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.

[NMFXSTC]

Oh, I'm sure Prime has a good heart...bleeding, of course. Point is, with all the complaint of tax payer money, the easy work around of filters, the natural curiosity of adolescents, this band of moral monitors is worse than porn...at least porn is a choice...they offer none...just a total ban and imposition of their standards...kinda like the WTU gals did, eh?

[milan]

If you want access to porn, you do it in your house. That is a right to privacy. If you want it in a public library, too damn bad. There are certain things which are acceptable in public and then there are certain things which are acceptable in private. Do you want to sleep with your girlfriend/wife in public? Do you somehow think you have a RIGHT to do that? This is not book burning. It is common sense, of which you are apparently lacking.

[milan]

Cute. You forgot a sarcasm tag for those too stupid to figure it out.

[NMFXSTC]

"There are certain things which are acceptable in public and then there are certain things which are acceptable in private."

RIGHT! But damned if I want sme non-elected, non-judicial "band of citizens" telling anyone what is acceptable...see MY stance?

[milan]

Who's going to determine what "porno" is, a Library Filter Committee?

Uh oh. Someone doesn't know what porn is. Actually something tells me you know exactly what it is.

[prisoner6]

I just can't get onboard with putting filters or blockers on computers. Our local library recently did that and it's almost impossible for me to do any but the most basic work there.

I work in news and do a LOT of research. That includes going to some websites that may be less than child friendly...fark.com and fazed.com come to mind. Or how about The Sun online that has the page 3 girls? I've even picked up stories from Rotten.com. All of thouse are blocked on the library computers.

Of course so are sites like megaproxy...or movie websites like ioFilm.com as well as askmen.com. What if I want to shop for lengerie? Victoria's secret is blocked on our library's computers.

It'a ll ion the name of protecting the children. Just like Hillary and the ratz cry..."But think of the children!"

Thing is it's and ADULT WORLD. Parents need to supervise their kidz. If a library wants to have keys of some kind that allow adults unlimited access - which is what I believe the net should be - that's fine. But to go ahead and block everyone is just plain wrong.

Let me toss this out. If libraries should have the power to limit access to certain types of info, I would suppose that would include not just porn but graphic violence as well. I'm thinking morgue photos, or gruesome, bloody photos of people who have met with an unfortunate, grisely end. Would that include restricting access to photos of aborted children? The same pictures are used quite often in public...where everyone including children can view them.

Or what about pictures from those films some of us had to watch in dirver's ed classes? Horrible pictures of people involved in drunk driving accidents?

And finally what about medical journals? They can be quite graphic from several perspectives, but contain and display invaluable information.

prisoner6

[milan]

Second, the nanny filters have often been accused of being, well, a mite too efficient in blocking stuff out; students and adults might find that the filters keep them from doing serious research on a variety of non-risque topics

Anybody doing legitimate research does not go to the library to do it. They have access from home. All these arguments are nuts. I run "We-Blocker" at my house and sometimes it filters a bit harsh. Oh well, I guess my children will have to choose one of the other 100,000 sites that come up in the search. Get real.

What's wrong with this too: "I have to do a research paper on sex, could you please disable the filter or send me to the private room?"

[leadpenny]

We're almost back to square one. Who's gonna define porn?

And, who's gonna define "common sense?"

[NetValue]

You have a responsibility to supervise your child's use of the Internet. The library exists for the public, not just children. The library must allow free access to information even if you do not like that information. Once you succeed in getting "porn filters" will another pressure group arise to demand "Islamic filters". I hope you get the point. Once you start to censor what one group can have access to, the right of access by everyone is in jeopardy. And FYI, children do not control any part of the society; parents do, and that includes controlling the children.

[leadpenny]

Uh oh. Someone doesn't know what porn is. Actually something tells me you know exactly what it is.

Yeah, I know what porn is. It's some jack-booted thug who gets all exercised about what other people believe.

[milan]

There are several groups that already provide filtering, this isn't rocket science, but common sense.

You are absolutely correct. I manage about 500 public access computers on a university. Trust me, they should be filtered. 2 days ago I caught a little freak sneaking into the lab to download and view porn. I threw his ass out. He looked like a freaking troll. It should have never come to that. He should not have access, but the university won't filter. Why? Becuase it is a liberal institution. Yes, I have received numerous complaints about about others seeing the smut that some creep seems to have to view in public. Becuase of some of the idiot, even on this site, they are allowed to act like pervs in public.

Internet filtering can be done very well, and with literally billions of pages of information on the net, the arguement about some pages not being viewed is absurd.

[prisoner6]

Anybody doing legitimate research does not go to the library to do it.

Huh? As I mentioned I do LOTSA research, sometimes at the local library. I've been doing it for over 20 years. Remeber the Monica thing? Some of the testimony was less than suitable for kids but I accessed it while at the library several times. Today that would be blocked because of the use of several words.

Or - and in a lighter mode, I'm not trying to be confrontational...would you have sites like intercourse.com, blueballs.com, hell.com blocked? They are all the legitimate names of towns, 2 in PA, LOL.

prisoner6

[NetValue]

"Anybody doing legitimate research does not go to the library to do it."

