Showing posts with label PornExcludedFromPublicLibraries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PornExcludedFromPublicLibraries. Show all posts

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Public Library Law Allows Porn Exclusion and Allows Governments to Ensure Same

To prepare for a media interview, I put together a few talking points on why porn may be legally excluded from public libraries (see US v. American Library Association).  It gives a really quick overview of why governments may ensure public libraries are filtering out pornography even where the library refuses to do so.  Such information is completely absent from communities being misled to believe that porn in public libraries is a First Amendment right.  It isn't.

Here's the URL for my media interview talking points:


And now, presenting for your enlightenment:





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, November 15, 2010

Library P-rn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal P-rn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma

No P-rn Librarian
A public library director has removed p-rnography from library computers by using Internet filters that will only be disabled after patron request and library review to ensure the site complies with library policy.  P-rnography is not part of library policy.  The director advises that the American Library Association [ALA] intentionally misleads local communities.

Short URL for this page:
http://tinyurl.com/ALAdogma


The library director provides a road map for legally removing p-rn from a public library.  He has done it, with the backing of his state's Supreme Court, and despite the usual ALA misinformation designed to convince people to act as the ALA would act.  See:
"LJ BackTalk: The Internet Is Not All or Nothing," by Dean Marney, the Director of the North Central Regional Library, Wenatchee, WA, Library Journal, 1 November 2010.

"If parents do not see the public library as a safe place for their children, they will not allow them to go there.  This would mean fewer patrons in the library and possibly could affect the library’s funding."  Source:  "Do Librarians Have an Ethical Duty to Monitor Patrons' Internet Usage in the Public Library?," by Anna May Wyatt, Journal of Information Ethics 15 (1): 70-79, Spring 2006.


Library Director's Wake Up Call to Communities About Outdated ALA Dogma

Here's library director Dean Marney's wake up call to local communities about outdated ALA dogma:
The outdated tenets about using technology to manage the Internet, promoted by the Freedom To Read Foundation (FTRF) and American Library Association (ALA) Office of Intellectual Freedom, express dogma and fundamentalism and deserve challenge.

....

Filtering offers a technological solution for a technological problem. If your filter is inadequate, find a better one.
The FTRF, by the way, is an ALA creation.  They do "deserve challenge" for "outdated" "dogma and fundamentalism" and now there's a library directory saying so.  He is saying what many others are thinking but afraid to act upon.  I have had many librarians talk to me in whispers.  I hereby encourage other library directors and librarians to speak out like Dean Marney or, for the more timid, to contact me discreetly and perhaps I'll post your writing here anonymously.



Example of Outdated Dogma that Filters Do Not Work

For an example of that outdated dogma, see "Why Internet Filters Don't Work and Why Libraries Who Filter are Wrong," by Sarah Houghton (formerly Sarah Houghton-Jan), LibrarianInBlack, 7 May 2010.  See the many comments written by "Dan Kleinman"—that's me—and see how the Librarian In Black responds. Outdated and dogmatic are the right words.  [NOTE ADDED 9 JANUARY 2015: This top ALA censorship expert now known as Sarah Houghton is so against censorship that she removed my comments, see this later version (link), then eventually completely deleted the post.  This is another major double standard or hypocrisy.]

It is notable that Sarah Houghton, ALA's leading expert on Internet filters, helped create false claims of sexual harassment against another librarian, thereby destroying his career, and was the only member of the three fakers not to admit to the fakery.  See:


Court Provides Lesson for Public Libraries—Legal P-rn May Be Legally Removed

Here's what the Washington Supreme Court said in Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District:
Here, if a library patron wants to access a web site or page that has been blocked by FortiGuard, he or she may send an e-mail to NCRL administrators asking for a manual override of the block.  The site or page is reviewed to ascertain whether allowing access would accord with NCRL’s mission, its policy, and CIPA requirements.  If not, the request is denied.  If the request is approved, access will be allowed on all of NCRL’s public access computers.

....

Most importantly, just as a public library has discretion to make content-based decisions about which magazines and books to include in its collection, it has discretion to make decisions about Internet content.  A public library can decide that it will not include p-rnography and other adult materials in its collection in accord with its mission and policies and, as explained, no unconstitutionality necessarily results.  It can make the same choices about Internet access.

