Librarians to argue that blocking online porn is censorship
Posted on 03/25/2002 9:15:49 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Librarians to argue that blocking online porn is censorship
Court to hear case against 2000 federal law tied to tech grants
03/25/2002
PHILADELPHIA - A battle over free speech and online pornography returns to the nation's birthplace Monday as librarians try to convince a federal court that requiring them to block access to adult materials amounts to censorship.
Library officials and free-speech advocates say the filtering technology used to block Internet porn is imperfect and can also inadvertently block important information on health, sexuality and social issues.
"Instead of relying on filtering technology, we should be educating children," said Judith Krug of the American Library Association. "It's not only learning the difference between right and wrong but how to use information wisely. ... There are no quick fixes."
The trial before a three-judge federal court panel starts Monday and is expected to last at least a week.
The lead plaintiffs are the library association and the Multnomah County Library in Portland, Ore., which wants to offer patrons a choice between filtered and unfiltered Internet access.
The battle is over a 2000 federal law requiring schools and libraries to block pornography as a condition for receiving certain federal technology grants. The lawsuit challenges only the requirement on libraries, which have until July to comply.
The government contends that the law does not censor libraries because they can simply decline to accept funding.
The law's supporters say that if printed pornographic materials are not in a library's collection there is no reason why they should be available to library patrons online. They also say that filtering software has vastly improved since the measure was passed, making fewer mistakes and allowing librarians or administrators to unblock sites blocked in error.
"They're still not perfect, but neither are safety belts, and we use them," said Miriam Moore of the Family Research Council.
Critics say they shouldn't be forced to pay for flawed technology that hinders more than it helps.
Ms. Krug cited examples of filters blocking Web sites of golfer Fred Couples, as well as American Indian groups because of references to peyote a plant used in native religious ceremonies but banned in many states for its hallucinogenic properties.
Filters can be set to block sites that appear on a "denial list" or contain objectionable words. Some filters can also block e-mail and chat room messages.
Some porn still gets through unless the filters are based on lists of preapproved sites, but that approach also rejects more legitimate content.
Congress first tried to combat online porn in 1996 by making it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. The Supreme Court struck down the law in 1997, saying it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights.
A year later, Congress narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically. Sites must collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed "harmful to minors."
A federal appeals court has barred enforcement of the 1998 law, saying the standards are so broad that the law is probably unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this year.
Like the latest lawsuit, challenges to the 1996 and 1998 laws began at the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.
When we first installed the computers, we assumed that they'd mostly be used by students, genealogists, people doing medical research, that sort of thing. What we got instead were creepy middle-aged men who'd sit and stare at the screen for hours. Once we learned how to check the browser histories, we found out why. They were accessing every kind of porn you could imagine. And this was in our reference room, with kids doing homework ten feet away.
Luckily, our board of trustees approved filtering as soon as we told them what was happening. Within two weeks of installing the filtering software, most of the perverts had lost interest and vanished. Only one person hung around complaining about "censorship"; he was recently arrested for posession of child pornography.
Now when students come in, there are actually computers available for them. The computers are being used for education and research, the things they were intended for when the library bought them.
The ALA loves to wring their hands and say "Oh, but filters are imperfect! They block access to legitimate information!" Sure, if you buy a cheap piece of software, you're going to get what you pay for. (I actually know of librarian at a nearby library who purposely bought the worst filter she could find, so as not to "censor any more than she had too.") But there are execellent, highly configurable filters on the market. I know, we have one.
I agree that parents should take responsibility for supervising their children. But the fact is that most of them don't. Parents assume that the library is a safe place and use it as free day care. I've seen kids so young they need help going to the bathroom dumped at the library for an hour or more while mommy goes grocery shopping. That kind of parent doesn't think twice about leaving a 12-year-old alone at a public computer for several hours. If we insist that kids under a certain age must have a parent supervising them, the parents look at us like we're from Mars.
If an adult patron wanted to read the book, he or she had to request it. I don't think any of the librarians were saying (back then, anyway) that children should have had access to the book.
Wasn't that "safeguard" a little bit like putting an adults-only filter on the library's internet access?
If kids can't take out adult material without an adult card, should the library provide them access to adult internet material?
I simply can't understand any librarian who would actually want someone to be looking at porn in the library. Yuck.
Congressman Billybob
That is not the issue. Not even remotely.
If it were just about "loss of information," the ALA activists would be willing to take a reasonable position on what can or cannot be viewed on these publicly owned internet access points.
