Posted on 05/31/2002 8:45:51 AM PDT by let freedom sing
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:37:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Public libraries can't be forced to use Internet filters designed to block pornography, three federal judges said Friday in overturning a new federal law. In a 195-page decision, the judges said the Children's Internet Protection Act went too far because the filters also can block access to sites that contain protected speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
This is freeping rediculous. Libraries aren't Federal entities. They can do whatever the hell their state legislatures allow to. Conversely, they are also PROHIBITED from doing whatever their state legislatures FORBID them from doing.
I'm beginning to doubt that there is ANY intelligent life left in the Federal circuit courts. Congress, it's time for an overhaul. You're 140 years overdue.
:/ ttt
Now couple this ruling with the last beauty which made virtual child pornography protected speech and guess what becomes available in every library in the country including your childrens?
-archy-/-
Decisions are made much closer to home. Internet filters don't limit free speech, they just modulate the volumne of the screaming me-mees. Every library I've visited doesn't filter, they just post signs and ask the person to leave if they view porn. What's the difference?
When the ACLU gets one of these cases, I hope the librarians won't be forced to curtail their policing.
But in the interest of making sure that people who can't (or won't) buy their own computers can have public library access to porn, they are willing to enable the the garbage perveyors to have unhindered access to those young corruptable minds! The court seems to have no problem restricting free speech when it comes to cigarette ads but God forbid we should protect our kids from the trash on the web.
Local community standards-- it's your right to speak up in a public library meeting and ask for filters, or fill out a comment card at the desk.
I have a better idea. Yank the Internet from the libraries.
You're right on that one,-- doesn't seem fair, does it?
On the other hand, they're only kids-- they don't vote, so they can't be as equal as the rest of us. /sarcasm
On the other hand, internet filtering software has a secret and copyrighted database of restricted web sites. Libraries that use internet filtering are simply handing over the restriction process to an outside company that hides its methodology from the local community. In many cases, the methodology and databases are poor and out-of-date, thus restricting access to legitimate data.
On a note unrelated to the constitutionality of the issue, the federal funds that the libraries receive cannot be used to pay for or maintain the filtering software itself. Some libraries decided that it was not worth the time and expense to get the federal money if they'd have to dip into their own funds to follow federal filtering regulations. Thus, it was reported by the washington post that in Virginia, only small libraries tended to accept the fedeal funds and install filtering, whereas larger libraries didn't want to deal with the trouble involved.
Just as I can voice my opinion that Jews or Negroes should be excluded from using the library's services, if I feel that way.
But they'd better not do it:
US Code, Title 18, US Criminal Code; Section 242:
Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
By the way: a person who charges a library with unlawfully censoring internet access can pick up TRIPLE damages since it's a civil rights charge, and the attorney handling the case gets time-and-a-half his usual fee. At a fairly typical $195/hour, what my attorney charges, that would break most library budgets after a few weeks litigation, not to mention the Official Misconduct charges in many states that can also result from a violation of federal law by a state or local governmental employee, and which carry removal from office as one possible and likely punishment for such scofflaws.
-archy-/-
Congratulations, liberals - - you win this round.
So really, here, I would grant this responsibility to the state pending it does not violate some anti-salvery law. However, if a state unwittingly allows the theft or enslavement of children via the net into sex via those offices, the state should be held accountable. A child ending up paying with some stolen credit card number a porn site could make the state liable for such potential human traffic.
In the end, pure consumption curbing laws, however, should be the state's or even the parent's choice, for the government is a sinner with conflict of interest in the prosecution of such behaviors. (hint: the government is a voracious consumer and would ultimately hold monopoly powers over the contorl of the economy this way). The difficulty here is finding whether the child is object of exploitation or is potential exploitating agent of materials and ideas. The former would involve the feds, the latter not.
Just as I can voice my opinion that Jews or Negroes should be excluded from using the library's services, if I feel that way.
But they'd better not do it:
Color is a material model with no inherent jurisdiction, a child is an imperfect jurisdiction that requires a substitute supervising jurisdiction. Refusing a child's entrance would not be a violation or discrimination, it would be exercising substitute jurisdiction appropriately according to community standards.
For you naysayers out there, if you live in a community where the library does not use software, you're living in the wrong neighborhood, or the wrong people, on your dime, are running said library.
I have a much better idea. Eliminate public libraries altogether. Government at even the most local level has no right to provide reading material at taxpayer expense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.