A public library has traditionally and historically enjoyed broad discretion to select materials to add to its collection of printed materials for its patrons’ use.  We conclude that the same discretion must be afforded a public library to choose what materials from millions of Internet sites it will add to its collection and make available to its patrons.
Let that be a lesson for any public library and community struggling with how to control p-rn in the public library even when that p-rn is legal.  Legal p-rn may be removed legally by Internet filters.  The ALA may be outdated and dogmatic in promoting its "anything goes" views on local communities, but those communities can now see through the propaganda and apply community standards, not ALA standards, and do so legally.


Local Law May Preclude P-rn and Libraries Acting Outside the Law May Be Reined In by Local Governments

Look at the local law that created your library.  It shows the library was created for a purpose.   P-rn is usually not part of that purpose.  If your local library is allowing p-rn, it may be acting outside the law, or ultra vires.  In such a case, the usual veil of autonomy no longer applies.   You see, libraries are intentionally made autonomous precisely to prevent political control.  But where the library acts outside of the law, then the local government may act to require the library to adhere to the law.

So, not only may local libraries act to preclude p-rn in the libraries, but local governments may act as well.   It all depends on the law and the circumstances, of course.


The US Supreme Court Also Allows Libraries to Preclude P-rn

Even the US Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of p-rn in the public library.  In US v. ALA, the Court said:
US Supreme Court, 2003
To fulfill their traditional missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons.  ....  Internet access in public libraries is neither a "traditional" nor a "designated" public forum.  ....  Internet terminals are not acquired by a library in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves.  Rather, a library provides such access for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality.   The fact that a library reviews and affirmatively chooses to acquire every book in its collection, but does not review every Web site that it makes available, is not a constitutionally relevant distinction.  The decisions by most libraries to exclude p-rnography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online p-rnography any differently.  Moreover, because of the vast quantity of material on the Internet and the rapid pace at which it changes, libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not.  While a library could limit its Internet collection to just those sites it found worthwhile, it could do so only at the cost of excluding an enormous amount of valuable information that it lacks the capacity to review.  Given that tradeoff, it is entirely reasonable for public libraries to reject that approach and instead exclude certain categories of content, without making individualized judgments that everything made available has requisite and appropriate quality.   Concerns over filtering software's tendency to erroneously "overblock" access to constitutionally protected speech that falls outside the categories software users intend to block are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled.  ....  The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.
All Members of the Court agree, but the ALA does not.  Let me add that the ALA advises local libraries how to skirt US v. ALA by using CYA language.  So which institution should be authoritative in your own community, the US Supreme Court or the ALA that advises skirting the Court?


Parting Words from Dean Marney: Safe Libraries are a Dirty Little Secret

Dean Marney is really admirable, especially since he is willing to oppose the ALA dogma.  See what he says here:
In their ruling, they say that just as libraries don't buy all books that are available, especially those that are p-rnographic, so they're not obligated to provide access to every Internet site.

Director Dean Marney says the ruling affirms his district's policy of making libraries safe places for all of its patrons.

Dean Marney: “I think this has been libraries' dirty little secret forever, that we've had to deal with this; that we can protect kids, we can protect employees, stay true to our mission.”

Washington state librarian Jan Walsh says the ruling may convince other libraries that don't use filters to adopt them.
Source: "Washington Supreme Court Says Libraries Can Filter Internet Computers," by Doug Nadvornick, Northwest News Network, 6 May 2010.

A dirty little secret!  Safe libraries for children and employees!  Imagine that!


Others Say the ALA is Misleading the Public


Dean Marney is not the only person telling communities that the ALA is misleading communities.   Here are a few others:


P-rnHarms.com Logo
Pat Trueman, former chief obscenity prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, said, "That's a ruse that the American Library Association, which is very pro-p-rnography and always files lawsuits against the federal government to try to keep p-rnography widely available, ...put[s] forward to scare libraries out of having filters."  Mr. Trueman now runs National Center on Sexual Exploitation.