I do not mean to insult you, but you are wrong. College students doing "legitimate research" and learning, use the library. But, is that the real point of THIS issue?

[milan]

Who cares who defines porn. As I said, any real research is going to be done on unfiltered computers. Do you honestly belive that an 11 year old kid will be hindered from his report on the Sand Piper because there is a filter running? For the sake of arguement: what do you do if a kid has to do a report on sex? Disable the filter or offer a couple computers with unrestricted access in a private area...it could be a simple cubicle. Not difficult.

The research arguement does not work. I work with thousands of researchers at the university. They don't go to the public library to do their legitimate research. If the university filtered, it would not filter their private office machines.

[milan]

Yeah, I know what porn is. It's some jack-booted thug who gets all exercised about what other people believe.

:)

[leadpenny]

Who cares who defines porn.(?)

Obviously you don't.

Not sure but I believe you have more issues than porn.

Freedom is messy. Deal with it?

[milan]

I do not mean to insult you, but you are wrong. College students doing "legitimate research" and learning, use the library. But, is that the real point of THIS issue?

I don't mean to insult you, but I am working on my masters, and if I turn in a paper with a bunch of internet links, I will fail. Legitimate research material is not pasted all over the web, it is in hardcopy form. Someone mentioned Monica Lewinski. That wasn't in hard copy? BS

[milan]

Freedom is messy. Deal with it?

Ditto

[NMFXSTC]

HA! Just for research, I went to the web site referenced in this thread to see what evil things are happening and how the reverend "citizens" address this issue (and why)...Somehow, I get a mental image of folks in dark suits with Quaker type hats (no offense to our Quaker Friends), holding Bibles (and what is this "King James version?...An English King writes a Bible? Tat's another topis, though!)...and an even more vivid image of a barney Fifle, all bug eyed and fumbling with his single bullet, prepared to blast away at a Dell or Gateway to protect the citizens of this township...here ys go"

28 June 2001

LONG HILL TWP. - Police News section - © Recorder Newspapers 2001

D.S., 38, of Pleasant Plains Road, Millington, was arrested Friday, June 22, and charged with allegedly viewing child pornography on the Internet while at the Long Hill Township public library, Central Avenue, Stirling, on Friday.

Police said they began an investigation in May after receiving a report from a library patron that D.S. was viewing pornographic material on the Internet at the library. Detectives determined through an analysis of the hard drive of the computer D.S. regularly used at the library that there were a substantial number of child pornography pictures viewed while connected to the Internet.

D.S. was lodged at the Morris County jail in Morristown pending arraignment.

The arrest and charges were the result of an investigation completed by township detectives who recently received advanced training in the area of computer-related crimes and computer data recovery. The specialized training was in response to a growing number of computer-related incidents that have been reported to police during the past year.

---

5 July 2001

LONG HILL TWP. - By JOHN P. PAVELEC, Staff Writer - © Recorder Newspapers 2001

When D.S. was arrested Friday, June 22 for allegedly viewing child pornography over the Internet at the Long Hill public library, he may have become part of a growing trend in computer-related incidents.

According to Police Capt. Mike Peoples, such incidents in the township more than tripled, from 33 in 1999 to 105 last year.

After hearing a complaint from a resident using the library, police began an investigation, sending an undercover agent to the library to trace and copy the hard drive of the computer D.S. is accused of using. He was then arrested.

D.S., 38, of Pleasant Plains Road, Millington, is one of a few arrested for viewing child pornography. According to Peoples, the most common computer-related incident is identity theft.

The library incident can also be considered a First Amendment issue, as civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and "parental rights" groups such as the Family Research Council debate whether pornography is considered free speech.

Arlene Most, director of the Long Hill library, said that if someone was caught looking at pornography at the computer stations, they would be asked to leave or to move to a computer where they could view the images by looking down through the table, thus making it harder for others to see.

People 'Very Reasonable'

"Most people are very reasonable," she said. "This is a family environment and there are children here." Most said there may have been five such complaints since 1993.

If someone is caught viewing child pornography, that person could be investigated and, if there is enough evidence, arrested. According to state law, viewing child pornography is a fourth-degree felony; a person caught viewing it can be sent to prison for up to 18 months.

But what if a person is caught viewing adult pornography? It's considered protected speech.

The library's Internet policy is in line with the law: "Because this (the Internet) is a vast and unregulated information network, it also enables access to ideas, information, images and commentary beyond the confines of the library's collection, mission, selection criteria and collection development policies. Because of this and the fact that access points on the Internet can and do change often, rapidly, and unpredictably, the library cannot protect individuals from information and images which they might find offensive or disturbing."

Some have advocated filtering technology.

"Filtering is not the end-all to this problem," Most said. "You can't eliminate it (pornography). It's something that's been there forever."

[milan]

Let me get this straight. According to you, I should be able to go to a public library and have access to all forms of pornography (beastiality, pretend child porn, pretend rape and beatings, etc.)?