Over a year ago, an ABC 7 News I-Team report exposed San José’s failure to protect children from pornography and those who would openly view pornographic material in their presence. The investigation revealed that there have been a number of individuals arrested for viewing child pornography in libraries, and still others have been arrested for performing lewd acts such as masturbating in public while viewing pornographic material. Please take the time to see the reports here and here.
According to recent police reports these were not isolated incidents, yet nothing has been done to make libraries safer for kids to be kids. Our libraries offer countless programs designed to bring children into the library to experience the joy of reading and exploration. Parents have been lulled into a false sense of security, often allowing their children to roam and explore on their own. I feel that it is time that we take action. San José’s children should be free to discover the world in libraries without having to sacrifice their innocence.
While I respect Jack Van Zandt’s views and observations, I must counter by letting you know that I have personally observed this behavior occurring in the MLK library. And having talked to library staff and former security personnel, they confirmed that this is regular behavior.
In simplest terms, we need to ask ourselves if the City of San José should be paying for people to look at pornography in our libraries. It is no different than the decision the city has made to not subscribe to pornographic magazines or to purchase obscene material for the book stacks.
Various groups have opposed this idea for many different reasons; let me try to address several of those reasons here.
Budget Some have wondered why I wouldn’t be spending my time on the city’s budget deficit rather than this issue. It’s important to know that the failure to address this issue does negatively impact our budget. The federal Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) prohibits public libraries that choose not to filter from receiving federal E-Rate funds. This decision to forego federal funding was made outside of the council chambers by city staff without regard to the budget implications.
Perhaps this federal funding in our libraries can free up general funds to help fix our crumbling infrastructure, fill up the potholes, lessen budget woes, and get our swimming pools open this summer.
Many people don’t realize that with every library we open the city relies on neighbors to embark on fundraising efforts to fill the library with books and computers—things that the City of San José can fund with federal dollars if we are in compliance with CIPA.
First Amendment Some have claimed that the installation of internet filters will violate the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The U. S. Supreme Court has already weighed in on this issue (see UNITED STATES et al. v. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA) and clearly ruled that neither the installation of internet filters nor the CIPA violate the constitution.
Nothing in the First Amendment indicates that any government agency has the obligation to fund ones expression of speech. Let me illustrate with an example that many may be familiar with. The First Amendment allows any individual the right to express themselves by placing a bumper sticker on their car, no matter how offensive it may be. But if you want to have a license plate personalized by the DMV, the State of California will not let you use any saying that is offensive or merely objectionable. Two expressions of speech on the same car, by the same individual; the difference being one is government sponsored expression and the other is individual expression.
Also note that we are not attempting to break any new ground here. Nearly 50 percent of all public libraries nationwide are already filtered.
Over Filtering Some have claimed that the installation of internet filters would keep people from accessing information. Many examples have been given; including a list of over twenty sites that supposedly are blocked by filters. I personally tried to view these sites on a computer with filtering at city hall (yes, all of our other city computers are filtered) and I was able to access every one of them.
Many of these filtering fears stem from experiences with early versions of filters, not giving any credit for the incredible advances in technology. It’s no secret to virtually anyone here in Silicon Valley how technology makes huge strides each and every year. While I have challenged many to give me concrete examples from current technologies, none have been presented.
Few people realize that their internet searches are filtered every time they use Google to search for images and photographs. If you’re skeptical of this, try it yourself. Go to Google and do a search for any term, then click on the images link to see what images show up as a search result. Then click on the Advanced Image Search link to the right of the search box. At the bottom of the page you will see that Google uses Safe Search, and the default setting is Use moderate filtering. Feel free to read Google’s explanation of this here.
And finally, I feel it’s important to discuss my motivation for bringing this to city council attention. Just prior to taking office a year ago, I was contacted by a District 1 resident who was concerned about the ABC investigative report referenced above. After watching the videos, I was very concerned. As a father of five young children, it is very troubling to know that this behavior was allowed and occurring in the very same libraries that my wife and I take our children. I spoke with parents throughout the neighborhoods in my district, and without exception they shared my concerns. I assured them that I would advocate for a change. It was later, during my broader outreach that I found that other organizations had similar concerns, listened to their arguments and incorporated some into my efforts.
Pete Constant is the San Jose City Councilmember for District 1.
Pete, you are way off base. I am the parent of two children and NEVER did I allow them to wander libraries without my supervision.
