Focus on the Family Praises Supreme Court Library Porn Decision

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Cindy, Jun 24, 2003.

  1. Cindy

    Cindy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Cindy.JPG>

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2000
    Messages:
    1,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Colorado Springs)--Focus on the Family's Policy Analyst for Media and Sexuality Daniel L. Weiss issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Children's Internet Protection Act:

    "The Supreme Court's decision to reverse a District Court ruling and uphold the Children's Internet Protection Act represents a signifant victory for children and families across the nation. Since the passage of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Congress has made repeated attempts to protect children from the most vile, degrading, and unlawful material on the Internet. Even the three dissenting Justices agreed that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from such dangerous material. The Court's decision today marks the first time such legislation has been upheld in its entirety.

    "While some opponents of the Court's ruling may continue their efforts to cloud and confuse the issue, the truth is that many libraries had become dens of significant danger to children and adults alike. We applaud the Court's decision to place the safety of children before perverts' so-called right to access damaging and illegal content on the taxpayer's dime."
     
  2. Larry in Tennessee

    Larry in Tennessee
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I read this this morning, it said that the Anti Christian Legal Union (ACLU) was strongly opposed to the Supreme Court's decision (what a surprise :rolleyes: ). They think some pervert should have the right to view porn in plain view of everyone else in the library, but let a library hang the Ten Commandments on the wall and see how they react :rolleyes: .
     
  3. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sorta support the decision (and I give money to the ACLU, go figure :rolleyes: ). It does not state that patrons can't view porn in the library, as it is explicitly mentioned that a patron can request the filter be turned off. And there's really little worry about ipso facto restriction, since there are myriad reasons a patron could need to request the filter be turned off, not just to view porn.

    It seems like the justices had to convolute it a bit, but it wasn't an altogether terrible ruling.
     
  4. LAWC

    LAWC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    I used to work in a public, university library. It was my job at nights to make rounds and make sure things were all set. Nothing was better than finding an middle aged man with his pants down in front of the computer screen. I kid you not. Then I was supposed to ask him to stop. (because the computers were not for internet "surfing" only catalogs and the like. Honestly, common sense people! libraries are for books and education, not porn.
     
  5. ColoradoFB

    ColoradoFB
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Kelly on this too..

    I think that parents should be able to drop off their kids to study at the library without a perv accosting them or having them "explore" porn sites. However, adults can request the filters to be turned off...the best example I have heard is that one doing research on Breast Cancer will find legitimate sites blocked by filters because of the word "breast".

    That same filter might block the Tyson's Chicken or KFC website too.
     
  6. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Serious question, LAWC - should we remove all fiction from libraries? I thought libraries were about media (books, movies, periodicals . . . ), some of it purely academic, some of it for entertainment.
     
  7. LAWC

    LAWC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    fiction and entertainment can also be eductational. In a university library, most work was educational - 90%.

    I do realize this issue is not about university libraries, but on a whole about any public library, which in fact does have more material for the average person - fiction, movies ect.

    on another note, we had playboy on reserve. i was fine with that, because one can read playboy without exposing others. (though most men walked straight to the bathroom...) Computer screens display to more than the reader. I think patrons should have a right not to be exposed to pornography (which is prohibited by law to minors).
     
  8. new man

    new man
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    stubbornkelly, that is a quite large red herring you just laid out there.


    Russ &lt;&gt;&lt;
     
  9. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course I disagree. [​IMG]

    It's hardly a red herring; it's a suggestion that the proposal that books and education are the sole purposes of libraries be reexamined.

    Porn is a form of entertainment for many people, as I'm sure we all know, as are many novels that can only be categorized as fluff. Such fluff novels provide nothing more than a way to pass a few hours, yet they are contained in libraries. I could go right now and pick up a copy of Confessions of a Shopaholic with no problems, and that particularly book can't be said to be anything but fluff entertainment. Now, am I saying that Nina Hartley's website is the same as Sophie Kinsella's book? No, not at all. But, they both exist solely for entertainment purposes. Actually, you might say that Nina Hartley's site is a bit more educational.

    My point is just that if we're going to say what the purpose of a library is and include in that definition articles produced solely for entertainment, it makes no logical sense to disinclude some porn from that categorization.

    Now, if we want to be lofty and say that libraries only exist for serious literary work (in addition to academic works), I daresay much, if not most, of the fiction should be removed.

    LAWC, thanks for your clarification. You clearly had few problems with the Playboy being available, so it would seem your argument really isn't about libraries being no place for porn. It seems to be the "out in the open" bit you have problems with. Would that be correct?
     
  10. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    The thing is that a guy would hardly have to have his "pants down" when a discreet unzippering and a jacket artfully draped could allow for simple masturbation (no, I am not recommending this to anyone and yes, that would still be gross). It sounds as if he were a bit disturbed and not an ordinary library patron. Someone exposing himself to that degree would probably do so porn or no.

    The reason to have the filtering turned off is that legitimately educational web-sites are all too often disallowed by imperfect software. Breast cancer info is the one most often given as an example.
     

Share This Page

Loading...