Replies

The disgusting availability of porn in Multnomah County poses a very serious threat to children. Porn is insidiously addictive, and is aimed toward the young. There is absolutely no reason that internet access isn't filtered and that certain magazines are available.

Multnomah County actually denies itself access to federal library money by refusing to put any safe guards in order to protect children. Then they have the gaul to put another bond measure on the ballot.

Do and view whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. Don't make me pay for smut and sleaze. I have young daughters and the majority of sexual predators are addicted to porn, and have safe and easy access in public libraries. The utter selfishness of those who demand unfettered access to porn puts everyone at risk.

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.

The utter selfishness of those who demand unfettered access to porn puts everyone at risk.

I have to agree with this statement using a similar argument. The first amendment guarantees free speech, etc. except in the case of someone yelling fire in a crowded building for no reason but to cause panic. Access to pornography using public computers is not and should not be supported by the first amendment for the simple reason that it's content is nothing but degrading and can be harmful to the psyche of young people.

Also, putting a filter on a computer doesn't deny anyone their first amendment right. If there is something that it is blocking that you want to see or read, you are free to do so in the privacy of your home. In addition, viewing images of naked people engaged in sexual activity or not is lewd conduct, IMO. And I would think that people engaging in such activity should be subject to laws forbidding it.

BTW, all of you who are calling this type of safeguard for children a move to a Nanny State are misguided, IMO. Yes, proxy, you're right, it is us parents duty to protect our children. And I choose to do so by ensuring that they won't be exposed to pornography in a public setting such as a library. Pornography has no place in a public library. And to reiterate, by blocking it's access in such a setting, the first amendment has in no way been violated. You take your magazine home, or log on at home and enjoy it there, Most ADULTS don't want to see that kind of thing in public. Some sick ones do.