kiyomi writes “Proposed legislation would require libraries in Tallahassee, Fl to install Internet filters on public computers to block pornography and other obscene images. Full article“
Recent Posts
- Florida teacher fired over viral video of empty library shelves after DeSantis branded it a “fake narrative” February 20, 2023
- New policies address paper mills and unprofessional conduct – The Official PLOS Blog February 19, 2023
- Librarians Are Finding Thousands Of Books No Longer Protected By Copyright Law February 19, 2023
- POLICY BRIEF: Opposing Attempts to Criminalize Librarianship through State Obscenity Laws January 20, 2023
- New Year, New Weed January 20, 2023
- The Smithsonian Will Restore Hundreds of the World’s Oldest Sound Recordings January 18, 2023
- The Most Unique Libraries in the World January 15, 2023
Recent Comments
- St. Paul libraries face moment of reckoning – LISNews – News For Librarians on Secret and mysterious libraries
- Ellie on Just How Gross Are Library Books, Exactly?
- Prodigious1one on The Teaching Librarian Versus The Teacher
- Jason on Ten Stories That Shaped 2019
- centaurea on Libraries using Internet Trust Tools
- Steven S on Happy 20 Years LISNews!
LISNews Archives
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (20)
- December 2022 (6)
- February 2022 (3)
- December 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- July 2020 (11)
- June 2020 (11)
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (4)
- October 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (4)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (11)
- February 2019 (41)
- January 2019 (31)
- December 2018 (6)
- November 2018 (11)
- October 2018 (15)
- September 2018 (9)
- August 2018 (22)
- July 2018 (1)
- June 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (7)
- April 2018 (8)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (17)
- January 2018 (13)
- December 2017 (8)
- November 2017 (16)
- October 2017 (18)
- September 2017 (11)
- August 2017 (8)
- July 2017 (8)
- June 2017 (21)
- May 2017 (39)
- April 2017 (22)
- March 2017 (15)
- February 2017 (21)
- January 2017 (40)
- December 2016 (20)
- November 2016 (9)
- October 2016 (20)
- September 2016 (48)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (55)
- June 2016 (61)
- May 2016 (39)
- April 2016 (67)
- March 2016 (81)
- February 2016 (85)
- January 2016 (69)
- December 2015 (90)
- November 2015 (126)
- October 2015 (107)
- September 2015 (85)
- August 2015 (42)
- July 2015 (32)
- June 2015 (35)
- May 2015 (39)
- April 2015 (14)
- March 2015 (60)
- February 2015 (75)
- January 2015 (44)
- December 2014 (30)
- November 2014 (39)
- October 2014 (43)
- September 2014 (30)
- August 2014 (36)
- July 2014 (59)
- June 2014 (46)
- May 2014 (62)
- April 2014 (58)
- March 2014 (52)
- February 2014 (37)
- January 2014 (42)
- December 2013 (41)
- November 2013 (25)
- October 2013 (43)
- September 2013 (28)
- August 2013 (32)
- July 2013 (61)
- June 2013 (51)
- May 2013 (50)
- April 2013 (52)
- March 2013 (68)
- February 2013 (62)
- January 2013 (62)
- December 2012 (53)
- November 2012 (64)
- October 2012 (111)
- September 2012 (109)
- August 2012 (128)
- July 2012 (57)
- June 2012 (75)
- May 2012 (163)
- April 2012 (158)
- March 2012 (109)
- February 2012 (125)
- January 2012 (136)
- December 2011 (109)
- November 2011 (74)
- October 2011 (82)
- September 2011 (95)
- August 2011 (106)
- July 2011 (93)
- June 2011 (102)
- May 2011 (94)
