Notice the library director spouting the usual misleading statements:
Library director Elizabeth Martinez said patrons have right to information and the filters would block out more than just the bad stuff.
"That's part of the complexity of the issue. (If) you want to do research on a certain body part you might not get those sites because it blocks the whole thing. A computer can't think," Martinez said.
How misleading. The US Supreme Court already asked and answered that overblocking concern in US v. American Library Association. All you do is ask for the filter to be temporarily disabled. Yet the library director misleads the community by reraising the issue as if it were new and as if no solution were available.
However, notice people are starting to get wise to library propaganda. Most encouragingly, it was the threatened librarian herself who spoke up:
But [librarian Elizabeth] McKeighen said filters have advanced in recent years.
"This is an issue. It happens all the time, every day. And while the solution is very challenging, to ignore the problem is only going to exacerbate it and make it worse," she said.
Indeed, filters have advanced so much even the ACLU now argues filters are 95% effective and no longer block health-related information. The library director's not mentioning this is another way she is misleading the community.
I hereby request librarian Elizabeth McKeighen be publicly recognized for her common sense, and the community should consider using Internet filters, especially where library director Elizabeth Martinez misleads the public so seriously, leaving children open to harm. If the library director continues to obfuscate, remove her.
Hat tip: "Librarian Reprimanded For Reaction," by Bibliofuture, LISNews, 14 May 2010.
Let me add that this story reminds me of the
- mother kicked out for complaining about child porn, or the
- librarian fired for writing anonymously about library porn viewing, or the
- library employee fired for reporting child porn to the police, or the
- mother banned for six months then beaten for complaining about children violating library policy, or the
- Roswell Public Library director saying children may access porn, or the
- Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library saying children should access Playboy, or the
- San Jose Public Library commissioner flat out lying about Internet filters, or
- libraries generally thwarting child porn investigations, or the
- librarian blowing the whistle on orders to cover up child porn viewing, or
- Sonoma County wanting filters but the library director refusing to comply, etc.
This is directly relevant:
"On First Amendment grounds, library officials refused to intervene when patrons used library Internet stations to display sexually explicit material." "[T]he administration's laissez-faire attitude led to overt acts of harassment, such as catcalls, masturbation, physical threats and stalking by patrons." "[T]he issue of whether a library can put restrictions on its patrons' choice of Internet material has largely been rendered moot by the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision in U.S. v. [ALA:] A library's need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet than when it collects material from any other source." "[T]he administration was so loath to interfere with the viewing choices of its patrons that it chastised a security guard for telling a 6-year-old boy that he shouldn't be looking at pornography." "[T]he library fell under occupation by about 25 'sex addicts' who came in every day to use the terminals, deliberately tried to embarrass and intimidate the staff, lured children into viewing pornography and made violent threats." "[Librarians were] chastise[d] by the administration 'for daring to think that they had rights in this area.'" "The pornography that came into the librarians' workplace via the internet created a hostile environment for their work because they were women. This is sex-based abuse, not protected freedom."
Source: "No Smut At Work, Please," by Gary Young and Staff Reporter, The National Law Journal, 15 September 2003.
Elizabeth McKeighen was daring to think. Elizabeth Martinez is misleading the community so it doesn't think. See the difference? Is that acceptable to Salinas, CA, residents? Please comment below.