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.

[Dante3]

By promoting porn the library attracts pervertsm, makes it unsafe for children. Also, porn has no worthwhile qualties, dehumainzes relationships, demeans especially women.

I would publicize the names of all those library trustees who want porn -- I'm sure there are a lot of skeletons in their closets -- on the Internet along with statements by them as well as other things from their lives.

I would also get churchs, certain feminist groups, other individulas to sujpport your position.

[GladesGuru]

If the presstitutes had wanted to "expose" Janet Reno, there is a graphic film of her in bed with a 15 year old female hooker. It has been around, and available, for decades here in Miami.

That nothing was said about her proclivity for underage, child prostitutes when the illustrious MS Reno incinerated Waco "for the children" says much for why the press is now known as "presstitutes".

[Antoninus]

you're in charge of the library filter in your county library system; what do you filter out and what do you leave in? What setting do you put it on? While you're at it, you might want to go through every book in the library so you can eliminate anything that has a sexually explicate passage. How about books on tape? Lot's of bad words in those.

See post 206. My solution would be to apply any of the commonly available filters to the public access computers and have a seperate room for those wishing unfiltered access (21 and older only). Hey, you could even put a bulletin board in the 21 and older room so the homos and pervs can solicit.

Honestly, if we really wanted to address this issue, we would force all the porn sites onto a .xxx domain suffix. This way, if you wanted to, you filter out the entire porn universe with a few clicks.

[Oztrich Boy]

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.

IIRC a giant mutant star goat was threatening Golgafrincham.

[GladesGuru]

"expect the parents to reverse the influence of the rest of the world."

Yup, yup, yup - that's just what I am advocating that parents can, and must, do. It works.

When I was quite small I happened onto a nasty skin flick called "Girl and Great Dane". I knew it was warped, even then. And it didn't stimulate me to anything other than a partial stimulation of my gag reflex.

Parenting, my dear little jeremiah, parenting! It works.

Not that I disagree with the trashing of Western civilization by t Liberals/socialists. But censorship is no substitute for "a deeply religious and moral people".

[plan2succeed.org]

Saundra Duffy: Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, people viewing porn in public libraries are already doing exactly that in front of anyone, not just the kids. See Dangerous Access, 2000 Edition:  Uncovering
Internet Pornography in America's Libraries. Worse stuff happens as well, as this report shows. That's the criminality we are trying to stop. This is not just about protecting the kids. It's also about protecting ourselves.

[Always Right]

It's not Ashcroft's business. He is the employee. He has no right to change the appearance of the work of art installed by his employer.

Ashcroft has every right to do so and has done so to prove it. Your hatred for Ashcroft has clouded your brain.

[Oztrich Boy]

Ashcroft has every right to do so and has done so to prove it.

I think you are confusing "might" with "right". Or do you believe Hillary had the right to have the WhiteHouse Travel Office fired and investigated by the FBI (in that order).

Your hatred for Ashcroft has clouded your brain.

Que? Where is the evidence of my hatred for Ashcroft? That I find the concept "Justice will not be visible while John Ashcroft is present" risable?

Heck it's funny even if it isn't true.
And you might check your talking points. Last I heard Ashcroft was being all Barbra "It was a decision made by a subordinate without Ms Streisand's knowledge"

[Prime Choice]

I don't know what point you mean to make, precisely. As I pointed out, if someone's being a jerk, you can ban them. It doesn't require that filtering software be put in on taxpayer expense so that the government can play nanny to otherwise responsible adults.

You may be perfectly happy to live in a world wherein sites like Free Republic are easily deemed "hate sites" by content filters in use by the State. I personally will never allow it nor abide by it.

And furthermore, the next time anyone claims these content filters will somehow "protect the children," then they should try letting kids loose on computers with these idiosyncratic content filters in place and be amazed at how quickly the kids defeat the content filters, thanks to the fine work of the folks at PeaceFire.

[little jeremiah]

I am wondering why all of a sudden pornography is a "right", when for (just in the history of our country, for example) several hundreds of years it was kept way, way out of sight, and no one felt that their "rights" were being trodden on.

To ignore the insiduous increasing sexualization of culture, defining deviancy down, doesn't become someone of your obvious intelligence. Naturally parents have to do their job, but when the stench of "culture" permeates the very atmosphere via movies, books, music, news, TV, ads, education, even the best parents often fight a losing battle.

[Always Right]

I think you are confusing "might" with "right". Or do you believe Hillary had the right to have the WhiteHouse Travel Office fired and investigated by the FBI (in that order).

You make no sense. What Ashcroft did was perfectly in line with his job. What law or what people is Ashcroft abusing? I fail to see anything morally or legally wrong with what Ashcroft did. He excercized his own judgement within his authority.

[plan2succeed.org]

Prime Choice: Fascinating link! It says: "April 16, 2003 Peacefire has released a new set of instructions for circumventing Internet censorship. These instructions can be used to get around Internet blocking in China, for example, by having a friend outside China follow the instructions to set up a mini-Web-site that users in China can then connect to, circumventing the Chinese "Great Firewall." They can also be used to defeat most home blocking programs such as Cyber Patrol and Net Nanny, as well as getting around most blocking programs used in schools such as Bess, WebSENSE, and SmartFilter."