"Reasonable" is defined in the same sense that libraries do not prominently display Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc. on the normal magazine racks -- if they have them in-house at all. It's quite simply inappropriate for a publicly-owned enterprise to distribute smut.
Instead, the ALA has taken a preposterous all-or-nothing approach that can best be interpreted as yet another extension of the libertine sexual agenda that we see wherever liberals make their homes.
America is a country which holds free expression of opinion to be sacred. That does not mean all opinions are equal. Today, the Commission will hear many opinions on a controversial subject: How to protect children using public access Internet terminals in libraries from predatory pedophiles ... while simultaneously preserving our First Amendment freedoms and respecting the library community's traditional aversion to censorship. Because I hope for your attention, because I want you to value my opinion, I need to take a couple of minutes to explain my standing to speak to those issues.
My first exposure to what I have come to consider the greatest threat to humanity on this planet was as an investigator for the United States Public Health Service more than thirty years ago. At that time, the agency's goal was eradication of sexually transmitted disease, with syphilis as its major target. The technique was field epidemiology. Investigators were dispatched each time a positive test for syphilis was reported. It was our job to interview the infected individual and obtain all his or her sexual contacts within the critical period (which varied, depending on the stage of syphilis encountered). Then we had to find those contacts, arrange for them to be tested, and follow up on any new cases in the same manner. Syphilis is a "chain"-type infection. It was our job to break those chains.
As you might imagine, some people were quite forthcoming, while others were quite adamantly ... not. Some kept detailed address books. Others professed only the vaguest recollections. Often I would find myself spending several straight days and nights tracking a sexual contact, sometimes with nothing more than a nickname or a physical description and the address of a pick-up bar to guide me. Investigators had no defined territory. I routinely visited juke joints, whore houses, migrant labor camps, county jails, crumbling shacks, and back alleys. I also spent time in country clubs, exclusive neighborhoods, and penthouses. And what I learned was that child sexual abuse has no socioeconomic boundaries.
Most people's knowledge of child sexual abuse comes via the media. And the media tends to focus its attention on both extremes of the "debate." I use that word sarcastically because extremists are driven by belief-systems, not facts.
So the public is given a choice of believing that "one out of every five children will be sexually abused by the time they reach eighteen," or that the whole thing is a "witch hunt," driven by a tidal wave of "false allegations." The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the much-less-newsworthy middle.
My own knowledge of the subject preceded the debates. It came from infants born with syphilis, from toddlers with prolapsed rectums ... and gonorrhea, from pre-teens already in an advanced stage of venereal disease. So while I do not subscribe to some of the hyperbolic "estimates" of the extent of child sexual abuse in America, I also know, beyond dispute, that some children are victimized. Every day.
My next job was field caseworker for the infamous New York City Department of Welfare. It's fashionable to talk about the dire effects of poverty upon children. It's quite another to see it. And it's a hideous sight.
But what I saw next was even uglier. I left the Department of Welfare to enter the war zone in a place once known as Biafra ... a fledgling country which literally vanished during a genocidal tribal conflict. Those who once called themselves Biafrans are now governed by the military regime in Nigeria. Those who survived, that is.
My assignment was to attempt to establish a "direct pay" system, so that the millions and millions of dollars donated by Americas whose hearts were torn at the daily television coverage of forcibly starved children ... for starvation was a major weapon of war in that conflict ... could be translated into food without the usual "administrative costs." Unbeknownst to any of us, by the time I left America, Biafra had virtually fallen. Although I was able to enter the land-locked zone by air, setting up anything resembling a system was impossible. No infrastructure remained—survival was the only goal.
But before I was evacuated, malnourished and suffering from malaria, I saw how horribly children pay the cost for the wars of adults. The same way the children of Rwanda and Bosnia and Somalia are paying today. The abuse of such children is systematic, deliberate, and, since the goal is nothing less than ethnic dominance, chillingly effective.
After I returned to America and recovered, I worked a number of jobs. Briefly: I was a juvenile probation officer, ran a community outreach center for urban migrants, and a re-entry organization for ex-cons. Finally, I directed a maximum security prison for aggressive-violent youth. It was there I learned, with the kind of clarity only daily, intense contact can bring, the direct connection between child abuse and later criminal conduct.
I learned that all the biogenetic theories, all the "born bad" explanations, were nonsense. We make our own monsters and we build our own beasts.
