Should Public Computers Be Childproof?

[Calamity Jane]

High Court to Hear Web Porn Case
(Gina Holland/Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (Nov. 12) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide if public libraries can be forced to install software that blocks sexually explicit Web sites, the latest in Congress' string of attempts to shield children from Internet pornography.

Congress has struggled to find ways to protect children from online smut without infringing on free speech.

The latest challenge involves the third law passed since 1996. The Supreme Court struck down the first and blocked the second from taking effect.

The latest measure, signed by President Clinton in 2000, required public libraries receiving federal technology funds to install the filters on their computers or risk losing aid.

A federal three-judge panel ruled that the Children's Internet Protection Act violates the First Amendment because the mandated filtering programs also block sites on politics, health, science and other non-pornography.

``Given the crudeness of filtering technology, any technology protection measure mandated by CIPA will necessarily block access to a substantial amount of speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest,'' the judges wrote earlier this year.

The Bush administration argued that libraries are not required to have X-rated movies and pornographic magazines and shouldn't have to offer access to porn on library computers.

The judges had recommended less restrictive ways to control Internet use, like requiring parental consent before a minor is allowed to use an unfiltered computer or requiring a parent to be present while a child surfs the Net.

The American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law.

Paul M. Smith, the attorney for the library association, said more than 14 million people use libraries for Internet access. The latest restriction ``takes a meat ax approach to an area that requires far more sensitive tools,'' he argued.

Smith said that with filtering software, librarians would have no involvement in blocking decisions.

Texas had asked the Supreme Court to uphold the law.

``Parents should not be afraid to send their children to the library, either because they might be exposed to such materials or because the library's free, filterless computers might attract people with a propensity to victimize children,'' wrote Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who was elected to the U.S. Senate last week.

Congress knew that the latest law would be challenged, and directed any appeals to go straight to the Supreme Court after a trial before a three-judge panel.

***

Is the next step requiring all books that might have a picture of a naked body, or mention sex to be kept behind the counter and only checked out to those over 18 or with written parental consent?

 

[bknight2602]

I only hope that it does not come down to this. We have enough regulations to deal with today!

 

[Nora]

"...or because the library's free, filterless computers might attract people with a propensity to victimize children,''

So wait, unfiltered searches are a draw for child molesters? Hrmm...


Seems like we could use that to set up a sting operation or something, don'tcha think? Lay out a few sexy, naked (of filtering) CPU's and see what kinda scum comes trawling...yeah, baby!

I admire John Cornyn's unceasing devotion to stupidity, btw.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Seems like we could use that to set up a sting operation or something, don'tcha think? Lay out a few sexy, naked (of filtering) CPU's and see what kinda scum comes trawling...yeah, baby!

Brilliant!!!!!

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Given the current state of filtration systems, there is not a way to effectively block porn on public computers without also blocking vital information someone may need if doing say a research paper. (at least any system that I know of)

As soon as there is one that can be used to block only online pornography it should be installed in every libary or school that has public computers. To block this aspect of porn viewing is not a violation of free speech.

 

[RawHumor]

I agree with ya, BBW, ol' pal. I DO think that parents need to realize that the library computers are not being filtered because you KNOW someone will get in a tizzy because they assume that their kids can't see porn while they're at the library.

If nothing else, put up a "No porn" type of warning poster near the computers and have them in semi-public view for the librarians to see. Not that they need to be looking over your shoulder, but since a library IS a public (and publically funded) place, I really don't think it needs to be used for porno.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

you know we are gonna get flamed for this viewpoint dont ya?

 

[RawHumor]

you know we are gonna get flamed for this viewpoint dont ya?

We ARE on a semi-porn board. Besides, I think that right-to-view-porn is in the Constitution somewhere.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Given the current state of filtration systems, there is not a way to effectively block porn on public computers without also blocking vital information someone may need if doing say a research paper. (at least any system that I know of)

As soon as there is one that can be used to block only online pornography it should be installed in every libary or school that has public computers. To block this aspect of porn viewing is not a violation of free speech.

Will there ever be a filtration system that would block porn, but still allow searches on things like breast cancer?

I've worked for companies that offered public computer use. The original filtration system that they had was so exacting, it wouldn't let you pull up any online references to the movie 'Babe' because it was supposed to block any 'sexual' words.

I'm not looking at it from a free speech point of view, but from a 'If they can force this issue, what's next?" pov.

When I was a kid, we thought that looking up words like 'penis' and 'fuck' in the dictionary was risque. Should the dictionaries have been censored or removed?

 

[Nora]

I actually agree with y'all that porn shouldn't be permitted on public library computers. I don't think you'll be flamed at all for your opinion.

I do not believe that any program that filters out information should be utilized, though. Filter all the porn you want, but don't restrict access to information about controversial subjects.

My problem is with Cornyn's assertation that an unfiltered computer is an automatic magnet for child molesters. Or, for that matter, the implication that everyone who's drawn to pornography is a child molester.

 

[RawHumor]

When I was a kid, we thought that looking up words like 'penis' and 'fuck' in the dictionary was risque. Should the dictionaries have been censored or removed?

