Kids, Porn and Politics [and Public Libraries and Voters]

The Oregonian ^ | September 10, 2006 | David Reinhard, Assoc. Ed.

[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.

[Question_Assumptions]

OK. Thank you. You say you don't think children should be exposed to hardcore pornography. Now, do you support blocking or banning the viewing of hardcore pornography on public library computers? If not, then how specifically do you suggest parents prevent their children from being exposed to hardcore pornography at the library short of not going to the library? If you can't come up with a one-size-fits-all tactic, feel free to give a few hypothetical examples, instead. Don't simply say, "Be a good parent." What does that mean to you?

[Question_Assumptions]

If that's the case, then you should notify the moderators.

[Hong Kong Expat]

You sir are the McKing!!!

[SteveMcKing]

Perhaps I will.

[Jeff Gordon]

"Be a good parent."

I know it is a tought concept for many people but that does not make it invalid. Think back to your parents. How did they install values in you?

[Jeff Gordon]

since this thread is the work of a scam artist

That being the case, further posting in this thread can only support the scam artist.

Over and out.

[dsc]

How nice for our resident pornographers that they found an excuse to run away.

A bogus excuse, but then, any old port in a storm.

[Jeff Gordon]

How nice for our resident pornographers that they found an excuse to run away.

Let me get this straight. You are publicly accusing me of being a pornographer? If so, have the guts to say it directly. If not, STFU!

[freedumb2003]

"Every child should be flood safe."

The adults, on the other hand...

[Question_Assumptions]

Perhaps I will.

If you think you've got a case, go for it.

[Question_Assumptions]

I know it is a tought concept for many people but that does not make it invalid. Think back to your parents. How did they install values in you?

You are mixing apples and oranges unless you think the solution to preventing children from seeing porn can be given to them as values. I don't think it has anything to do with values. I think it has to do with walking across the room in a public library and seeing a computer screen in front of you filled with a pornographic image. You seem to agree that it's not good for children not to see hardcore pornography. How do values prevent children from seeing something right in front of their noses via values? Its like sitting in your living room watching hard core pornography and expecting your children to avert their eyes and cover their ears. Do you think that's realistic?

[Question_Assumptions]

Just bear in mind that I do find the idea of libertarians running to the government a bit ironic.

[plan2succeed.org]

You said, "my wife had to deal with bestiality pictures coming off of the printer in the college computer lab where she worked when we were in college...."

First, if you wish, please write me your story and I will try to fit it in on my group's web site somewhere. People have to speak out about these things.

Second, if you wish, unless it's too late, you could sue for damages. It has been done before and the library settled for a large amount of money just to keep the case from becoming a precedent that could have protected people like your wife. You see, children are not our only concern. Librarians often suffer from the problems just as you described.

Here, read these:

• Library to Filter Online Porn; Ramsey County Acts After Weighing Access Vs. Problems, 17 Mar 2006.
• Librarians Settle Porn Case - The Minneapolis Library Agrees to Pay 12 Employees $435,000, and it Promises to Revamp Internet Policies, 16 Aug 2003.

[dsc]

"Let me get this straight. You are publicly accusing me of being a pornographer? If so, have the guts to say it directly. If not, STFU!"

Gee, I wish we were FTF.

Yeah, in that you resist efforts to regulate or ban pornography, you enable and support it, and that makes you a pornographer even if you don't actually produce it.

Own the results of your own conduct. If you enable it, you did it.

[Jeff Gordon]

Gee, I wish we were FTF.

Good idea!

\you resist efforts to regulate or ban pornography, you enable and support it, and that makes you a pornographer

I respect your timid back step. It is cute.

BTW, I do not resist efforts to regulate pornography. I just laugh at you guys.

[Question_Assumptions]

The example I gave was well over a decade ago, was in a university environment (no children), no children were endangered, and my wife discarded the offending picture. I simply offered it as an example of the sort of pornography that people are willing to expose others to in a public environment. I think a lot of people imagine the airbrushed pin-ups of the 1950s when there is far harder and darker stuff available since the Clinton administration stopped prosecuting obscenity. You can find out details on how bad it gets in this Frontline episode (you can actually watch it online):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/

Lots of information on the web site, too. Note that the program is very rough and not for children. It discusses, among other things, the Frontline crew attending a pornography filming so disturbing the the Frontline crew felt they had to leave.

[plan2succeed.org]

Thanks. I can imagine so I'm not going beyond the title page. My focus, however, is the ALA. Pornographers and pornography is not my interest, unless they are the ALA's leaders pushing such books on children despite US v. ALA and community standards. For example, see Porn Pushers - The ALA and Looking For Alaska - One Example of How the ALA Pushes Porn On Children.

[dsc]

./"I respect your timid back step. It is cute."

You do need to learn some respect, but that's neither timid nor a backstep. It is merely an explication of what was the obvious meaning of my initial statement.

"I do not resist efforts to regulate pornography. I just laugh at you guys."

Precisely. You support and advocate evil.

[FrankySwanky]

A ten year old saw a naked lady!!!!! Panic NOW!!!!!!

[dsc]

"A ten year old saw a naked lady!!!!!"

No, a ten year old saw a video of one man blowing another, or a man slapping a woman around during "rough sex," complete with closeups of the genitals, or any one of a number of things a ten year old shouldn't have to deal with.

"Panic NOW!!!!!!"

Be outraged now.