- April 2011 (105)
- March 2011 (100)
- February 2011 (92)
- January 2011 (110)
- December 2010 (124)
- November 2010 (83)
- October 2010 (118)
- September 2010 (115)
- August 2010 (110)
- July 2010 (108)
- June 2010 (113)
- May 2010 (78)
- April 2010 (121)
- March 2010 (191)
- February 2010 (182)
- January 2010 (168)
- December 2009 (129)
- November 2009 (116)
- October 2009 (131)
- September 2009 (149)
- August 2009 (162)
- July 2009 (166)
- June 2009 (189)
- May 2009 (112)
- April 2009 (164)
- March 2009 (185)
- February 2009 (151)
- January 2009 (173)
- December 2008 (200)
- November 2008 (155)
- October 2008 (252)
- September 2008 (267)
- August 2008 (193)
- July 2008 (208)
- June 2008 (161)
- May 2008 (208)
- April 2008 (253)
- March 2008 (201)
- February 2008 (246)
- January 2008 (185)
- December 2007 (200)
- November 2007 (208)
- October 2007 (241)
- September 2007 (227)
- August 2007 (269)
- July 2007 (201)
- June 2007 (205)
- May 2007 (157)
- April 2007 (217)
- March 2007 (250)
- February 2007 (183)
- January 2007 (181)
- December 2006 (163)
- November 2006 (180)
- October 2006 (170)
- September 2006 (215)
- August 2006 (210)
- July 2006 (202)
- June 2006 (257)
- May 2006 (280)
- April 2006 (271)
- March 2006 (347)
- February 2006 (284)
- January 2006 (300)
- December 2005 (267)
- November 2005 (238)
- October 2005 (364)
- September 2005 (349)
- August 2005 (377)
- July 2005 (382)
- June 2005 (403)
- May 2005 (371)
- April 2005 (420)
- March 2005 (367)
- February 2005 (368)
- January 2005 (346)
- December 2004 (311)
- November 2004 (260)
- October 2004 (308)
- September 2004 (228)
- August 2004 (319)
- July 2004 (395)
- June 2004 (338)
- May 2004 (288)
- April 2004 (364)
- March 2004 (348)
- February 2004 (438)
- January 2004 (266)
- December 2003 (222)
- November 2003 (226)
- October 2003 (281)
- September 2003 (317)
- August 2003 (315)
- July 2003 (278)
- June 2003 (282)
- May 2003 (265)
- April 2003 (271)
- March 2003 (249)
- February 2003 (283)
- January 2003 (210)
- December 2002 (186)
- November 2002 (184)
- October 2002 (222)
- September 2002 (210)
- August 2002 (207)
- July 2002 (184)
- June 2002 (166)
- May 2002 (160)
- April 2002 (195)
- March 2002 (183)
- February 2002 (195)
- January 2002 (203)
- December 2001 (203)
- November 2001 (238)
- October 2001 (183)
- September 2001 (153)
- August 2001 (204)
- July 2001 (243)
- June 2001 (176)
- May 2001 (92)
- April 2001 (116)
- March 2001 (153)
- February 2001 (142)
- January 2001 (131)
- December 2000 (110)
- November 2000 (124)
- October 2000 (128)
- September 2000 (132)
- August 2000 (138)
- July 2000 (166)
- June 2000 (135)
- May 2000 (120)
- April 2000 (121)
- March 2000 (181)
- February 2000 (163)
- January 2000 (54)
- November 1999 (37)
46% get no federal money
I am not in favor of filters unless the LOCAL community decides they want them. However the article relates that 46% of Florida’s libraries get no federal grant money. I can’t believe it is because they oppose filters. I wonder if they just don’t have the staff available to write the grant applications.
Heck when it came to a big chunk of change vs. filters I think I would have to take the filters and the money – at least if I managed my local library in Florida.
Re:46% get no federal money .001 percent of nearly 67,000,000 library visits. Librarians already adhere to Florida law regarding the display of obscene material and child pornography. There is nothing to fix. The proposed legislation is unnecessary.
