RE: The (Former) Blocking of Access to Specific Websites in UP Law

Risky, but well, I’m bored.

Just last week, the previously-blocked Facebook, Twitter, and Multiply sites were once again available for the UP Law students to access. Prior to this, these three websites were blocked by whoever decided to block it. Now, I’m not sure as to why it was blocked exactly, but I remember that a couple of weeks or so before it was blocked, there was news of a memo circulating in the web for the students of the college reminding students to use the internet, specifically Facebook, responsibly, as problems are being caused regarding the college’s allowable bandwidth. And before we know it, these three were down.

Not unless you’re diligent enough, or fit enough, or desperate enough to go to the fourth floor library where you can access UP Dilnet (the campus server), where you can access these sites (Though I hear Friendster’s blocked… Yes, that SO matters.) and be happy for a while.

I do not in any way intend to promote the irresponsible use of the college’s internet connection, being that as students with rights, our rights must be exercised within limits. The use of the college’s internet server, while a facility which we can consider something that we must have access to, must not be abused to the point where damage may be caused to other people such as those who manage the school’s network, other internet users, and so on. But then, if limits are imposed so extensively and irrationally, then doesn’t the right cease to exist?

Let’s be honest; a lot of students do use Facebook A LOT in school and even during class hours. I should know, as I’ve done it once, or twice, or…doesn’t matter, since I don’t do it ALL or MAJORITY of the time. As for Twitter, I think only those who have a star complex, thinking that they’re so important they have followers, have Twitter. Hence, I have one as do a lot of other law students. The fact that these sites are used a lot is not being disputed. What’s disputable, for me, however is the idea that it is the constant access to these sites which may cause trouble for the bandwidth, or that there’s even trouble with the bandwidth in the first place, or that these sites are INHERENTLY and PRESUMABLY detrimental to the students’ education. What exactly was the basis in singling out these websites? Last I checked, these sites did not promote pornography, terrorism, racism, or some vileness that must be condemned (except maybe vanity), so really, why?

These things are not being said merely to seek support for these sites or for, well, indolence, but I think ultimately to discuss the issue as to what could be a valid reason to block non-porn-terrorist-racist, etc. websites in an educational institution which does not infringe upon the right of access to a public school facility.

It’s just the tip of the iceberg, really. ;-)