PDA

View Full Version : Let the porn flow, says public library



-Cp
01-31-2007, 01:21 PM
While pornography itself doesn't "shoot the bullet" for sex crimes, it does "cock the trigger," and Sacramento officials who supervise their public library system have told porn addicts to go ahead and get loaded.

The Sacramento Public Library Authority Board has decided against protecting library users from explicit pornography, a move lawyers at the Pacific Justice Institute had asked them to take, and which may, in fact, violate the library's own Internet guidelines.

"The present policy is to require filters on the computers," Brad Dacus, chief of the PJI, told WND. "However, all that is needed to have access to pornography is for an adult to request that the filters be removed."

He said then anyone in the library, including young children, would be able to see the most explicit porn the Internet can offer.

"People know all too well that the pornography doesn't shoot the bullet, but it definitely cocks the trigger," he said. "We were asking [the library board] to minimize this risk."

Matthew McReynolds, a staff attorney with the PJI, a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties, appeared at the library board meeting to encourage restrictions on access to pornography on the publicly-funded computer resources.

"There was an investigation report done recently in Chicago … and the results were extremely disturbing," he told WND. "They had things like 33 confirmed sex crimes committed at one library branch over a period of three years, and beyond that, just numerous calls to police."

He said the software must be installed on the computers under the federal Children's Internet Protection Act, but it does little good if librarians turn the filters off for any reason at all.

"They don't see it as their place to question what's going to be accessed," he said. But the result is that pedophiles and sex offenders are "mingling with young children" in the library facilities.

"To us it is unconscionable. We take so many measures to protect children from sex offenders. Jessica's Law keeps them from living near schools and churches, yet here is a situation where offenders are mingling with kids in public libraries, getting aroused, and it's a recipe for disaster."

Sacramento library officials did not return messages left by WND asking for a response.

But the library's own Internet policies include the advisory that, "Users may not invade the privacy of others or engage in any activity that is harassing, defamatory or threatening, or receive or display text or graphics which may reasonably be construed as obscene as defined by law."

Besides PJI, parents and students from Sacramento had joined in the pleas for restrictions to online pornography at the publicly-funded library.

Appearing in endorsement of the no-limits policy was a law professor and another lawyer claiming affiliation with the ACLU, both of whom argued that the First Amendment protects porn. However, they didn't explain why the taxpayers must provide it.

The library board includes the five members of the County Supervisors board, and four members of the Sacramento City Council.

The library system says it circulates about five million items annual, and it "upholds and affirms the right of each individual to have access to constitutionally protected materials" and leaves it to "parents and legal guardians" to monitor their children's use of computers in the library.

But the PJI noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that filtering for pornography is all right, and in fact is required, if the library is to receive certain federal funds.

A report from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children noted that one in five children is sexually solicited online at some point. Nancy McBride, the group's national safety director, noted that the Internet offers many benefits, "it gives offenders access to children when they are supposedly 'safe' at home."

The report was cited in online resources at Focus on the Family, a Colorado Springs-based ministry to families and their needs.

"It is important for parents and guardians to be aware of the dangers children may face online," reported Christine Loftus, who offers an online workshop about Internet safety. "These dangers include exposure to inappropriate material, sexual solicitation, harassment and bullying."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54016

OCA
01-31-2007, 01:33 PM
Sure they do. The local library around here has become the home of thev 3 d's....drunks, derelicts and delinquents, they run the place and the library thinks they are doing a good thing by giving them a place to hangout only problem is these punks are loud, extremely foulmouthed and disrespectful to almost everyone who enters. My children aren't allowed in there anymore, think of that, children can't even go to the freakin library anymore.

The library is a prime example of what happens when liberalism goes unchecked.

jillian
01-31-2007, 02:24 PM
Sure they do. The local library around here has become the home of thev 3 d's....drunks, derelicts and delinquents, they run the place and the library thinks they are doing a good thing by giving them a place to hangout only problem is these punks are loud, extremely foulmouthed and disrespectful to almost everyone who enters. My children aren't allowed in there anymore, think of that, children can't even go to the freakin library anymore.

