An automated web content filter for the Dunedin City
Council's internal network has deemed a Family First New
Zealand website on traditional marriage a "hate" site, and
blocked access for staff.
The block on the "Protect Marriage" website, which promotes
marriage between a man and a woman, has outraged Family First
NZ director Bob McCoskrie, who says it is discriminatory and
the result of an agenda being pushed either by someone at the
council, or at the content filter company.
"It's part of a culture war that is going on at the moment.
Activists are working hard to eliminate all opposing debate
on this important family issue - as we experienced with the
unprecedented hacking of our website when first launched."
The council says there was no conscious decision to block the
site.
Mr McCoskrie said the lobby group was contacted by a city
council staff member who, he said, was "stunned" when they
tried to access the website to sign the group's petition
against a Labour Party Bill to legalise gay marriage, and was
told the site was deemed "hate" and that the web page
"contravenes Dunedin City Council's acceptable usage policy".
"The staff member's response was that 'if the concept that
marriage should be between a man and a woman is offensive,
then I despair for the future of this country'. We agree," Mr
McCoskrie said.
Council communications and marketing manager Graham
McKerracher said the council did not control the filtering
process, which was done by a United States company.
When the company was employed, the council gave it broad
categories of offensive content it wanted limited in its
internal network. The company's filter automatically scanned
sites for words or phrases that placed sites in those
categories and sites deemed offensive were automatically
blocked.
Mr McKerracher could not say why the Protect Marriage site
was blocked. But a block meant the site, or someone leaving a
comment on the site, might have used language determined by
the filter to be offensive, resulting in the site being put
on a banned list.
Comments could not be left on the site and he was confident
none of the administrators or owners of the site had
previously done anything that could be construed as offensive
or "hate" related, Mr McCoskrie said.
"My challenge to them is to produce the evidence."
Council staff were still able to access gay marriage
websites, and at least two other websites blacklisted by web
filters at other companies.
"It is highly hypocritical and inconsistent that one side of
the debate can be blocked, but not the other. This is
discrimination at its worst and [the council] seems to be
initiating their own version of hate speech laws."
Mr McKerracher said if sites promoting gay marriage had not
been picked up by the same filter it was because no offending
words or phrases that placed them in a category that was
blocked were identified.
He said any staff member who wanted to fill out the petition
could do so at home.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.