Kansas libraries should have computer filters that block access to online porn sites for minors — after all, the purpose of a library is to inspire and educate, not titillate. And, no, children shouldn’t be able to check out R-rated DVDs and videos.
But most libraries, including those in Wichita, already have reasonable policies and protections in place. And there’s no evidence of serious problems. The bill, passed by the Kansas House last week, to require such library restrictions is well-intentioned but unnecessary, as well as needlessly intrusive in local control.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
16 Comments
BUt Randy if not for this bill, they might have to actually do something that was needed! We can not have them do that…There would have been no point in electing them if they were doing something important.
The current group making laws in Topeka wouldn’t have anything to do if it wasn’t for smut. They gotta earn their bucks somehow.
If they put filters on computers for porn for children, do they have them turned off for adults?
I’ve seen computers with “smut filters”. It doesn’t work very well. For example, if a filter cuts off any site that uses the word sex, it cuts off porn sites, but it also cuts off National Geographic, the History Channel, etc. For a kid, that cuts off a lot of learning information.
They also restrict access to sites such as ‘Not me, Not now’ and pretty much anything dealing with topics like breast cancer and even recipes for cooking a chicken breast.If they are the same type of filter required by my state libraries (if libaries here don’t have filters they dont get funding) they are on all the time but can be overridden by a librarian. In other words adults can still find the smut (thereby not violating censorship laws) but they have to ask someone to let them in.The main problem is that the filters aren’t smart enough to detect what is smut and what isn’t. And there’s always ways around it. The smut sites are smarter than most of the filters available.
Wolfie,The main problem is that Attorney Generals aren’t smart enough to detect what is smut and what isn’t either!
One attorney generals smut is another attorney generals light reading…
Libraries should NOT handle smut policy. 1) Librarians, following the American Library Association, say it is age discrimination to keep children from anything, including smut. 2) Librarians and the ALA continue to say this despite the case they lost in the US Supreme Court in 2003 called US v. ALA where the Justices agreed 9-0 that children SHOULD get special protection from inappropriate material, but the ALA refuses to comply or change its so-called Library Bill of Rights. 3) Filters have greatly improved but will never be perfect — so US v. ALA allowed them to be disabled upon request by an adult for reasons consistent with library policy – and that is NOT pornography. Any librarian saying otherwise is lying or seriously out of date; either way they cannot be trusted — after all it was the ALA that lost US v. ALA so they shold know better. 4) Filtering the child computers but not the adult computers means the adults see the porn on their computers then rape or molest the children elsewhere, often the bathrooms. 5) Librarians have proven themselves to be total liars, misleading the public intentionally to avoid filters; they cannot be trusted. Want proof? Read this article from Feb 9: Team 7 Investigators Find Crimes, Threats At Central Library http://www.kirotv.com/news/6881610/detail.html The article exposes hundreds of incidents but the librarians says that’s no problem. The article exposes kids being exposed to porn but the librarians say parents should be present. The article exposes that librarians claim few people have complaints but actually almost everyone had complaints. This story shows the complete and total misinformation campaign by librarians to fool the public into thinking filters are not needed. The story even exposes criminal activity that the library never reported to the police! 6) There are so much more reasons librarians cannot be trusted. NOW IF LIBRARIANS ARE HIDING THE TRUTH, NOT REPORTING CRIMES, DEFYING THE US SUPREME COURT, CLAIMING IT IS AGE DISCRIMINATION TO KEEP CHILDREN FROM READING SMUT, WHY WOULD ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS TRUST LIBRARIANS TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS TO PROTECT PATRONS FROM HARM? For more on this in general, see SafeLibraries.org at http://www.safelibraries.org/
IT’S THE LIBRARIANS! I knew it all along, what with those chignons and sensible shoes, waiting to corrupt our innocent youth with thoughts! A few years of that, and they’ll want to think for themselves! Oh, the shame!
And the original post says the law is “well-intentioned but unnecessary, as well as needlessly intrusive in local control.” Unnecessary? Tell that to child after child raped and molested nationwide in libraries that refuse to filter even in the face of US v. ALA that the libraries lost almost 3 years ago. Needlessly intrusive in local control? Are you kidding here? Really, have you actually thought about this? The ALA is such a dominating force in libraries that local control is literally impossible in many libraries. The ALA demands and the local libraries slavishly comply in ensuring children have continued access to porn and criminals have continued access to children. For just one example, the ALA says policy should state that nothing will be removed from a library for any reason, whether or not legal or extra legal pressure is applied. Local libraries literally copy this word for word and adopt it as their own. Then, when the community demands that, say, sexually inappropriate material be removed from, say, public school libraries, the libraries play a long game of stringing out the local people until they tire of fighting and the porn stays in the library because policy says nothing is to be removed. So exactly who has control in the library? The ALA or the citizens? Time and time again citizens interests are not only ignored, but they are personally attacked as “would be censors” or “censorship nuts” or “nazis” or other words, even be top leadership at the ALA itself. Local control is, as a matter of facts on the ground under the whip of the ALA, an actual impossibility in many, many libraries. The only way for many communities to control the out of control ALA automatons in control of their libraries is to go over their heads and seek political solutions. Many communities have been forced to do this and have done so with varying degrees of success. The ALA even laughs at their puny efforts (right, Judith Krug?). And guess what, it is not a question of Republican versus Democrat — government officials from both parties can’t stand the ALA effectively controlling local libraries. The post immediately before this is an example of the personal attacks used to divert attention from the truth — did you see any legitimate argument in that post? So LOCAL CONTROL IS OFTEN IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE ALA’S DOMINANCE. DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN FENDING OFF THE ALA. FOR SPECIFICS, SEE http://www.safelibraries.org/statecipalaws.htm WHICH HAS THE MOST UP TO DATE INFORMATION IN THIS AREA.