You state
“Our libraries offer countless programs designed to bring children into the library to experience the joy of reading and exploration. Parents have been lulled into a false sense of security, often allowing their children to roam and explore on their own. I feel that it is time that we take action. San José’s children should be free to discover the world in libraries without having to sacrifice their innocence. “
What parent is going to allow their small children to wander the MLK Library? How many floors does that library have? Would a parent allow their small children to wander a shopping center without any supervision?
When my children were younger they were never out of my sight, even at playgrounds. Further, since when is a library the size of the MLK library supposed to be a place for a child to roam unattended?
This is a waste of time, our city has far more serious issues to resolve, such as the increase in gang activity, the state of our roads, the budget deficit and more.
The solution is to make sure your children are SUPERVISED at the library, period.
Now, can you please move on to resolving real issues?
Councilmember Constant,
Thank you for posting your commentary regarding library filtering. I appreciate seeing your arguments and having a chance to comment on them.
First, the most misleading part of your post is on the cost. You suggest that there would be a financial windfall for the city if we receive the erate discount for Internet access if CIPA compliant. This amount is only $30K-35K and would actually cost money to apply for. More importantly, you completely ignore the cost side of the equation. The best bid the city has received for the cost of filters is $25,000 a year. Plus, in order to host the software for the entire system, the libraries would need to purchase at least one additional server. And none of this includes the cost of additional staff to manage requests to turn off filtering (as the Supreme Court requires and your proposal suggests). So the most we would get out of this is $5 to 10,000 per year.
You wonder if the city “should be paying for people to look at pornography in our libraries.” That is a red herring. Unlike book and periodical purchases, which the city can decide to buy or not buy, the city either provides internet access or it doesn’t. If we are going to provide internet access as a service to our residents, then the money is spent. More importantly, the city actually incurs additional cost to selectively screen out content, so this is a completely different scenario.
As for selectively screening content, there are no reputable studies that show that filtering can be done in a way that does not interfere with legitimate searches, your personal “experiment” notwithstanding. (Typing specific URLs into your filtered browser says nothing about whether google searches yield the same broad set of results with and without filtering.)
You said that parents are “lulled into a false sense of security, often allowing their children to roam and explore on their own” in the libraries. While this might be acceptable in the branch libraries to some extent, I don’t know a responsible parent that would let their children wander throughout the King Library downtown. This points to the bigger problem: some parents have decided that libraries should serve as babysitters. The library is there to serve everyone in the community, not to watch kids left along.
Since you only cite statistics and anecdotes in the MLK library, nobody has yet to point to a problem in the branches. In 2006-2007, there were ZERO arrests in any of the over 20 branch libraries. So where is the problem you are trying to address? And as far as King Library goes, filtering cannot be done there, as per the city’s agreement with San Jose State University. I’m not sure why more time should be wasted on something that can’t be done. Sure, a system can be implemented such that student IDs allow unfiltered sessions, but how would that solve issues of so-called “second hand porn.” If there is such a problem, then let’s just install standard privacy screens on all the workstations and move on to more pressing city business.
I, for one, would love to ban pornorgraphy from being viewed in public libraries. However, we all know that Constant is not doing this for “the social concern.” He sees issue, and he has done nothing as a council member, so it is off to the races for Petey. When San Jose gets some council members that are not concerned for headlines, let me know.
#2 – Well stated. The councilman’s attempt to justify his pontification lacks any depth. If he and his religious extremist buddies have nothing else to do then they should just get out of the way. This is a waste of time and money.
Constant can’t seriously believe it is a good idea to let your kids roam unsupervised throughout the library (or just about anywhere else) with or without his beloved porn filters.
Public acts of lewd conduct have been going on a lot longer than internet porn has been around.
As #2 said, put privacy screens on all the computers and lets move on to the real business of city government—providing basic services to our residents.
As a parent who regulaly takes my children to public libraries – and supervises them – I can tell you that there are volumes of children that come to the libraries without supervision. Go to any library – even MLK – shortly after shool is dismissed and you will see for yourself.
The public libraries cannot require parents to watch their children, and many working parents simply cannot. Unfortunately our libraries have become after school day free day care for many. I too think the city has to do what it can to make it as safe as possible.
And remember we should be talking about all children, not just the very small ones like PARENT above notes. How would you like to know that your teenage daughter is using a library computer while the pervert next to her is touching himself while looking at porn. How safe would you think she would be?
Mr. Rowen, Pete is my councilman and he has done more for us in one year than we have seen for the last two decades from previous council members.
Don’t forget how he led on the openness calendars, and budget discussions. He has done incredible thingss to organize our neighborhoods and bring back a sense of community.