Really very interesting. (Notice they say "censorship" when the US v. ALA case has proven there is no censorship since one can ask that the filters be disabled, so they must be talking about that other country.) But even though this is possible, it is highly unlikely that any public library porn viewer would be aware of such a URL to circumvent filters. And from what I read in the advanced instructions, installing this baby is not for your average cookie. Besides, this type of situation is the kind of thing that could be covered in Internet Usage Policies.

We thank you for bringing this to our attention. You see after determining the wishes of the community, then after the filtering software is installed, the citizens will want to know that the filters are being implemented properly, not being sidestepped just to make it appear filters are in place. Actions speak louder than words. The citizens will be watching for exactly these types of circumventions by the public or by library management. The ALA is already giving instructions on how to circumvent filtering. Thanks again for bringing this one to our attention.

[Dianna]

Here is a link to the full (snopes version) of the story.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/ashcroft.asp

[Dianna]

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.

You said above that you also want your University library computers filtered. Guess using those would be out too.

If it were up to me, I would not install filters. I would insist that parents sign a permission slip which discloses that the computers are NOT filtered before allowing the child to use a computer. Any person who actually viewed porn (real porn, not art or medical diagrams) which was seen by anyone would be permanently banned.

[bluefish]

I am losing my patience with libertarianesque types who think that access to pornography is some kind of inalienable right. Who think that unlimited and intrammeled pornography is some kind of foundational building block of civilization.

Little Jeremiah, it is this type of exaggerated, hyperbolic nonsense that causes you to lose all credibility with even moderate folks. I personally am conflicted because I am what I would call a socially conservative "small l" libertarian. In other words, I may feel personally that morality is important and that decency and virtue are foundational blocks for a strong society.

However, I also fear greatly anyone that believes my personal choices should be arbitrarily handed over to a totalitarian nanny state. In order to preserve my freedom to make my own moral choices, I resist any additional power being handed over to the government (or a corporate government contractor), even if the singular issue is something with which I might agree.

I don't want Hillary Clinton to one day have the power to decide what should and should not be available on the Internet.

While I maintain this opinion, you would suggest that I "think that unlimited and intrammeled pornography is some kind of foundational building block of civilization." Well that is wholly incorrect and an unfair portrayal of those who oppose your beliefs.

Either you can't see the bigger picture argument because of an obsessive focus on a single issue, or you are intentionally suggesting those who have an issue with too much power in the hands of government are simply want to view porn in order to shift the argument. This means you are either incapable of seeing consequences of satisfying your desire for success with your pet project, or you simply don't care and choose to use sleazy, deceptive and unfair ad hominem attacks to avoid having to address the consequences. It is like calling a non-drug user who fears a police state with respect to the WOD a drug addict for their personal political philosophy.

You should try to address the issue being raised by those who oppose your opinion and have a civil argument. You may then be able to find a reasonable solution to the cause you care about, without sacrificing the freedom we both enjoy.

As for "freekin," I don't care how it is spelled. My point flew right over your head apparently. I was merely pointing out that your use of the word, which is a substitute for a more vulgar one we all know, is somewhat hypocritical, given that you are railing about immorality in a public venue. You should start with censoring yourself, before sending the virture police after the rest of society.

[little jeremiah]

First of all, I want to thank you for your reasoned reply, and I do appreciate that. I think we will have to agree to disagree. The fear of a "Nanny" government is well-founded; socialism which necessitates totalitarianism is the worst form of government imaginable. OTOH, the pursuit of personal enjoyment with no concern for the resultant desctruction of the basic moral values that keeps civlization from going to the dogs is not an option. Here are a couple of quotes from great thinkers that support my position:

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."---Patrick Henry

[little jeremiah]

Snopes is run (or was started at any rate) by a couple whose basis for fact finding consists of the internet, which is available to anyone. Also, Snopes has an admitted liberal bias. Therefore, they should be taken with a grain of salt, they are not the be-all and end-all of truth. They have been known to be wrong, more than once. I don't trust them very much.

[Always Right]

Thanks for the link. I love how fake conservatives troll around and pretend to be outraged over non-issues like this. Only a DU-type would be upset about the curtain.

[Always Right]

However, I also fear greatly anyone that believes my personal choices should be arbitrarily handed over to a totalitarian nanny state.

Could you please explain which liberty you are talking about. These filters are only for children. All adults are free to access whatever they like. There is absolutely no infringement on any freedom. It is a service to help parents.

[plan2succeed.org]

Dianna: You say "I would insist that parents sign a permission slip which discloses that the computers are NOT filtered before allowing the child to use a computer. Any person who actually viewed porn (real porn, not art or medical diagrams) which was seen by anyone would be permanently banned." Signing a permission slip solves only the problem of a child seeing porn as a result of his own actions or inactions. Permanently banning someone means it is acceptable to expose citizens once per perpetrator. We know of a librarian threatened by a convicted perp who was permanently banned in the next town's library, and when she went to call the police, her management told her not to -- he has freedom of speech. A single exposure to porn can permanently damage the mind of a growing child. Would you want this to be your child, especially in light of an easy solution to filter and to disable the filters upon request in the constitutional fashion of US v. ALA?