Even though the Arizona state legislature is looking at legislation that would mandate filtering, the Phoenix is looking to make it illegal for patrons to request filter disabling at the city level. While there are tons of “libraries looking at filtering options” stories this one about Phoenix’s library system is interesting for this statement from the Arizona Republic:
Other cities, such as San Francisco and Salt Lake City, have opted to forgo federal funding to keep computers filter-free. Officials in Des Plaines, Ill., recently enacted what some say is a very creative solution: Their filters stay on all the time, but block only pornographic images, not text.
It’s my understanding that CIPA requires that ONLY graphic images be blocked in the first place, but that such filtering technology is not widely available or on the market. Anyone have any clues about this, or is it a misrepresentation? If there is such a filter, I’d like to buy stock.
Also, the way this story, and many are written, the average reader would believe that it’s perfectly okay to access obscene materials in libraries and elsewhere. Obscenity and child porn are illegal. Period.
Uh-huh.
Slip sliding away;
Slip sliding away!
You know the further down that slope
the more you’re slip sliding away.
I wonder their definition of pornography is. Almost certainly something vague and overbroad.
And still I wonder why they don’t just unplug the damned internet and have done with it.
Re:Uh-huh.
“And still I wonder why they don’t just unplug the damned internet and have done with it. “
Its called a rational response to a very public problem.
illegal?
Child porn is certainly illigeal but porn is not. You can own, make, purchase porn. I think it should be illegal in a public building but considering we have read stories where libraries have sued their employers for *allowing* people to access what they want I don’t think everyone agrees with me that its is illegal.
Re:illegal?
It’s my (probably) flawed understanding that there is a legal difference between porn and obscene material, and that obscene is illegal. Maybe I’m just confusing CIPA with the law of the land?
Re:illegal?
Maybe, Remember CIPA is financially driven. It doesn’t make *anything* illegal. It just says if you want federal dollars you can’t do such-and-such.
Re:illegal?
Child porn: Illegal (in the U.S.)
Obscenity: Illegal (in the U.S.)
Pornography that doesn’t feature children and isn’t obscene (doesn’t pass the Miller test): Legal and Constitutionally-protected speech in the U.S.
CIPA tries to add “material harmful to children,” which is different than child pornography (pornography involving children).
And yes, it’s only image blocking: CIPA says nothing about blocking text. But obscene and child porn sites are illegal anyway, CIPA or no CIPA.
Thankee Walt
That’s what I was thinking of and trying to say, but too lazy to verify early this morning. Mp>
But don’t get me started on that “harmful to minors” crap. Fart joke sites are harmful to minors according to the filter my library uses.
It exists
Rochelle wrote:
“It’s my understanding that CIPA requires that ONLY graphic images be blocked in the first place, but that such filtering technology is not widely available or on the market. Anyone have any clues about this, or is it a misrepresentation? If there is such a filter, I’d like to buy stock. “
Yes, filter the graphic but not the text does exist…but it is a recent feature (last week) ….
here is a funny story on the features creation……more on
http://www.turner123.blogspot.com/
“One of the spin offs in the new program theoretically ought to be interesting for the libraries. We can block graphics on a website but allow the text. This is a desired features for “strict� compliance with the CIPA act. Probably “cosmetic� more than anything else but the interesting thing is no one else seems to have achieved this.
Another interesting thing is there is a bit of a story on how this was achieved.
Jeff Koftinoff the programmer of IF-2K was testing it with a friend. I don’t have a Mac
so I was out of the testing loop. Jeff thought it would be fun to substitute a picture of his friends girlfriend for every graphic he saw on the porn sites he was required to test.
Very funny. Duh..lets substitute the blocking graphic for the girlfriend …..and there it is.â€?
My blog is changing hosts ….so background to all of this is currently at:
http://www.sparkpod.com/Turner
Obscenity not necessarily illegal
In Illinois, at least, it appears to be the commercial distribution of obscene material which is illegal. The statute even specifies that you may give obscene stuff to your (adult) friends.