Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US schools warned to stop censoring gay websites

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. We need something like this in the UK. My college bans this site for example… classified as “lifestyles.adult” o.O

    1. Jessica Geen 29 Mar 2011, 1:58pm

      Mark, if you contact us at news@pinknews.co.uk, we can find out more about this.

    2. So does mine. I think it’s down to the filter system picking certain words up and not done deliberately but even so it’s not acceptable.

      1. Please contact Jessica at the above PinkNews address.

    3. I urge you to complain, Mark. Blocking (non-pornographic) gay websites is in direct violation of the Equality Act 2010, which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation. Schools and colleges have an important role in combating ignorance and prejudice. According to the core principles of the Association Of Teachers And Lecturers, “all areas of the curriculum and resources [are] closely monitored to see that they do not rely on heterosexist assumptions”. Therefore, denying access to PinkNews is heterosexist and homophobic because of the assumption that gay websites are of little value. As a teaching establishment, your college should be committed to providing equality and diversity for all its pupils, regardless of sexuality. Anything less falls short of legal requirements. For your own sake, and the well-being of other gay pupils, please bring this oversight to the attention of the college

    4. Mark, do complain. Many UK schools use US filters and that’s sometimes where the problem lies (rather than a direct discrimination – ie the school aren’t aware of what exactly is being blocked)

      1. Jock S. Trap 30 Mar 2011, 10:28am

        I sincerely hope those using this filter in this country are made accountable and forced to remove the offending article.

  2. perhaps talk to these folks?
    http://www.schools-out.org.uk/

  3. There are clearly some sites (porn etc) that I wouldnt want schools to permit access to …

    But pink news, THT, and other gay groups I have heard of being filtered out – thats plainly wrong!

    1. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2011, 2:48pm

      Exactly!

  4. I don’t agree with banning certain websites, however I do understand some. Our culture unfortunately has been rooted in the sexual side of our lifestyle for so long, websites tend to reflect this. It is hard pressed to find a website that doesn’t have a scantily clad man or some sort of “get hot here” in some sort of ad on each page. I wouldn’t really want my child to be subjected to that either. I wish our community would celebrate all that we are rather than just the sexual side of it.

    1. But you can block adverts within websites whilst not blocking the website itself – my workplace does …

    2. So you think that the sun and the news of the world and britney spears and playboy and baywatch and rap videos and……..the list goes on…… somehow proves that heterosexual “culture unfortunately has been rooted in the sexual side” of heterosexual lifestyle? Or is it just homosexuals who you think shouldn’t have ‘scantily clad’ people to look at?

      LGBT do celebrate all that we are – perhaps it is just you who is focusing on the sexual side, like Mary Whitehouse did for heterosexuals.

      1. @Ross

        I agree entirely with the spirit of your message

        I do think that adverts advertising Expectations, Recon, Rob, The Hoist etc etc are inappropriate in schools

        No less appropriate than some scantily clad sites targetting heterosexual males or females, however.

        We need fairness and propriety – by all means filter porn sites out and inappropriate advertising (or all adverts?) but not sites such as Pink News, or other non sexual gay sites

  5. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2011, 2:46pm

    There seems to be too many places with too much empathsis on preventing openness and th eright for people to be themselves all for the good of what, religion?

    As for ‘lifestyles.adult’ that is where religion should be. Being LGBT should be a fundamental/basic human right without Any prevention.

    1. @Jock S Trap

      I bet you were expecting this comment …

      So you want freedom of speech for LGBT websites in schools (with safety issues in place to prevent porn etc) – I agree 100% – failure to ensure that safe access to all internets sites regardless of sexual orientation is a flagrant breach of freedom of information, freedom of expression, freedom to education etc.

      But it seems you want to deny these same rights from those young people keen to explore (whether for their own religious curiosity or for academic reasons) the right to access of information about faith. Thats a clear contravention of the universal declaration of human rights. Would you include the right of access to humanist or atheist sites? Let them have access to all. Surely if we can trust young people to reach a conclusion about relationships (which are a choice – not sexuality – but relationships) then we can trust them to make a decision of their own on beliefs.