Kenneth Warren, Lakewood Public Library Director, "dropped his membership from the [ALA] group after it suggested libraries erect privacy screens for public-access computers[, believing, i]f you need privacy, you should get your own computer."  Privacy screens are known to be worthless.

Then there's the Library Journal's Annoyed Librarian, much beloved within the library community:
We're talking about libraries providing publicly subsidized p-rn.  The argument against Internet filters may have some technological weight, but it has no moral weight at all, which is why the ALA has done such a bad job of persuading Congress of the American right to salivate over Internet p-rn at the taxpayer's expense.  An Internet filter for p-rn is just a technological version of the filter that librarians use when they don't subscribe to hard core p-rn magazines for their public library.  It's called selection, and it requires judgment about what "information" is appropriate for a library.  The ALA evades any debates about selection and judgment by classifying everything as "information" and then saying everyone should have access to all of it.  That's a very convenient ploy for people incapable of reasoning, moral or otherwise.  Nevertheless, there is no good argument for providing free access to p-rn.  Libraries exist to serve the public good, and what argument can be made that free access to p-rn is a public good?
Annoyed Librarian
You simply have to read the above and the remainder of her comments on the issue of access to p-rnography in public libraries.  If I wrote those words myself, I would reprint them here.  Please read in its entirety:  "Library P-rn Challenge," by Annoyed Librarian, Annoyed Librarian, 5 March 2007. 


Conclusion

It is perfectly legal to legally block/remove legal p-rnography from public libraries and to use Internet filters for doing so.  It is perfectly legal to determine if a request to unblock a certain web site meets the library's selection policy.  When challenging the ALA's influence in your own libraries, you will be in good company despite the guilty-until-proven-innocent effort that will be made to immediately cast you as a censor.  Point out how the ALA misleads communities.  Show how library directors are standing up to denounce the ALA for its outdated dogma.  Use the above as examples, though there are many more.  Consider taking the "Library P-rn Challenge."  Don't let the ALA redefine censorship.  Read US v. ALA.  Local communities should control local public libraries, not the ALA.  Get ready for the ALA onslaught that may even include silent payments to local citizens.  SafeLibraries will provide assistance upon request.



  Further Reading on Legally Removing Legal P-rn from Libraries
Newspaper Cartoon About Ease of
Getting P-rn in Public Libraries
Cartoon by Ackerman in The Oregonian

The following are worth reading on the topic of removing legal p-rn legally from public libraries:

Note

This post is about legally removing legal p-rn from public libraries.  I take no position as SafeLibraries on whether legal p-rn should be opposed generally.  I have, however, publicly opposed illegal p-rn.  Legal, illegal, there's a difference—one's illegal.  I oppose anything that's illegal.  Don't most people?

Further, in specific cases, I will support communities attempting to remove legal p-rn from public libraries.  Indeed, that is the very genesis of SafeLibraries many years ago.  I am fair, though, so sometimes I will support libraries being wrongly accused.


About the Author

I'm Dan Kleinman.  I began opposing ALA policy almost a decade ago when the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom policies forced inappropriate material into the hands of my kindergartner.  The school principal eventually removed the material from the public school library stating she found it twice as bad as I had reported.  Now running Safe Libraries and Sexual Harassment of Librarians, I educate people and politicians about who controls public libraries and what can be done to restore local control.  I am consulted nationwide for my expertise in how the negative aspects of ALA influence can be mitigated, and I appear in numerous media reports.  I write regularly and ask people to consider subscribing to SafeLibraries.  Guest posts are welcome.  I track library crimes on Delicious and broadcast my latest crime additions on my SafeLibraries Twitter.  I may be reached at SafeLibraries@gmail.com.

My efforts and those of my late partner, Mark Decker, have been rewarded by the ALA naming SafeLibraries as one of its "prominent" opponents, if not the top one.  See "Intellectual Freedom Manual, Eighth Edition," Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 2010, p.383 [ALA's online version naming SafeLibraries].  Also see:
I am available for media interviews.  This is especially important as the ALA plans a huge propaganda campaign in September 2011 for the 30th anniversary of "Banned Books Week."  I can provide balance with a smile and with solid legal and factual support.  Hint, no books have been banned in the USA for almost 50 years.