The library is a prime example of what happens when liberalism goes unchecked.

Damn where are those book burning parties??? :dunno:

5stringJeff
01-31-2007, 02:39 PM
Damn where are those book burning parties??? :dunno:

The better question is, why don't local governments do something to make libraries more family-friendly instead of more drunk/druggie/porn fiend friendly?

CSM
01-31-2007, 02:43 PM
The better question is, why don't local governments do something to make libraries more family-friendly instead of more drunk/druggie/porn fiend friendly?

Because it takes a village idiot to raise a child!

Sarcasm aside, our national politicians are not the only ones catering to special interests.

jillian
01-31-2007, 02:45 PM
The better question is, why don't local governments do something to make libraries more family-friendly instead of more drunk/druggie/porn fiend friendly?

Well, certainly that's a constructive idea... one I'd support. Although it's not just a local issue if municipalities can't afford it.

I have to be honest, though. We have good libraries here... not great, not perfect. But I can take the little guy there and not feel it's seedy or slimy or anything like that.

jillian
01-31-2007, 02:46 PM
Because it takes a village idiot to raise a child!

Sarcasm aside, our national politicians are not the only ones catering to special interests.

I'm curious. How do you see the library issue as catering to special interests? I'm not saying you're wrong; I just don't see it.

avatar4321
01-31-2007, 03:06 PM
What the heck does it cost librarys to not get porn??? How can this be a funding issue?

Mr. P
01-31-2007, 03:10 PM
With the internet, libraries as we know them will die out like the old drive-in theater did.

jillian
01-31-2007, 03:21 PM
What the heck does it cost librarys to not get porn??? How can this be a funding issue?

We were talking about making libraries more hospitable places for families. That's a funding issue.

As for "porn", the problem is the filters. How do you filter porn while not filtering standard adult reading or viewing material? With all respect, while I think children should be protected, I think their parents should monitor what they're doing online, especially in a library and I don't think available material should be limited to what's appropriate for my 9 year old.

You have a suggestion for balancing those interests?

*Edit* Also, what constitutes "porn". Mapplethorpe's pictures? Michaelangelo's David? Botero's work?

OCA
01-31-2007, 03:26 PM
Damn where are those book burning parties??? :dunno:

Always muddying the issue with ridiculously extreme statements.

jillian
01-31-2007, 03:31 PM
Always muddying the issue with ridiculously extreme statements.

You can pm me with any complaints you have or put them in a thread in the admin section. ;)

OCA
01-31-2007, 03:32 PM
We were talking about making libraries more hospitable places for families. That's a funding issue.

As for "porn", the problem is the filters. How do you filter porn while not filtering standard adult reading or viewing material? With all respect, while I think children should be protected, I think their parents should monitor what they're doing online, especially in a library and I don't think available material should be limited to what's appropriate for my 9 year old.

You have a suggestion for balancing those interests?

*Edit* Also, what constitutes "porn". Mapplethorpe's pictures? Michaelangelo's David? Botero's work?

Just how in the hell is making the library off limits to people who are breaking the bounds of common decency and respect, and using the library as nothing more than a urinal and a warm place to sleep one off a funding issue? How is having a computer guy(our town library has a guy and all he does is fixed crashed computers) install some firewalls and filters a funding problem? Don't se it has such and if it is just what in the fuck are my property taxes paying for if not this?

OCA
01-31-2007, 03:34 PM
You can pm me with any complaints you have or put them in a thread in the admin section. ;)

No, this has nothing to do with moderating, it has to do with always going straight to the extreme on most issues. LMFAO! Bookburning!

jillian
01-31-2007, 03:34 PM
No, this has nothing to do with moderating, it has to do with always going straight to the extreme on most issues. LMFAO! Bookburning!

Then your postings are fair game? OK. I was trying to be respectful. And I'd suggest oh bullying one that if you think *I'm* extreme, you haven't been out much.

