Symantec Replies RE: Pro Gun Censorship

BattleFlag

[BattleFlag]

As my Norton Antivirus protection is expiring soon, I wanted to get the latest with regard to the fact that their "net nanny" internet "security" software by default screens out pro 2nd Amendment, Pro Gun webites while leaving anti gun sites alone.

I went to their website looking for an email address to write to but all they have is a web form so I don't have the original message I sent.

But here is their reply;

Hello Mr. BattleFlag,

The Parental Control feature in Norton Internet Security is a tool that parents can use to make choices about the Web sites their children visit. We do not tell parents which websites their children should or should not view. Rather, we offer parents a tool to make that choice for themselves. The Parental Control feature includes a number of categories of websites that parents can decide to allow or filter. These categories include a wide range of topics including pornography, news, gambling, travel, illegal drugs, and humor. One of the categories is weapons. Any websites that promote the use of weapons are included in this category. Websites that do not promote the use of weapons are not included in the category.

Let me explain how our Parental Control feature works. The Parental Control feature does not automatically get installed on a user's system when they first install Norton Internet Security. Rather, the parent must make a conscious choice to install this feature. Once Parental Control is installed, it is turned off by default. Again, the parent must choose to turn on this option.

After the feature is installed and turned on, the parent can create separate accounts for members of the family. The parent then configures these accounts by selecting which categories of websites should be filtered and which ones can be permitted. Norton Internet Security allows each account to have its own unique category list because some sites may be appropriate for teenagers but not appropriate for small children. If a child tries to access a blocked site, he or she receives a message explaining that the site is not permitted for viewing. If the parent wishes, he or she is able to allow that website to be viewed by one or all of the accounts. Also, the parent, operating in the Supervisor account, is allowed unfettered access to the Internet.

While many people advocate the possession and use of firearms, some do not. The Parental Control feature in Norton Internet Security serves as a tool that parents can use to help regulate their children's access to the Internet. The feature provides parents with complete flexibility to decide which sites are appropriate for their children and which ones they feel should be filtered. The process for adding and subtracting sites to individual filter lists is fast and easy, so parents have total control over how the feature is used.

Thank you, and if you have any further questions on this issue, please feel free to email me at PCSSymantec@symantec.com

Martha Miller
Product Communications
Global Consumer Services
Symantec Corporation
mmiller@symantec.com

Here is my reply;

Ms. Miller,

Your rationalizations are disingenuous at best. It seems that for you and your leftist ilk there are never enough ways to hide your true agenda and that is the total prohibition of the means Americans use literally millions of times per year to defend themselves and their families.

In your rhetoric you the phrase "promote the use of weapons" as though pro 2nd Amendment, pro self-defense website's only mission is to see to it that everyone has a weapon and uses it. What about "promoting the responsible, use of weapons?", what about "promoting the safe use of weapons?", what about "promoting awareness by children of what to do when they encounter weapons, specifically firearms"? Are these concepts that you believe your users should be shielded from? And please, don't say its about weapons, for you, its about guns. You start your reply by referring to "weapons" but in the last paragraph you reveal the true subject of your censorship, "...advocate the possession and use of firearms".

It is an insult to the hardworking, upstanding, law abiding Americans who choose to embrace the safe, responsible use of firearms as a means to do for themselves and their families what no one else can do, provide protection from those deadly predators and criminals who specialize in victimizing the weak that you equate the "use of weapons" with pornography, gambling and illegal drugs.

How much information about the safe and responsible use of firearms will not be seen because of your companies choices?

It is not enough for you that parents make the choice to filter pro gun websites from their family's internet experience if they see fit to do it, much the the gun owning experience itself, you believe it is your place to make that choice for them.

I am just one person but nonetheless one person whose money Symantec Corporation will never see again.

Pack Sand Symantec!

[Egon]

Fine, but to avoid taking a leftist political position as a result of your prudence, you should also block sites advocating gun control.

This sounds a lot like the flip side of the P.C. coin. I suppose we could grind everything to a halt trying to keep from offending everyone via this route as well, just to be fair.

[BattleFlag]

"Are you saying you think they should default by having the software ban all sites that are not pro-gun?"

No, I think they should give the user of the software the opportunity to configure it in a way that best serves their personal tastes, beliefs and objectives.

I personally do not lump self defense, pro Second Amendment and gun safety websites along with gambling, pornography and illegal drug websites do you?

You evidently have no problem with this practice which I believe is born of a mindset that guns and gun related issues are inherantly bad or evil, something children should be protected from. This way, only the prohibition side of the issue is heard and the many myths propagated by the left are accepted as the standard for information regarding this issue.

Why does Symantec believe that children need to be protected from gun safety information?

[gcruse]

You evidently have no problem with this practice which I believe is born of a mindset that guns and gun related issues are inherantly bad or evil, something children should be protected from.

I do not share your conspiratorial mindset.  And I know that in business you cannot please every guy with an agenda. You just do your best.  They responded with a reasoned reply to the query.  The response to Symantec was insulting and an embarrassment to gun owners.

[BattleFlag]

"...an embarrassment to gun owners"

You speak for gun owners?

Judging by some of the replys in this thread you are out of touch with some of those you speak for in your self appointed role as "Spokesman for Gun Owners".

Whatever you think about what I said in my reply to Symantec, you cannot say that I pretended to speak for anyone other than myself.

[BattleFlag]

And just for the record, what appears to be the last line of my reply to Symantec above was NOT part of the reply sent to Symantec.

It was added only as part of the post here.

I should made this clearer.

[LadyDoc]

the AMA has "delegates" who vote on stuff and the rest of us are too busy to pay attention to it. So no, they do not represent the average doctor...and some of their agenda is so leftists that they are losing members like mad...they now are threatening the AAFP (Family docs organization) that if more AAFP members don't join the AMA, then the AMA will cut their number of votes.

And many state Medical societies REQUIRE you to join the AMA if you want to belong to the state medical society...so many docs join and read the journal, but aren't involved politically. This allows activists-- usually non practicing docs like Howard Dean types-- to take over. You see, if you REALLY love medicine, you see a problem and fix it, and don't have time for sitting around a table for hours discussing nuances. So the few bureaucratic types and many docs who actually hate medicine end up representing us ...


I didn't realize they passed a gun control measure. The Pediatricians did, but they are leftist run. And the leftists are trying to take over the Family physicians too...

[BattleFlag]

LadyDoc,

Thanks for your reply.

"And many state Medical societies REQUIRE you to join the AMA if you want to belong to the state medical society..."

Wow, what you describe sounds almost like labor unions in that their political activism has taken them far from the beliefs of many of their members.

My workplace is unionized but I never have, nor will I ever be a member because I refuse to let a penny of my money go to support what the "parent" union supports on a national level and thankfully I live in a "Right to Work" state.

And I have co workers who feel the same way.

I think the same thing that you describe in the medical world is occuring with other organizations like the Parent Teachers Association.

Its kind of a shame really, because if these advocacy groups would leave it up to their membership to support whatever political causes they see fit, and concentrate on their core missions, their memberships would grow and they would, in the long run be healthier as organizations.

[techwench]

the worst thing about it is their AV product is excellent, but here's another thing that burns me. they charge EXTRA for the PRIVILEGE to re-download the program in the first year of purchase IF you buy the AV via download! this totally sucks! might as well go out and buy the cd, the tax (and i live in NY state) doesn't come up to the "re-download" charge. . .