      1. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2011, 4:03pm

        And yet all i have said to you on that subject is that information SHOULD be made available, just not taught to they can make up their own personal choice. I have corrected you before about that. Religion seems to think it can dictate how people are and behave yet it is religion that is the lifestyle choice and should be keep just that.

        Being Gay is the way we are born, it shouldn’t be tolerated it should be accepted. It’s peoples life choices that should be tolerated.

        Websites like this are there for information for news, guidence, support etc about what is relevent to how we are born. It is not a lifestyle, it is not a choice and should never be treated as such.

        Yet what we do have is unlimited information on most religion and whats right and whose wrong yet people have to fight to get access to pages like this.

        As long as this behaviour goes on it will always be a ‘them and us’ situation.

      2. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2011, 4:06pm

        But to correct you ONCE AGAIN i have never said information should be restricted. I have Always said the opposite. I have always said information should be there for there own choice.

        If you insist on saying things I don’t knowing full well I haven’t said it and have corrected you, then I assume you have a hidden agenda.

        Stop trying to change what I have actually said, it really doesn’t work with me.

        1. @Jock S Trap

          Not trying to change what you have said

          What you said was
          “As for ‘lifestyles.adult’ that is where religion should be. Being LGBT should be a fundamental/basic human right without Any prevention.”

          Since “lifestyles.adult” is a filter that most schools and businesses use to filter out and restrict comment – how can this be viewed as anything other than a restriction on access to informaiton. If that wasn’t what you intended saying than the inclusion in a filter to prevent access certainly doesn’t give an indication of that.

          I know being gay is the way we were born – I am! I know that pink news etc etc are sites that provide good quality factual information and opinion. I support them being available to all.
          Nowhere, at all ever – period – have I, would I, or could I ever conceive of saying anything different – so not sure why when responding to what you feel is unfounded criticism from me you feel the need to make such comments – I do not disagree

          1. also you say you do not want to restrict information yet you comment on there being “unlimited” information on religion – so how would you limit this information and not restrict it?

          2. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2011, 4:30pm

            Stu

            Look if you want to twist things for some point scoring with others knowing perfectly well what I have said on a subject, knowing perfectly welling your trying to change not only what I have told you before but also what you said ‘Sorry’ for then it won’t work

            Your know perfectly well what I mean and you know perfectly well what I’ve said. It don’t need you to change and twist it, it just makes you look pathetic when people aready know what I have said before.

            I will say What I think thank you, not what you want me to say or suggest what I might or should have said.

            If all this is about you winning points then left me out of it but to be honest I thought you were better than this but maybe we’re just starting to see what your Really about. I have to tell ya, It don’t look good.

        2. @Jock S Trap

          Firstly, I would have thought you (having seen comments I have made elsewhere) would realise that I am not in the business of point scoring. I also only apologise when I either misunderstand or make an error or for some other reason where an apology is deserved and the right thing to do. Its entirely up to you (or whoever the apology is directed at) whether it is accepted with good grace or not.

          Secondly, I stand by my comment that referring to a filter is suggestive of restriction – if it isn’t please explain to me how that can be – because I can’t see it right now.

          If I know what you meant I would word it differently, and have done before, saying I think you mean this – but my interpretation of what you are saying is this … Thats not how I read these comments.

          Since I don’t know how to contact you directly these comments have to be played in public- but I am happy to defend my comments and to apologise in public where appropriate.

          I wholly agree we all ….

          1. … should be honest in what we think and how we feel about particular issues. That includes questioning views that we think are either wrong or can be misinterpreted or maybe don’t consider an issue that is relevant. Equally, when a comment is entirely correct – affirming that is appropriate too.

            You know, it really doesnt matter how you perceive me. I have no intention to point score. I genuinely want rational debate. I thought you had seen that I had affirmed comments of yours, spoke up in your defence (even when I didnt fully agree with your premise), challenged you when I disagreed, sought clarification when I wasnt sure, been consistent in my debate with you and apologised when I misunderstood you.

            If that is point scoring, then you have an entirely different perception of it than me.

          2. Jock S. Trap 30 Mar 2011, 7:45am

            Trying to change someones opinion, publically when you already know my stance of religion and schools is nothing but personal point scoring but you show yourself up because others who’ve been round longer will know what I say and I am well capable of saying for myself and will defend myself.

