....snip....
>The question for Sheldon is, are filters against the
>First Amendment, or are they not?
A lot of people think they are, including the American Library Association,
the ACLU, the Alliance for Community Media. A similar law has been struck
down by the Supreme Court. However, the case regarding the current federal
law that requires filters on all computers in all libraries that receive
any federal funds is now making it's way through the courts. Since the
Supreme Court has not yet ruled, I used the word probably. Also, in some
cases (not the one we are talking about here) filters are definitely legal
(in non-government applications--a private school or a private business for
example). (WARNING--I am NOT an attorney. These opinions are based on my
conversations with attorneys and reviewing material from the Benton
Foundation, ACLU and ALA.)
>
>2) Sheldon said "Kids will get around filters".
>I believe that is true for some kids. Lets assume that
>Sheldon is correct for all kids. If that is the
>argument for not trying filters then shouldn't we also
>say, kids will smoke, will do drugs, will have
>irresponsible sex?
There are laws that protect kids should not access porn content. Those
laws should be enforced. They were not being enforced at the library. My
point was that filters will not help.
....snip...
>rules anyway. Wizard raises a good option, of having
>the monitors patrolled by an adult. Where is the
>funding going to come from to adequately insure those
>supervisors are a part of the libraries budgets?
Where are the parents? Libraries are not day care center. Parents do have
significant responsibility here.
>
>3) Sheldon says in order to stop misuse, "Enforce the
>law - you can legal stop minors from viewing things
>that are clearly inappropriate". Once again I am
>confused. Elsewhere in Sheldon's post he based his
>argument against filters with the question, "Who
>decides what to filter?" and "Be careful what you call
>porn." I guess this is not clear to me either Sheldon.
After sending my email, I re-read this and was afraid it would be
confusing. The federal and state laws seem to require filters on all
computers in libraries receiving federal or state funding. Here I was
referring to using filters in the general use computers, not computers in
children's areas.
I was also referring to some of the activities shown on the WCCO
report--activities that are illegal in a public place.
Bob does raise a good point--neither federal or state law has a good
definition of porn. As a former Supreme Court justice said (I'm
paraphrasing here): I may not be able to define pornography but I know
when I see it. It is a judgement call. The Librarians need to know what
standards to apply and that they will be back-up by management when they
do. I don't think that is the case now.
...snip...
>My question for Sheldon here is if filters are
>expensive, how much will it cost us in personnel to
>"teach responsible surfing" and "have adults present"
>to watch for clearly inappropriate use?
Good point. First, I don't want parents or teachers to think "technology
will solve the problem." Second, a number of school districts have clear
Internet use policies for students. Policies the students have to sign.
They include logical consequences--loss of Internet access for abuse of the
privilege.
...snip....
>
>Sheldon, Have I made my questions clear?
yes
>Bob Gustafson
>MMM
>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>
sheldon mains seward neighborhood minneapolis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the shameless agitator in the electronic town square
NOTE: New website address:
Candidate for Minneapolis Library Board of Trustees
http://www.mainsforlibrary.org for details.
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