This post is dedicated to a certain good-hearted public library director who needs help in telling others how and why legal p-rnography may be legally excluded from his/her library; the ALA will not help him/her.  Hopefully, I will be instrumental in yet another library acting to legally protect children.

==========

Hat tip to AndyW of LISNews for making me aware of this matter.  Please read his critical comments at "Access in the Hands of an Aggressive Filtering Policy," by Andy Woodworth, LISNews, 11 November 2010.


The above is all my opinion, but I do provide extensive and diverse sources for people to decide for themselves (and I keep them updated).


NOTE ADDED 17 NOVEMBER 2010:

This blog post has appeared on P-rnHarms.com at Library P-rn Removal Roadmap and can be seen here:
SafeLibraries Featured on P-rnHarms.com: "Library P-rn Removal Roadmap"

It is also linked here: "Libraries Dangerous for Children - Craigslist Contributes to Sexual Deviance in Restrooms," by West Bend Citizen Advocate, WISSUP = Wisconsin Speaks Up, 15 November 2010.


NOTE ADDED 22 JANUARY 2011:

Short URL for this page:
http://tinyurl.com/ALAdogma


NOTE ADDED 28 MAY 2011:

See also:

NOTE ADDED 13 FEBRUARY 2012:

Dean Marney confirms his opposition to the dogma, and you can hear him speak on the topic here:
Dean Marney's arguments are so persuasive that he even gets the ALA to reverse its years-long false misinformation on library filters:

NOTE ADDED 28 FEBRUARY 2012:

And now the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, Ernest Istook, is also pointing out the ALA's dogma:

NOTE ADDED 10 APRIL 2012:

The jig is up for ALA/ACLU excuses allowing p-rnography on public library computers:
A federal judge has ruled that an Eastern Washington library system is not violating the state constitution by using filters to block internet p-rn on library computers. 
Judge Edward F. Shea, Eastern Washington Federal District Court, ruled in favor of the North Central Regional Library.  The case was brought against the rural eastern Washington library district by the ACLU of Seattle.  The ACLU accused the library district of having an overly broad filtering policy. 
The ruling followed a decision handed down from the Washington State Supreme Court in May, 2010.  The Supreme Court found that the North Central Regional Library, the largest library district in the State of Washington, did not violate Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution with its policy of filtering the internet. 
"Taxpayers are the winners in this case," said Library Director Dean Marney.  "Libraries should never be forced to use public funds to provide access to child p-rnography or to become illegal casinos.  Libraries should be sanctuaries for people of all ages." 
The NCRL, which represents 28 libraries in the central part of the state, has admitted the filtering policy puts them in the minority.  Other libraries have taken the stance of non-censorship, citing First Amendment rights.
Hey, it's legal!  Media, stop calling it "censorship."  It's not censorship!  The jig is up!  There is no First Amendment right to p-rn in public libraries!  Libraries know this, especially now, let alone since US v. ALA in 2003, so saying otherwise is simply and intentionally false.

Wanna join people stopping libraries from misleading their communities on p-rn in public libraries, etc.?  Join the Watchdogs!


NOTE ADDED 26 JULY 2012:

After months of essentially ignoring Dean Marney's decisive victories in Washington state and federal courts, the ALA has finally issued a statement.  It basically says Dean Marney's victories apply only to his libraries and no others, so do not use Internet filters or there may be grave legal consequences.  I will be writing way more about this ALA deception soon, including about the possible unprofessional and unethical conduct of its author, but in the meantime, see:



NOTE ADDED 8 JANUARY 2015:

I am updating hyperlinks, and I added an inline note about ALA's top filtering/censorship expert censoring out my comments then eventually deleting her post.  ALA is always right because there is never opposition because they don't report on it or delete it when they can.


NOTE ADDED 9 SEPTEMBER 2016:

I am updating hyperlinks and changing wording accordingly.

