Language filter kills links to an important legal resource

This site's bad language filter has gone to a new a extreme. It replaced the formal name for Tom (i.e. Thom_as without the underscore) with the asteriks. Thus, any link for bill tracking service of the Library of Congress that contains the first name of our third president (which is also the name of the service) gets filtered, making the links worthless. Considering that information on Congressional legislation is a very important legal resource, for this site to effectively block links to that service by filtering the name is a major defect, IMO. I can't fathom any reason why that name was added to the filter to begin with. You can see the thread where this came up here:

http://community.lawyers.com/forums/p/119347/590723.aspx#590723

And yet I've used the phrase "tit for tat" a few times and the word "tit" comes out unscathed.

Taxagent:

This site's bad language filter has gone to a new a extreme. It replaced the formal name for Tom (i.e. Thom_as without the underscore) with the asteriks.

Apparently, "t-h-o-m-a-s" is slang for p-e-n-i-s.

A little googling reveals that two of the characters in Lady Chatterley's Lover (Constance Reed and Oliver Mellors) refer to their respective genitalia as "lady jane" and "john t-h-o-m-a-s."

Interesting, though, that "johnson" and "willie" come out unscathed.

adjuster jack:

Apparently, "t-h-o-m-a-s" is slang for p-e-n-i-s.

A little googling reveals that two of the characters in Lady Chatterley's Lover (Constance Reed and Oliver Mellors) refer to their respective genitalia as "lady jane" and "john t-h-o-m-a-s."

Indeed, it does have a slang reference, in the U.S. apparently not a reference to the organ directly but rather to refer to a white teen male who is well endowed sexually.  I've not heard the name ever used that way, however, and banning it simply because of that seemingly obscure slang use strikes me as absurd. Indeed, banning any common name like Thom_as, johnson, or willie is absurd even if they might be used for a sexual reference. They may be slang, but they are not considered to be obscene words.

The programs are partly useful.  Often they are more hassle than they are worth because it involves a lot of "editing" by the IT.

In SF Bay Area we end up rewriting classic novels if we use quotes involving g-a-y, for example, which, seems to have taken on its urban translation over Webster's.

Also, the programs generally don't accept basic trash four-letter words.  Of course, if you put "ing" or "ed" after it -- the program "does not compute." 

The moderators are stuck between a r-o-c-k and a h-a-r-d-p-l-a-c-e.

Censorship is irrational and arbitrary.

That one can get around it with some creative punctuation is a clear argument for eliminating censorship altogether.

adjuster jack:

Rock and hardplace aren't censored by this site.

LOL.   D-a-n-g, I hope not!  I was just playing "games" with the program.  : )

adjuster jack:

a clear argument for eliminating censorship altogether. 

I agree.  New posters are the only ones who come up with these words as basic terminology throughout. They can be reported; they can be warned.  If they refuse to comply, block access.  It would involve a lot less editing involving a partially functional program. 

adjuster jack:

Censorship is irrational and arbitrary.

That one can get around it with some creative punctuation is a clear argument for eliminating censorship altogether.

I disagree in part. There are a handful of obscene words that truly have no purpose other than to offend or insult and those could easily be screened and nothing would be lost in a site like this. The problem comes when folks get carried away and try to do more than just screen the most obvious and truly offensive terms and instead block any word that has ever had a sexual, offensive, or insulting meaning. If it were me, there are about 5-10 words that I'd block that have absolutely no use other than to offend or insult. But any word that has a common use that is not insulting or offensive I'd not block. I'd not block any word just because it has a sexual connotation; the law involves matters of sex, too, and blocking words connected with sex therefore also interferes with legal discussion.

Blocking common names of people because they have also been used for sexual references is way, way overboard in any event. We can't mention the last name of one of our Supreme Court Justices because the name Thom_as (without the underscore) is currently blocked. That same name is also the name of an important legal resource, the Thom_as service of the Library of Congress. And it's blocked because of some obscure sexual slang use of the name that most people wouldn't even catch. For a site like this that is oriented to adults and discusses the law, blocking terms that are highly significant in discussions of the law just to avoid a (very unlikely chance in this case) that someone will use the name in a sexual way unrelated to the law is just plain absurd. The same kind problem will come up by blocking any other people names that might have a sexual reference attached to it. The screening program used here needs to be pruned way back or eliminated altogether, IMO.

Taxagent:

Blocking common names of people because they have also been used for sexual references is way, way overboard in any event. We can't mention the last name of one of our Supreme Court Justices because the name Thom_as (without the underscore) is currently blocked. That same name is also the name of an important legal resource, the Thom_as service of the Library of Congress. And it's blocked because of some obscure sexual slang use of the name that most people wouldn't even catch. For a site like this that is oriented to adults and discusses the law, blocking terms that are highly significant in discussions of the law just to avoid a (very unlikely chance in this case) that someone will use the name in a sexual way unrelated to the law is just plain absurd. The same kind problem will come up by blocking any other people names that might have a sexual reference attached to it. The screening program used here needs to be pruned way back or eliminated altogether, IMO.

Here we are, about 7 weeks later, and it appears that the moderators have ignored our concerns.

I quoted T-h-o-m-a-s Jefferson in another post tonight and got asterisks until I put the dashes in.

adjuster jack:

I quoted T-h-o-m-a-s Jefferson in another post tonight and got asterisks until I put the dashes in.

Doesn't that sort of make you wonder if the one posting the question thinks our response is foolish at best, as they try to figure out why we asterisk a name?

What would be great would be if those of us who have been around awhile would not be asterisked; e.g., if the program could "moderate" terminology based on "senior" member and "junior" member -- or something to that effect.

If my intent were to foul mouth on a message board, I would have started eight years ago.  You, Jack, I think have the most number of posts.  TA is highly professional in his responses.

Another site, I think, does something like this.

Cica:

What would be great would be if those of us who have been around awhile would not be asterisked; e.g., if the program could "moderate" terminology based on "senior" member and "junior" member -- or something to that effect.

I think it's preferable to eliminate the language filter completely.

On the rare occasion that somebody uses a bad work to emphasize a point, it can be reported and easily edited by the moderator on a case by case basis.

That would eliminate threads like this where we anal -yze the filter by posting examples of the bad words in all their glory, showing how the filter can be skirted.

adjuster jack:

I think it's preferable to eliminate the language filter completely.

Well, yeah, that would be perfect ... or, at minimum, the alternative should provide a respectable medium; and avoid having the OP wonder why on Earth we asterisk or hyphenate words. 

(The name that TA used as example had me floored.  Off this site I have to be a little familiar with urban lingo involving any article I submit -- but someone's first name?  So I researched it ... I'll be darned.)

Ironic that names like T-h-o-m-a-s and D-i-c-k are filtered.

But Willie, Johnson, Peter and Rod aren't.

When I taught in Alaska, I had a student whose last name was D-i-c-k, a somewhat common name there. You'll NEVER guess, not in a million years, what his father's name was.

Darn, you got it.

Richard, usually called D-i-c-k.  Of course that made him D-i-c-k D-i-c-k. I was very young at the time, and worked to keep from laughing when I spoke to him or his wife, Mrs. D-i-c-k. FWIW, they were very nice people.

I agree with the removal of censoring for anything except that which is used to insult or offend. And even that can be handled as someone suggested: warning, then blocking the person. A day or two ago, I suggested someone google "tenant from h-e-l-l" and that got changed to heck. IMHO, That shouldn't have happened.