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.

[milan]

I didn't make that argument so you can keep right on waiting.

Are you against filtering for porn in the public library. If you say "yes", then you made that arguement.

[milan]

I see how you work. You used the word "elitest" more than any democrat I know, and then when you are confronted with a question that is too dificult, you just ignore the question.

[ought-six]

"You don't make your point very well. You seem perfectly OK with the fact that porn is not freely available over the airwaves. Do you have a problem with the same sort of sensibility about making porn at the public library so kids can't so easily get it? If you think porn must be easily and freely available at the library, why aren't you fighting to get porn on network TV...."

I know of no instances where porn is "made at the public library" (well, maybe it is in San Francisco, but that's perhaps another story). As to its being "freely available" at the library, no, that doesn't bother me. All the library needs to do is have the computer screens visible to the staff and other patrons, and place a warning that any minor accessing a pornographic site will be barred from the library. I have no problem whatsoever with having a section reserved for adults, who should be free to access whatever they damn well please. I am a big fan of the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. I am opposed to governmental censorship. Not only does censorship strip away our freedoms, it also contributes to making the people dependent upon the government, and reduces personal responsibility, which by itself creates dependency. The nanny-staters and the socialists love that.

[ought-six]

"You didn't answer the question. Would you leave a TV set on in a childs room with porn broadcasting ? If you say yes then you are advocating censorship."

You confuse censorship by the government (which I oppose) with parental control (which I support). A parent turning off a porn station that his or her child is watching is responsible parental behavior, not censorship. Censorship means that the program can't be broadcast at all; parental control merely means that that parent responsibly forbids his or her child from viewing porn, but the program is still available for adults to view, if so inclined.

[VRWC_minion]

Censorship means that the program can't be broadcast at all; parental control merely means that that parent responsibly forbids his or her child from viewing porn, but the program is still available for adults to view, if so inclined.

Good, we are making progress. We just need to expand your narrow defintion of who is responsible for children and that a filter is merely a switch.

Now consider that a filter on a computer is no different than mechanisim that throws a switch. The porn is still being broadcast on the internet, its not being censored. All that a filter is doing is blocking access to minors. Adults still have a key to access it.

As to parental responsiility. A child is not always under parental control. Society has determined that this is a good thing. It makes sense that a child is not under 100% parental control so she may attend school, socialize etc. However, when the child is outside of the immediate control of his parent then the duties are assumed by other adults who do have control over the childs activities. These include teachers and librarians. Just as the parent can use a tool that throws a switch when porn is being broadcast, so to should other adults in a control posistion. The alternative is to decide that children should never be out of 100% control of their children.

In short, its not a debate about censorship because as you so aptly said, the porn is still beign broadcast. It is about whether our children can have the freedom to experience life without 100% control by their parents. Sadly, as a child who was free to play in the streets until the street lights came on I'm brokenhearted that my children don't have the same freedom. Your attitude will deprive their children of even more freedoms.

[Always Right]

All the library needs to do is have the computer screens visible to the staff and other patrons, and place a warning that any minor accessing a pornographic site will be barred from the library.

OK, so you ARE in favor of government censorship. What you propose is far more invasive than a filter which can be turned on or off depending on the user. I really don't see where you are coming from.

I have no problem whatsoever with having a section reserved for adults, who should be free to access whatever they damn well please.

Exactly, that what's everyone is saying. What is wrong with filtering computers kids use and have unfiltered computers for adults.

I am a big fan of the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. I am opposed to governmental censorship.

You have to be real creative to find the part in the Constitution that guarentees kids the right to access porn. Really, really, creative.

You confuse censorship by the government (which I oppose) with parental control (which I support).

Filters on computers give the parent control. Any child whose parent wishes their child to access porn, can give the library permission to let them access porn. That is a parental choice, not a government one. Filters give the parents parental control, instead of letting the government library provide recommended links for kids to pornographic sites like they currently do.

Censorship means that the program can't be broadcast at all;

Exactly. You confuse the hell out of me. How in the world do filters prevent anyone for broadcasting their message? Filters are for kids only, and can be turned off if an adult or a by child with adult permission. No one is being denied their first amendment rights to broadcast any message what so ever. This is about giving parents a tool, nothing else. Why don't you go fight laws that prevent children from going into Adult bookstores, because that is what you seem to be fighting for, the right for kids to have their porn.

[TigersEye]

I'm doubtful that you see much of anything. Clearly anyway.

[plan2succeed.org]

To All,

Here is status on what we are doing while awaiting your assistance. We met today with a judicial law clerk. She suggested that even though the Township Committee stated it would not put a filtering public question on the ballot, we should still find out what is the controlling statute, then follow it to get a question on the ballot, then go to court only if the Township Committee refuses to comply. Good idea.

Regarding our request for pro bono counsel, we are currently corresponding with possible leads.

[TigersEye]

May I suggest that you ping a number of people who were interested in your project; not just me. By ping I mean put their names in the "to:" line as yours is in this post. Better still, since threads get 'cold' after a few days and few people go back to them, you might start a new thread to update things. Use a title that people who posted on this thread will recognize or ping interested parties to it.

Good luck, TigersEye

[squarebarb]

As always when the subject is pornography these threads get cluttered up by people arguing against "censorship" and other who try to reason with them. Anybody who is against filters for kids in public libraries is not worth arguing with. You are wasting your time.

the San Antonio Public library at first resisted filters in the name of 'free speech' but soon backed off. All is now filtered and not just for kids.