Pete,
It is far more dangerous for a young person to be an alter boy or girl. Perhaps your religous buddy’s should ban churches as well.
This is such a worthless battle. Kids can get this anywhere. Spending the time and money to block it in libraries just means they’ll go home and look at it there or a friend’s house and use that computer. Look at the age in which you live. Everything is available on demand from our pockets, let alone our desktops.
This is like locking the door when every window is left open. It’s merely an appeal to the paranoid/conservative demographic and nothing more. Leave parenting to parents, not some scapegoat libraries.
You have Constant worried about little guys in overcoats running around the library (Victor Ajlouny is at City Hall, Pete, so they are not running around the library), while Dave Powell, the owner of the Vodoo Lounge, is quoted in the Business Journal lamenting over the disaster in downtown. Is Constant. Liccardo, or Reed worried about the violence in downtown? Nope, Liccardo cares nothing for his district, especially the mess at St. James, Reed is worried about casseroles and not the murder rate, and Constant is terrified over the thought of the Internet. What a collection of clowns that call itself a city council.
I wonder how many similar incidents of inappropriate behavior occur in other San Jose locations that are not getting this type of attention.
It would be interesting to see how many arrests for this type of activity have occurred in and around City Hall, VTA stops, local parks, etc. Could it be that the library is being singled out?
Murder rate in San Jose goes up, violence in the downtown goes up, Vodoo Loung owner is quoted as saying how much of a mess the downtown has become. Chuck Reed’s answer?? Make new casserole dish with his wife. Reminds me of Nicholas II writing about taking up dominoes while the streets in St. Petersburg were littered with bodies. Constant cares almost nothing for San Jose, and this self serving article about this non issue proves it. What’s next? Madison Nguyen taking up the campaign of too many squirrels eating in the parks?
If it walks like a duck, if it fills out the forms like a duck, and if four other blogs refer to it as a duck, it’s a duck.
The forms at the San Jose City Clerk’s Office illustrate my point.
IN HOUSE LOBBYIST—- Tom McEnery.
SAN JOSE REVEALED, METRO, SAN JOSE MERCURY, MISSION CITY LANTERN, all call McEnery a LOBBYIST.
Tom, QUACK, QUACK
This debate is not an easy one. I just wanted to add one observation to the debate. If a part-time city employee working at the library wanted to view pornographic sites on a computer during his lunchbreak…that would be disallowed, and considered sexual harrassment/creating a hostile workplace. (In some private sector workplaces, you can’t even hang a Sports Iluustrated swimsuit calendar up).
I don’t think that the city govt has an obligation to provide/deliver easy access to pornography just as I don’t think that the city govt should use the fire dept to deliver the citizens ice cream on Wednesday’s. It’s a pity that we don’t have a society where people of goodwill could come together and compromise/work for the greater good. (ie have access to porn sites limited to specified rooms in the library).
Pete Campbell
I agree with Parent’s post #1. NO parent should be letting their child run loose in any of our libraries, MLK or smaller branches. Libraries are not day care facilities. Parents need to start accepting responsibility for having produced kids. If you’re not interested in raising ‘em, don’t be breeding ‘em. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Constant says he doesn’t agree with nanny government yet that is what he’s proposing. As has been pointed out above, the porn issue has been around long before the internet existed.
Much as he may downplay it, Constant is trying to execute the agenda of Pegram’s hate group. Plain and simple. And he needs to be stopped. I sincerely hope the rest of the Council rejects his proposal and admonishes him to focus on real issues facing the citizens of SJ, such as shelling out big bucks for front end work due to the deplorable condition of so many of our streets. Now there’s something obscene you can work to eliminate, Mr. Constant.
I would support Mr. Constant if he actively pursued placing a filter on Mr. Rowen.
I strongly oppose internet filtering.
Internet filtering does not guarantee the safety of children.
Filters can be manipulated so that the viewer can get around filters and view what they want.
Prior to internet computers there were still patrons viewing “pornography” via the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition, and performing lewd acts.
San Jose does actually get federal funding for everything except having our computers filtered. And the amount of money we’re “missing out” on annually is around $30K – $35K …hardly enough to open pools and help our crumbling infrastructure.
Comparitively, out of the 5 MILLION annual library visitors and 2 MILLION computer users, very few arrests have been made that can be directly tied back to viewing porn on the internet.
If the issue is children’s safety (which SHOULD be a top priority, as well as the safety of all library patrons), then let’s have that conversation: about why people feel children aren’t safe in libraries and study the various reasons and be open to all solutions. (It’s not just because there aren’t filters on the computers.)
