Posted on 09/10/2006 7:11:11 PM PDT by plan2succeed.org
KIDS, PORN AND POLITICS
Sunday, September 10, 2006
David Reinhard, Assoc. Ed.
The Oregonian Editorial
Rob Brading had a chance to stand up for children and blew it -- twice. The Democratic challenger to House Speaker Karen Minnis had a chance to champion the common-sense notion that children are different than adults and said nothing -- twice. Brading had a chance to protect kids from pornography when they're in Multnomah County public libraries and did nothing -- twice.
First, as a member of the Multnomah County Library Advisory Board, he voted for the county to join with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit against the federal Children's Internet Protection Act. It requires libraries to filter pornography from Internet access or lose federal funding. Second, after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the library's lawsuit, Brading voted to have the library stop seeking federal funds since the library would have to require filters limiting access to sites showing smut.
Toni Manning thinks Brading should be called to account for this, and it's personal. In 2004 one of her children experienced the Brading policy in action. As Manning was helping her 13-year-old daughter with a homework assignment on a library computer, her 10-year-old daughter saw the naked women a teen-ager was taking in on a nearby screen.
This is where it gets interesting politically. Manning is now the executive director of something called Friends for Safer Libraries. Recently they handed out about 1,200 fliers saying "Brading. Defending the right to pornography over the rights of children." It's tough stuff -- one shade too tough for my taste -- but all built on fact. Here's some of the copy:
"Rob Brading has repeatedly supported the right to access pornography, even though vulnerable children have been exposed to hard-core porn in our public library . . . With such a strong record of protecting pornography, we can't expect Rob Brading to stick up for children. We can't give him the right to make decisions involving our kids."
OK so far. The Friends for Safer Libraries are right. Brading's failure to distinguish between what adults are able to access in private and what children are able to access at the public library -- his failure to see it's not an attack on the First Amendment for public librarians to take steps to limit children's access to Internet porn -- should disqualify him from serving in the Legislature. It's a matter of basic values and judgment. Someone who can't differentiate between the rights of adults and the needs of children -- someone who doesn't understand that parents shouldn't be the only line of defense between their kids and smut in our libraries or that, as Saint Hillary famously said, it takes a village -- shouldn't be making decisions on what's best for our state's kids.
That said, the Friends for Safer Libraries handout goes one step too far. It talks about Brading's "history of supporting pornography."
That's below the belt, and we're not talking porn here. Brading doesn't support pornography, and it's indecent to say so. Nor does he support children viewing pornography. Brading's radical and absolutist view of the First Amendment simply prevents him from advocating reasonable, adult steps to protect children from pornography while they're at a public library. He is, as the flier says, "responsible for children viewing internet porn in our county library."
Toni Manning and Friends for Safer Libraries have every reason to bring up Brading's kid-unfriendly no-holds-barred approach to the First Amendment. So does Minnis, who's been unfairly blamed for the flier.
Brading's views may be the rage in certain downtown Portland circles. But Minnis has made a distinguished career of reflecting the views and values of her east Multnomah County district -- and most of Oregon, for that matter -- in opposing income-tax hikes and the attack on traditional marriage. Heck, that's why left-wing elements from Portland to Washington, D.C., are targeting her this year.
It's hard to believe east Multnomah County voters think there's a contradiction between the Constitution's First Amendment and adults' obligation to protect all kids, not just their own, from porn in public libraries. Minnis should certainly make an issue of Rob Brading's notions about the First Amendment and (not) protecting children. But there's no call for anyone to make him out to be a porn supporter or a raincoat-wearing pervert.
David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com.
"Oh save the children!!!!"
On of the funniest ones I have seen is the local flood control district campaigning for funds with the slogan, "Every child should be flood safe."
Aw, Jeeez....
Yes, that is funny!
Remember the "Baby on board" bumper stickers?
Like that's gonna stop me from smacking their rear end,
Is there a 13-year-old boy in the US who wishes to see pictures of naked women, and cannot obtain them?
In this day and age, I doubt it.
But it the job of adults to guide these youngsters in the right direction, rather than relying on automation to do the job.
It's easier to save the children when you're not so bent on losing the children.
You prolly depend on "automation" for security every day. What do you think the code in your garage door opener is?
En zo, you belief peddling porn to zee kiddies is gut?
THE CHILDREN!!! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!