As an aside, the American Library Association was directly involved in a federal lawsuit that went on for nearly two years in an effort to silence me and drain me of time and money.  ALA even taught librarians to file fake lawsuits as it could run up costs for child p-rnography whistleblowers up to $500,000.00 to mount a defense. Ultimately I prevailed.  But it goes to show just how hard ALA is working to keep you from reading the above.

Also added the following:

It is notable that Sarah Houghton, ALA's leading expert on Internet filters, helped create false claims of sexual harassment against another librarian, thereby destroying his career, and was the only member of the three fakers not to admit to the fakery.  See:


NOTE ADDED 29 MARCH 2023:

Text updated to add a hyphen into the p word to bypass the censors.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Editorial Supports Family Friendly Libraries in Greensboro, NC, and Bandwidth Shapers Help

This editorial from the Greensboro, NC, News & Record is outstanding in its support for common sense and family friendly libraries:

"Editorial: Libraries Versus Porn," by Editorial Board, News & Record, 19 November 2009, emphasis mine:

Still, the library keeps searching for a happier medium and may have found one. Called a "bandwidth shaper," the device essentially makes viewing porn much more difficult by slowing the flow of information from certain sources to the point that it becomes excruciating.

Like a filter, the bandwidth shaper can misread a valid source as Internet porn. Further, librarians tend to defend the First Amendment as fiercely as newspaper people.

But there have to be reasonable limits. The library rightly has promoted the bandwidth shaper from pilot project to standard procedure. The occasional burps in that technology are a small price to pay for family-friendly libraries.

Look at that! "Reasonable limits"! "Family-friendly libraries"! What a concept! Remember, the American Library Association's [ALA] former 40 year de facto leader said, regarding Playboy magazine available to children in the Oak Lawn Public Library, "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children."  "Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'" Hey Greensboro, the ALA is "very concerned" you want family friendly libraries!!!

Even better, it is a pleasure to see yet another editorial (example) that states common sense instead of spouting the usual misinformation.

Perhaps the Greensboro libraries are under local control instead of ALA control!  May the citizens, the government, the library, and the media continue to work together to keep it that way.

For more on the bandwidth shaper, see my previous blog post, "Bandwidth Shaper Slows Porn in Greensboro Public Library; Parents Had Stopped Taking Kids to Library; Acceptable Use Policies Do Not Work; List of Articles on Getting Porn Out of Libraries."

.
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 16, 2009

Bandwidth Shaper Slows Porn in Greensboro Public Library; Parents Had Stopped Taking Kids to Library; Acceptable Use Policies Do Not Work; List of Articles on Getting Porn Out of Libraries


Another library acts to stop porn viewing!  Look at this innovative approach, called bandwidth shaping, in the Greensboro Public Library in Greensboro, NC, using a device by Cymphonix:
A device called a "bandwidth shaper" is designed to identify Web sites by categories — including pornography — and allow the library to slow down access.
When the device finds a computer streaming video from a porn site, the bandwidth is slowed to 1 kilobit per second — slower than old-fashioned dial-up — which would cause the screen to give an error or timed-out message.
"It's not filtering it," said Tommy Joseph, manager of technology and reference at the library. "It's discouraging it."
Source: "Library Computer Users Viewing Porn Anger Parents," by Lorraine Ahearn, News & Record, 15 November 2009, emphasis added.

It's not filtering, it's "discouraging"!  I love that!



And again we see "acceptable use policies" do not work to stop porn viewing:
Internet porn viewing is a hot enough issue on the library system's 227 public computers that the city this year quietly purchased a device that identifies porn sites and makes them load so slowly that they are difficult to view.

At Central Library between January and July, security guards caught 89 card-carrying patrons viewing pornography on the computers. Most of the patrons caught viewing porn at the Central Library would have received an initial warning that they were violating the library's "acceptable computer use" agreement.

Greensboro Public Library, tell us more!  Get the message out to other libraries so they too can try the "bandwidth shaper," "the $8,000 Cymphonix bandwidth management system now in place"!