And while there is no one-to-one correlation, while most abused children do not turn predator as adults ... although they do continue to abuse themselves in a variety of ways: drug addiction, alcoholism, suicide; and to be especially good candidates for being abused by others ... I have never met a gratification-driven criminal who was not abused as a child.
At that point, I had spent my entire professional life trying to protect children. But the experience left me frustrated and angry. I was tired of spending so much of my time fighting to circumvent policies which were designed to fail. And I was tired of getting fired for trying. I needed a way I could fight for children without the handicaps of government or grantsmanship.
That's when I went to law school. And for the past 20-odd years, I have represented children. Abused children, neglected children. And, sometimes, very dangerous children. I have represented children against institutions, agencies, and individuals. And against their own parents. If there is anything that can be done to kids I haven't seen, I hope I never see it.
Although I experienced the gratification that only those whose work is truly meaningful can know, I was unable to make a living with only children as clients. So, for a time, I financially balanced my practice with conventional criminal defense work ... which paid quite well.
In 1985, my first novel was published. And, unlike the textbook which preceded it, the novel was a real success. So much so that, since then, I have been fortunate enough to be able to represent children exclusively, using the proceeds from publishing to make up the deficits.
The novels are Trojan horses; an organic extension of my law practice. My way of reaching a bigger jury than I could ever find in a courtroom. And I, like every other writer in America, rely on the library community to make my work available to many others ... to make it accessible.
As a child in Manhattan, the library was one of my favorite refuges, a truly magical place whose open doors opened many doors for me. As a teenager, I attended a high school on Long Island whose name will be recognized by every librarian: Island Trees High School. For those of you not familiar with the reference, the school board removed certain books it found "offensive" from the school libraries. The case went to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that: "The ... right to receive information and ideas ... is an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press that are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution."1
I was proud of our country for that decision. And I don't believe libraries have a more fervent supporter than me. But my support is not robotic, and my conduct will not be dictated by slogans.
Before I explain my position, let me tell you some of the things I have learned about predatory pedophiles. I am careful not to call such individuals simply "pedophiles," because "pedophilia" is a state of mind, not conduct. To "feel the feelings" may be "sick." But to act on those feelings ... that is evil.
Why do I call it "evil?" Because it is neither the product of ignorance nor a mental illness ... it is a choice.
Although defense attorneys love psycho-babble terms such as "pedophilia," pedophiles themselves loudly proclaim they are not "sick" and don't need treatment. Here's a typical statement:
This [article, entitled "Pedophiles need treatment, not publicity"] would at first seem to be an understanding article, but it is even more dangerous than raving pedo-killers:
"Man, we are not sick—no matter how badly this fact shatters your view of the world. No sickness, no treatment, no involuntary confinement to asylums."
Where did I find this proclamation? On the website of the International Pedophile Liberation Front2... within the section they call their "Enemies List." I am quite proud to be on that list.
And perhaps even prouder of what they say about me:
"This guy is defined as a 'crusader' against the exploitation of children. He is not particularly anti-sex, and some of his arguments are comparatively sound, although 'It's Only Propaganda,' as usual."3
Not only would I oppose any attempt to censor their right of free speech, I agree with them on both counts ... they are not "sick" and they don't require "treatment." And I certainly cannot quarrel with their listing me as an enemy.
In truth, there is no such disease as "pedophilia." Literally translated, it means "lover of children," which would be their own self-definition, not a diagnosis. But a pedophile's love of children is the same love you might feel for a hamburger. Something to be consumed. An object you make for yourself ... or buy from another. Chronic repetition of the same crime does not entitle one to call his conduct a mental illness. If I were to walk into court with a man accused of a string of liquor-store holdups, I doubt the jury would buy the argument that my client suffers from "armed robber-ia."
More importantly, child molesters do not want to be "cured." They are proud of their evil work. They say the only thing wrong with their conduct is our out-moded society's Jurassic and oppressive mores. They lobby intensely for the right to molest ... which they call lowering the age of "consent" for children to have sex ... and call themselves "child advocates" in the process.
In truth, the essence of each child molester is that he or she4 is a sociopath ... an individual utterly devoid of empathy, driven by his own needs to the exclusion of law, ethics, or morals ... an individual indifferent to (and in some cases, excited by) the pain and trauma of his victims. The foundation to all treatment is a desire to change. And no psychiatrist will ever claim to have "cured" a sociopath.
