[End Times Sentinel]

So, blocking on line porn at the library is censorship, but when my local library continues to refuse my requests to carry Swank, that’s no problem? This just doesn't add up.

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

[Dog Gone]

It's censorship, but I have to wonder what kind of person looks at porn in the library.

[johniegrad]

Shouldn't that be "Libertarians" in the title?

[The Old Hoosier]

When I saw the title, I thought at first it said "libertarians." :)

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

It always amuses me when librarians scream about censorship. What do they think they're doing when they decide what books to acquire... or NOT to acquire... for their libraries?

Tim

[Congressman Billybob]

The key factor here, which the librarians deliberately miss, and the AP writer may have "accidentally" missed, is this: The federal government is NOT telling any library that it MUST put in the blocking software to stop porn.

What the government is saying is, "If you want to receive moeny from us, you must do this." Any library that wants to receive porn on its Internet servers is perfectly free to refuse the money and do business as usual.

The fatal flaw in this arguement is exactly the same as the "lady" who got nude and covered herself in chocolate and said it was "censorship" if the government didn't give her a grant for her "artistic endeavors."

Anybody has a constitutional right to create whatever they call "art." Nobody has a constitutional right to receive taxpayers' money to support that art.

With the librarians, it is one step worse. What they are defending is not merely offensive and stupid, it is also illegal, They might as well say, it offends the Constitution not to allow our patrons to bring guns into the libraries.

Oops, I forgot. These are lefties. I don't suppose they will make that last argument.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to fight Shays-Meehan.

Click here for latest column: "Does Anybody READ the Constitution?"

[RAT Patrol]

It is not censorship unless public nudity bans are censorship as well. You can't walk around naked not because you are not free to be naked but because others will see you. It is the same thing. They are free to produce and consume porn, just not in public where others can see it.

[Paraclete]

Their stand is hypocritical. Librarians and library boards constantly make censorship decisions. When was the last time you saw the latest copy of Hustler on the reading rack of your Public Library?

[AppyPappy]

Why do people need internet access at the library? Geez, another hole to throw tax money in.

[NC_Libertarian]

Those dang LIBERALarians. :p

[hoosierham]

This is why the libraries don't have books? like Playboy and American Rifleman-they don't want boys playing with their guns.

[gfactor]

while blocking porn may not be censorship, it always involves blocking things that aren't porn -- which is. either that or it doesn't effectively block porn. THATS the issue at hand.

[The Old Hoosier]

When I saw the title, I thought at first it said "libertarians." :)

[Cachelot]

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.

They may be right, in a way. Because internet porn is a running battle between blockers and porn purveyors. Typically, porn outlets will metatag their stuff to show up in all kinds of unrelated searches, such as for the stuff mentioned above but also in other niches. Often these niches are targetted towards young people. And then there's the spoofed site-names (white-house.com anyone?), and legitimate domain names that the porners collect on a regular basis when they lapse.

Bottom line is the internet porn tries actively to get in even where it's not wanted. Personally, I'd like to see this practice defined as a cyberattack and punished under the various malicious computer usage laws already on the books.

[Dimensio]

People are looking and arguing this based on a "right" to view pornography, which is missing the point of the real issue.

There is no filtering software available that functions perfectly to block out all "pornographic" material while allowing anything that is not "pornographic" to pass through it. Any filtering software used will, as a consequence, restrict access to legitimate information on the internet because of some tripped keyword. The issue isn't about viewing porn so much as throwing up a big barrier for information because someone might go in to look at naughty pictures.

[BikerNYC]

The NY Times reports that the list of plaintiffs includes "Jeffrey L. Pollock, a Republican Congressional candidate who favored mandatory filtering until he discovered that his own campaign's Web site was blocked by one of the most popular filtering programs."

The report does not indicate where Mr. Pollack is running or what in his Web site might have set off those bells and whistles. Anyone know?

[El Gato]

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

But somehow banning concealed (or open) carry in their libaries doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

[Clemenza]

You know I've noticed many librarians "posing" on certain websites that I visit when I'm not on free Republic. I wonder why they are opposing porn blocks?

[Conan the Librarian]

Not this Librarian, nor our library system!

[Dan from Michigan]

What are the FEDS doing at the library in the first place? Isn't that supposed to be a LOCAL issue???