It’s a sad fact that many parents use the libraries as built-in babysitters. This does not guarantee the safety of their kids.
It’s a sad fact that the council has been approached that ‘If you vote for filtering you’re against pornography and if you vote against filtering you’re for it.’ What a horrible black or white and untrue position to put the council in.
Here are some of my other concerns:
Blocking sites via filtering supresses information, research and things people need to know for personal reasons. (Not just supresses the porn stuff)
Filtering would require a patron whose site was blocked to ask a librarian to lift the filter, and the librarian would have to ask an IT tech person to make the decision to do it or not. Normally these types of decisions are left for people trained in this area of decision making.
San Jose has a large, diverse population, and filtering does not honor the diversity of library patrons who, because of culture or just personal feelings, may not feel comfortable asking for a filter to be lifted. And what if they’re doing research? Do they then leave the library and seek the info elsewhere?
Remember, not everyone has a computer at home. And not everyone knows the “proper, anatomical” terms for doing research, especially teens who may be wondering what the heck is going on with their bodies.
Pete’s memo was authoried by the Alliance for Defense Fund, a group who promotes “traditional family values” which again (to me) doesn’t seem to honor the diversity of our city (and other cities) population.(http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx
If in the name of safety, why aren’t other sites being blocked? For instance sites that give step by step instructions on how to make home-made bombs.
For future proposals I hope the community can come together and have a well thought out conversation, with all the PERTINENT, HONEST facts laid out and make decisions accordingly.
Sorry for the off-topic post, but has anyone ever seen such a piece of crap web-site as that of the Mercury News?
They have lost the accounts of existing users, and after re-registering and trying to read an article all it does is loop. The article never appears.
What a piece of crap web-site.
GO OUT OF BUSINESS YOU USELESS NEWSPAPER!
Please add filters to keep this piece of crap web-site off the Internet.
Rowan forgot to take his meds again…
When the Councilmember shows as much concern for the health of his constituents as he does for wanting to limit access to information, then maybe I’ll pay a little more attention to his lame argument.
Since he was not concerned about the damage done to children and adults by secondhand smoke in our city parks, I find his “save the children” defense as nothing more than a pandering to his fanatic religious supporters.
How about we save the city from self-righteous politicians who think they can foist their morals on the rest of us?
How about parental responsibility? Why should the library take the rap for irresponsible parents? Let law enforcement deal with the creeps who violating the law and let the rest of us live our lives without Mr. Constant’s “nanny government.”
I concur with #15. Besides, if there is any town with a record for bickering clowns running the circus, it’s Santa Clara by miles and miles. Anybody remember Eddie Souza? He couldn’t even tuck in his shirt for a council meeting.
No shortage of trained circus performers in Santa Clara either, as witnessed by the passage of A&B on Tuesday. That town is way too creepy and Stepford, or from an even more political standpoint, John Birch. Stay away if you don’t have to drive through it or can do your business elsewhere.
And I wouldn’t be surpised to find out that all of Santa Clara’s (all two of them?) libraries have had internet filters from the day their computers were installed.
Let’s get back to the McEnery lobbyist story. Ps, when you are an anonymous blogger, you demonstrate how much of a coward you are.
We can be bingle heads and zing and zang, yours truly, but at the end of the day, Tom is a lobbyist, and he is registered as a lobbyist.
Pete Constant is an opportunist and has done nothing for the city at all.
Now, let’s look at Poizner.
Poizner’s campaign manager, Rich Robinson, is also a lobbyist.
People can make little snide comments, and also show how cowardly they are for not putting their name behind their words, but Tom, on three government forms, signed by Tom, declares himself to be a lobbyist, and Poizner has hired an industry lobbyist, Rich Robinson to run his campaign.
Hey, Tom, if you were such a valued person then why did you spend five years on the council insulting Jim Beall whenever you could. Sounds awfully nasty to me, Tom.
#2 David had it exactly right. Pete, your pandering to social conservatives might play well somewhere else, but it’s pretty pathetic here…
Isn’t John Birch the group that opposed library funding, and since Mark is too scared to tell his name, the fact that he might be some guy in a paper shack somewhere is obvious.
How come when people run for office in San Jose they line up from a line from De La Cruz to Monroe seeking the support of Kevin Moore, Lisa Gillmor, David Gillmor, and Gary Gillmor??
Well, I have been reminded by Kevin Moore and Dominic Caserta that Pierluigi and almost every other council member are effective and good friends to the Mission City.