Do not allow yourselves to be seduced by the tempting belief that "pedophilia" is just another "addiction." All addictions are marked by one significant characteristic—the specific efforts of some of those afflicted to rid themselves of such shackles. If you are a narcotics addict, an alcoholic, an over-eater, an anorexic, an obsessive-compulsive ... you can find self-help organizations keyed to your problem. Places where you can walk in and be among your fellows ... those who have suffered as you are and who want to help you overcome.
So why is it that all the "pedophile treatment" programs are occupied only by those who are court-ordered to attend? Why is it that there are no walk-ins, no individuals seeking treatment on their own? And why is it that the only time you hear a child molester express "remorse" is when he is facing a sentencing court or a parole board?
And if "pedophilia" is a "disease," where is the cure? Recidivism rates5 for predatory pedophiles are frightening. And when one considers that "recidivism" is only for those caught and convicted and that the average child molester has committed many dozen sexual assaults before he is first captured, that fear turns to terror.
What is the significance of recidivism statistics? They point out clearly that predatory pedophiles are committed to their course of conduct. Unlike, say, armed robbers, they do not "burn out" with age. Unlike, say, drug addicts, they are not amenable to treatment. Indeed, do you know what the pedophile organizations call an individual who claims to have abandoned his commitment to sex with children? A traitor.
Predatory pedophiles are not sick individuals who need our help. They are human beings whose preferred conduct is sexual exploitation of children. They cannot be "cured." And, given the softness of our existing laws—we live in a country where an offender can expect a life sentence for a pocketful of cocaine ... and probation for a trunkload of kiddie porn—deterrence is not to be expected either. Faced with predators, we have only two concurrent courses of action: One, we must interdict them wherever possible, and Two, once we catch them, we must keep them.
I come before you as a man with two professions, both of which hold reading and learning as vital to their existence.
But as much as I revere the public libraries, I am here to tell you that, when it comes to the Internet, cries of "Censorship!" have become the new McCarthyism. Merely evoking that talismanic label guarantees resistance. And libraries will always be at the forefront of such resistance, determined not to restrict anyone's right to speak or listen. This is as it should be.
But before we kneejerk ourselves into collaboration with pedophiles, let us deconstruct the slogans. Let us define "speech" operationally, not as an abstract. And when we apply that test, we know that child pornography is not "speech"—it is the photograph of a crime ... and the trophy of a predator. It cannot be produced without violating a child. It is per se contraband, and not within the orbit of First Amendment protection. If kiddie porn is "speech," then so is a snuff film.
All right then, what about the sanctity of words ... spoken or written? Again, definitions are key, as all words are not "speech" as defined by the Constitution. "Leave a hundred thousand dollars in a paper bag at the bus station or you'll never see your child alive again." Written words, sure ... but not "speech." The criminal law clearly recognizes some "speech" as conduct.
If we are going to call a kidnapper's ransom note "speech," we may as well call a thug's mugging "performance art."
I spoke earlier about child pornography. There are certainly those who, while admitting it is a crime to produce or distribute child pornography, claim they have a free-speech right to display it. That argument is another red herring (pun intended); another example of the threat to brand you as a "Censor" opposed to free speech.
And where is this specious argument most fervently advanced? On the holy Internet, of course. After all, the purveyors claim, they are just displaying, not selling, the material. Doesn't that prove their motives are pure?
To answer such sophistry requires no mind-reading ability. Kiddie porn on the Internet serves the same two major purposes it serves in any other forum ... and one unique to the medium. First, kiddie porn tells the child molester viewing it that he or she is not a freak, not alone in his degeneracy. He has comrades, supporters, and, most importantly, others who are both a potential source and a potential recipient of the same material. Indeed, most child sex rings begin with the traditional exchange of trophies, proof that they have children under their control, ready for exchange or rent. Second, kiddie porn is used to desensitize potential victims. It is no secret that children are highly susceptible to peer influence, and child pornography is part of every predatory pedophile's engagement repertoire ... "See, it's okay ... plenty of other kids do it."
But the Internet has yet a third special use ... it has become the way to "test market" a product. A product which, if compared to other contraband such as narcotics, offers a great risk-vs-return advantage. Especially if you can grow the product in your own home.
And, yet, the greatest danger of the Internet to vulnerable children is not the display of kiddie porn ... it is the very real potential for enticement. [see: "Adult Charged After Meeting 11-year-old" (Detroit Free Press)]
The process has been described as follows:
"It begins with fantasy, moves to gratification through pornography, then voyeurism, and finally to contact." The Internet is a superhighway down the path of that perverse pattern, giving child sexual predators instant access to potential victims and anonymity until a face-to-face meeting can be arranged.6But, unlike those who confuse cynicism with intellect, I believe we can increase radically our protection of children without trampling on the First Amendment ... if we make it an exercise in problem-solving, not the exchange of slogans.