Meantime, I'll get the message out that libraries can successfully remove porn (although Greensboro Library Director Sandy Neerman says filters do not work, but she does admit libraries should consider community standards: "It’s an institution, but also, what is the community standard, and what are they willing to support? It’s a balance you’re weighing all the time."):

.
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Public Breaks Into Applause for Library Board that Unanimously Voted for Internet Filters to Stop Porn Viewing in Public Library

Another library has added Internet filters to stop porn viewing.  With the constant message from the American Library Association [ALA] that Internet filters do not work, will never work 100%, filter out breast cancer, and generally violate people's First Amendment rights, I thought I would point out that not all libraries are taken in by those false messages.  Here's the latest to see through the ALA's misdirection:

by Michael Peterson,
The Argus-Press,
13 November 2009.

The public, hearing the unanimous decision of the library to add Internet filters, broke into applause.  They broke into applause!  A local community gets to protect children legally in their own public library and they break into applause!

The Shiawassee District Library Board adopted a revised Internet policy Wednesday night that requires filtering on the organization's public computers, closing the book on a nearly six-month controversy on how the SDL should handle online content.

After the policy was unanimously passed by the Board, many of the residents who packed into the downstairs children's library portion of the Owosso branch broke into applause.

I've written before on this community in "7-1 Vote FOR Internet Filters in Owosso, MI," 4 July 2009.

Read the Argus-Press article carefully.  See that the filters will be disabled temporarily upon request.  This is perfect under the law called CIPA.

Then, the community takes another welcome departure from the ALA.  The ALA says you have to disable any site and that's it.  CIPA says, and now Shiawassee District Library says, that even after the filters are disabled, if the computers are then used in a manner that essentially violates the spirit of the policy, such as by viewing obscenity, the filters will be reapplied.  Fabulous!

Patrons also may request a particular site be unblocked, but only if the site does not include “obscene or sexually explicit material.” A site will be reviewed for content before it is permanently unblocked from the filter.

If a patron violates the policy, library officials may terminate or limit that person's computer or Internet access; dismiss the patron from the premises; or suspend the person's access to library facilities for a set period of time. The library also reserves the right to contact the local police if necessary.

"Contact the local police"!  Fabulous!  Another departure from the ALA or the rules set by its local acolytes!  For example, see my blog posts:

Will citizens in your community break into applause when they too get to legally protect their own children despite the heavy pressure and misinformation from the ALA?  Let Owosso, MI, be your guide!

.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Library Director Extols Internet Filtering; Porn Should Be Excluded From Libraries; Dynamite Reading For Library Directors, Trustees and Patrons

You have to read this absolutely dynamite letter from Dean Marney, director of the North Central Regional Library, subject of a current filtering lawsuit, Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District. He is definitely not an American Library Assocation [ALA] acolyte. He knocks the ALA's instigation of a lawsuit against the library—another example of the ALA attempting to usurp local control.

He also says a library is not required to allow pornography. What heresy! A hostile environment? Really? Civility! Common sense! The ALA will never allow this.

Harmful to children? How can he say that? Isn't the ALA teaching librarians to ignore those "protecting the children"?

Look at these choice quotes, emphasis mine, and know the ALA thinks nearly the exact opposite:

  • The ACLU of Seattle, with the help of the [ALA], searched for and found four plaintiffs to bring as applied challenges against your library’s filtering policy, because we choose not to disable our filter upon the request of an adult.
  • If we were to take Mr. Warner’s viewpoint to its logical end, it would imply that it is appropriate to use public funds for adults to search for and view online pornography in our public libraries or turn them into illegal casinos.
  • It ignores that pornography is harmful to children, creates a hostile environment for the staff and other patrons, and overshadows any of the benefits of the free Internet access we provide to our communities.
  • Imagine an adult viewing pornography, or leaving sexually explicit images on a printer, while a child does her homework at a nearby computer or table. Unfortunately, this scenario is all too real.
  • The library embraces free speech and its print and digital collections reflect such principles. However, our community libraries are not Internet cafes. They should remain grounded in their essential traditions.
  • Our approach to filtering strives to balance common sense with the needs and interest of our diverse patrons. We filter very little Internet content. We filter Web sites having as their dominant content pornography, nudity and risqué, adult materials, and gambling. We also filter hacking, proxy avoidance, phishing, malware, spyware, spam URL, image search, and video search.
  • We filter because it is an efficient, effective means of including Internet-based resources in the collection according to our mission and collection development policy.
  • We filter because doing so is a condition for important federal funding.
  • We also filter because it enhances an appropriate, safe library experience for all — adults, staff, and children.
  • Newspapers, like libraries, should foster civility.
If your community is considering Internet filters, Dean Marney's writing is a must read. Then tell the ALA/ACLU you are no longer fooled or intimidated:

Filtered Internet: Safe, Appropriate
By Dean Marney
The Wenatchee World
Posted July 02, 2009

The staff and Board of Trustees of the North Central Regional Library, in their mission to "promote reading and lifelong learning," revere the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 5 of the Washington state Constitution. It is our belief that public libraries simply wouldn’t exist without the right to publish and a free press.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a facial challenge to the Children’s Internet Protection Act brought against the government by the American Library Association. The ALA argued that Internet filtering violates the First Amendment rights of adults, and lost. However, in their opinion, the court left open a door for an "as applied" challenge to the law.

The ACLU of Seattle, with the help of the American Library Association, searched for and found four plaintiffs to bring as applied challenges against your library’s filtering policy, because we choose not to disable our filter upon the request of an adult. That policy has been the subject of recent discussion, not all of it well informed.

Tracy Warner’s June 25 editorial "What you can’t see can hurt" criticizes a law which has already been declared constitutional under the First Amendment. Our case is about the rubber meeting the road when an adult patron demands that the filter be turned off.

If we were to take Mr. Warner’s viewpoint to its logical end, it would imply that it is appropriate to use public funds for adults to search for and view online pornography in our public libraries or turn them into illegal casinos. It ignores that pornography is harmful to children, creates a hostile environment for the staff and other patrons, and overshadows any of the benefits of the free Internet access we provide to our communities. Imagine an adult viewing pornography, or leaving sexually explicit images on a printer, while a child does her homework at a nearby computer or table. Unfortunately, this scenario is all too real. The library embraces free speech and its print and digital collections reflect such principles. However, our community libraries are not Internet cafes. They should remain grounded in their essential traditions.

Mr. Warner’s editorial does not express some facts and philosophies that are important to the issue of Internet filtering. For example, the library’s policies reflect its mission and the values of the communities we serve. Our approach to filtering strives to balance common sense with the needs and interest of our diverse patrons. We filter very little Internet content. We filter Web sites having as their dominant content pornography, nudity and risqué, adult materials, and gambling. We also filter hacking, proxy avoidance, phishing, malware, spyware, spam URL, image search, and video search.

Some may wonder why the library filters at all. We filter because it is an efficient, effective means of including Internet-based resources in the collection according to our mission and collection development policy. We filter because doing so is a condition for important federal funding. We also filter because it enhances an appropriate, safe library experience for all — adults, staff, and children.

The Wenatchee World rightfully has expectations of their contributors. Their own Use Policy states:

"We want to encourage an open exchange of information and ideas. But if you use inappropriate language (even when typographically obfuscated), or make potentially slanderous or libelous comments when using this site and its features, or engage in ad hominem attacks on fellow commenters, people mentioned in stories, contributors or any employee of The Wenatchee World or The World Publishing Company, we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to remove any and/or all of your contributions.

"We believe it is absolutely possible for people from a variety of points of view to discuss issues in a civil manner; and we reserve the right, but assume no obligation, to remove comments and ban accounts of users that foster incivility."

The Wenatchee World does not believe their policy violates the First Amendment and we at the North Central Regional Library would completely agree. Newspapers, like libraries, should foster civility.

Dean Marney is director of the North Central Regional Library.

.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

West Virginia Filters Libraries Statewide Using Federal CIPA Legislation - Sets Example that No Statewide CIPA Legislation Needed

West Virginia filters all public library computers statewide at the state level!  It does this using only the federal CIPA legislation.  This sets a national example of how libraries in other states could be filtered without the need for statewide CIPA legislation, if only the library associations did not oppose the public.

The filters work well, but the bad guys are constantly trying to bypass the filters, so West Virginia includes several means to deter criminal activity.  I love this one: "Shame is one of the best filters there is."  Indeed, according to US v. ALA, "the Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment."