I stand corrected.
#11 You’re confusing Madison with Dave Cortese, our Vice-Mayor. The Squirrels in the park campaign belongs to him.
Council Member Constant,
I would like to thank you for taking the time to present your views on this issue, and for allowing the public the opportunity to respond. I know that your responsibilities as a Council Member and a father, and husband take up the majority of your time.
I see both sides of the issue, and see there are credible points on both sides. Having said that, I personally don’t think filters are really the answer to the safety and well being of our children. Children are exposed to filth, lewd acts, porn, and other horrific things just walking to school, listening to Rap, looking on the net, and by merely turning on the TV everyday. I share your concerns about protecting children from pedophiles, rapists, and etc. but I know that we can’t protect them from everything, as much as we’d like to. I also work with the community, and children and I can tell you that the lack of parenting is a major cause of concern for me. Some really loving parents, or single parents must work and cannot afford childcare. Some parents just don’t give a dam and allow their children to roam freely like feral cats in the neighborhood. And then some parents really do view teachers, librarians, the Police, day care workers, and even strangers in public as convenient, free baby sitters for them while they shop, watch the movie, and/or enjoy BBQ ing or sun tanning in the park.
While I see your background as a Police Officer and a father, as the driving force behind your very well meant attempts to address this serious problem, I think security at the library is a much more appropriate, cost effective, responsible way to address this problem. I know as a Police Officer you have seen and heard things regarding rape, and child molestation that could fill a book, and would probably sicken the average person to the point of nausea, I do think this approach of filtering doesn’t really begin to solve the problem. I’ve often heard Gil say, “It takes a village to raise a child,” and I think he’s 100% correct.
Again Council Member Constant, thank you for taking time out of your very busy schedule to write this column. Happy New Year!
Victor Ajlouny after being sent a file of dozens of people in Vietnam who are being killed and tortured said “The Cold War is over, time to move on.”
The Vietnamese American community should send Victor a list of all the victims of the tyranny there and ask him to resign from City Hall.
#5, While I understand what you are saying about the lack of after school care, the fact is that the Library is not daycare, no one is “watching” the children, nor should they be, rather the library is a place, like any other public place.
If parents have to use the library for after school care then I think we should be focusing our time and energy on helping those parents GET the daycare they need rather then require the MLK library to become a daycare center.
If safety is an issue, let us concentrate on gang crime. How many of our murders this year have been gang related? How many murders or physical injury have come from an incident at the MLK library because someone was looking at porn?
Give Rowan a break. The poor guy has to post here to get his views onto a blog page that somebody reads.
No periodical section of a library should consider itself first rate unless it provides Playboy, Hustler, Barely Legal, Triple D-Cup,
Busty Babes, Tranny, Big Mamas, Hot Love over 50, etc etc. No wait, these can all be accessed at San Jose City Library computers now.
Wait a minute. We are talking about a PUBLIC SPACE – one that is paid for by taxpayers. This is not a place where people should be hanging out looking at pornography no matter what age. The library is not required to provide this kind of service to the public. If people want to view pornography privately who cares, but I don’t want to be next to someone masturbating in public (which really is a problem at some libraries) never mind my kid or anyone else’s. Perhaps adding filters won’t completely get rid of this kind of behavior, but if it reduced it a bit and wouldn’t cost anything why not give it a try.
People talking about how parents should be watching their kids better are missing something. No matter how much you complain, the problem will still be there. Some kids just will not have parents that can/will watch them like hawks.
What kind of daycare should middle school and high school students have? Shouldn’t they be allowed to hang out at the library? Seems like a much better place than others I can think of.
When I was growing up the library was a place I often went (without a parent) to research topics for homework and write reports. Bet many of you did the same. This is still an appropriate use for a public library. Of course we didn’t have the internet and so many other things that give so much stress to modern parents.
I don’t think Pete’s suggestion makes San Jose look so much like a backward, restrictive town as it shows our concern for creating/protecting an environment conducive to learning.
Good to see Mr. Rowen is spreading his repution as a nut-case from Santa Clara to San Jose.
31 – You make some sensible points and sound like a caring, concerned parent. The problem though, as I see it, is the filter debate is really a smokescreen for the larger agenda of those who have Constant’s ear. They hide behind the “save our children” banner but they have much more in mind. They want all of us to share their religious values and if we don’t we are condemned. First it’s porn, then it’s something else. They never stop and they are never satisfied.