            I don’t need a mouth piece thank you. I don’t need you changing my opinion for your own self gain and point scoring. Thats just low.

            Either debate fairly or stop debating with me because either way I don’t need you changing my argument knowing full well you are in the Wrong.

            End of.

          3. @Jock S Trap

            Even if you know my opinion on something if you saw something that lacked clarity or you weren’t sure on, I would expect you to challenge or question it. Also, if you thought that views were expressed that potentially damaged others you would question them. Thats all I have done.

            I may be the new boy here, but that doesnt give me any less right of reply to things I have reason to question, clarify or challenge. Nor does your time on these sites give you any right to be able to say things without scrutiny. Equally, my comments should be subject to scrutiny.

            I never said you needed a mouth piece. You seemed to welcome my support of you previously, but now I challenge something I get this diatribe accusing me of things I have not done. Disappointing.

            There is no self gain or point scoring – but if you don’t believe that, it says more about you than me.

            I hope you have seen that today I have been cautious (and I hope fair) in challenges I have made to you or …

          4. … even the support that I have given.

            You will not silence me from comments that I feel need to be made in the interests of fairness.

            Nor will you stop me congratulating and endorsing you (perhaps elucidating the discussion further too) when I feel I have a constructive and relevant point to make.

            It appears you think you can read my mind … because I “change your argument” whilst “knowing that I am in the wrong”. That is not what I have said – I have said I would challenge where I thought you said something that wasnt fair, where I thought clarification was needed or where I didn’t understand what you meant.

            As for being fair – look at the balance of challenge and endorsement and you will see there is equity.

        3. Staircase2 30 Mar 2011, 2:39pm

          Plus ca change, plus c’est le meme chose…..

          (how bout everyone makes a REAL concerted effort to actually stick to the matter in hand, focus on what the article is actually about rather than just spending time ego wanking and trying to show everyone who’s got bigger balls?

  6. Most LGBT sites work blocked on ym work computer. Every time I come accross one I have to email IT to get it unblocked.

  7. ** Most LGBT sites at work are blocked on my computer. Every time I come accross one I have to email IT to get it unblocked.

    1. At least they unblock them

      I have had to do that at work in the past

      I suspect it is because they use a filter based on words regarded as being sexual or offensive. I have had a previous employer who had the words “gay” and “sex” in their filter – that was challenged!

      My current workplace has a very strict internet policy – the only permitted access to the internet are work related (from a list of predefined acceptable sites – which additions can be made to, on application – but takes time) or for news (from predefined sites usually BBC News – but Pink News is authorised). At least its equal to all. Very restricted but equal.

  8. Some my comments may look odd as it appears some offensive comments I challenged have been removed by PInk News

  9. Dear PN Readers .We have now put an FB page for EndTheFear as a new LGBT rights movement.Please check it out and like,as well as share.Our videos are now there,thank you for your support so far.

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=hpskip#!/pages/EndTheFear/192381290801644

  10. God Bless the ACLU for standing up for the rights of Americans again. It seeems you have to sue everybody to get any kind of justice today. Of course it is expensive to sue and the bastards known this, that is why they wait to be sued before they do something.

    1. They are not suing yet. They asked them to stop, now we wait for a reply. Way to generalize my country as only advancing through this stereotypical thought that Americans sue everything. You can’t just sue to fix something – so stop discarding the footwork of our predecessors that made this feasible.

      1. Good to hear ACLU are taking the grown up approach of several stranded attack where litigation is only one of the options …

  11. I’m a Michigander and my school doesn’t block LGBT sites from my experience.

  12. Blocking websites is not a violation its how a school or a business / library wants to operate then it can do so.

    @ Jock Being Gay is not the way we are born, when you were a certain age you made a choice, had a feeling, and went the way of liking guys, you are not born gay or bisexual.

    1. Jock S. Trap 31 Mar 2011, 8:59am

      So wrong and uneducated you are. Anyway what do you know about it, all you do is assume and discriminate. You know nothing about LGBT people.

      I know this is how I was born like many, many others and the only reason you try and suggest otherwise is because all of a sudden your at conflict with your Bible and your God.

      Don’t be so naive, don’t be so immature.

      You may choose a religious Bigotted lifestyle but that doesn’t give you any rights to railroad over those who are born.

