Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Thursday, 09 May 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Mine is the Angry Dad site, and no one apologized to me. Thanks for helping to get me unblocked. Keep up the good work.

Walter Schneider

John, Re:

I don't consider the blocking to have been removed. Their note at their status checker implies that it will be imposed at any time they wish to do so:

"The URL is known to contain dynamic content as part of a Social Networking Service. It may be allowed or blocked based upon real-time analysis of the requested page."

By whose authority do they have the right to decide whether anything at all should be blocked or not? What standards do they use to judge that by? Who set those standards? Which legislation in which country makes it the law that they can do any of that?

These sites of mine are still being blocked for being hate sites:

In addition, my concerns about any of my sites being blocked due to whatever reasons may apply in the category "parental control" remain, such as:

Those last three sites deal with environmental and community issues in a very small community (1,245 pop.) and county (5,500 pop.). Does anyone in their right mind think that I would post anything on those sites that is not suitable for anyone's children? I live here. I would not do such a thing anonymously, let alone openly. So, why are those sites being blocked?

Mind you, the first of those last three sites is one that the Alberta Government tried to exert pressure to have me take down because it contained inconvenient information, and similar circumstances may also apply with the last two of those three sites. I can only speculate, as I don't know for how long any of my sites have been blocked, as neither Symantec nor O2 informed me that any of my sites had been blocked or for what reasons.

The situation with the filtering and blocking is worse than the rulings of a Star-Chamber Court. The Star-Chamber Court at least informed the accused of the verdict in his trial.

It seems to me that if O2 and Symantec are truly concerned about keeping the minds of our children pure and innocent, then they should focus their efforts where it is necessary and would make a difference, in relation to the violence, depravity, filth, foul language and lies that are being shown to children on TV.

John Kimble

Walter you really don't need to worry about those last three sites of yours, it's only a minority of young children who won't be able to see them, no one else and they haven't been defamed in any way either. most sites worldwide will be blocked by parental filters, it's more of an opt in type system really where everything is blocked unless clearly child friendly/targeted.

As for the message:

"The URL is known to contain dynamic content as part of a Social Networking Service. It may be allowed or blocked based upon real-time analysis of the requested page."

That is relatively standard classification the use for all sort of blogs and absolutely nothing to worry about. Ultimately, all it seems to mean is that the site is unblocked so the reclassification is a clear victory.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List