Illinois Librarians Plan Internet Shutdown

First, let me point out that censorship starts at the publisher's door -- not the distributor.

That is an egregious misinterpretation, at best, or an outright misrepresentation, at worst. It shows that you know little, if anything, about issues of censorship and free speech.

Secondly, we are talking about taxpayer funded speech -- and taxpayers have every right to define the speech they want to pay for, or stop for that matter.

Anti-censorship advocates pay their taxes too, and don't see why their tax dollars should be funnelled into a religious totalitarianist movement by the U.S. government in violation of the First Amendment proscription against a theopolitical establishment.

Secondly, your statement is repudiated by that portion of the First Amendment that says the government is forbidden to abridge freedom of speech. Public funds, as held in trust and disbursed by any level of government, cannot be legally used to stop speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has been defining the word "congress", as used in the First Amendment, since at least 1933 or 1928, increasingly to mean any person, whether elected, appointed, or employed, at any level of government. That means
everybody from the dogcatcher to the President, and includes librarians.

Perverts can find their smut elsewhere.

Oh yeah? What places are the censormorons are going to leave them to find their smut? You are focusing solely on censorship in the library. Censorship movements are ubiquitous. The ultra-right wing nut reactionaries don't want anything, anywhere, that offends their hypersensitivities and petty prejudices. You know? . . . the people who demanded internet filtering in the first place and wouldn't allow anybody to look at the lists of what sites were being blocked or to know by what criteria they
were blocked under? Sites having to do with science? Political officials? Etc, ad nauseum?

Censorship is like a blood-lust. Neither one can ever be slaked.

While liberals could care less about protecting the lives and safety of children, . . .

This is an outright lie. It is not that liberals couldn't care less about protecting the physical safety and wellbeing of children, it just that we know their civil liberties can be protected at the same time without endangering their health or safety. You don't. You can't. The right-wing is pathologically incapable of dealing with such a concept.

. . . government has a compelling interest in doing so.

This is an unwarranted assumption at best. There is no reputable evidence to uphold the contention, and it continues to reverberate throughout the right-wing echo chamber simply because it is a necessary falsehood for the promotion of censorship.

Attacks on children in libraries by men who have been stimulated by Internet porn are well documented.

Excuse me? Those attacks were motivated solely by internet porn? The fact that those assailants were latent child-molesters had nothing to do with it? They could not possibly have been motivated by

Adults fondling themselves in plain view of others, including children have also been documented.

How many adult males enter into public libraries on a daily basis? How many of those view triple X of five X rated material? How many of those fondle themselves in public? Or molest children? What kind of a fractional percentage are we talking about here and how, exactly, does that create a compelling interest in censorship?

You do understand, don't you, that this is Orwellian thinking? The idea that all males who perform Y are double-plus, ungood crimethinkers or want to be? You do understand, do you not, that you are violating the civil right of unguessable numbers of law abiding males to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? You do know, don't you, that what you are proposing is to punish the overwhelming majority for the actions of the underwhelming minority?

No. Of of course you don't.

By the way, should I accuse conservatives of not caring about children for ignoring the fact that the majority of molestation victims are victimized by their own fathers in their own homes?

. . . the ACLU recognizes that filtering software is a great solution to this problem . . .

This is another misrepresentation if not another outright lie. The ACLU only recognized that filtering is the lesser of two current evils. They told the court involved that filtering would be less burdensome than the alternative that was being touted by the censorial.

Lastly, why can't liberals engage in honest debate without the hate mongering name calling. Really, "censormorons" is unnecessary.

Censormorons is exactly the right word for them. Take it up with D.H. Lawrence if you don't like it, or stop identifying yourself as one by proclaiming so loudly that the shoe fits. Tell me something, Dave. Why can't the right-wing engage in honest debate? Why does its members have to rely on one outright lie after another. In some cases, lies that have been thoroughly debunked and which they have been told are lies? Why is it the right-wing can't refrain from smear tactics when talking to or
about anyone who will not pander to their invincible ignorance? You're squalling about a lack of civility is just another right-wing trick to try chill speech that is critical of the right-wing.