PING. You all should read this. Some mom's kid got zapped by porn in a library 2 years ago and that mom sent out a political flyer that is causing a big ruckus in Oregon. What's really special about this case is the person skewered in the political flyer was one of the very people who decided to join the ALA and the ACLU in suing to stop the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). After he and his library and the ALA and the ACLU lost big in US v. ALA in the US Supreme Court, this guy then further complicated the matter by deciding he would join others in evading the very case he just lost in the SCOTUS. As a possible result, this mom's kid was exposed to porn that might not have happened but for this guy's actions. Apparently, she's getting results. So please read the article. I haven't pinged you in a long time. This article is important. Thank you.
Because I sure was doing that before you spoke up. But I'll stop doing it now, since that's definitely what I was doing all along....
Do you think exposing kids to floods is a good idea? Floods, after all, are generally more harmful than porno. May be it is a matter of priorities. :-)
Let me know if you (or anyone) wants to be on my ping list. Thanks.
You mix apples and oranges.
I rely on automated devices to protect myself from external enemies.
But how does one protect oneself from one's own desires? The best thing to do is to learn to live moderately and rationally. For this you need parents and wise teachers, not a computer program.
BTTT Calling Edgewood Pilot. Here we go again.
Notice that this cartoon does not have any kids in it. This clearly indicates that the campaign is eally about protecting dirty old men from porn.
"Floods, after all, are generally more harmful than porno. "
Not really. A flood can harm you in this life, but porn can send you down the sewer for eternity.
Serious flooding is less readily available. The exposure to porn certainly outweighs the risk of flooding.
If you really believe that your time on earth is probably hell for you.
Better dead than sexually aroused?
"But how does one protect oneself from one's own desires?"
Peccandique occasiones proximas fugiturum...flee from the near occasion of sin.
"For this you need parents and wise teachers, not a computer program."
Children need parents and wise teachers to protect them from the glamor of evil until they are mature and wise enough to see it for what it is. If a computer program aids in that, that's a good thing.
That does not look like a library.
"If you really believe that your time on earth is probably hell for you."
One more thing you have backwards. It was hell until I realized that.
It's as much about jealousy in the asexual or unattractive. Strange and annoying motives, but the protection of kids is certainly not one of them.
But I guess it makes far more sense to go running to the Feds for 'library funds' (funny, my copy of the Constitution doesn't mention libraries at all) than it is to work on the local level, get a few folks with common sense elected to the library board, and change the policy.
"Help me Daddy Fed! Help me Daddy Fed! I can't keep porn out of my local library without you!"
What a bunch of spineless grandstanding weenies....
L
Don't worry. The liberals are working on it. Air polution, car seats, toys, guns, school vending machines, and on and on and on. I am sure they appreciate your joining their ranks.
Interesting point. My experience says that you are right.
On a technical side, the problem with internet filters is it is only 50% effective. It can get the obvious stuff quite easy, playboy, penthouse, etc, but it won't be able to filter out the smaller blogs, websites and emails, which can be much, much worse than playboy, penthouse.
The other drawback is depending on your software, there will be a lot of false positives. For example, given the number of posts on homosexuality on Free Republic, this could cause a trigger to block it out as a gay porn site. Other sites dealing seriously with subjects such as date rape, drugs, breast cancer, teen violence, etc will also be blocked.
This bill does nothing to deter real threats against children and even worse it gives parents a false sense of security.
I suggest that you question your assumptions.
ALA Intellectual Freedom Policies and the First Amendment
(Libraries in each state however, should check with their state statutes to see whether or what kind of obscenity or harmful to minors laws exist, and they should ask their attorneys whether such laws apply to the library).
Why should libraries be exempted from laws that apply to businesses and perverts in the park providing minors with Playboy?
Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A
Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual (Note: Including Children) to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.What About Protecting Children From Pornography, Whether Or Not It Is Legally Obscene?
The primary responsibility for rearing children rests with parents. If parents want to keep certain ideas or forms of expression away from their children, they must assume the responsibility for shielding those children. Governmental institutions cannot be expected to usurp or interfere with parental obligations and responsibilities when it comes to deciding what a child may read or view.
Denying minors access to certain library materials and services available to adults is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that parents--and only parents--have the right and the responsibility to restrict the access of their children--to library resources. Adopted 1972, amended 1981, 1992.
(See "Current Reference File": Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.)
Sadly, Jeff, the ALA has a similar influence in public school libraries as well.
If anything, this issue is a convenient dodge against the ALA's position on all materials, not just the internet.
And there IS some dissent.
