High Court Weighs Library Internet Porn Filters

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80305,00.html ^

[forktail]

WASHINGTON

[forktail]

This is a tough one for me as Sys Admin.

First I know filtering barely works. Second I don't really want pr0n in my public library (if I want pr0n I will keep it at home, encrypted!)

I dislike technological solutions for human managable situations. If some kid is grepping pr0n at the Library someone should walk up behind tham and tell them to stop.

[FreePaul]

I don't know how one could filter all of the porn out of internet access. Almost every time I do a search on the internet I get some porn sight(s) referenced under innocuous names. In order to restrict use the first question is "What is porn?" I don't think that the public library should be the place to access what most agree is porn. If you have to go to the library to use a computer it should be for a more noble purpose.

[TShaunK]

This is porn!

[Under the Radar]

What has always struck me as interesting, as a librarian, is the fact that libraries and librarians are refusing to work with the software companies to improve the filters. Yes, filters are fallible, but let's compare them to search engines, for a moment. Search engines have improved exponentially in the last few years, to the point where "Googling" is now a verb. Filters work on the same principles, and can be improved along the same lines, if groups like the ALA and their ilk were willing to work with the filter designers, instead of fighting them tooth and nail.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Actually, this should be clear.

CONGRESS does not have the right to pass such a law because such passage violates the First Amendment.

The PEOPLE have the right to require that thier Public Library conform to local standards! How? The PEOPLE own the library! Re-take local control of your institutions!

[forktail]

CONGRESS does not have the right to pass such a law because such passage violates the First Amendment.

While I like the sound of that, I _am_ paying for this.

On the other hand filtering is an idiotic way to go about this. Plus as far I am aware pr0n is not illegal.

[Question_Assumptions]

I think people need to understand what "porn" on the Internet can really mean. Not soft and artistic Playboy shots but also images of every deviancy you can think of, legal and illegal. Show some of the "soccer moms" pictures of women being beaten black and blue or having sex with a dog and I'm sure you'd see people take this a lot more seriously.

[Question_Assumptions]

Plus as far I am aware pr0n is not illegal.

Please take a look at this web site for a Frontline episode concerning pornography. I believe you can watch the entire episode, if you want. Assuming you are an adult, look in the section about prosecuting porn and pay particular attention to the descriptions of what prosecutors would like to prosecute and bear in mind that this stuff is (A) being made and (B) can be found on the Inernet for free. Don't believe me? Again, if you are an adult, configure your browser to read Usenet newsgroups and read the names of the news groups starting with "alt.binaries.pictures". Assume that each group contains what it says it contains. If you are an adult and really want to look, you could just click on through. Just bear in mind that some of those images may be illegal and they may be downloaded to your computer when you look at them. Almost every ISP provides this service and the material is freely available.

A lot of people just don't realize how bad it is. The Frontline camera crew left the shoot for one pornagraphic movie because, even though it seemed consentual, they couldn't stomach what they were seeing. But the best anecdote comes from a friend who plays online computer games. After realizing he was talking with a 10 year-old, an adult friend commented that he needed to watch his language. The 10 year-old said it didn't matter. "Well wouldn't your mother be upset if she saw a bunch of curses on your computer screen." "Naaah. I'm more woried about her finding my porn collection." Yeah, that's good for kids. Not.

[forktail]

Again, if you are an adult, configure your browser to read Usenet newsgroups and read the names of the news groups starting with "alt.binaries.pictures". Assume that each group contains what it says it contains. If you are an adult and really want to look, you could just click on through. Just bear in mind that some of those images may be illegal and they may be downloaded to your computer when you look at them. Almost every ISP provides this service and the material is freely available.

I am well versed in internet pornography and find most of it repellant. I have no desire to see feet, bound feet, "schize videos", slapping, rape, or young asian girls feet bound and raped. There are people in the world who do want to see this stuff, thus the HUGE industry behind it. So again I say, it ain't illegal. Sick, but not illegal. And lest we get even more off topic anyone involved in Child Pornography should be executed.

Filtering it just won't work. Again this is NOT something that needs a technilogical fix. This needs human monitoring.

The 10 year-old said it didn't matter. "Well wouldn't your mother be upset if she saw a bunch of curses on your computer screen." "Naaah. I'm more woried about her finding my porn collection." Yeah, that's good for kids. Not.

What do you think the real problem here is? Do you think a 10 year old should be allowed all the unsupervised time it takes to download pr0n? Where are the parents in that house?

Which brings us to the real issue here. Be a responsible adult and don't go to the Library for your internet pr0n. And parent your children so they won't either.

[ThinkDifferent]

Search engines have improved exponentially in the last few years, to the point where "Googling" is now a verb. Filters work on the same principles

No they don't. Filters can't simply do keyword matching unless you want to block sites about breast cancer.

[Question_Assumptions]

Actually, quite a bit of it is illegal or would be, if actually prosecuted under existing laws. The Clinton administration simply stopped prosecuting for obscenity, which is why Larry Flint, and others, were such big Clinton supporters. Take a look at the Frontline page and read the supporting documentation -- specifically the section on prosecuting porn.

[Question_Assumptions]

With respect to filters, it is possible to have centralized monitoring services that have humans who monitor and adjust the filters. I believe some services already do this. That can work and becomes quite viable if many libraries and schools use the service. It may not catch everything but it can reduce what is available substantially.

[forktail]

I have and still do implement filter/content systems. Trust me nothing is better than a human.

[forktail]

Actually, quite a bit of it is illegal or would be, if actually prosecuted under existing laws

I don't want the Gov't wasting time with this. It is not the job of _my_ Gov't to regulate what people watch. The US population wants pornography, they prove this loud and clear everyday with their purchases of said porno.

[johnb838]

The library is no place for porno, and if they can't filter it or supervise it, maybe it is not a place for children to be on the internet. Just a thought!

[forktail]

Well I'd love to jump in and agree but if a child is going to be prepared for this world they'd better be able to use a computer to get information. A Library IS the place for that.

[Aquinasfan]

The Supreme Court was taking another look Wednesday at the fundamental problem of how government can protect the public from the seamy side of the Internet without muzzling free speech.

The First Amendment protects speech, not images that are inherently evil. The primary responsibility of the government is to promote the common good. Inhibiting the distribution of pornographic material promotes the common good. QED.

[TFMcGuire]

The first ammendment was never intended by our founding fathers to protect the publication of pornography.

Judicial activism gave us this baby.

Hopefully SCOTUS will permit the filter legislation to stand.

[forktail]

The First Amendment protects speech

I doubt the Founding Fathers ever even considered pornography as something they needed to "protect" or "regulate".

[MissBaby]

What idiot wants to allow people in a library to go to porn sites. What do they do, set up a special room, a dark room, where they can watch and no one else has to watch them.

I think there are rooms in San Francisco where they can do this. Tell them to bring a bunch of quarters and stop wasting the courts time.