Also, you said …“if the filters reduced the problem a little and wouldn’t cost anything why not give it a try”—because it doesn’t solve the problem and it does cost—a lot. Someone else pointed out above there are ongoing costs in the tens of thousands of dollars.
This is a law enforcement issue, not a censorship issue. If someone is performing lewd acts—be it in the library or any other public place—there are laws on the books already. Enforce them. Lock these folks up, get them help, etc. and get them away from our kids and the rest of us. But don’t pander to extremist groups and pretend this will solve the problem.
Once you start down the road of censorship it is a slippery slope and few ever regain their footing on that path.
Pete’s piece is not a rant, like Jim Rowen’s. It is calm and well reasoned and offers a rational point of view that he has taken the time to develop. Other City Council members (than Pierluigi) should take the time to offer up their thoughts on issues dear to them. It’s so easy to do with the Internet—not waiting years for the Murky to ask them to write an essay (which they would heavily edit). Whether Pete is a cop, or a member of some local religious clique, is not up front and evident in his argument. That said, even thoughtful arguments can be criticized, and it’s obvious that Pete and all other responsible parents of little kids would never let their kids roam through the library unaccompanied. So their risk of exposure to pornography is non-
existent. Filters wouldn’t make a difference. As for the huge number of parents out there that could care less about parenting, how do you protect them from other crap going on at home or anywhere else in their unsupervised lives? How could one possibly help them? As for older kids, 10 or so, who no longer require constant supervision, especially if they’ve been raised with care and concern, that’s another matter. Filters could be helpful—if they’re practical. It’s obvious that tax money shouldn’t be used to guarantee everyone the chance—not the right—to save them the cost of a subscription to Hustler Zine. Pete does a better job than the “free speech” zanies in differentiating free speech from slander, libel, insults and noisy jabber. And there’s no question he’s done a lot for his district, representing them well, and offering some counterbalance to the other council members who represent, not their district or the city, but the narrow interests of the unions—who would never ever offer a reasoned opinion on why all tax money belongs exclusively to them for their own personal use. George Green
George #34,
I find it strange that there is a feeling that other council members don’t publish their positions and explain themselves to the public. While those of us who read San Jose Inside appreciate reading the opinions of those who post them here, it is bit narrow to think that this is the only legitimate forum. Most councilmembers publish regular constituent newsletters or put columns in community newspapers. Some even have their own blogs. I appreciate all those forms of communication equally.
Why not just arrest flashers and other perpetrators of public lewdness?
Unfiltered internet doesn’t cause public lewdness; perverts cause public lewdness.
Would Council Member Constant please define exactly what is, and what is not, pornography, and just why it is pornographic.
Also, “I know it when I see it.” is not an acceptable or valid answer.
As usual the super-sleuths here at SJI have nailed it. Yet another instance of VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy).
The insidious tentacles of the ever expanding VRWC has apparently spread to library staff and even the head of the SJ City Employees Union.
Consider…
“Since the I-Team story aired Wednesday, we’ve received several e-mails from staff at the library who say they don’t like being exposed to porn, especially the child porn we spotted, on a daily basis and that it’s a hostile work environment.
Erik Larsen, S.J. City Employees Union President: “It is uncomfortable for employees to be in that position.”
The city employees union president says it’s especially disturbing because so many jobs have been cut since the dot-com bust. The library is counting on 15 and 16-year-old pages to do a lot of the work, and they’re having to deal with the porn.
Erik Larsen, S.J. City Employees Union President: “You can’t have young folks under the age of 18 monitoring children or adults when it comes to this type of issue with pornography.”
Ms. Flynn and Ms. Morrill have done a good job expressing some of what I feel about this subject. I do thank the Councilmember for posting his views here. Frankly, it is one of the more substantive subjects covered on this site for quite some time.
I just can’t support his position. For lots of reasons. Among them: the alleged problem of masturbators is cited as occuring at the King Library downtown. City runs that with SJSU – no way will city council be able to dictate internet filters there. Filters don’t just keep out the hard core porn sites. They are imperfect – they keep out legit sites with info people need about health, sexuality, and stuff completely unrelated to either. And they are imperfect the other way, too – they don’t block every new XXX site. So we need to have another way to address the alleged concern about bad people in libraries. I have heard NO evidence about problems in branches.
I know we should focus on ideas and not the person who has them, but the group that helped the Councilmember draft his proposal is scary. They say they are out to ensure that the Truth can be heard. Those of us who don’t believe in their particular Truth are outta luck, I guess. Block porn today; tomorrow they will have us blocking info about abortion, homosexuality, Islam, atheism, teen sexuality, birth control….. Yikes!