I remember when you could get porn in the SA public library.The creepy scuzzbags who sat eagerly awaiting their time on the 'puters were absolutely sinister. They shouted at the librarians to put them at the top of the list. They instantly clicked up raw, ugly porn when they got on while little kids were playing around right next to them. They were frightening people. Dirty, addicted, young males.

Now they have filters. Now the glassy-eyed dirty orcs are gone.

[plan2succeed.org]

Squarebarb: Exactly the problem. Whom do you suggest we contact to find out how San Antonio, a beautiful town, got filters past the ALA?

TigersEye: Thanks for the tip. We are new here so we appreciate it. We may launch a new thread here based on what you said after we have some major news for everyone. We are in fact working on many things behind the scenes.

[alexandria]

First of all sorry it has taken so long to get back to you.

The netstat command can be used to determine and/or monitor the status of network connections. Assuming you are a school administrator

Not an administrator. I am the IT person for the high school which includes the library. I tried the "netstat' command but would have to study the "normal" traffic flow to find aberrant behavior.
Our filter was put into place after a 6th grade student accessed the Internet while a substitute teacher was not watching what they were doing. He then printed out a very inappropriate picture and a 4th grader happened to see it on the bus. (I think she was a sibling of the perp)
The 4th grader screams out "Oh GROSS!" Which alerts the bus driver, who alerts the school, but not before the parents of that girl and her friend with her called the school ranting.
The filter was extremely restrictive at first, there had to have been alot of adjustments made at the county level to make it more flexible. I could not even access Free Republic for awhile.
The main thing that works is the knowledge that I can "peek" in on them at any time with Network assistant (Macintosh) and watch or control their computer. That brought most of them in line. If you have other questions feel free to Freepmail me!

[steve-b]

The federal government has additional money available

I never thought I would have to explain this here:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY MONEY.
THE TAXPAYERS HAVE MONEY. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY REDISTRIBUTE IT.

[ought-six]

"Can you believe it's even a problem? That's why we have joined the FreeRepublic.com, to find like-minded people to help us with our quest to protect children from the American Library Association and our local public library. Thank you very much." I'm reminded of the gun-grabbers clarion call of "If it save's just one child's life." First off, responsible parents hopefully would have told their children to stay away from porn websites. Secondly, you advocate the violation of the rights of adults. Thirdly, governmental censorship is a very dangerous slippery slope I don't think you want to go down. Because, for instance, what if someone demanded that any access to religious material be restricted, because public libraries are in fact government-run facilities? And you know what the ACLU says about separation of church and state. I am against censorship, except for the voluntary censorship of the marketplace (if you don't like something, don't buy it, or don't watch it, or don't listen to it, or don't read it). I have no problem with public libraries having "Kids" sections with filtered computers, but then you'll need to restrict kids to just that area, and parents will have to sign waivers that they will not sue the library if a kid complains that he or she couldn't access something they needed for a class project. Hell, kids can walk into the stacks and see all manner of things in books that are on the shelves, anyway. I guess you'll have to keep kids away from the stacks, as well.

[ought-six]

Oh, puleeeeze! You are saying that someone sees a risque website and then grabs the first woman who walks by? Give me a break! Do you belong to the MMM, as well?

[ought-six]

"This is not book burning. It is common sense, of which you are apparently lacking."

Ah, the "common sense" angle, I see. Kind of like all the "common sense" gun laws, and the "common sense" EPA laws, and all the other "common sense" restrictions on our freedoms.

[ought-six]

"The issue is not censorship, not privacy, it's how to get the town to do what the citizens want instead of what a union of porn-pushing librarians want. Please learn more at www.plan2succeed.org then help us. Thank you."

Ah, yes, the tyranny of democracy (i.e., the tyranny of the majority). A true democracy is a terrifying thing, my friend, because it allows the majority to do whatever it wants to anyone it wants as long as it has the majority vote to do so. A true democracy is 100 people deciding that 95 people are not worth the air they breathe, so it's okay to ethnically cleanse them. You can keep your pure democracy. Me, I'll take a constitutional republic.

[Always Right]

Secondly, you advocate the violation of the rights of adults.

You still don't get it. Adults will still be able to access the internet unfiltered. Shoot, kids can even get total access if they have permission from their parents. There is absolutely no one's rights being violated. I can't see why it is so hard to understand that point.

[Always Right]

Geesh, I thought the issue was about age appropriateness. Whether one lives in a democracy or a republic, is age appropriateness no longer a consideration?

True, but ought-six thinks that is up to the parent to decide, which is true to an extent. What ought-six refuses to acknowledge is that this filter is optional at the choice of the parent. Any adult can go in and access the entire unfiltered internet and even a child with parental permission could. Ought-six goes postal about freedoms when no one's freedom is being denied. Well except for a minor child who wishes to view porn against the wishes of the parents, but then there are laws already against that. The current system actually is aiding and abetting delinquency of minors. In the end, the only thing ought-six is fighting for is the right for minor children to illegal access porn against the parents wishes using taxpayers dollars. I wish he would explain how in the world that is conservative, but he avoids the real issue here by going off on rights which aren't even being denied.