Cedar

Intellectual freedom is really my only political soapbox. As someone in a profession that advocates equality in information access regardless of class, age, economic situation, etc., I can never seem to shut up about censorship, book banning, Internet filtering, privacy of library records (the PATRIOT Act is not my friend). Being the curious person I am, I wanted to toss a few questions to the masses:

1) What do you think of CIPA, the Children's Internet Protection Act? Under this act, all public libraries that receive federal funding are now required to install censorware on all their computers. All of them, not just the ones intended for use by children. This would include all computers to be used by staff. The filters may be turned off at a patron's request for "bona fide research purposes."

2) Is book banning ever an appropriate thing?

3) In a recent newspaper article, and I wish I could remember where I read it, a majority of people polled said that the First Amendment was "too liberal." What do you think of that?

-Cedar
the ever nonpolitical

__________________
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
I am large. I contain multitudes.

-Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

The_Dude

i personally dont think they should censor the content avaliable at public liberaries, rather they should have special pc's designated for children with advisory software installed.

that's how my public library is.

come on...library patrons are not likely to look @ porn when everyone that passes by can see their screens.

as for book banning, HELL NO! there is no excuse for banning books.

3) i would like to see what the majority of people would say without the first ammendment.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Mojo_PeiPei

1) I am not for pervs jacking off at libraries
2) Never cool hihi Hitler and Stalin
3) THey only say that because they can, they'd be singing a different tune if they couldn't.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Xell101

1) I think it really depends on the library but it isn't a bad idea
2) Only for books that fit into the catagory of "Extreme"
3) Know why they can protest it?

ctembreull

1) I approve of filtering and monitoring of public internet access for people under 18, but there needs to be more intelligent methods of filtering, and there needs to be a means of accessing the raw feed for adults as well. Simple solution: charge adults by the kilobyte, something like a penny a K. That'll stop the porn downloading real quick-like, and provide a small but non-trivial revenue stream for public libraries.
2) No. Not ever. For no reason and under no circumstances. Not even for the utterly execrable output of Ann Coulter. Nazis burned books. Free people should treasure them, regardless of content.
3) The First Amendment is the core of American society. It must be defended at all costs against those who would limit the freedom it provides. This means you, John Ashcroft.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

Kabsnow

kinda like the patriot acts.. we are slowly becoming a police state...

Willy

There's no pornography magazines at the library, there doesn't need to be free pornography computers there either. Would you advocate the library carrying penthouse and making it available to all?

I'm all for sharing of information and ideas, but I don't see a need for the government to provide free porno, which is really all they're filtering out at the library.

smooth

I would concede your point that public institutions do not have a duty to provide pornography to its patrons (although I think I have seen some libraries offer magazines) but also recognizing that the government should then regulate and operate according to the laws, norms, and the demands of the people it serves.

These filters, however, are owned and operated by private corporations. There have been complaints that legitimate (non-porn) related sites have been filtered. This is one instance where I feel the government has an obligation since it does not answer to a board of directors that are enriched every time they can extract money from the service being provided--whether that be due to increased productivity, more workers, or even lower wages and imported labor.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

bajwae

A couple of points:

1) Library filters will get rid of a LOT more than porn, depending on how they're applied. Some of the common filtering software won't allow anything through that doesn't specifically have a certificate of approval. Unfortunately, most of the internet doesn't have such certificates.

2) In the poll mentioned above about the first amendment, only about 20% of Americans said that it was too liberal. Still a surprisingly high number, but given all the right-wing extremists and bible-thumpers in our country, I guess it's expected.

sunstone

1) There could be switchable filters for children or separate PC's for children's use. Any adult should have unrestricted access. I would say this would extend to being allowed to decide what filters are appropriate for their own children.

2) Other than laws already in place for the protection of minors, there should be no restriction on books of any kind. This is a slippery slope -- where would you start restricting?? ..... and where would you decide to end??

3) Unless and until a constitutional amendment is passed, which is highly unlikely, the first amendment is what we have to protect us. I believe (and truly hope) there would be a revolution of sorts if an amendment were drafted that started to remove elements from the first amendment -- and I don't think it would ever receive enough support to pass. The only good thing about an official attack on the first amendment might be that the sleeping hordes of Americans would wake up to the dangers facing them.

