[CounterCounterCulture]

Can't say I was surprised. I figured we'd have three votes and not much else. The phony alternative does virtually squat.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Another report (with video)...

SJ council votes down library porn filters

SAN JOSE, CA (KGO) -- Pornography and lewd acts are certainly not what you expect to see at the public library. So Tuesday night, the San Jose City Council considered its options, but ultimately did not pass a proposal to put filters on computer screens.

The proposal failed seven to three, but the council did say they will require a screen that comes up making sure users agree they will not participate in any illegal activities on the Internet.

(snip)

ABC7's 2006 I-Team investigation captured several library patrons performing lewd acts while visiting porn sites.

(snip)

[lentulusgracchus]

Thank goodness free speech prevailed over its benighted detractors!

Wonder if the Council would consider a pedophiles' guide to "Where the Children Are", or maybe an online directory to kids' unique URL's, chat rooms, and so on?

</s>

[flowerplough]

In today’s post-literate America, public libraries are primarily free internet porn portals for stinky, drug-addled, mentally-ill, unemployable men. The paid members of the library staff usually see job security in their patrons’ hours and aren’t willing to restrict even the most objectionable uses of their facilities.

[Nick Danger]

Plus, the liberal librarians can set the filter to block 'right-wing hate sites' like Free Republic.

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

I’d rather have free, completely accessible computers arranged in a ring, with everyone’s screens facing inwards (so that no one has long-range privacy), than have filters that could mistake medical images for porn, and block them, and that too, in a library.

[Venturer]

Put up some plywood walls and charge a quarter every 5 minutes and turn the library into the peep show it apparently has turned in to. Why not sell a few sex toys at the desk and get some good looking librarians.

[camle]

as I understand the issue, it kind of goes like this:

if you put filters on, you’re sayign “You can’t access anything BAD”, which also means “what you CAN access is therefore GOOD”.

Since no filter gets everything out, then you’re saying that “THIS porn site is GOOD because you can access it through the filters”.

why suddenly the public has a free right to the internet is beyond me.

[Star Traveler]

Better to have *no filters* than to have some filters — especially when one finds out (later on) that they’ll “add” things to filters that they don’t want in there (like so-called “right-wing extremist” literature)... LOL...

[LuxAerterna]

Its just another example of California becoming an increasingly unglued and dysfunctional state.