scienceblogs.com (including Pharyngula) is categorized as:
Internet Infidels (iidb.org) is categorized in both Newsgroups/Forums and Society/Daily Living. So at least one major (perhaps largest) atheist web site is not under Religion.
Posted by: Christian Ridley | July 29, 2008 12:51 PM
Are you serious?!
I looked as this article and assumed, obviously naively, that it was Birmingham, Alabama, but no! Birmingham, UK!
I really though that we athiest's in the UK had more freedom and respect than in the US, but obviously not as much as I thought.
Unbelievable. Lets hope the NSS make some impact.
Posted by: The Chemist | July 29, 2008 12:52 PM
First of all: PZ, we've been spending less time in the lab doing a different kind of research I take it? :-P
Second of all: I too thought Alabama at first. I was wondering why a "National Secular Society" was getting involved instead of the ACLU.
Third of all: I despise people who use dictionary definitions as though they mean something for anyone other than pedants. That said, mysticism!=atheism.
Fourth of all: I don't have a fourth point, I just got carried away.
Posted by: Undo | July 29, 2008 12:53 PM
They can use vtunnel.com or similar to get around the filtering software.
Posted by: jj | July 29, 2008 12:57 PM
#69, Dawkins site is under religion, but interestingly, that category excludes Bluecoat.com's definition of alternative religions such as Wicca and atheist beliefs.
Posted by: kid bitzer | July 29, 2008 1:11 PM
this is a very straight forward violation of the establishment clause of 1A, which was incorporated against the states by the 14A.
they don't have a leg to stand on.
Posted by: SEF | July 29, 2008 1:15 PM
Erm... Would those be the United States (ie wrong Birmingham and wrong constitution) or some version of European States (to which the UK is only partly signed up)? On the other hand, if BlueCoat is a US company or trades in the US at all ...Posted by: Noni Mausa | July 29, 2008 1:26 PM
Two minor points:
-- Irony on parade -- Wicca is the only religion which originated in the UK, and has been legal there since 1953
-- Wicca is actually one of the least cultlike faiths you will ever encounter. One common Wiccan declaration is "There is no one, right, true and only way!"
You can grade the cultishness of groups (religious or otherwise) by accessing the Bonewitz Cult Evaluation Framework -- print it out and mark it up in pencil for your favorite mystical / religious / pyramid racketeering groups. Wicca scores so low it's practically not a "group" at all.
Noni
Posted by: Kerr | July 29, 2008 1:29 PM
Just had a look through the Blue Coat category descriptions. Looks like the one blocked is this one.
Sites that promote and provide information on religions such as Witchcraft or Satanism. Occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism are represented here. Includes sites that endorse or offer methods, means of instruction, or other resources to affect or influence real events through the use of spells, incantations, curses and magic powers. This category includes sites which discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events.
Doh! It's even worse than the snippet quoted by PZ. We atheists are certainly known for our "incantations, curses and magic powers"
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 29, 2008 1:56 PM
WE KNOW WHAT IS HARMFUL ON THE INTERNET...
When I read this, it had a slight orwellian ring to it.
Have people become that stupid and lazy that they would trust and delegate to a few person the responsibility to decide FOR THEM or FOR THEIR KIDS what is harmful or not ?
Posted by: Dancaban | July 29, 2008 2:06 PM
Black Sabbath are really pissed off now.
Posted by: SEF | July 29, 2008 2:09 PM
What do you mean "become". The vast majority of people have always been that stupid and lazy. Laziness is a major driving force in the universe. Light going in "straight" lines, least energy for bubbles with surface tension, vaguely spherical stars and planets under gravity, much of evolution and many human inventions (eg the washing machine).
Posted by: Moggie | July 29, 2008 2:25 PM
# 77:
Aren't you forgetting football?
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | July 29, 2008 2:39 PM
atheistic views, voodoo rituals
You keep doing that voodoo that you do so well, PZ. :-)
Posted by: Sastra | July 29, 2008 4:17 PM
The reason atheism is included under "occult practices, voodoo rituals, mysticism,... spells, incantations, curses and magic powers ... the paranormal" is because too much of the general public considers atheism to be weird, fringe, strange, and wicked. Atheists "worship themselves" or need "more faith" or want to take away people's hopes. If you don't believe in God, then that's just like throwing out a voodoo curse. Right.
It's just one more case of someone or some organization trying to marginalize a rational, scientific, naturalistic world view as being "looney toons." Everyone believes in God. Sure, they do. Be reassured. It's normal, and supported by both common sense and reason.
Unlike those things that are not normal, and twist the world into bizarre and unfriendly shapes. Not believing in the supernatural AT ALL is the same thing as believing in the supernatural TOO MUCH. I suspect this strange classification system is just another example of "The Fallacy of the Golden Middle."
Since this involves Birmingham, UK, I'll say it thus: wankers.
Posted by: Heliprogenus | July 29, 2008 4:34 PM
What, you mean those porn pictures are fake? Really? Oh no, my whole world is crumbling. My sense of reality is shattering to a billion miniscule pieces. I can't imagine that Violeta, Cindi, Monique's 1-5 are all non-existant. Why, oh why was I born in this retched world of illusion.
Anyway, in all seriousness, every once in a while, when the ignorant religious drones suddenly break from their fantasy world and actually embrace reality, those reactions described above are not dissimilar. The one thing that does become obvious is the sense of freedom that's suddenly sprung forth by jettisoning all the nonsense. Once the reality of owning one's own life comes to fruition, there's no greater sense of control and awe.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 29, 2008 4:39 PM
Sastra said "Since this involves Birmingham, UK, I'll say it thus: wankers.
That one term covers a lot to do with Brum quite accurately and I say that as someone who's group of closest friends includes a couple of great Brummies. In fact, when I showed them this story, wankers was probably the mildest epithet they used :)
Posted by: Bluestocking | July 29, 2008 4:45 PM
"WE KNOW WHAT IS HARMFUL ON THE INTERNET...
When I read this, it had a slight orwellian ring to it.
Have people become that stupid and lazy that they would trust and delegate to a few person the responsibility to decide FOR THEM or FOR THEIR KIDS what is harmful or not?"
I guess by your rather ill-informed statement, I am stupid and lazy because I use K9. In my case, I use it to keep my very young daughter from stumbling upon internet porn when she is at the computer.
You should know that I get to cherry pick the things that are filtered out, not K9. It is not an absolute block of some "list of dangerous sites" collected by some small group of zealots. It is a tool--a very useful one--that can be used to filter internet content. In my case it filters all pornographic and adult/mature content, as I'd rather my daughter did not form her ideas of sex and sexuality under the tutelage of the internet.
...Come to think of it, it would be nice if some men didn't either.
So anyway, you can put your steaming hot cup of righteous indignation down now. Individuals using K9 are very much in control of what it blocks and does not block.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | July 29, 2008 4:47 PM
web filtering software overblocking and misclassifying in ridiculously mindless ways? that sentence is severely redundant; the first three words would quite suffice.
web filtering software getting in the way of your browsing? that's what TOR was invented for.
idiot network admins locking down all ports other than the ones they filter? fuck 'em, time to get your own connection, the one they provide is obviously not going to be allowed to be useful to you. step one, start leeching off of unsecured wifi nets; then decide whether to build your own (possibly ad-hoc) wifi net, or go wimax or something.