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.

[sfRummygirl]

I understand the concern for who regulates this stuff. But we have a real problem on our hands in this country. I was watching FOX news last night, waiting for the info on the plane, and Greta had two segments on Girls Gone Wild.

It didn't matter that they blocked the little t#ttie and @ss areas. It was really inappropriate.

And please, believe that I am not a prude.
It seems that the liberals want to ban the moral-upbringing stuff, and we conservatives would like to ban the over exposure to porn.

I wish it were the days of when I was a kid, and people had to go out to a special store to get the porn. That's all I want.

[little jeremiah]

People are terrified of the word "censorship". It is a bad concept in the hands of government, censoring the truth of events, or censoring ideas, or opposing viewpoints. But in terms of local control of (for instance) what is available in libraries, or taught to children, or on view in stores - that is legitimate. There is no inalienable right to have pornography freely viewable in the public sphere.

The SCOTUS has invented rights to abortion, now they have invented a right to sodomy. They also invented the right to obscenity, calling "exotic" dancing a form of speech. The problem with this tactic is that there is no stopping it. The purveyors and viewers of such filth always want more extreme, more vicious, more perverse. That is the nature of the beast. There is no end to it, where they will say "ok, that's explicit enough." So others have to draw the line. And we're past where the line should be drawn.

When the founders of this country wrote the Constitution, and enumerated the right of free speech, they had no intention that such right would cover the sick, vicious and degraded pornography that is now enshrined as a right. And pornorgraphy is not only not neutral, it is an evil and ruins people. And if many people are ruined, it affects society.

[sfRummygirl]

Guess what...there already is a library like that in San Fran.

[sfRummygirl]

Trust me, the porn that is out today would not be confused with Lewis Carroll.

[sfRummygirl]

yes, I agree that covering the statues was stupid, too.

You know what I think the problem is? Some people are really afraid to address this addiction issue. It touches on something huge for some of these guys. (No pun intended)

[leadpenny]

When the founders of this country wrote the Constitution, and enumerated the right of free speech, they had no intention that such right would cover the sick, vicious and degraded pornography that is now enshrined as a right.

What a profound statement. Now, how in the World do you know that?

[bluefish]

To an extent, I agree with some of the sentiments in the quotes you provided. However, I would go a step further and look at why moral degradation is taking place.

I believe that the moral degradation of society is not the result of too much freedom. It is the opposite. As the legal system becomes more complicated and basic "rights" become twisted so that none of us are free to practice our own morality, immorality is allowed to flourish. Discussion of morality is being suppressed, so we are losing the ability to counter the immoral Left.

Families are losing the freedom to instruct their kids as they see fit. Their kids have lost the freedom to pray in school. Judges have lost the freedom to display the 10 commandments in their court room. God is taken out of the pledge. Citizens have lost the freedom to decorate the public square with a Manger scene. We are losing our freedom to defend ourselves from the scum of the earth with firearms. The police can no longer do their jobs effectively because they are losing the freedom to do their jobs in a logical manner.

Judges and lawyers are removing our freedom to make logical, moral, good decisions for ourselves and for our children. They do this by twisting the rights preserved for us in the Constitution. They cite a belief that there is supposed to be a "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution, yet have twisted our freedom to practice religion (or morality) into their freedom "from" religion or the morality. I do believe that they should be free to be immoral or to not practice religion. However, they are now succeeding at twisting this notion into a right to restrict from the rest of us our right to religion and morality, which is where it is turning upside down.

More government, regulation, judicial activism and sleazy lawyering is removing all that is "good" from us and pushing all that is "bad" upon us, against our will. I believe that our focus should be on the former, more than on the latter. Without the ability to present "good" in public forums, our attempt to fight that which is "bad' is meaningless.

This is where we need to be vigilant - protecting our own freedom. Trying to remove their freedom is a lesser concern, and is one I am opposed to anywy.

You are well aware that some fight to preserve a questionable "right" to participate in morally questionable behavior, or view morally questionable material. They continue to win. At the same time, the Left continues to win with respect to suppressing any discussion of morality and decency. Basic Christian values are now considered evil when allowed openly in public.e aware.

Crusades against things like porn on library computers and the desire for governmental regulation in this regard is an acceptance of governmental control over our societal morality. Granting this power is dangerous, because governments are not moral. Attempting to derive morality from government will certainly fail.