P.S. -- I think when Ashcroft disappears, so will the motivation to screw with our personal freedoms (unless he's replaced with another extreme rightwing fundamentalist).

guthmund

1) I think that censoring or filtering a few computers for the kiddos is a good idea. Blanket filtering on all computers is ridiculous. We have Internet filters at my local branch; I call them librarians.

2) There is never an excuse for banning a book. I think that if you're mature enough to visit the library by yourself, then you're certainly mature enough to wade through "questionable" material.

3) I'd like to see how those folks feel about the "liberal" First Amendment when they've had their speech hindered.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

MSD

There is no excuse for filtering the internet. Censorware can be easily manipulated to block anything the government doesn't want you to see, and it filters out too much without being altered after production.

There is no reason to ban a book unless it knowingly publishes classified information. I'm all for freedom of speech, but if some whacko decides to throw blueprints for a W-88 in his conspiracy book, he deserves jail time. On a similar note, I do not think that the government should have any right to view anyone's library borrowing habits without a public court-issued warrant and probable cause. I also believe that any such monitoring or acess to records should take place with the knowledge of the individual, unless there is probable cause to believe that this would compromise the investigation.

Anyone who thinks that speech is too free should restrict theirs with some duct tape.

sonikeko

In today's world of infinite information access, who should have the right to decide what is appropriate for children to view? What should be considered an appropriate age to be able to view censored content? Personally, I think it is another way that the Government is trying to take on the Paternal role. There are devices out there, Internet Nanny, Watchdog, etc. that allow parents, who should be thte ones deciding what their children can and can't view, what to censor from their children. Why does the Government think that it has the authority or even responsibility to filter out content on a seemingly endless rresource of knowledge? Perhaps I may be sounding a little "conspiracy theory" but come on, not only does the Government decide what content you can and can't view, they can also track where you have been on the internet. Definately not their job. If the Government wants to help, they should develop programs such as Watchdog and Nanny to be free to the public so that PARENTS can prevent offensive content from being viewed by THEIR children.

__________________
"Adolescence is short, maturity is forever"

Sty

A historical tidbit:

Your first amendment was never meant to be that liberal it is nowdays. It was originally devised to protect the political news pampleths of the ruling minority. _NOT_ to protect individual peoples right of free speech etc...

__________________
br,
Sty

I route, therefore you exist

Publius

Beg to differ with you dude. I know of several libraries that do have subscriptions to both Penthouse and Playboy that canbe accessed by adult readers. You do have to ask for them and you do have to prove your age before you can read them, but they are offered. Secondly, who is to say what is pornographic or obseen? The Court can't give us a diffinition, lawmakers disagree all the time about this, so what standard should our libraries be held to if they are suppose to be censuring anyway? (like some computer software designer is going to be a better judge then the Court or Congress) Lasty, what is Congress going to ask the libraries to do next? Go through all of their books and remove any and all pictures that might be offinsive to someone? Ok well there go all the art books, drawing books, photography books, half the medical books, all of the old National Geographics, the sexual relation self help books, quite a few comic books, ect, ect. (Ok so I know all this how? Hey I was a horny little kid once too you know) Congress shall make no laws.... and thats exactly where they should stop. Let the local communities decide what is fit to have in their public libraries, Washington shouldnt be deciding it for the entire nation.

Cedar

Actually, the two main reasons that libraries don't usually carry Playboy and Penthouse have to do with money and space. In a time where nearly every library in the nation is suffering some kind of financial crisis, there's not a lot of money to spend on materials that will just get stolen the minute they're put on the shelves (which is exactly what happens with Playboy and Penthouse). Eventually, having to replace those magazines every time they're stolen just becomes a money pit, and that's money that could be put towards programming, new books, another online database subscription, etc. As far as space goes, giving that shelf space to a magazine that does nothing but disappear is a waste. We could be spending that money and space on something that isn't going to walk off the shelf the minute it gets there. Content is nowhere near as important as the money and space issues.

hiredgun

I think we should give libraries credit for their discretion in matters like these. Under no circumstances should the government pass a law stating that libraries must filter their internet access or ban certain books; if a library, out of its own concern for the community in which it resides, decides to withhold access to certain things, I don't have a problem with that; at least it will be done out of a legitimate concern and not a government whitewash.

debaser

The protection of children is the ultimate trump card for any liberty. The government will use it to strip us of all of our rights.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

__________________

j8ear

I'm no constitutional scholar...but this reads like the biggest load of crap I have seen in a while.