Libraries are a place for free access to information. Let’s keep it that way.
Before you know it outraged citizens of San Jose will be having weekly protests outside City Hall demanding Martin Luther King library be re-named the Larry Flynt Memorial library.
I support Pete, too. He has demonstrated once again that he will stand for what he thinks is right. That courage is admirable and all too rare on the SJ council.
Also, even though most who oppose Pete’s position keep their comments intelligent and honest, it is once again disappointing that some resort to ignoring, twisting or spinning facts to their liking.
Keep up the good work, Pete, a lot of people really appreciate it!
It’s pretty obvious that “George Orwell” doesn’t have a clue about George Orwell.
In a true Orwellian scenario, “George Orwell” would be the first to run to Big Brother accusing Pete Constant of “thoughtcrime”.
A citizenry that obediently and enthusiastically places Government ABOVE personal morality was the essential point of “1984”.
You are in perfect compliance, Citizen “Orwell”!
You people are an embarassment to San Jose and the Human Race!
I support Pete!
At the risk of throwing more gasoline on the fire of Jim Rowen’s inflamed imagination, his memory is failing him. There is zero help he could provide anyone, let alone a member of the County Board of Education. I do confess to asking him about Tony West as a candidate running in a District 3 contest against Cindy Chavez, West a losing candidate Rowen was supporting with an ineffective smear campaign. That aside, the comments of Dan Kleinman and others are most interesting. George Green
Dan, you’ll have a willing ear for YOUR propaganda when you see Larry Pegram at church on Sunday.
Q: What is the common sense answer here?
A: Enforce existing laws. If you want to go a step above that, give the library a hotline to the SJ Police or CSU-SJSU campus police. (Anyone know whose jurisdiction MLK library is in, anyway?)
Then, put privacy screens on all the computers. Why don’t they have those anyway?
With these three steps (enforcement, closer ties between staff and police, and privacy screens), most of the problems cited above are solved with additional benefits—better police presence and coverage of ALL criminal activity, safer libraries, and privacy for people who don’t want or need others looking over their shoulders.
Win-win.
And to think, we could solve social problems with low-tech social solutions in Silicon Valley of all places!
Caroline,
Thanks for posting that link. There are some other interesting tidbits in the series of reports posted there. For example, the least costly proposal out there costs $60,000 while implementing Pete Constant’s entire proposal would cost >$450,000! Good idea during a fiscal emergency.
Looks like the staff did a pretty thorough analysis of filtering and proves that the technology is still imperfect. People do not use the internet by typing in specific URLs – they use a search engine to try to find resources on topics of interest. The fact that 15% of legitimate sites get blocked while searches are done is the point of contention against this policy proposal. What happens to people searching for information on breast cancer, human sexuality, etc? Filtering would automatically use somebody else’s value judgment to limit what is made available.
Nobody is defending those who perform lewd acts in the library or happy that people would view porn there, but that is why there are laws. Pete’s commentary starts by pointing out that “there have been a number of individuals arrested for viewing child pornography in libraries, and still others have been arrested for performing lewd acts such as masturbating in public while viewing pornographic material.” That’s exactly what should happen. The fact that those folks are arrested means the system is working. Significantly more folks get arrested at our city parks for the same kinds of acts. So what do we do about that?
John #52 – Excellent suggestions. Straightforward. Win-win for all involved. Those who want to help protect library users get extra enforcement and privacy screens. Those who want to do research in the library can do so knowing that their online searches are unimpeded by the vagaries of filtering software.
I don’t support Pete on this one. His “solution” will not solve the problem and it will waste precious dollars (our dollars). The arguments have already been stated by others in previous posts.
Thanks to former Councilmember Johnson for her cogent thoughts on this—too bad she is not still representing District 1.
Pete is off-base and misguided on this. There is no courage involved. He is getting his ink in the press and not accomplishing anything to solve the problem.
Libraries are for providing information. Some of the information contained in the library may be unpleasant for some but who will decide what should and should not be read or viewed? Do we really want Pete or his religious buddies deciding for the rest of us?
Deal with those few whose behavior is unacceptable and leave the rest of us and our library alone.
The real courage would be to stand up for free and open access to information. Let’s see how courageous Pete is really is.
One point re: 1st Amendment: The judge whose opinion formed the majority for filtering did so because the adult could have the filter/block removed. Read Pete’s proposal and assess whether he meets that test, or whether the process is designed to discourage unblocking.