Crossroads of a profession: Reflections of a yearlong discussion about electronic information (C&RL News, July/August 2003)
Show some responsibilityThe late John Swan once wrote that librarians are committed to access, but not to truth. We don't take responsibility for content or we'd like not to. Our profession as embodied by the ALA, is considering adopting a statement, prepared by the 21st Century Intellectual Freedom Statement Committee, "Libraries: An American Value," that says, "We support the rights of all individuals, including children and young adults, [emphasis added] to determine which resources are appropriate and necessary for themselves."1
As if that dodge from responsibility weren't enough, we follow with: "We respect the responsibility of all parents to guide their own children's use of the library and its resources and services." It's as if our profession were living in an idealized world where pornography and violent materials didn't exist and, moreover, where parents actually have the time, and then use that time to guide their children's use of libraries.
What is most disconcerting about these statements, and other ALA-adopted positions, is their proposed lack of librarian responsibility for what is appropriate for children. It's curious that we've always limited our collections, or filtered them if you will, through an active "non-selection" process. If we didn't buy an item, or accept it as a gift, the material didn't become part of the collection. We took responsibility for our patrons through collection development--though we defended our intellectual freedom principles saying we presented information on all sides of an issue. Now, if we follow our association's edicts, providing the Web and access to its information, we are acting contrary to our history and, I fear, in a manner untenable in our society.
Since we don't "collect" the Web, we don't have the opportunity to select only those materials in support of our population and institutions. Our collection development policies become moot in the face of universal access to Web information: if information is on the Web, we're expected to provide access to it in our libraries, regardless of appropriateness to our collection. Ordinarily, we wouldn't buy, or even accept as gifts, the advertising, the self-promoting, the vanity press, the sex and violence, and the games that constitute a healthy portion of the Web. (Unless, of course, our collection development policy supported the acquisition of such materials.)
As Carla Stoffle and Ann Symons wrote in a recent American Libraries article, the Web "makes the world available with no need to make selections, no traditional means for evaluating quality, veracity, or applicability. . . ."2 We are avoiding the information mediation duty historic to our profession, avoiding the difficult (and perhaps impossible) job of actually limiting access only to those materials on the Web that are in support of our institutions. Why should we be surprised when politicians (e.g., Sen. John McCain's [R-Arizona] filtering bill) attempt to legislate us into action?
[snip]
But for children, we should have a different standard. The American experience has long included protections for children, e.g., movie and TV ratings, zoning restrictions for adult-oriented businesses (including liquor stores), display prohibitions for skin magazines, etc. As the eminent child psychiatrist Robert Coles wrote in the New York Times last fall, "We as a society must continue to make distinctions between what is and is not appropriate for children, and we must keep putting up barriers in the way of the inappropriate on the Internet as well as on television and in the movies."3
A porn-in-libraries thread, if you want it!
Anyone who thinks porn should be available in libraries is watching waaay too much crap.
Either that, or smoking too much weed.
And I am getting off my computer now so I won't be able to engage in any debate with you. But that's all right, you wouldn't understand rational debate anyway.
The cartoon shows a class room. I am not aware of the scumbags from the ACLU campaigning for pornography in the class room. While I would not put it past them, I am not aware of them actually having done it.
Sorry, HKEx, your numbers are wrong and outdated. And is sounds like the smokescreen the ALA uses to cover its action in defiance of the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS says, unanimously, that it is "legitimate, even compelling" to keep minors from inappropriate material. The ALA, on the other hand, say that's "age" discrimination. Hmmm. Which to believe?
Who do you want raising your kids, parents or librarians? Public Librarians make no money to do their current job, we shouldn't expect them to take on the parental role as well. What may be age appropriate for one family, might not be age appropriate for another, and we shouldn't expect public librarians who make nothing to make the decisions.
Or do we just let the most sheltering hyper sensitive parent decide what is appropriate for the rest of us?
Who do you want to give up your parental authority to?
Fine, let's change the numbers. If web filtering is 99% effective and there are 20 million pornographic web sites out, then that means there are 200,000 pornographic web sites available to children.
Everyone claiming parents are responsible for their own children, tell me this. How does the ALA get away with telling parents they are responsible for their own children on one hand, while on the other hand the ALA misleads parents about the contents of books? How is an informed decision possible when the parents are misinformed by the supposed authority on books?
The ALA is warning parents that it is an IRRESPONSIBLE act to send a child into a library administrated by liberals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