It was concieved (as were most ammendments to the constitution ) as a personal individual liberty which with ALL men are created, AND gauranteed by the ammendment.

Pampleteers and political speech exclusively is NONSENSE.

As for internet filtering... It IS CENSORSHIP and it is disgusting. I don't give a crap who the potential "Victim" is.

Booking banning. Absolutely NOT. Hitler, Stalin, whoever...Just as those books deemed "extreme" might spur some to undesirable action....It will just as likely prevent it, I believe.

-bear

Zargix

i'm extremely liberal, and you know what i say. Never trust the fanatics. so i'm kinda fanatical about this, so take everything i say with a heaping tablespoon of salt.

1. I can kinda see why they would want to do this. People looking at porn in the library can be pretty akward for parents bringing in their children to get books. but this all goes back to nudity=sex, and i'll save that for later

2. book burning = "gninrub koob" backword. 'nuff said

3. hahaha. idiots. that would take away one of the few freedoms we have in this country (yeah am i sooo exagerating)

pangavan

Many public libraries carry playboy magazine, you just have to ask for it

__________________
He is, moreover, a frequent drunkard, a glutton, and a patron of ladies who are no better than they should be.

vermin

1) That depends on whether testing your response to provocative visual stimuli is considered "bona fide research purposes."

2) Is book banning ever an appropriate thing? NEVER.

3) I think "a majority of people polled" were fucking stupid.

__________________
If puns were sausages, this would be the wurst.

ObieX

1) I think the restriction of knowledge in a place of knowledge is wrong. Period.

2) Book burning is pointless. If you dont agree with an idea thats your perogative. Restricting others from this idea ("right" or "wrong") is not something anyone should be able to do. Just because this idea or concept is burned, doesnt mean it wont resurface again anyway. How can someone learn from the past, or draw on the past, or agree/disagree with the past if the history and thoughts of that past are destroyed? The "bad" things would be doomed to repeat endlessly.



I agree with this answer.

vevaphon

in response:

1) why should children be permitted unsupervised access to the Internet?

2) who is to judge what's "extreme?" is a copy of the "Anarchists Cookbook" extreme? How about "Mein Kampf" or Ford's edition of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" Or, perhaps, more at home, "Alice in Wonderland" or "Tom Sawyer."

there's really no excuse for number one, you don't generally let your 10 year old kid run around without some kind of supervision, or at least knowledge of where they're supposed to be - and some kind of responsible "adult" in the area.

on the second, opinion is a remarkably variable thing. again, i'd rather have the parents monitor the kids reading habits, than the government try to control it arbitrarily.

why use a hatchet where a scalpel is better?

__________________
"Faster. And faster still. Until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death."
--- DKM

Darkblack

1) Yes, as long as the censorship can be removed for an adult I have no problems with censoring porn and stuff from kids.

2) never

3) that scares me.

Elessar

Wouldn't the same solution they use for magazines work for the questionable online content as well?

You have to prove your age in order to get access to a Playboy, so why not simply prove your age in order to get access to a username/password which will allow you to bypass the filter whenever a questionable link is followed? This seems a painless and fluid method of "protecting" minors from sexually explicit imagery (assuming they need to be protected), while not hindering the full access of the Web to adults.

The other point is also valid ... you've got to be some kind of freak to be surfing porn at a public library where everyone is walking by fully able to view your screen. Everyone has been exposed to porn unintentionally (or otherwise), but since we're still supposed to be the "land of the free" (I think) grown-ups should really be given the benefit of the doubt.

__________________
You! Out of the Gene Pool!

cynic

If an adult needs to look at porn then they should check out high art books. I have no problem with the idea of protecting children they can look at the high art books as well.

Book banning should never happen, there are few of us readers as it is.

Is the first amendment free speech? I dont have a constitution and Tony Blair seems to fight at every oppotunity one being formed in Brussels but if right wingers want the freedom to say half the shit they come out with then so should everyone else.