Date: 23 Feb 1998
Thanks! I'd love to get that information!
One of the biggest problems with these censorship programs is that most don't have a list of banned sites. Or, not one that the public can access. This makes it very difficult to spot whether you're dealing with a fluke or with a planned act of discrimination.
For instance, the Cyber Patrol incident started when a couple of Pagan web-site owners noticed that their sites were blocked. Nothing on their pages matched Cyber Patrol's criteria for banning sites, so they began to wonder if Cyber Patrol was defining Wicca as a "cult", despite the fact that it didn't meet any of the definitions of a cult. However since there was no list of banned lists, they couldn't simply research whether or Cyber Patrol called all Wiccan sites "cultic".
After posting this information on various net news groups, they discovered that yes indeed, Cyber Patrol was banning a large number of Pagan sites. And at that point a letter writing campaign started, and Cyber Patrol cleared up the problem. But the lack of a public "banned sites" list makes proving discrimination much, much harder.
I got an update from the Texas Pagan Awareness League, which says that despite its openly prejudiced statements in the Wired! interview, Cyber Sitter is apparently making some changes. It hasn't apologized for its rude (and potentially illegal) harassment, nor has it apologized for banning Pagan sites. However it has changed its filters so that a parent can choose to allow access to "Cult/Occult" pages, which effectively lets you have access to Pagan/Wiccan sites.