      We don’t have a choice in how we are born, that is Mother Natures choice alone.

      Religion is a complete lifestyle choice and what you’re taught.

      Stop being so ignorant and forcing others onto your twisted beliefs because you too pathetic to see you are the people making the choice.

      Therefore you and your Religion will always come second to me and the way I was born.

    2. Jock S. Trap 31 Mar 2011, 9:00am

      “you are not born gay or bisexual.”

      I assume that you mean you can only be born straight?

      And you don’t see, I know coz you don’t want to.

      Just pathetic and so laughable.

    3. So using your logic Bob… you are born with no sexual preference and you CHOSE to be straight? So equally you could have sex with people of the same gender, yet chose not to.

    4. @Bob

      Blocking websites is preventing access to appropriate sites. It is a breach of civil rights. Schools and libraries in particular should respect civil rights.

      Again you speak absolute twaddle.

      You lost you right to reasoned debate when you said, on another thread, LGBT people should make Christians happy by committing suicide

      Only bigoted, evil, small minded, hate fuelled individuals wish no sense of integrity or honour would say such a thing.

      I’m with Jock you’re immature and ignorant and worse you don’t recognise the need for scrutiny

  13. So what sites are blocked, access them at home, on your own computer.

    Your work computer is for work, your uni computer is for uni, if you want to do personal stuff, they use your own personal computer and internet connection.

    Schools etc, have a right to bock what they see fit to, to protect others, as they have a duty to protect others, it comes under duty of care.

    It does not come under the Equaity act goods and services.

    Now get over yourselves.

    1. Jock S. Trap 31 Mar 2011, 9:02am

      Actually in most place PCs are provided for personal use so you are wrong. These sites should be able to be accessed to all who wish to view them.

      If it’s Free time they can pretty much look at what they chose and no one has the right to censor pages like PinkNews.

    2. Jock S. Trap 31 Mar 2011, 9:03am

      Anyway, to protect others from what exactly?

    3. Some people don’t have internet access at home, or they might find it hard to look at lgbt sites if they’re not out to the people they live with. A lot of parents monitor what their children are viewing on the internet which would make it incredibly difficult for a child who isn’t out to view lgbt sites at home.

      A lot of sites that are being blocked are the ones that offer advice to young lgbt people, how is blocking them ‘protecting others’? If anything it’s damaging them by denying them access to sites which are there to help, and reinforcing the idea that being gay is wrong.

      I can understand why certain sites are blocked, for example if facebook is blocked so should lgbt social networking sites. However at my college most social networking sites aren’t blocked, only those which are lgbt social networking sites are blocked. As well as those sites that offer advice or support.

  14. Actually, heterosexuals have to do exactly the same procedure should they wish to visit gays themed sites.

    And gay people need take no action when they access non gay themed sites.

    Sounds like equality of service to me.

    I suggest people should steer clear of these sites if they don’t like having their entry blocked.

    I agree with a previous poster John. None of my homosexual friends behave like some of the posters here, who to be honest have massive chips on their shoulders and will look for offense ANYWHERE.

    They know what discrimination is. And this it aint.

    1. Jock S. Trap 31 Mar 2011, 9:04am

      We have Equality laws. They are not being acted on. Therefore people have the right to force them through.

    2. @Lee

      So heterosexual people can see sites and adverts that are relevant to their orientation but LGBT cant see support network sites for their own orientations? Hardly equality – and if thats what you see as equality then you need some guidance in what diversity is. Please tell me you’re not a manager because you risk being subject to grievance if you treat your staff with your so called equality.

      The thing is often you dont know a site is blocked till you try to use it. But if a straight guy or woman can access a domestic violence support network on the internet why shouldnt a gay guy be able to access broken rainbows a domestic violence internet site for LGBT … wrong wrong wrong

      Far from looking for offence Lee – I look for understanding – ain’t getting any from you mate

      I know what discrimination is too. This is being treated differently on basis of sexuality – thats wrong

  15. Steve Manley 31 Mar 2011, 1:43am

    Thank you so much for covering this story. I have not heard a word about this and I live in San Francisco and am a member of the ACLU. To my US media friends WHERE ARE YOU?

  16. Why do you think Pink News is rubbish?

  17. Give her the chance to prove she does

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all