Replies

Dinsdale,

a) Finally, a Library Director Who Gets It contains information about a very happy library director happy with her library's excellent filter.

b) Yes, they are responsible, but why have filters at all if the parents are solely responsible? I'm saying existing law is not being followed. The law and the US Supreme Court already asked and answered these questions. I linked to the US v. ALA case above so people could read it. My arguments are based on the failure to follow the case and the law, not on my personal feelings or beliefs or morality or parental responsibility or whatever.

c) Here are more cases that I can supply, thank you for asking: Examples of Crimes and Filters in Libraries

d) Parents are not asking that librarians watch their children. They are asking, or rather I am asking, that the existing law be applied. Us parents have a powerful ally behind us -- the US Supreme Court. All relevant questions have already been asked and answered in US v. ALA, Board of Educ. v. Pico, and others.

Take your pick as to what is more authoritative for you, the US Supreme Court or the American Library Association's "Office For Intellectual Freedom" headed by a former head of the Illinois ACLU.

a) Your reply is non-responsive the the nature of the filter. I won't just take someones word a filter works. I've seen too many that only appear to work.

b) Filters are flawed technical solutions to a social problem. They give a false sense of security when the only real security is looking over their shoulder every few minutes.

c) Cases listed include 12 year olds that defeated filters to view porn. The filters likely bought the kids time. (assuming they kept the screens pointing so they could supervise). Other heinous crimes listed are the responsibility of the scumbags not the library that they happened to occur at.

d) Some parents want only a pre-filtered white list of acceptable content available in librarys. That is a good solution for a dedicated childrens machine but not acceptable for adults doing research.

why have filters at all if the parents are solely responsible?

Really, the number of people here on FR who are unaware that the government has been routinely usurping parental prerogatives for decades can be counted on the fingers of one hand by Klutzo the (retired) Chainsaw Juggler.

It's pretty easy plan, my child will not be out of my sight, or the sight of an adult I trust with my life until she is 18 years old. Yep, you may think that's pretty strict, but I bet she never gets attacked by some sicko!! And if she does, I'll be close enough to ensure the he's the one with the broken neck, not my daughter.