No, but those dictionaries also didn't have a link that said "And if you want to SEE a good fuck in action, click here."

I'd like to think that if and when my daughter goes to the library and does a search on "canines" that she won't be brought to a beastiality site.

Again, we don't have the technology right now, but I do think it's possible.

 

[Calamity Jane]

I agree with ya, BBW, ol' pal. I DO think that parents need to realize that the library computers are not being filtered because you KNOW someone will get in a tizzy because they assume that their kids can't see porn while they're at the library.

If nothing else, put up a "No porn" type of warning poster near the computers and have them in semi-public view for the librarians to see. Not that they need to be looking over your shoulder, but since a library IS a public (and publically funded) place, I really don't think it needs to be used for porno.

I agree RH. I think that parents should be made aware that part of the responsibility that goes along with having access to information should be monitoring which type of information is actually accessed.

Of course, none of that would keep little Sally from sitting in the library reading the latest romance book and wondering what exactly it means when what's his name thrusts his throbbing manhood into the heroines velvety sheath.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Will there ever be a filtration system that would block porn, but still allow searches on things like breast cancer?

this was my point. At this time there are no system that can break the idiocy behind such a block (talking about breast cancer, or the Babe one), hence I cannot support the current state of this potential ruling.

I have no issue with a law the supports common decency. We have them all over the place. Drunk Driving is illegal. Murder in most cases is illegal. IFa system can be created to filter out blatent porn on a public computer, then I would be all for it. I dont want to take my young kids to the Library and have them standing beside some guy looking at www.karasamatuers.com. This behaivor is better suited in private, not where kids can easily view.

 

[Calamity Jane]

I have no issue with a law the supports common decency. We have them all over the place. Drunk Driving is illegal. Murder in most cases is illegal. IFa system can be created to filter out blatent porn on a public computer, then I would be all for it. I dont want to take my young kids to the Library and have them standing beside some guy looking at www.karasamatuers.com. This behaivor is better suited in private, not where kids can easily view.

You're comparing porn to killing people? C'mon BBW, you're better than that.

I completely agree that I don't want the little monsters viewing porn on a public computer. But I also acknowledge that it's MY responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. Not the government's and not the librarian's.

 

[RawHumor]

You're comparing porn to killing people? C'mon BBW, you're better than that.

But public decency is public decency. You can't sit and masturbate at the library. Why should you be able to watch someone masturbate on the computer?

 

[Nora]

RH, I don't think anyone's saying you should be able to access porn on public computers.

I think the question is more whose responsibility is it to prevent that situation from occurring.

I agree wholeheartedly with PCG that it's the parents' responsibility to monitor their children's behavior during non-school hours, which would include research done after school on a non-school computer.

But that doesn't help for in-class or in-school library computers. It seems to me that there could be a simple way around that, though.

If the filtering software locks down every time a questionable site comes up and requires an administrative password to access, then there shouldn't be a problem, right?

So in the example of your daughter searching for "canines" and a beastiality site comes up, the administrator (teacher or librarian) is required to put in a password allowing access at all. Then s/he can monitor what sites are accessed by the student. Additionally, there could be a line-check that could add the sites that did come up that are uh..not of value to the student to a list of sites that would be automatically filtered out the next time they come up on a search.

The problem with that is that we have hacked and slashed at the education budgets nationwide to the point where there simply aren't enough adults to help monitor the sites the kids would hit. Parents are going to have to decide when they vote if spending cuts are more important than their kids getting into porn sites at school.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

You're comparing porn to killing people? C'mon BBW, you're better than that.

that was not exactly what I was getting at, I was speaking more to a societal value system of things that are black and white right and wrong.

Parents, and God knows I have yelled that they are ultimately responsible for their kids behaivor (or lack thereof), cannot be there 100% of the time. In these cases, yes, there needs to be backups to help the parents out. At this time there are none in this venue, so I suppose its up to chance and blind damn luck, along with teaching kids what is acceptable public behaivor.

 

[Laurel]

My problem is with Cornyn's assertation that an unfiltered computer is an automatic magnet for child molesters. Or, for that matter, the implication that everyone who's drawn to pornography is a child molester.

It's a red herring. They can't argue against porn based on obscenity and "morality" because the majority of people don't believe that run-of-the-mill legal porn is obscene, immoral, or should be illegal. The new tactic is to try to claim "harm to children". (See Marjorie Heins' very fine book Not In Front of the Children for an analysis of this censorship through history.)

Like a lawyer at last year's COPA trial pointed out, candy and fast food has been used by molesters to motivate their prey far more often than adult pornography. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard of a child molester busting out an issue of Penthouse during an attack on a kid. (It may have happened - I'm not saying it hasn't ever.)

I don't think people should surf porn at government expense. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the current filters 1) don't block all porn, and 2) block far too much important content. They're ineffective and discriminatory.

 

[lavender]

 

[KillerMuffin]

There's a very simply solution to the problem, duh huh huh.