Thank you “TPlan2Succeed Citizen’s Group” for the info.
The important issue, that many here are unbelievably so casually dismissing, is protecting children.
A filtered computer MIGHT block National Geographic or other learning resources. OK, I can live with that.
On the other hand, an unfiltered computer lets kids research anything. Of course they can really get an X-rated education in the process. We don’t want that.
And if “adults” complain about their “free speech” being abridged, well, too bad. They need to find a different place to get their jollies than a public library.
What’s the matter with these librarians? Someone get Laura on the phone!
Outlander, you say, “And if ‘adults’ complain about their ‘free speech’ being abridged, well, too bad.” While it is obvious that you agree with us, we are very careful not to be the nuts ALA librarians claim we are. There are legitimate concerns about filtering and how much that impacts an adult’s efforts to seek information in a public library. Fortunately for us, and for citizens in general, we have something on our side that the ALA does not want you to know, namely, the law. Concerns over free speech issues and First Amendment rights are constantly raised by ALA indoctrinated librarians in an effort to confuse people into acquiesing with the ALA’s agenda. Why? Because the librarians already lost, they know it, but they don’t want you to think that they know it — and they want you to think US v. ALA never existed. They raise the same issues over and over again in a giant propaganda campaign that, frankly, works quite often. Perhaps that’s why the ALA snickers at local communities trying to assert their own control over libraries. THE FACT IS CONCERNS OVER FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND THE RIGHT TO VIEW PORN IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND THE LIBRARIANS LOST AND LOST BIG. THERE IS NO NEED TO RERAISE THE ISSUES LOCALLY UNLESS IT IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MISLEADING THE PUBLIC. THE LIBRARIANS ARE THE ONES WHO LOST THE CASE SO THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER. People and their elected officials need to be aware of the ALA’s propaganda miasma, and need to read for themselves US v. ALA. Here is the link for you and other to read. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf What Plan2Succeed is doing is not being done in a effort to impose our will on others, rather it is being done to show people the law and to show how the ALA’s will is being imposed on us, likely to the detriment of children nationwide. Quips about how we don’t want children to think for themselves are ridiculous. The US Supreme Court itself says children should not see certain inappropriate material. I guess that mean we are in good company with the US Supreme Court. We are just broadcasting this to the public because the ALA will not and children likely continue to suffer as a direct result. Just ask yourself, why was CIPA passed in the first place and why did the US Supreme Court uphold the law? Certainly not, as the ALA says, because it is age discrimination for a librarian to keep a child from reading porn or because adults have an unfettered right to view porn in public libraries. EVERYONE – YOU MUST READ THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE OF US v. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION!!!! HERE IS A LINK: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf
Dear Randy Scholfield,
Please consider publishing some of our comments in print so the legislators and the public can see the arguments for and against.
Randy,What may be deemed smut by you may not be deemed smut by me, my point being that it is subjective to each and every individual. E.G. latter-Renaissance art of nudist paintings would be just fine and dandy for Michealangelo, but to Puritan-revivalist Phil Kline and Senator Brownback-Mountain, well let’s just say we can expect the Morality Police to be on hyper-active duty in our libraries.
Some years ago, everybody got all het up about the “homo-erotic” photos of Robert Mapplethorp. As an artist, I was curious, so I went down to our public library to find out what the flap was about. They had a copy of the show’s catalogue in the locked case (not because they were worried about corrupting anyboy’s morals, but to protect it against homophobic vandals), and I spent an afternoon looking it over.First, it became evident early on, that while the photos in question weren’t particularly erotic to anybody, gay or straight, who wasn’t pretty weird to begin with, they were a quite raw and in-your-face political statement. And they did make me wonder why Jesse Helms was so considered to be an expert on what turns on gay people that he could coin the term “homo-erotic.Second, nobody ever mentioned his flower pictures, which were absolutely dripping sex!There are two points here: one, that images that offend one person may mean something entirely different to someone else, and two, without a public library that isn’t afraid to keep controversial material, we’d all be stuck with taking some politician’s word that some book or picture was “offensive” if the censors had their way!
Does anyone else think this Plan2SuceedCitizen’sGroup is really a promotion for a Dav Pilkey graphic novel? I mean, evil librarians? Please. This is almost as believable as Captain Underpants.