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.

[muawiyah]

Not how many children he "has", but how many he "gets". I think we've got a live one here. Wonder what his name is on the registry.

[Always Right]

So you support hard core pornography being viewed in the presence of children?

You might as well make it legal for libraries to peddle drugs to kids too.

[plan2succeed.org]

"It's only purpose is for masturbation, which IS still illegal in a library."

Perhaps, but many librarians do little about it. I have numerous examples of this and have even written about it in response to a Dartmouth College librarian who give the typical shoulder shrug. I have even heard of one university library that keeps haz-mat spill clean kits available to clean up the floor and the keyboard afterwards from possible HIV and other things. No, I'm not kidding.

ANYONE WANT ON MY PING LIST?

SafeLibraries.org - Are Children Safe in Public Libraries?

[xarmydog]

Had a guy who used to repair my computer when it went down,which was quite often.The first thing he would do was pull up a porno site,which is taboo on my computer.After a couple of times,I quit using him and started doing it myself.I made some huge mistakes at first,but now I can at least keep it running somewhat.The only people allowed to use my[and wife's]computer is ourselves.I like the feeling that the FBI can come in and seize my computer,and only find news and car parts searches.Oh,and the locations of all the local pedophiles.The kids are not allowed on it either,even though they are not into that stuff.

[plan2succeed.org]

Whoa. I have the solution to your problems. Dump the dump and switch to the Apple MacBook. It comes with everything, even excellent parental controls.

[xarmydog]

Sounds like something worth looking into.Have had four computers in the last seven years.My biggest regret was buying HP with windows xp.All of the computers were the same,as I continually upgraded.Microsoft seems intent on knowing my business.It keeps sending annoying popups ,etc.Heck,I didn't even get to burn one CD before it went bad.I think it is time to gravitate to something better.Thanks for the tip.

[mockingbyrd]

As long as taxpayer funded insitutions allow access to porn, I as a taxpayer am being forced to pay for it.

[mockingbyrd]

Actually the head librarian in Multnomah County makes over $100,000.

[SteveMcKing]

This thread is a fraud.

---

WHOIS information for plan2succeed.org:

Domain Name.......... plan2succeed.org
Creation Date........ 2003-04-22
Registration Date.... 2003-04-22
Expiry Date.......... 2007-04-22
Organisation Name.... DANIEL J KLEINMAN
Organisation Address. PLAN2SUCCEED
Organisation Address. 641 SHUNPIKE RD #123
Organisation Address. CHATHAM
Organisation Address. 07928
Organisation Address. NJ
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Admin Name........... DAN K
Admin Address........ PLAN2SUCCEED
Admin Address........ 641 SHUNPIKE RD #123
Admin Address........ CHATHAM
Admin Address........ 07928
Admin Address........ NJ
Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
Admin Email.......... admin@plan2succeed.org
Admin Phone.......... +1.9085421238
Admin Fax............ +1.3092139713

Tech Name............ Tim Uzzanti
Tech Address......... 6135 N. 7th St.
Tech Address......... .
Tech Address......... Phoenix
Tech Address......... 85014-1812
Tech Address......... Arizona
Tech Address......... UNITED STATES
Tech Email........... inww@crystaltech.com
Tech Phone........... +1.6022630300
Tech Fax............. +1.6022630600
Name Server.......... ns1.webcontrolcenter.com
Name Server.......... ns2.webcontrolcenter.com

---

Not many leads on "Daniel Kleinman" - or rather too many to count - but "Tim Uzzanti" is the CEO of SmarterTools, a software company with an interesting set of website monitoring products:

"On-demand web site analytics to identify trends and promote understanding of your users...Automate email support tracking software with advanced reporting and ticket handling..."

Read the original poster's profile. That "story" didn't happen. It's absurd, totally made-up. They have obviously invented a cause here, on the premise that "Republicans == anti-porno bible-thumpers". Their entire posting history speaks to this.

The contracts awarded by towns and other levels of government to install public software are worth millions. I actually knew one technician who nearly made a fortune from a single town in MA installing hardware-based filtering in the public schools. (The town backed out, as it happened.)

Surely these folks are aware that masquerading business interests as a non-profit is not only unethical, it is likely breaking the law. Particularly in the bidding for public contracts directly influenced by their phony political interests.

[plan2succeed.org]

Uh, umm, how to respond.

1.) "This thread is a fraud."
What? I posted an editorial in The Oregonian. That started a debate, and that's what Free Republic is all about, right?

2.) Ad hominem attack
Your ad hominem attack on people reveals more about you and your arguments than about the people you attacked. The material in The Oregonian changes 0% by your attacking others, but you have revealed a near 100% failure in the ability to argue against what's in that editorial since you choose instead to attack some fellow Freeper who posted the editorial.
Your loss, not mine.

3.) "masquerading business interests"
I'm not a business interest. I'm another parent who's kid has been sexualized by the ALA, only I'm acting to do something about it. There's only so much porn the ALA can push on children before people start taking action to stop the porn pushers.

[SteveMcKing]

"I'm another parent"

You are not a parent.

[SamuraiScot]

There you go again, posting more nanny-state crap.

I'm no friend of the nanny state, but there has never been a right under the First Amendment to speech that is obscene (or libelous or treasonous). Never mind obscene speech uttered around children (or women, for that matter).

Because of the nature of human sexuality, obscene sexual material is predatory, just by being displayed. It's an attack on one's family, and families are not amused.

[weegee]

That's a fair disclosure. Thanks for the research.

My points about the ALA still hold. And they extend to ANYTHING accessible in a library, not just the internet.

[weegee]

so if your kid goes into a public library, goes to the internet workstation, types in www.playboy.com. It's the librarians' fault.

And if that same kid goes into a bookstore (major chain like Barnes & Noble) and grabs a copy of Playboy off the newstand and goes up to the checkout to pay for it, as all customers do, should they sell it to him, no questions asked?

Now another trip to the library. If they have a subscription to Playboy (for the articles, of course), the ALA's position is that they should be exempt from state laws prohibiting giving that minor such materials.

[Jeff Gordon]

When some affair is illogical and makes no sense one should look for the hidden agenda. It looks like you found that hidden agenda.

What is sad is the puppets who waved their arms in response to this manipulation.

[Jeff Gordon]

Interesting that you assume children are invariably "sexually aroused" by means of pornography.

I neither said nor assumed anything of the sort. I don't even know why you think that unless you have personal experience along these lines. Maybe if you told us about your experiences using porn to arouse children you could make better arguements then these ad hominem attacks.

[muawiyah]

Your the guy who said Better dead than sexually aroused?

You couldn't ask that question if you didn't make that assumption.

[Jeff Gordon]

and you could not make the assumption that porn does not arouse kids unless you tried and failed.

[TChris]

THE CHILDREN!!! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!

The fact that this cry has been used illegitimately many times, one should not conclude that nothing should be done to protect children. In fact, some things legitimately are for the children.

I think there is sufficient objective evidence on the subject that it merits serious consideration and discussion, rather than a mocking dismissal.

[muawiyah]

I am not making any assumptions at all. On the other hand, it's pretty clear where you are coming from.

Why is it you guys all believe you are so invisible to everybody else?