Replies

I wonder if these same libraries have Playboy in their archives...?

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

They can do whatever the hell their state legislatures allow to.

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.

I believe the reason the arguments against CIPA were successful were because filters don't work the way "library filtering" is supposed to work. The librarian and community makes a conscious decision not to subscribe to Playboy, for example.

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 In many cases, the methodology and databases are poor and out-of-date, thus restricting access to legitimate data.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.

AS much as I hate porn for children, I am always reminded of how he waved his finger and said sex in the public Whitehouse is none of our business all the while he imposed his socialist policies in our own bedrooms. Yet, libertarian presidential candidate supported that posture. so go figure.

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.