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.

[ought-six]

"Geesh, I thought the issue was about age appropriateness. Whether one lives in a democracy or a republic, is age appropriateness no longer a consideration?"

Of course it is. Read my posts. I said I would have no problem with filters on computers that are restricted to the children's section of a library.

[ought-six]

You don't understand my point at all, as you are looking at it through blinders. I am against GOVERNMENTAL censorship. I have said, on many occasions, that I would have no problem with installing filters on computers that are restricted to children's use. I have a major problem with filters on any computer that is available to an adult. My point is that once you start putting filters on library computers, it will be hard to stop them from being put on all of them. Where you may want to restrict access to pornography, some nanny-stater on a library commission may want to restrict access to religious materials, since an argument can be made that on public property (such as a public library) it violates the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment (the ACLU's favorite argument, which I, personally, think does not in any way refelct the original meaning and intent of the First Amendment, but you see where I'm going with this). Do you really want to go there?

[Always Right]

You don't understand my point at all, as you are looking at it through blinders. I am against GOVERNMENTAL censorship.

You really don't get it. This has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, repeat ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with GOVERNMENTAL censorship. This is about empowering the PARENT with the choice. The government lets the PARENT decide if their child can or can not acess pornographic material. Right now the government is empowering the child to decide against the wishes of the vast majority of parents.

[ought-six]

"You really don't get it. This has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, repeat ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with GOVERNMENTAL censorship. This is about empowering the PARENT with the choice. The government lets the PARENT decide if their child can or can not acess pornographic material. Right now the government is empowering the child to decide against the wishes of the vast majority of parents."

No, friend, it 's YOU who doesn't get it. A public library is a GOVERNMENTAL facility! I handle litigation for a natiowide insurer, and our clients are ONLY public entities (i.e., governments and government-run operations). My point was that if a library commission -- which is a governmental body, no matter which way you slice it -- installs filters, it is censorship. Where you want to toss into the equation a bunch of irrelevant variables, I want to reduce it to its lowest common denominator (i.e., governmental censorship). Believe me, if a group of parents lobbied a library board that they wanted to restrict access to, say, religious material, and the library board then restricted access to such material, YOU are just the type of person who would be crying "Governmental censorship!" to the high heavens, and you know it.

[ought-six]

A teenage boy looking at porn? No, so it isn't so! Good grief, if a teenage boy never showed an interest, even a passing one, in porn I'd think there was something wrong with that teenage boy. Teenage boys are curious as hell about sex, and it's been that way for at least fifty thousand years. Get over it. I would much rather a teenage boy view porn to satisfy his curiosity about sex than have him commit a rape to quell his prurient interest.

[Always Right]

No, friend, it 's YOU who doesn't get it. A public library is a GOVERNMENTAL facility!

It is the CENSORSHIP part that you don't get. NO ONE is being denied their right to broadcast obscene material (whether that is protected speech is another debate), and no adult is being denied their right to recieve it, even in public libraries. Please explain to me how ONE ADULT is being denied anything. The whole issue of filters on computers being accessed by children has NOTHING to do with anyones first amendment rights. ZERO.

[ought-six]

"The fact remains that it is ILLEGAL to sell porn to minors, so why are we allowing them to access it for free in the library? How old are you? Fourteen? That seems to be your mental age."

First, it is illegal to sell porn to minors. But no one is selling porn when they surf the web and find porn sites (now, if they actually purchase a product that is advertised, then they'd have a problem; but such sites contain warnings that they are only for adults 18 years of age or older -- in some states it's 21 years of age).

Second, your sophomoric comment about my age clearly shows your immaturity. For your information, I am 53, a Vietnam vet, and a proud American who believes very strongly in the United States Constitution. If you don't like my "credentials," then that's your problem, not mine.

[tutstar]

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/102997/citycoun.html

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/050701/met_6104812.html

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/110499/opi_Thued1__.html

here are some articles from my local paper, there are others that can be found by typing library porn filter into the search field...

[tutstar]

Our society has been 'conditioning' our youth for the past 30 years, so that now, if one does not have a high interest in sex at a young age then there must be something wrong with them. Yes it is normal to have an interest in sex...but our society has pushed the issue to the point that it is the main thing! Well maybe a new pair of Nikes or XBox might be in close running for 1st place.
We have a nation of voyeurs whose main goal is personal pleasure, and many are willing to satisfy themselves no matter who they hurt or how bad they hurt them. Libraries are public facilities which we all pay for. We don't find porn in other public places and it certainly shouldn't be in the library.

[I_dmc]

I presume the library board of trustees is not elected. I presume the Township Committee is. Elect members of local government that reflect the communities views, vote to end any township funding of said library and pass an ordinance that disallows anyone under a certain age to use any public sidewalk or street that provides access to said library. Perhaps then the library, having less funding, less customers and less reason to exist, might cause the board of trustees to change their minds.

[I_dmc]

I agree with this approach. My son uses my computers, not the library's. When he was under 16, I restricted access to some sites on the Internet. I talked to him often about what is out there, what the risks of accessing some sites are (porn=viruses) and my feelings about the various ways he might use my computer resources. We don't have a problem.

[I_dmc]

Where can one watch someone cut one off?

[I_dmc]

"...before that, Stag." You must be young. Best in my day was the Sears catalog. ;-)

[plan2succeed.org]

You are correct. We do have a new avenue. We will sue the board of trustees for failure to act on behalf of the beneficiaries, i.e., the taxpayers. The board refuses to take citizen input. See http://www.plan2succeed.org/p2s005.html published a few days ago. Thank you

[plan2succeed.org]

Dear tutstar; squarebarb; alexandria; motherbear; milan; little jeremiah; Dante3; Houmatt; Always Right; I_dmc

We thank you for your comments. We have added some of them to the "Contact Us" page (at the bottom) of http://www.plan2succeed.org/ so that others can learn from your insight and experience. We have as of now almost 8,000 views of our main page! Thanks again.

By the way, we continue to add new members and we continue to attend meetings, write letters to the papers (see http://www.plan2succeed.org/p2s005.html for an outstanding article asking people to stop giving to the library and instead give to us so we can begin legal action), speak with attorneys, etc. Today for example we visited again the equity court's law clerk, the prosecutor's office, and certain political offices. We learned, for example, that New Jersey has an Assembly Bill A1107 CORODEMUS called the "Student Internet Access Act." Don't know much more about it right now. Slowly but surely we are pushing this issue. We hope it will be the leading edge of a wave across America to make library boards of trustees accountable to their beneficiaries, the citizens, not the ALA.

[plan2succeed.org]

Here's that A1107 I mentioned above:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2004/Bills/A1500/1107_I1.HTM

If any public library, as defined in section 3 of P.L.1973, c.381 (C.18A:74-16), offers use of the Internet or a computer or computer program, network, or system to the public, its board of trustees shall require the library to utilize Internet filtering software to restrict access to matter prohibited in subsection b. of section 4 of this act on any computer available for use by persons under 18 years of age, unaccompanied by a parent or guardian.

[Dante3]

BUMP

[GigaDittos]

We're considering burning loud-mouths like you at the stake for the full effect of the witchhunt. /sarcasm