And this after you accused all liberals of acting in collusion with child molesters and abusers.

Pfah!

Oh, yes, and one last thing. You have failed to define pornography. Which is something which the right-wing would not allow even if it were possible. It would really put a cramp in a person's censorship efforts if there were objective criteria by which something could be proved to be exempt from those efforts.

The Internet at the public library is not a public forum. There is no right to Internet access at the library.

Your argument is baseless as the Constitutional and First Amendment questions have been answered and the answer is no, there is no right to Internet access.

That said, if the library does supply Internet access as a service (filtered or unfiltered) it has an obligation not to withhold that access to make a political point. Would they do that with books, periodicals? No, so why is withholding access to the Internet acceptable?

Access to the Internet at the public library is not a right.

You are confusing two issues. Filters emplaced by the library administration in response to the needs and desires of the community do not violate the tenets of the librarians professional code.

The librarians work for the people, and if the people - and in our democratic society we must accept the will of the majority - decide they want filters then they shall have filters.

While some Chicken Little types inculcate the public, they are wise enough to make decisions about what they want available in the library. Collection development - and yes filters are a collection development decision- must be based on the needs of the patrons served, not some seemingly noble, but misguided notion that all information should be available to everyone that wishes it.

Librarians who continue to beat that drum simply make themselves, and unfortunately the rest of us look like idiots.

Denying patrons access to services and materials to which they are entitled is simply wrong, professional, ethically, and morally.

They have an obligation -ethically, legally and professionally- to provide the service that the users pay for. They pay taxes, they get to use all of the library's services not just those the librarians(those who are paid from that same tax money) want them to use one particular day.

They have a right to stand outside the library on their off hours and hand out fliers. They have a right to write their editor, they have a right to call their legislators, they have a right to email people about it when not working, they have a right to make their voices heard.

However their right does not extend to the abrogation of the public's right, the taxpayer's right, the patron's right to use the services to which they are entitled. For a group that says they hold the patron's right to access information sacrosanct they are certainly violating their own professional code.

Thank GOD someone here has the fortitude to THINK OF THE CHILDREN.Think of the children @ your library.Be a hilarious, hysterical, Puritanical humbug @ your library.Be a message board trolling Jesus Freak @ your library.Waste a lot of time, money and political capital because some 14 year old once saw some breasts @ your library.

That sounds as if it is a mission statement, not a description of services provided.

In any event, in what way is protected speech not the best reading? Are the disfranchised living on the wrong side side of the digital divide not among the largest number? (Trick question, there Greg; in point of fact they constitute the largest number.) Does not requiring the unnecessary added expense of internet filtering fly in the face of the idea of "least cost"?

If not, to any of these questions: How not?

The CIPA decision does justify filters in libraries, just not for adults (something I'm fine with).

To drop Internet access permanently is a collection development decision, to do it for a day is political hijinks.

As for the gutting of book budgets: NetNanny $50 a station, one time only. That's a lot more reasonable then all the book budgets being stretched to include hot new DVDs, video games, and Dance Revolution programs.

Libraries aren't a right either. Maybe we should all become ministers.

No one was arguing that libraries are a right. Try to stay on topic.

1. Bottom line, you can filter by age. Again, fine by me.

2. There is no 'demonstration', there is simply an extreme response meant to make political hay.

3. That $6000 is every year, so in 10 years that's 60,000. At most you'd have to update the software once for a total of $20,000.

I'm not completely unsympathetic to all the arguments made but the fact is if ALA had made an attempt to negotiate and focus the filtering on children's computers only *none of this* would be an issue.

I didn't. That's why it's funny.

Nothing has ever made the internet at the library a public forum. Once the library opens its doors the First Amendment comes into play, but beating a dead horse will not make public internet access a public forum.

I know we had discussed this before and you are still making assumptions not based on the law.

I'll spring for the LSAT if you want to take it if you promise to learn the current interpretation of this.

Good for them, I hope they got detention for doing it. That some can is not an excuse to open the doors completely for everyone.