Set the public library computer system up on a network basis where users must log in to use it. Rather than use filtration software, they can simply keep track of who is using the computers to surf porn. Like a few of our locals who have been sys-admins in the past say, it's easy to tell who is looking at porn and who is getting it by accident.

Personally, I don't think it's the government's job to protect children from porno. I think it's the parents job. The only thing the government should do is make sure that porno isn't put up in your face where it's highly visible. There shouldn't be porno posters on the street and sites should have something in the head that says it's got mature content so anyone with safe search parameters set doesn't see it on the search engine while those with safe search parameters off can get to it.

No, it's not going to keep minors out, but that's the parent's job. Mom couldn't keep my brother from getting penthouse forum when he was 14 either.

 

[The Heretic]

It seems to me that there are two questions here:

1) Should public computers (such as those in libraries) be configured such that they do not allow children to access inappropriate content?

2) Can public computers (such as those in libraries) be configured such that they do not allow children to access inappropriate content?

The answer to #1 is a qualified maybe, but it really depends on the answer to #2. There is no real sense in asking if we should do something if we don't know if we can do something.

Given the current state of computers and the internet, I believe the answer to #2 is no. As others have pointed out filters are just too crude to be able to filter out inappropriate material. Even if every adult implemented a rating policy and stuck to it, and filters were able to restrict access (neither of which is true), we still would only be able to prevent access to clearly inappropriate content. There would still be a lot of content that would be marginal or not so clear cut as to who should be able to view it. Given our inability to agree on what is appropriate for children, how can we expect computers to make that decision for us?

I suppose we could arrive at some minimum consensus on what is appropriate content for children, and then implement filters and rating systems that prevent children from viewing that content - but there will still be substantial innapropriate content that they can continue to view. Or we could go overboard and implement draconian filters that restrict access to such a degree that a lot of appropriate content would be filtered also, and still they would be able to view substantial innappropriate content.

Or, we could just not filter anything. We could then either just say that children could not use public computers period, or only use them with explicit parental permission.

If forced, I personally would just not filter anything - but of course, my stance is that the government and society are under no obligation to provide computer/internet access to anybody. If you want public access to a computer you should pay for it - and you are paying for it now via taxes. The difference is that by having the government pay for this access, you are also burdening everybody who doesn't agree with this policy (of providing public access) with the cost.

 

[Nora]

Nora,

Did you go to the polls and vote for Kirk?

Cornyn is an idiot. Of course he replaced an idiot, so nothing really changed as far as Texas' influence in national politics.

Yes, Ma'am. I did indeed.

fat load of good it did. *grumbles*

Laurel, I know this has nothing to do with the convo, but every time I hear the expression "it's a red herring" I think of the scene in the movie "Clue" where Tim Curry's going on about some clue or another being a red herring...

 

[Spinaroonie]

Let me start with a big

I FUCKING TOLD YOU TEXANS TO VOTE FOR RON KIRK

This idiot is gonna be a senator. Great. If you censor the internet at the library, then they'll start censoring books from the library. This will break down the door. If this goes through you'll have a restricted internet at the library, then they'll start pulling books. "Too contraversial, too liberal, this book could help the terrists, etc."

It should also be noted that the Bush administration really seems to have it out for libraries. The USA-PATRIOT act gives life sentances to librarians who say that the gov't has visited them. Bush illeteracy jokes aside, it really doesn't make sense why this admin has it out for libraries. The First Lady has a Master's degree in what is probably the worst thing on the planet to have one in- Library Science. A master's. So, when she graduated she could've gone out and made 12,000/year as a librarian or whatever it is.

Bottom Line: Laura cut Bush off a long time ago, now he's out for revenge.

 

[Calamity Jane]

RH, I don't think anyone's saying you should be able to access porn on public computers.

I think the question is more whose responsibility is it to prevent that situation from occurring.

<snip>

If the filtering software locks down every time a questionable site comes up and requires an administrative password to access, then there shouldn't be a problem, right?

Thanks Nora. That was my question. I didn't want to know if it was ok with y'all if your kid looked at porn, I wanted to know how you felt about the government forcing the issue. I'm sick of kids being used as teh scapegoat for legislated morality.

And, I think Nora's idea might actually work.

 

[Thrillhouse]

Let me start with a big

I FUCKING TOLD YOU TEXANS TO VOTE FOR RON KIRK

This idiot is gonna be a senator. Great. If you censor the internet at the library, then they'll start censoring books from the library. This will break down the door. If this goes through you'll have a restricted internet at the library, then they'll start pulling books. "Too contraversial, too liberal, this book could help the terrists, etc."

It should also be noted that the Bush administration really seems to have it out for libraries. The USA-PATRIOT act gives life sentances to librarians who say that the gov't has visited them. Bush illeteracy jokes aside, it really doesn't make sense why this admin has it out for libraries. The First Lady has a Master's degree in what is probably the worst thing on the planet to have one in- Library Science. A master's. So, when she graduated she could've gone out and made 12,000/year as a librarian or whatever it is.

Bottom Line: Laura cut Bush off a long time ago, now he's out for revenge.

I agree 100%. But I just love the irony of misspelling "illiteracy."