Another terrific aspect of this story is that library staff identified and reported the criminal activity to the police--a rapist was viewing child p0rnography.  This is especially outstanding since the American Library Association [ALA] policy is to the contrary:  "As for obscenity and child p0rnography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws. Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts...."  Well, ALA, apparently they are in Ohio and West Virginia.  I hereby nominate the Martins Ferry Public Library and the West Virginia Library Commission for Family Friendly Libraries Awards of Recognition.

Here is the media report upon which I base my statements.  It tells the truth that the ALA would not want you to know, so read it carefully.  I include it under the Fair Use provision of the US Copyright Act:


"Libraries Target Net P0rn; West Virginia Libraries Have Filters at State Level," by Gabe Wells, The Intelligencer/Wheeling News-Register, 17 September 2008, emphasis mine.

WHEELING - An accused rapist allegedly caught viewing child p0rnography at the Martins Ferry Public Library probably couldn't have done so in a West Virginia library.

Quentin N. Phillips was held Tuesday in the Belmont County Jail following his arrest Saturday on charges of rape and pandering sexually oriented matter involving a child. Phillips allegedly confessed to having sexual intercourse with a young boy "continuously for several years" after being taken into custody Saturday at the Martins Ferry library.

A librarian saw the 32-year-old Martins Ferry resident looking at the p0rnography and called police.

West Virginia Library Commission Executive Secretary J.D. Wagoner said his agency pays for the filtering of computers in all public libraries in the Mountain State. The filtering is done by the West Virginia Office of Technology, and Wagoner said it involves both site and key word filtering.

Ohio County Public Library Director Dottie Thomas said West Virginia libraries benefit from the filtering being done on the state level.

"It is very nice because we don't have to worry about installing filters on the computers," Thomas said.

Wagoner said the filters are effective. He noted, however, that those posting p0rnography work consistently to bypass those filters. He said people posting p0rnography have additional resources as well.

"Those who host p0rn sites have more money to invest in getting their content to people than we have to stop them," Wagoner said. "It is a constant security issue."

In addition to filters, Wagoner said there are additional steps that can be taken to prevent p0rnography from being downloaded on library computers. He said the computers should be placed where they can be seen clearly by library patrons and staff.

"Shame is one of the best filters there is," Wagoner said.

Martins Ferry Public Library Director Yvonne Myers said those using the Internet there must sign an agreement to not view inappropriate material. She said people who violate that agreement are either suspended or banned from the library. Myers said Phillips was coming to the Martins Ferry library almost daily.

"We are not an adult book store, we are a public library," Myers said. "They (staff members) suspected he was looking, but you hope your worst fears aren't true. We don't like to spy as a rule, but it's in a public area so you can't help but see what people are looking at."

Myers said she also wonders if Phillips was hoping to be caught.

"I don't know when it's so blatant," she said. "We do wonder. We didn't hesitate at all when (the librarian) saw what he was doing."

Police reportedly recovered a "flash drive," or portable computer memory device, from Phillips and found 173 photos and videos of naked children stored on it.

Some of those pictures showed children engaged in sex acts with each other and with adults. Several other photos were of children being sexually assaulted by adults, according to the city police report.

Martins Ferry Police Chief Barry Carpenter said Phillips is a former Michigan resident, but Carpenter does not know how long Phillips has lived in Martins Ferry. The chief said investigators do not believe Phillips has a criminal history.

A representative of Belmont County Children's Services was called along with police to execute a search warrant at Phillips' 1825 Hill St. home. Officers recovered a flash drive, a digital camera, a disposable camera, a camcorder videos and nude photos there.

Carpenter credited the staff of the Martins Ferry Public Library for contacting police. He said the situation is disturbing.

Fact Box

WHAT IS THE LAW?

In U.S. v. American Library Association, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that a law passed by Congress could protect children from p0rnography on library computers without violating free speech.

"Because public libraries have traditionally excluded p0rnographic material from their other collections, Congress could reasonably impose a parallel limitation on its Internet assistance programs," Justice William Rehnquist wrote.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)