OCA
01-31-2007, 03:52 PM
Then your postings are fair game? OK. I was trying to be respectful. And I'd suggest oh bullying one that if you think *I'm* extreme, you haven't been out much.

*shrugs shoulders* I rest my case with the book burning statement.

Dilloduck
01-31-2007, 03:53 PM
We were talking about making libraries more hospitable places for families. That's a funding issue.

As for "porn", the problem is the filters. How do you filter porn while not filtering standard adult reading or viewing material? With all respect, while I think children should be protected, I think their parents should monitor what they're doing online, especially in a library and I don't think available material should be limited to what's appropriate for my 9 year old.

You have a suggestion for balancing those interests?

*Edit* Also, what constitutes "porn". Mapplethorpe's pictures? Michaelangelo's David? Botero's work?

Actually I'd like to hear your definiton of porn and where you draw the line regarding porn in public.

Dilloduck
01-31-2007, 04:08 PM
I guess it's a lib-con thing. Cons like trying to create norms that generally help society as a group whereas libs just like to bitch about where cons draw the line.:dunno:

jillian
01-31-2007, 04:10 PM
Actually I'd like to hear your definiton of porn and where you draw the line regarding porn in public.

The Supreme Court can't even define porn and you want me to?

Dilloduck
01-31-2007, 04:12 PM
The Supreme Court can't even define porn and you want me to?

Yes----!

jillian
01-31-2007, 04:15 PM
Yes----!

Complain to Potter Stewart. :beer:

Seriously. What constitutes porn is different for different people and, to be fair, something "pornographic" if used in a context, say for academic work (I know... I know, just saying, so bear with me).

And, mostly, who DECIDES what constitutes porn?

Is Tropic of Cancer porn? Valley of the Dolls? Apocalypse Now?

Dilloduck
01-31-2007, 04:19 PM
Complain to Potter Stewart. :beer:

Seriously. What constitutes porn is different for different people and, to be fair, something "pornographic" if used in a context, say for academic work (I know... I know, just saying, so bear with me).

And, mostly, who DECIDES what constitutes porn?

Is Tropic of Cancer porn? Valley of the Dolls? Apocalypse Now?

Is there even such a thing as "porn" to you?

jillian
01-31-2007, 04:20 PM
Is there even such a thing as "porn" to you?

Yes. And there's a difference between what kids should be exposed to and what adults can choose to watch or read.

Again, who DECIDES what porn is?

Dilloduck
01-31-2007, 04:23 PM
Yes. And there's a difference between what kids should be exposed to and what adults can choose to watch or read.

Again, who DECIDES what porn is?

ok--so porn exists according to you------what should be done about it ?

Pale Rider
01-31-2007, 04:29 PM
Maybe the mulsims are right. This country is the great satan.

Our morals sure reflect it. Or, maybe better said, the athiest, secularist, liberals morals reflect it.

Dilloduck
01-31-2007, 07:01 PM
ok--so porn exists according to you------what should be done about it ?

I thought so--NOTHING--so I'll assume you'll be waiting until a conservative tries something and then you will trash him/her for being a Nazi.

avatar4321
01-31-2007, 11:52 PM
Maybe the mulsims are right. This country is the great satan.

Our morals sure reflect it. Or, maybe better said, the athiest, secularist, liberals morals reflect it.

Our morals really do, but we aren't the great satan. we just have a very cancerous part of society that wont be able to survive what is coming up in the future. Its sad too because we have all the warnings before us.

avatar4321
01-31-2007, 11:55 PM
Again, why is it a funding issue to make libraries family friendly? All they have to do is keep the pornography out of the library.

What really annoys me about this is that I know local libraries that will bend over backwards to make pornography available that have turned down good and decent books on religion as unnecessary.

pornography has no redeeming values. Its not educational. Its not art. Its absolute profanity. I see no reason why libraries should be encouraging the use of non-education material while turning away things that are actually useful.