No... a 5 year old couldn't. Neither could a 10 or 11 year old. And, as always, the fact that its there is part of the deterrent.

In any event, in what way is protected speech not the best reading?

Free speech is not valued speech.

Does not requiring the unnecessary added expense of internet filtering fly in the face of the idea of "least cost"?

Definitly not because the equipment that hosts it is expensive to buy and maintain and limited in quanity. How it is used will define how cost effective it is.

It's called a protest. It's supposed to be disruptive. They have the right to do as their conscience demands them.

Unless you're suddenly arguing to improve filtering instead of getting rid of it altogether then there is no professional judgement only abdication.

There is no one here who believes that porn is a necessary service. No one has said it either. The anti-filtering objection is that filters capriciously and secretly block legal and important information, a situation which is anathama to our professional obligations.

From www.eff.org, the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

For every web page blocked as advertised, blocking software blocks one or more web pages inappropriately, either because the web pages are miscategorized or because the web pages, while correctly categorized, do not merit blocking.

Schools that implement Internet blocking software even with the least restrictive settings will block at a minimum tens of thousands of web pages inappropriately, either because the web pages are miscategorized or because the web pages, while correctly categorized, do not merit blocking.

Blocking software products miscategorized many of the web pages they block—
assigning the wrong block codes to between a third and a half of the web pages related to state-mandated curriculums blocked depending on the blocking software.

Of all pages related to state-mandated curriculums blocked by blocking products, the products blocked only 1-3% of those web pages to CIPA’s criteria for blocking visual depictions of illegally obscenity, child pornography, or harmful to minors content. That means that of the web pages related to state-mandated curriculums, blocking software products blocked 97-99% of the web pages blocked using non-standard, discretionary, and potentially illegal criteria beyond what is required by CIPA.

And the other side of it ...

For any web page that contained three or more of the target words, the researchers examined the web page against the legal standard provided by CIPA and found 11 total occurrences of nine web pages for which CIPA would likely would require blocking, three missed by N2H2 Bess and eight missed by SurfControl. The researchers also found a total of 34 web pages that would require blocking if non-visual depictions were included, 17 for N2H2 Bess and 17 for SurfControl.

However, the researchers did not even attempt to search for “visual depictions†of pornography and, as mentioned by the court declaring CIPA unconstitutional for libraries: “This is of critical importance, because CIPA, by its own terms, covers only ‘visual depictions.’ 20 U.S.C. §9134(f)(1)(A)(i); 47 U.S.C. §254(h)(5)(B)(i).â€

There is no substitute for our professional judgment and we should never abdicate that responsibility to anyone or anything.

What a compelling and articulate response Fang-Face!

Can anyone please tell me how providing Internet pornography for adults or children in public libraries is somehow beneficial for the communities they serve?

No resident wants a family member rubbing shoulders in their local library with another person who has recently viewed sexually stimulating images on the Internet. It is interesting to note that while the ALA and the ILA oppose Internet filtering, parents and law enforcement officials strongly support it.

And don't tell me that filtering technology doesn't work -- tell that to your friends at the ACLU, who had an expert argue before a Federal District Court (in ACLU v. Gonzales, March 2007) that filters are about 95 percent effective in blocking unwanted sites, while providing full access to legitimate websites. The Judge agreed!

Internet filtering technology would help clean up communities and protect children and families from being exposed to harmful images in their neighborhood public library. Government, at every level, has a compelling interest here, especially as it pertains to children.

If you can make the case that online porn is a library service I'll agree with you.

To deny patrons access to the internet to further their political aims is abhorent.

To regulate the internet surfing of others to further their political aims is abhorent. These religious fanatics discredit all of humanity. I am ashamed that they are members of the human race.

To deny patrons access to the internet to further their political aims is abhorent. These librarians discredit the profession. I am ashamed to be associated with them through our common profession.

This hypocrisy was so funny that I laughed out loud.

It's kind of hard to decide what to make of useless shits that bitch and piss and whine and moan about unmonitored internet access for adults, and who then scream hysterically when faced with no internet access for anybody.

