« Cops in Black and White, Part LXXXIII | Main | City Council Candidate Questionnaire: Danny Thompson, At Large »

August 21, 2009

Comments

Filters as part of an effective means for protecting children are the best technique available. Even the ACLU now says filters are 95% effective and no longer block health-related information. Lowering the partitions will not work to protect children. Who said that, the library that's opposed to filters?

Porn is not a First Amendment right in a public library. Read US v. ALA that discusses this a little at http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html Basically, existing book collection policies and practices don't become useless just because of the Internet.

Ryan Shell: do not "compromise" with those who mislead you about filters.

" Even the ACLU now says filters are 95% effective..."

Link?

Also, I'd like to know to what people are reacting. Is there some verifiable or documented problem with children accessing age-inappropriate sexual content on Greensboro library computers or are people reacting to some unspecified agitation against the mere thought of it?

I don't understand why it would be so difficult to have comps in the children's section that could be heavily filtered to weed out a majority of porn or other questionable media. The main computers should be free of filtering. No one should be allowed to look at pornographic material on library computers. This could be defined a number of ways, such as, does the website in question have the government porn disclaimer.

Parents could then allow their children to surf the net without any worries. Maybe I'm missing something here as to why its so difficult.

Roch, I think you have point also. I don't believe there is a major problem with anyone looking at porn at the library, with the exception of a few isolated incidents. On the other hand, there is a major problem with people chatting, playing games, etc.

Assuming the below referenced activities are considered criminal and are widespread enough to where law enforcement is actively pursuing these types of people on their private computers ( and I haven't read or heard any raging controversies about that), why would anyone object to trying to prevent the same activities at a public library?
http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/08/12/article/greensboro_man_faces_41_counts_in_child_porn_probe

Roch,

This issue came up a while back when Fox 8 ran a story about a man being arrested for looking at, what I believe was child porn, at the library. I've actually not heard that kids looking at porn is the problem - it's the adults.

And hey, I know there are many different views on this, so maybe the concept of having youth/adult computer area might be a possible solution. The thought of a 42 yr old looking at porn next to someone's 12 year old daughter or son just doesn't sit very well.

Ryan

So a guy looking at child porn gets busted. The procedures in place worked.

I'm still wondering to what extent there is a problem with children accessing sexual content on computers at the library. Other than Ryan's "thoughts" are 42 year olds looking at porn next to someone's 12 year old daughter?

And still hope for a link to the ACLU saying that porn filters are 95% effective.

Ryan Shell has officially switched parties from the republicans to the democrats. Let's see how that plays out in the at large race.

Nice to see you back
JOE

The comments to this entry are closed.