The Courier Press has this article on whether libraries should put filters on their computers.
\”When he’d finished the page, he clicked one of the photographs to go to the next link. It took him to a site where a beautiful woman wearing nary a stitch of fabric stood looking coyly into the camera. The photo loaded from the top down, and the boy’s eyes got bigger and bigger until he pushed his chair back and dashed from the computer laboratory. He explained later that he wasn’t sure he should see such a thing.\”
The Courier Press has this article on whether libraries should put filters on their computers.
\”When he’d finished the page, he clicked one of the photographs to go to the next link. It took him to a site where a beautiful woman wearing nary a stitch of fabric stood looking coyly into the camera. The photo loaded from the top down, and the boy’s eyes got bigger and bigger until he pushed his chair back and dashed from the computer laboratory. He explained later that he wasn’t sure he should see such a thing.\”
\”I consulted his mother later that day and she said, yes, under supervision he was free to roam the Internet but that I might limit his viewing if we found depictions of any sex act.\”
\”That was five summers ago when the Internet was pretty new. Now it is laden with opportunities to see various sex acts, nude photographs and just about any other activity you can imagine. It loads much faster, too. Today the debate is whether libraries should add software to their computers to limit access to these sites or follow the guidelines of the First Amendment and let the viewer determine what should be seen.\”
\”As you might recall, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 criminalized the transmission of any materials “that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs,” according to a summary from Speakout.Com. A year later the U.S. Supreme Court – an arguably conservative body today – said this provision violated the free speech clause in the First Amendment.\”
\”The court decision immediately gave birth to efforts to find other means to control the transmission of “patently offensive” material. This year Congress has had a chance to debate the Children\’s Internet Protection Act of 2000, which would require schools and libraries to implement Internet filter devices or lose federal funding. No legislative action has occurred since the bill.\”
Recent Comments