We should focus on actually preserving our liberty to practice and make the case for morality, rather than focus on suppressing the liberty of others. By doing so, we can provide more access to basic decency and succesffully counter the immoral Left. Without our own liberty, the Left can continue to succeed in turning all that is right upside-down.

It requires faith that good can counter evil if good is allowed to flourish. It doesn't require as much faith as a belief that government can counter evil and be a force of good.

As usual, after a lengthy diatribe like this, somebody can probably post a 2 sentence, 100 year old quote that makes the same point I attempted to make here. I hope they do.

[sfRummygirl]

It's true, there really is no such thing as complete freedom here. There couldn't be, we would be living in caos (sp)?

[Houmatt]

Please show me where the ALA endorses kids being freely allowed to view porn in libraries.

From the ALA website: "Censorship is a change in the access status of material, based on the content of the work and made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes." Further, in the "Library Bill of Rights": "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views."

Add to that the part they played in the challenges to the Child Online Protection Act and their position is pretty clear.

I don't think filtering software is a perfect solution. I think in general children should be accompanied by parents who are monitoring their behavior in any public place, including a library.

The obvious problem with that is parents cannot be with their kids 24/7. They have to work or go to the bathroom or sleep or whatever. The other problem with that is how easy it is to drop into a pornographic website by accident.

My favorite example of this is suppose you want to visit the POTUS's website. The address is www.whitehouse.gov. But not everyone knows that, and may by mistake type in www.whitehouse.com. If you do that, you go right to a pornographic website. And with a lot of these places, they like to flood your screen with pop-ups that multiply whenever you close one of them. Getting there may be an accident, but the url registry and unrelenting pop-ups are not.

So thinking that just removing the filters and standing behind your kid's shoulder with your fingers crossed will work out is really nothing more than a Pollyanic dream.

[sfRummygirl]

I hate to say it, but it really all goes back to people leaving morality. And now we are stuck with a problem. If we keep exposing kids to this, it is going to hurt them. It's not popular to say that, I know. But it does.

The progression of porn is really frightening, too. At least a few years back, it was just people having sex. Normally. But the addiction has grown, and now people are filled with unnatural plastics, and natural sex isn't enough anymore. People need more to 'get off'.

I know some men who are fighting this, young guys. it's so much more than just shame based, like the left would want you to believe.

[Houmatt]

Try this.

[Houmatt]

That's your opinion.

That's an avoidance.

[leadpenny]

Now I'm wondering just how many disgusting porn sites you may have peeked at during your search for the definition? Come on, you can tell me.

Would you want your son or daughter not to be able to look up that word?

[Libertina]

BTTT I like your idea - except suggest that an easily offended adult be sent to do the job rather than an innocent child. Suing the left for billions just seems so right and fitting ;)

[leadpenny]

That's an avoidance.

That's also your opinion.

[Houmatt]

No, you have intentionally failed to address every question and point I have made to you, personally. The only impression I get from this is you indeed condone the exposure of language and images no matter how foul, no matter how vile, to children.

If this assessment is in error, you will have to prove it; not just to me, but also to everyone reading this.

[Amelia]

Add to that the part they played in the challenges to the Child Online Protection Act and their position is pretty clear.

In a liberal sort of way, I suppose you've "proven" your point. In other words, if the ALA doesn't endorse filtering software, it's actively encouraging children to view porn?

The obvious problem with that is parents cannot be with their kids 24/7. They have to work or go to the bathroom or sleep or whatever. The other problem with that is how easy it is to drop into a pornographic website by accident.

So let's turn our parenting responsibilities over to the government, in the form of the public library? Again, what a liberal concept!

So thinking that just removing the filters and standing behind your kid's shoulder with your fingers crossed will work out is really nothing more than a Pollyanic dream.

Considering that the Supreme Court upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act, if your library receives federal funding, you should have no problem (other than the fact the software isn't 100% effective).

Otherwise, I'd suggest accompanying your children when they visit the public library, and not allowing them to access the internet at home.

[leadpenny]

The only impression I get from this is you indeed condone the exposure of language and images no matter how foul, no matter how vile, to children.

Excuse me while I spit out the words you keep trying to stuff in my mouth.

If you have a problem with the unfettered internet in YOUR public library, I suggest you fight to get the internet ripped out rather than having it filtered.

[axel f]

You've also implied that our side is secretly turned on by coprophilia. Let's not put words in anyone's mouth.

[leadpenny]

Lighten up. I was just responding in kind.