The federal grant money referred to is the e-rate for internet connections. Unfortunately, for most of the libraries in Florida the cost to purchase filters and have the staff to be able to disable them upon patron request costs more than the e-rate refund. The proposed bills have even more costly provisions which make it impossible for any library to be in compliance. The choice is to cut services, materials, public internet access. Florida’s Constitution has a home rule provision which means that local communities are to decide issues like this. The legislature is also forbidden from imposing unfunded mandates on local communities according to a formula. This is a local issue already decided in our local communities by citizen groups. Some filter, some don’t, some use a combination of filters, policy and staff. Florida’s libraries already take care in protecting our children by librarians working with parents, community members and governing bodies. The level of complaints re: Internet by patrons for all Florida libraries is less than
Re:46% get no federal money
The proposed legislation is unnecessary.
There’s no such thing as “unnecessary legislation” during an election year.
Filtering
Since when is professional responsibiity governed by statistics or federal money. The article also does not elaborate on how local libraries handle the issue. It would seem that the elected officials in Florida must sense that there is a need for legislation in the filtering issue.
The library should be a family friendly place. Why is it that vice driven establishments in the alcohol and adult entertainment industries are governed by legislation and regulations and there seems such a difficulty to maintain such logic and reason when it comes to the web. After all the unsavory web sites are just a cyberspace version of adult entertainment venues.
Pr0n and other obscenities?
This (from the article) is a misnomer:
Sexually graphic/explicit images (whether still or video) may be, as a class, ruled indecent, but pornography does not equal obscenity. This has already been established in the Supreme Court and many, many lower courts. And “indecent” expression is just as protected as “decent” ones, except for broadcast distribution.
Re:…unless the LOCAL community decides they want
Ahh, but THERE is the problem. Many local communities plead and protest and appeal… and the local library STILL does just what they want.
See Topeka Shawnee County Public Library for an example!!!
Libraries don’t need a mandate to fight porni on/8440621.htm
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opin
Filter fumble
Libraries don’t need a mandate to fight porn
A TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT EDITORIAL
Once again, the Legislature wants to force public libraries to install
filters on computers with Internet access. And once again, it’s a bad idea.
Let’s be clear: No one wants kids to be exposed to pornographic material
that is all too available on the Web. But this proposal is an unfunded
mandate for Florida’s libraries – an estimated $1.36 million in start-up
money alone.
At the local level, libraries already use a number of techniques designed to
protect their young patrons, including staff monitoring and separate
computers for children.
Besides, the problem the Legislature presumes to solve is far from epidemic:
According to the Florida Library Association, there were only 569 complaints
about offensive images on library computers out of almost 67 million library
visits in Florida last year. That includes complaints from libraries with
and without Internet filters.
The library association also points out that most commonly available
Internet filters don’t do much to block pornographic images because the
technology is text-based.
The best tools are watchfulness on the part of libraries and education for
young computer users. Parents can teach their children how to use
kid-specific Internet search engines, and many search engines can be
adjusted to screen objectionable material. So why force a measure that could
cost Florida’s libraries an estimated $1.36 million in start-up money alone?
This feel-good gesture is ultimately an empty one.
Reality check….please
misseli – Respectfully, this legalese is simply used to obfuscate. Pornography, obscene, indecent, decent, etc.. Would you honestly give this explanation to a concerned parent at the circulation desk? Will a JD soon be as important as an MLS for our profession?
Simple question. If I were to visit your library, would I find any print publication on the shelves that would provide a photo of a “gang bang”. Seriously.
Re:Reality check….please
I work in tech services at a large research library. There may well be graphic material on ‘gang bangs’ in locked stacks, but I honestly would/do not know. For the sake of Human Sexuality or Cinema scholars, perhaps there should be, but that’s easy for me to say since I’m not likely to be the bibliographer in charge of such a subject area.
If I were confronting a concerned parent, I would have to go into more legalese: the ‘harmful to minors’ standard, which holds that some otherwise protected material is not protected when access by those under the age of 17. As a legal standard, I think it is more ill-defined than obscenity, but it is a legal standard. A lot of what’s considered ‘indecent’ would be probably considered ‘harmful to minors’ but that hasn’t been officially established in a court of law.
