Just a few (technical) words why the whole thing might not be so terrible as it seems.
http://www.someblubsite.com/with-the-word-guy-in-it
Replace 'guy' with 'gay' and the address is refused. But the address does not even exist! So it is definitely not the article itself that is blacklisted.
Most of these 'web blockers' use different methods to filter web pages:
- actual blacklists: lists of sites to be known to be morally doubtful (pornography, illegal software, sites that try to install malware on your PC, etc)
- heuristic principles, like some words in addresses
These web blockers are used by companies and other organisations to avoid that employees
- infect their PCs
- spoil their time that they should work (my boss should block CFI...)
- misuse their PC for immoral activities for which possibly the organisation might get blamed
- build up some Web board for the wrong purposes (then some kind of http links are very suspicious)
Now search in Google the word 'gay', and see what you get: many of these sites an employer would not let its employees on these sites during working hours. The cheaper the web block software is, the simpler the rules are. And as I understand CFI is not the richest organisation in town. If my employer would have the same web blocker, I possibly could not have read the article.
It would seem that such blocking would be a function of an employer. I don't have an employer and work from my own personal computers. It seems more like CFI doing the blocking or perhaps the server they're using. It's political correcteness gone mad. I should think CFI would not stand for it. Maybe they need another server. In my experience, neither Google nor Yahoo have content blockers. If they do i've never triggered it, but maybe I'm just living in an innocent bubble.