Posted on 01/12/2005 9:55:41 AM PST by DBeers
RICHMOND — Lawmakers in Virginia will consider legislation that would require all public libraries to install filters on computers that would screen out sexually explicit Web sites.
"Protecting children from online predators must be a priority," said Delegate Samuel A. Nixon Jr., Chesterfield Republican, who authored the bill. "It's a sad fact that child exploitation is one of the fastest-growing threats. ... Something needs to be done."
Mr. Nixon said Internet filters are inexpensive, easy to use, and do not violate constitutional rights.
The bill is part of the Family Foundation's legislative agenda for this year's session, which begins tomorrow. The bill is similar to federal law that mandates that public libraries put blocking technology on computers as a condition for receiving federal money. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 upheld the use of anti-pornography Internet filters in public libraries.
-snip-
Opponents of such legislation argue that it amounts to censorship, and relies on imperfect technology that can block legitimate sites on such topics as abortion or homosexual rights.
The American Library Association has opposed the measure.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
ping
Many Internet content filters block FreeRepublic on various grounds. These are why filters are a bad idea: even the best are subject to editorial control, and the editors are most likely not on your side.
These filters are notoriously porous. Put any healthy 14-year-old boy in front of a filtered browser and ask him to find some porn. It'll be on the screen in seconds.
Filters are pretty useless, overall. What works better is the internal filter installed in the kid by his/her parents. That should keep most porn off their screens.
If you can't look at porn at the library, what's the point of going?
Which reminds me. I need to sue the local library for censorship because they don't carry Cherry magazine.
I don't know. I don't think FR registers as porn on a filter. I could be wrong.
Please don't associate the words "healthy" and "porn". It isn't good for you, or we'd put it on the back of Cereal packets.
Apparently this filter suffers from a lot of installation errors.
Lost to the ALA and ACLU.
Still bothered by the parade of issues that followed as "mainstream" liberal do-gooders and NIMBY move-ins try to change our way of life in the County.
Do I sound bitter?
oops.
Did I write all that or just think it?
oops again.
"Apparently this filter suffers from a lot of installation errors."
No doubt.
No. But it does register as "hate speech", "extreme speech", "objectionable material" and such on some filters. In addition, in many cases, librarians have been free to block conservative sites such as FR, worldnetdaily.com, newsmax.com, lucianne.com, etc. by manually editing filters, and they have taken the opportunity to do so.
It would be hard to imagine people cruising porn sites at my two regular Fairfax libraries. The computers are in the middle of open areas, and are completely visible by the staff at the reference desks.
As long as they block the porn, I don't care. As best i can tell, we are not guaranteed the right to use a computer at the library.
Porn Filters to protect our Children are a great idea!
The illegal phone tax I pay goes to subsidize libraries and their internet access...I do NOT want my $$ going to promote Porn to Children!!
Thank you, Family Foundation!
http://www.familyfoundation.org
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.