And yes, it is legalese, but I don’t believe it’s obfuscating. Simply put, no one — without exception — has the right to create, distribute or even view obscene matter. I may find porn personally offensive, but it cannot be said that no one has the right to view it — it’s been established in the law over and over again. Which is why I commented in the first place: I expect a news organization to be able to discern between cultural/community values and legal standards.
Lastly, I’m the wrong person to ask if MLSs will also need JDs … I’m considering law school after I finish library school (which may or may not be a comfort to you at this point …).
Re:Libraries don’t need a mandate to fight porn
>>But this proposal is an unfunded mandate for Florida’s libraries – an estimated $1.36 million in start-up money alone.
So are wheelchair ramps, ADA workstations, state pensions for library workers and liability insurance to name a few others. Nothing new here.
>>Parents can teach their children how to use
kid-specific Internet search engines, and many search engines can be adjusted to screen objectionable material.
No argument. Provided these children have parents who care. Are the others just “SOL”?
>>Let’s be clear: No one wants kids to be exposed to pornographic material that is all too available on the Web.
How do you propose to judge something as pornographic as opposed to obscene? I am repeatedly reminded that their is a discernable difference between the two aside from the latter’s legality. Perhaps pocket-size Miller’s Tests to carry?
Re:Reality check….please
Thanks for your thoughts.
However your answer illustrates the legal chaos posed by unfettered Web access in public libraries.
You mention that you are uncertain if any “gang bang” photos can be found in your stacks. I would say the same for my library. From this we both can assume that children and “gang bang” photos will unlikely cross paths in our libraries. Agreed?
However, you and I could can both produce these photos within a minute from our filter-free workstations. Therein lies the elephant in the room that this profession simply will not discuss with candor. Libraries have changed.
Old school librarians, pre-1990’s, didn’t need to be versed in this legalese as you aptly explain above. They knew what they had because they approved it. The Internet represents the first and only library resource offered without the professional consideration of a librarian.
If you do pursue law, I hope your motivation is something other than a skill you perceive to need as a librarian. I wish you well.
clarification
>>How do you propose to judge something as pornographic as opposed to obscene? I am repeatedly reminded that their is a discernable difference between the two aside from the latter’s illegality.
Unless, of course, we are speaking of child pornography.
Re:Libraries don’t need a mandate to fight porn
All the items you listed as state unfunded mandates are federal except pensions and NOT all librarians that work for cities and counties are part of the State retirement system. Many govts have opted out. The state constitution does not allow unfunded mandates of a certain magnitude which this is at. Librarians in Florida are talking about turning the Internet off if this passes so we can still purchase books. Also the co-sponsor of this bill is from Marion County where they want to set up a committee to read every book in the library and purge out any that are not wholesome. If this passes we will be facing a bill like that next year.
The legislature is requiring librarians to judge what is obscene from pornographic or we can be fined $100 per day (our library). We have no way to do so.
This is a local issue and local communities have decided what they wish to do. Florida is a home rule state.
Re:Libraries don’t need a mandate to fight porn
An unfunded mandate, whether state or federal, still costs the same. Correct?
What you are intimating is that it’s not the principle of filtering, but that they are not subsidized. Get in line with that complaint. Public libraries in our state have been recently told they must use OCLC for bib records. Expensive yes, but quality control. Just like those filters.
As for judging what is obscene and porn, I suggest posting this a question here at LISNews. Many of the anti-filter crowd tell me this is easy to discern.
I hope moderating my comments as a “troll”…
has made someone feel better, truth notwithstanding.
Here is to doubling your pleasure.
An unfunded mandate, whether state or federal, still costs the same. Correct?
What you are intimating is that it’s not the principle of filtering, but that they are not subsidized. Get in line with that complaint. Public libraries in our state have been recently told they must use OCLC for bib records. Expensive yes, but quality control. Just like those filters.
As for judging what is obscene and porn, I suggest posting this a question here at LISNews. Many of the anti-filter crowd tell me this is easy to discern.