Town Refuses to Ask Citizens If Library Porn Should Be Filtered Out - Please Help Us!

Plan2Succeed.org ^ | 22 Dec 2003 | Plan2Succeed.org

[plan2succeed.org]

Town Refuses to Ask Citizens If Library Porn Should Be Filtered Out; Plan2Succeed.org Seeking Pro Bono Counsel.

---

Something is wrong when a small group of people called a Library Board of Trustees determines that a public library must continue to allow access to pornography despite admittedly being outside the library's mission, the Township Committee claims it is powerless to stop the Board, and the citizens have no say.

[VRWC_minion]

I You think we should alter our behavior as a society in order to appease display manners to our enemies and our friends.

[tutstar]

bttt

[glannon]

porn filters don't work.

[axel f]

I remember reading a story about the Ashcroft statue controversy. It was blown way out of proportion, and I can't remember the real reason why he did that. But it was more than just for modesty reasons. I wish I could remember the real reason though.

[Always Right]

I remember reading a story about the Ashcroft statue controversy...

Aschroft's biggest convern was the location. It is in a location that is the backdrop of a lot of photos and Ashcroft did not want that in the background of his photos.

[Always Right]

porn filters don't work.

Wow, I am glad such an expert weight in on this matter. How many different filters did you test and how did you test them?

[plan2succeed.org]

Glannon: Filters from long ago don't work. You are correct. However, recent filtering solutions have greatly improved and they do work, according to the US Dept of Commerce: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/cipa2003/

[milan]

Just out of curiosity; what function do you think libraries were created for?

Consolidation of information. My point though is that research done at the level of furthering a field is usually done at special libraries, such as those at universities. The library here at my university has got to be 10 times the size of the public library. None of the professors here would ever resort to going to the public library to do research.

[glannon]

How many different filters did you test and how did you test them?

me? none. but i have read reports off and on. basically porn still gets through, and lots of proper stuff gets blocked, getting in the way of research.

google gives some quick places for you to look, if you care to.

the internet filter assessment project.
The Internet Filter Farce.
Consumer Reports.
NCAC: internet filters public policy report.
EFF censorware page.

That last one has lots of links and explanations so you can familiarize yourself with the topic, so you can be always right.

[RightWhale]

A library should be a safe place for children.

All good arguments. The ACLU came to our meeting on this topic and shot down every one of them. The community is hotly split 50-50, and this is a conservative community.

[Sunshine Sister]

Oh come on. We are talking porn here. What redeeming value is there to that?

[Always Right]

me? none. but i have read reports off and on. basically porn still gets through, and lots of proper stuff gets blocked, getting in the way of research.

Gross exaggerations. The vast majority of porn gets blocked and very little detriment to legitament research. See the government study above which is by far more thorough and more recent than all of your cites.

[Always Right]

All good arguments. The ACLU came to our meeting on this topic and shot down every one of them.

The ACLU was obviously better prepared than the average citizens. The ACLU arguements are well documented, and if you properly prepare can beat them quite handily, even if they are slicker than you are.

[Saundra Duffy]

Our FREE libraries should NOT be a place where perverts, whackos and sick-minded rats can go to drool over porn. (Duh!) Next thing, they'll be masturbating in front of our kids. For Goodness Sake - how can anyone in their right mind think it's okay for any creep off the street to sit there in a PUBLIC LIBRARY and have access to PORNOGRAPHY!! This is unbelievable!!!

[little jeremiah]

The topic of personal freedom and when and how it starts to disintegrate civilization is discussed in Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah", which I have read twice and need to read again. He's got another book out about judicial tyranny (more or less) which I haven't read but want to. If neither of you have read "S.T. Gomorrah" I suggest you do, you would like it.

He discusses libertarianism, where it comes from, and where it would take us.

[leadpenny]

It's been a while since I said what I had to say on this thread but I don't remember that I said pornography had any "redeeming value," as you put it. Maybe you can refresh my memory if I did?

For those of you who are in favor of having some kind of filter in Public Libraries, just keep in mind that some human at the local, state and /or federal level has to decide what the filters filter.

[Antoninus]

Find me one place in the US Constitution where it says that the citizens of a town can not regulate what is or is not in their own public library. They have every right to do so and for you to equate this with "book burning" is patently moronic. I suppose it would be ok with you if they had complete collections of Hustler freely available in the stacks as well, eh?

[Antoninus]

Fine. Ban the creeps, then. Causing a public nuisance is not protected speech.

Neither is pornography--at least it wasn't for the first 180 years of our nation's history:

Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942):

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words....It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Furthermore...

Roth vs. The United States (1957)

"Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press--either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States.... In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.... The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance--unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion--have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance."

This is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment was never intended to protect nude dancing, crotch-shots, kiddie porn, etc.

This is a separation of powers issue. Do local municipalities have the right to restrict certain behaviors or not? If you say they don't based on a flawed interpretation of the national constitution, I would say that YOU are the one espousing tyrannical national control over local self-government.

[StopGlobalWhining]

Who would be in charge of deciding what to filter?