Ed Cone has posted several questions in regards to my previous post stating that the Greensboro Public Library should implement a porn filter. His questions and my responses are below:
Q: What research have you done on this issue? (Please be specific)
A: I have not spent countless hours researching the topic, but I do know that a case previously went to the US Supreme Court and they decided that a filter did not violate the Constitution.
Q: How well do porn filters work, both at filtering porn and at not filtering other stuff?
A: I am not an IT guy, but I have used networks that successfully prevent users from accessing certain content. Like many things of this nature, the experts would need to be consulted and figure out the best way to implement a filtering system. A filter would not catch every single site, but at least it would help cut back on the porn that is looked at on library computers.
Q: What is your definition of porn? That is to say, what exactly should be filtered? (See question 2). Any nudity? Extreme violence? Who decides?
A: I think when most folks think of porn on the Internet they would describe that as nudity and sexually explicit content.
Q: What did the library staff say when you discussed this with them before publishing your suggestion?
A: I didn’t talk to the library staff about this. It was simply an idea that I posted earlier today.
Whether you like the idea or not, it seems as if something needs to be done to prevent 40 year old men from surfing child porn at the public library while a 13 year old kid sits in the cube next to them checking out whatever it is that interest them on the Web.
This idea, like many, can evolve after discussion has ensued, but in my opinion we need to take a little action and try and stop this from happening. In less that two weeks Greensboro has been highlighted in a negative way on the news due to individuals getting their latest porn fix on library computers.
If you think it is perfectly fine for folks to surf porn at the library, that is your opinion, I just don’t agree. And hey, a filter might not be the best answer… but we need to at least start the discussion and figure out how we can try and prevent this from happening quite so often.
If you haven’t already done so, it would be great to have you “Join the Campaign.”
{ 4 comments }
Ryan: I like your idea. I think it is one of those “your rights end where mine begin” issues. We’ve had several instances in Reidsville of perverts causing a scene in the library and even had one case a few years ago of an assault with bodily fluids.
It’s nothing to laugh at since libraries are also magnets for children. My wife and son go to the library once a week for story time.
I can’t imagine any parent of a small child who would want their them to be around adults looking at porn in a public place.
If my kids were teenagers I might feel different. But hes not. So I don’t.
Ryan, you responded to the extremely liberal blogger by saying: “A discussion of this nature could quickly make an individual feel as if they can’t ever share an idea b/c they will get torn down just for speaking up.”
Don’t consider yourself torn down because an extremely liberal blogger(s) questioned your statement. In fact, expect it to happen more often. You’ll see a subliminal attack on your party affiliation by the left (such as Jordan Greene singling you out as an (R)) and the lefty bloggers will unite and attack. Take it as a compliment.
Keep up the aggressive campaign Ryan.
I don’t really feel torn down at all. I think jumping on people is human nature, but I think we would all be much better off if we allowed people to go through various thought processes publicly… which would promote collaboration. I appreciate the questions and comments over at Ed’s site, it simply challenges me to make sure I take things to the next level.
I’m a guy that has fought to keep a landfill closed, proposed an ordinance that would require recycling to be offered at apartment complexes, promoted ideas to enhance GTA… and now have a desire to do something to reduce porn browsing on our library computers. Those items don’t fit any particular mold… Not at all.
Ryan
In fact, the Supreme Court decision didn’t say filters were constitutional. What the court said is that it was legal for Congress to require a school or library receiving certain federal discounts under the e-rate program to require the installation of filters as a condition of receiving the funding, *as long as the library had in place a policy that allowed adult users to quickly and easily ask that the filter be disabled.* It is a myth that the decision said the government could require mandatory filtering in the library, or that mandatory filtering comports with the First Amendment.
Comments on this entry are closed.