A political
robocall is urging voters not to vote for a candidate who supposedly will not use Internets filters appropriately to protect children in public libraries. See "
Ad Watch: Robocall Warns About Porn in Pima County Libraries," by
Erica Meltzer,
The Arizona Daily Star, 24 October 2008 (and "
Brenner Robocall Attacks Bronson Over Library Porn; She Joined Vote to Follow Panel's Recommendation," by
Erica Meltzer,
The Arizona Daily Star, 25 October 2008, and associated comments). The issue is such a political football that it has become,
again, an election issue, this time
in Pima County, AZ.
Regarding the robocall, the statements are correct. For instance,
privacy screens do not function as expected; selecting them over Internet filters is for
CYA purposes only. Privacy screens do nothing,
literally nothing, to protect children. So saying someone "voted to let it continue instead of siding with us and our kids" is accurate where someone recommended privacy screens.
The
Arizona Daily Star's "fact checking" is mistaken a number of times. For example, the US Supreme Court did
not say "adults can get access to any material that is not illegal" in public libraries. Libraries may legally exclude legal pornography, and likely most may do so under the very laws that created the libraries or by applying existing book collection policies and practices. The Court said filters may be used for this very purpose.
Also misleading is the implication that "reading a statement that displaying harmful material in the presence of minors is a crime" is an effective deterrent to criminal activity. Such "acceptable use policies" never deter criminals. It is just more CYA. In reality, filters may only be disabled under the applicable law "to enable access for
bona fide research or other lawful purpose." That does not include the provision of legal pornography, and if that is what one politician supports, pointing that out to the voters or saying someone is "out of touch with our families" is legitimate.
I would say this library policy is out of touch with what people might expect: "
When adults ... attempt to access a questionable site (such as sites that are sexually or violently explicit) they will first see a screen advising them of state and federal cautions regarding viewing of questionable websites in public use areas. Adults then can choose to proceed or cancel their website choice." Actually, I would say that is a violation of the applicable law since the law requires librarians to disable filters, not patrons. If one politician allows this violation to continue and another will takes steps to stop this violation, citizens may wish to vote for the one who will follow the law, not flout it. Indeed, the county may lose federal funding even retroactively if this is not remedied.
Regarding the claimed First Amendment issues, they have already been asked and answered in the US Supreme Court. Reraising the same issues in a local jurisdiction is done only to convince people not to use filters. Someone who "voted, again with the majority, to adopt the recommendation," is not impressive where the recommendation is a compromise with those who refuse to follow the law and claim First Amendment rights already addressed by the US Supreme Court. Does anyone compromise with a child molester and only allow him to molest one child instead of ten? Does it make a difference if the "majority" accepts such a compromise?
The statements in the robocall about library issues are correct. The statements in the "ad watch" report about library issues are not entirely correct. Generally, politicians should be aware library filtering issues may become political election issues.
Ad Watch: Robocall Warns About Porn in Pima County LibrariesPima County District 3 Board of Supervisors
By Erica Meltzer
Arizona Daily Star
AD WATCH
The Star’s ongoing evaluation of the record vs. the rhetoric in campaign ads
The medium: robocall
The message: The call features Republican Supervisor
Ray Carroll reading a message about Bronson.
“This is county Supervisor Ray Carroll with a call about protecting our kids. Our libraries have become places where adult men watch X-rated video pornography with our kids nearby. We need to put an end to this,” Carroll says.
“Supervisor Sharon Bronson voted to let it continue instead of siding with us and our kids. Bronson is out of touch with our families. Please vote for Barney Brenner, a man who will work to protect our kids.”
The intent: Make it appear that Bronson doesn’t want to protect children from pornography.
Fact check:
Adults using public library computers to access on-line pornography became an issue in spring 2006 when a television news crew used hidden cameras to tape men viewing pornography in public libraries.
At the time, library policy was that computers in children’s sections were filtered, but adults could choose whether to filter their Internet use.
Carroll pushed strongly for all Internet use to be filtered. The other supervisors said they were concerned about balancing First Amendment rights with protecting children.
In July 2006, Bronson joined the two other Democratic supervisors in voting to install privacy screens around library computers so that passers-by would be less likely to see what another user had up on his screen and refer the issue to a committee.
That committee recommended all computer sessions start off with filtered Internet access. A user can choose to disable the filter after reading a statement that displaying harmful material in the presence of minors is a crime in Arizona.
In February 2007, Bronson voted, again with the majority, to adopt the recommendation.
Brenner agrees with Carroll’s position, that all Internet use in public libraries should be filtered.
Sources: Arizona Daily Star, minutes of Board of Supervisor meetings
Reprinted for educational purposes under Section 107 of the US Copyright Act
Related:
