I can empathize with the white-list idea. But, we must have the pro-gay groups available on that white list. The anti-gay factions have too much influence on the public school system. Here where I went to school we couldn’t even mention the word homosexual. The anti-gay forces have had far too much control over what can be accessed on the topic in our schools.

And, I have wonder who gets to select what gets on this white list. All too often the school board is made up of religious zealots bent on foisting lies and ignorance about homosexuality.

In spite of all the bad we find on the internet, there needs to be a vehicle to get the good information and the truth to those who are homosexuals. I tend to favor a unregulated (unfiltered) access because I think we gain far more with having all the information available. I think most young people can determine the truth and the good from the bad.

Having an intimate knowledge of the Internet, I recognize that there is exponentially more harmful content than educationally beneficial content available on the Internet. I now realize that trying to block out the harmful content while still allowing access to the beneficial content is a completely foolhardy goal that simply cannot be accomplished. A considerably more realizable goal would be to identify quality, relevant educational material available on the Internet and provide access to that using a white-list at the exclusion of everything else. This is exactly the approach schools take when choosing textbooks and I believe the same approach would work well with the Internet. I should point out that this is the polar opposite of the message I was preaching several years ago, but having spent 11 years playing Don Quixote, I have finally come to this new conclusion.

I know a lot of people would be outraged at my opinion, but I have seen more than anyone’s fair share of the garbage available on the Internet. By virtue of being a developer of an Internet filtering product, I have acquired an intimate knowledge of things I wish I had never seen or heard of. I thought by developing a filtering product I would somehow be protecting others from this stuff, but after 11 years of watching how the peddlers of the filth sneak and weasel their way past the filters, I now realize I have spent countless thousands of hours trying to stop a giant snowball from rolling down a very steep hill.

I am not suggesting that the material referenced in the ACLU letter should or should not be allowed, I am simply saying the schools shouldn’t be obligated to provide access to anything not specifically related to the education they should be providing our children.

The other problem is that kids, particularly LGBT kids, can’t always go to their parents.

According to the ACLU, the default settings are done by ENA out of the box.

Examples of a few of ENA’s filter categories are Hate/Discrimination, Gambling, Pornography, Adults Only, Suicide/Murder and School Cheating Pages.

It would be interesting to know whether the SPLC’s anti-gay hate sites are blocked.

CEO, David M. Pierce, was a political contributor to TN senator Lamar Alexander. Doesn’t say much other than he leans Republican, but it’s interesting.

And I found this 2004 quote at TMCnet.com, in reference to ENA’s products:

“ENA is also using DataReactor to filter specific types of content delivered to schools, in order to comply with state laws. The software offers customizable settings to ensure that only appropriate content can be accessed and delivered. Anticipating the growing needs of its customers, ENA plans to expand the use of DataReactor and deploy an enterprise content delivery network (eCDN) in the near future.”

It would be interesting to learn if the default settings are done by ENA out of the box, or whether the school districts in question set them up as defaults themselves.