Here's a clue you pack of festering morons: cutting off the 'net completely is not unconstitutional in that it does not discriminate among users. 'Course, there's still access to information issues involved, but that's a separate issue and one you can't win on either.

Are you going to offer an argument, or just going to make a self-righteous platitude?

I have been out of the loop for a while and unable at this time, to read all the post. So I will begin with nice job Dave. I danced with Fang Face for awhile, but the conclusion that we must come to is this: The training and indoctrination of children, in public school systems and public libraries-- that have taken place over the years is proven successful by the Fang Faces of the world. Unfortunately there are many!

I have been out of the loop for a while and unable at this time, to read all the post. So I will begin with nice job Dave. I danced with Fang Face for awhile, but the conclusion that we must come to is this: The training and indoctrination of children, in public school systems and public libraries-- that have taken place over the years is proven successful by the Fang Faces of the world. Unfortunately there are many!

Books pertaining to sexuality along with the sex-ed school programs have basically convinced former teenagers--- like Fang --that humans are no more than simple animals, unable to control their lust. So their mentality is of such a nature that they become indignant when a moral people-- who was taught that we must control every thought and action--reminds them that freedoms are realized within boundaries or restrictions.

That reminds me of how many prisoners receive Christ and becomes set free within their incarceration. Said all that to say this…laws are made for a moral people. NOTHING MORAL about PORN…yet the Fangs of the world think we owe it to them!

Many poor neighborhoods are dangerous. Many african americans live in these neighborhoods. Postal carriers don't like going into dangerous areas. No mail service to blacks on Juneteenth to protest having to do their jobs.

Or passport office not serving Asians on Tuesdays because they don't like names that are hard to spell. DMV closing in October because they don't like speed limit laws.

Court clerks not accepting marriage license applications next Monday becuase lesbians can't get married in Texas.

Librarians don't like proposed law so they punish patrons by denying them access to computers.

See all of those are bullshite.

Fang-Face,

First, let me point out that censorship starts at the publisher's door -- not the distributor.

Secondly, we are talking about taxpayer funded speech -- and taxpayers have every right to define the speech they want to pay for, or stop for that matter. Perverts can find their smut elsewhere.

While liberals could care less about protecting the lives and safety of children, government has a compelling interest in doing so. Attacks on children in libraries by men who have been stimulated by Internet porn are well documented. Adults fondling themselves in plain view of others, including children have also been documented. See for yourself.

It is 2007 Fang-Face -- the ACLU recognizes that filtering software is a great solution to this problem -- why do you want to refer back antiquated technology?

Lastly, why can't liberals engage in honest debate without the hate mongering name calling. Really, "censormorons" is unnecessary.

Dave Smith

"providing access to protected speech is a library service"

No... it isn't. "The best reading, for the largest number, at the least cost."

Can anyone please tell me how providing Internet pornography for adults or children in public libraries is somehow beneficial for the communities they serve?

Well, Dave, the issue at heart here is not pornography so much as censormorons using the "We Must Protect The Children" mantra as an excuse to control what you are allowed to look at. Keep in mind that public libraries are punished with a loss of federal funding if they do not put filters on computers that are reserved for use by adults only.

Secondly, there is the fact that the ultra-right wing cannot -- and would not if even if they could -- define pornography. Even the Miller test for proscribable osbcenity is subjective at bottom. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the ultra-right simple calls everything they don't like pornography, and they do it so as to spread the widest possible censorial net over information they don't want disseminated. Factual human sexuality information is good example. Factual information about homosexuality is another.

Oh . . . and some of the web sites that were blocked by early versions of censorware were not about sexuality at all; some of them were the web sites of political officials who support personal liberty and freedom instead of a religious police state.

. . . make the case that online porn is a library service . . .

Simple pornography is protected speech, and providing access to protected speech is a library service. I believe the term you are looking for is proscribable obscenity. The way in which you are using the term "porn" is in the manner of the ultra-self-righteous and easily offended, who use it to mean anything that sets off their hypersensitivities. Again: Where's Waldo and Michaelangelo's David.

Pardon?