To achieve this, we must stop using immaturity as a two-edged sword. We don't let children vote or sign contracts because they lack the maturity to make informed decisions in their own self-interest. Must we be told to "leave them alone" when it comes to judging whether an on-line stranger is really who he claims to be? It's easy enough to say that this is the parent's responsibility. Well, as a parent, I can control (at least to some extent) what my child sees on our home computer. But if the library, in effect, removes the restrictions I have put in place, must I then bar my child from the library to protect him?
Ah, but the free-speech McCarthyites tell us, the Internet is neutral. It is a medium, not a message. And we wouldn't want to protect our children from knowledge, now would we?
Sure, the Internet itself is neutral. A piece of technology. A tool. It acquires significance not by what it is, but by how it is used.
So does a gun.
This is a classic example of how sloganeering—especially the kind driven by a belief-system rather than logic—can cloud even the most vital issues. Because, in truth, any NRA member who advocated that children be allowed to play with guns, unsupervised, would find himself alone, shunned by his fellow gun owners as either irresponsible or insane. Even those of us who hotly debate gun control have enough common sense remaining to join forces on that one critical point.
Now, for the predatory pedophile, accessing a child via the Internet is a lot easier (and safer) than trolling a playground. As I said before, in my opinion, the real danger of the Net to children lies in its interactive capability.
I would no more allow a young child unsupervised access to live "chat" on the Internet than I would allow him to play with my .357 magnum.
Does that make me a ... censor? I guess it depends on your definition. The actual ... as opposed to pedophile-serving ... definition is that it does not.
Does that mean if we restrict access to live Internet "chat" today, we will be restricting access to books tomorrow? Beware that sort of "logical extension" argument so beloved of manipulators. NAMBLA, the infamous "North American Man-Boy Love Association," for example, presents itself as a "gay" organization ... claiming their desire to have sex with male children places them on the extreme end of a homosexual continuum. Then they use the "First they came for the Jews" slogan to frighten gays into supporting them in the belief that, if they do not, they will be next. Here's NAMBLA's position ...
Our movement today stresses the liberation of young people. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream.7
I would not dispute NAMBLA's "free speech" right to call themselves homosexual ... or even child advocates (another self-awarded title). And I assume they would not dispute the expression of my opinion that they are no more "homosexual" than a male who rapes a little girl is "heterosexual," and that all they really "advocate" is child molestation.
Here is my question for you: Could an obviously underage child check out an "R" rated movie from your library?
If libraries are going to provide interactive opportunities—be it "chat," Instant Messages, e-mail communication or any other form—why is permission from a parent not required? Indeed, while I am opposed to "filters"—which I believe to be an impotent remedy—I see no constitutional right to "chat" provided by public funds.
As a research tool, the Net has much to offer. But "chat" is not research. And while it most certainly is a form of "speech," the enticement of children for the sexual gratification of an adult is not a protected form of speech.
Parents are told: monitor your home computer; make sure your child isn't vulnerable to predators; take responsibility. But it goes without saying that when my child is visiting the library without me, that same computer is now "open." Would requiring each underage user who wants to go on-line to show a permission slip from his or her parents be "censorship?" Would marking certain library computers as "adults only" be "censorship?"
Indeed, on what "free speech" grounds is interactive cyber-communication guaranteed by public funds? Anyone claiming that the failure of the public library system to offer free telephone service amounts to "censorship" would be dismissed as a loon. But the very word "Internet" has become a slogan all by itself, so zealously guarded by some that any restriction on its use is tarred with the "censorship" brush.
It's time to stop playing with vocabulary and ask the blunt questions. Here's one: Are you saying to the American people that if they allow their children access to the library, then they have implicatorily given their consent for pedophiles to have access to them? I don't think so. And I don't think that reasonable preventative measures are "censorship." The power to name things is the power to control people. All of us here probably agree that censorship is wrong. But if we allow zealots or those with a covert agenda to define "censorship," it will not be free speech we are encouraging and protecting ... it will be child molesters. Believe it or not, these remarks were not intended as a filibuster. I came here to be a resource, and I'm certain I would be more of a resource if I answered your questions instead of expounding, so ....
The word "Republican?"
Billybob
{smile}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.