O2 AND SYMANTEC ADMIT THAT FATHERS RIGHTS AREN'T HATEFUL

I haven't heard any updates from O2 and Symantec recently over their defamation and censorship of men's human rights sites, so I decided to reexamine the list of sites (it now stands at almost 90). It seems to have been worth my while and there is a least a little good news.

Previously, following my complaints, Glenn Sacks of Fathers and Families had his site unblocked, similalrly the other unblocked site also pertained to fathers' issues. O2 appeared to be standing by their hate smears, indicating as such on Twitter just yesterday and have not mentioned any more sites being unblocked. In reality, my testing shows a number of additional father related sites have been unblocked and are no longer suffering this vile defamation. These include:

• http://www.angrydad.blogspot.com
• http://www.framedfathers.blogspot.com

This now leaves father-related sites as quite a small minority on the "hate" list, and suggests that Symantec and O2 are slowly coming round to the idea of equality for fathers being a legitimate issue. Of course it goes without saying that they are still firmly against any other men's issues being addressed such as rape, abuse, false imprisonment and domestic violence. The only other possible scenario is that they just have absolutely no idea what they're doing.

In total O2 and Symantec have now reclassified eight sites since I started this exercise, others include the following:

http://www.gabnet.com/lit/demoh10.htm
http://www.barnoz.wordpress.com
http://www.rulymob.com
http://www.womenagainstvawa.org (wasn't actually smeared as hate, but wrongly censored due to being given a "pornography" classification)

I've no idea if Symantec and O2 have apologised to the owners of those sites, though given that they haven't even publicised the unblocking, I doubt there has been any communication never mind a much needed apology. Perhaps site owners can confirm this? Anyway, just another 80 to go….

by John Kimble

Comments

[George]

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: http://framedfathers.blogspot.ca/

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:

http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org
http://dadsandthings.com

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:

http://bruderheim-rea.ca
http://folc.ca
http://lce.folc.ca

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.