Replies

Prime Choice: adult supervision of children is fine but not the only issue.

It's not? Every time I see the library-porn flag raised, it's invariably "for the children."

The fact is that many adults use the porn to harass other patrons and the staff.

Fine. Ban the creeps, then. Causing a public nuisance is not protected speech.

One library settled a sexual harassment law suit for over $600K caused by the use of unfiltered computers.

So? The library shouldn't have been sued in the first place. It's about time people took responsibility for their own actions instead of shopping around for friendly judges and deep pockets.

Read our site to learn more about this.

I know plenty about it already, and I can't support the ridiculous notion that filters are going to do anything but cause more problems and raise expenses unnecessarily.

And as far as any bias by content filters, the US v. ALA US Supreme Court case allows the filters to be disabled by adults just to prevent such problems.

So it's okay in your view for the kiddies to be raised with the notion that their Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a BAD thing? Sorry, can't sign off on that.

There is no censorship where you just have to ask to disable the filters.

I never mentioned censorship. What I did mention is that these filters are inordinately Leftist in nature in terms of their pro-"safe sex", pro-abortion and anti-Second Amendment bias. I won't support that sort of rot being forced on anyone of any age.

Prime Choice: So glad you noticed the issue is not only about the children but also about all citizens as well. You could be in the library when you are attacked by someone who had been viewing porn. It happens more often than you think because the media are not reporting such incidents. I encourage you to see our web site to become more fully educated on this issue and to address your other concerns.

Fine. Ban the creeps, then. Causing a public nuisance is not protected speech.

Neither is pornography--at least it wasn't for the first 180 years of our nation's history:

Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942):

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words....It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Furthermore...

Roth vs. The United States (1957)

"Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press--either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States.... In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.... The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance--unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion--have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance."

This is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment was never intended to protect nude dancing, crotch-shots, kiddie porn, etc.

This is a separation of powers issue. Do local municipalities have the right to restrict certain behaviors or not? If you say they don't based on a flawed interpretation of the national constitution, I would say that YOU are the one espousing tyrannical national control over local self-government.