Tina Morrill and others have eloquently discussed the difficulty of asking, or whether the IT person would have the appropriate legal and educational background to make the decision about unblocking. How long would you be willing to wait for such a decision if you are in the middle of a research project, or if you have limited time to be at the library or on the computer?
Yet anything less than his proposal to highly filter all computers and restrict unblocking would undo his “second hand porn” protection.
Because filtering cannot be used for SJSU cardholders, there is another exception that could also undo his “protection.” No one has asked about automatic unfiltering for other college students or faculty using SJ libraries – those from community colleges and other institutions. Their needs for unrestricted access are essentially the same, yet they would be subjected to the onerous unblocking process.
The new report assessing the effectiveness of three major filtering products (found at http://www.sjlibrary.org/about/sjpl/commission/meetings.htm) clearly shows that all have significant overblocking and underprotection. They cannot be relied upon to do what Pete desires, and to assure parents that their children will not be exposed because we have filters is a promise we could not keep. This is not the “old information” that Pete refers to – it is current and does not support his position that there have been “incredible advances.”
No one wants children, or anyone else, to be subjected to objectionable material. But let’s get some perspective here. Compare the number of arrests or incidents (and to be fair, that should only count those that can be directly tied to computer use) to the huge number of visitors and computer users in our libraries. The odds of such exposure are tiny, especially for children who have their own very attractive and separate room at the King library; at the branch libraries such incidents were almost nonexistent.
Should we lessen the research and educational value of our libraries to address a problem of this “magnitude?” Or should we support the library staff in their effective efforts to monitor behavior and control or evict the few bad actors? The library – like all city departments – is facing significant budget cuts. Given all our library needs, is this the priority use for our dwindling funds?
Pete is my councilman, and I appreciate his work with neighborhood organizations. He grew up in the district and cares about what happens here and in the city. But on this issue, his actions are misdirected and possibly damaging to the legitimate interests of patrons of all ages who depend upon libraries for access to the best and most complete information available.
Also, SJSU has barely been mentioned in this discussion. I think they’d want no part of any filtering and they definitely would have a say in what happens. Might this end up being a local vs state government issue in the unlikely event that Constant prevails with the rest of the council?
No question that anyone caught playing with themselves should be removed and cited if necessary by whichever law enforcement operation has jurisdiction. But I’d say dialing 911 would work just as well as a hot line if it’s the SJ police’s beat.
I may not support the idea of filters, but I have to give him credit for standing up for seeing a problem, and proposing a solution to fix it, as opposed to many other elected officials, who simply see a problem, and rail on and on about the problem, instead of proposing a solution.
Pete, I would ask this: what is the possibility we can work with SJSU and their police force to get some enforcement in the MLK Library?
The real problem here? It’s all these pesky kids and their darned parents.
San Francisco certainly doesn’t have this problem.
Why can’t San Jose just hire some consultants to figure out how San Francisco got rid of all the families and their children?
Constituents of Pete Constant:
Think for a moment of the significance of what Pete Constant has done. Unlike most others, your governmental leader is making an effort to swim against the tide and protect children from harm using perfectly viable and legal means. Disagree with him or not, you have to give him credit for being one of the few with the guts needed to stand up for you and your families.
I have read his comments. What he says is essentially correct. True, the CIPA money may not be a financial panacea, but that’s not the point. The point is you elected your government to govern. But when the library on its own chooses to turn down federal funding that would otherwise benefit all the people, that revenue source disappears, and the people you elected have no control over that. You have no control over that if you do not have governmental accountability.
Worse, the library is turning down the funds in respect of guidance from the American Library Association in Chicago, IL. So not only has the library blocked the government from acting on your behalf as it should regarding fiscal matters, but it has ceded de facto control to an organization foreign to your citizenry, an organization that still holds, despite losing big in US v. ALA, that it is age discrimination to keep children from any material of any nature whatsoever. While once that was an interesting viewpoint, post-US v. ALA is it mere defiance. Does your community wish to cede control over your libraries to such an organization? Can you blame Pete Constant for attempting to bring light to this matter and rectify it?
Folks, even the ACLU now admits filters are at least 95% effective and no longer block out health-related information. The ACLU’s expert argued this and it become the reason why another law, the one requiring web sites to use credit cards to weed out the children, was found unconstitutional.
That truth is just one of many examples of evidence of misinformation the library and the American Library Association promote to mislead you to get you to voluntarily do what they would like to force you to do. It’s a slick propaganda technique, and it’s not right.
Pete Constant has seen through the propaganda cloud, and he is attempting to help you to do the same. Oh yes, his message may not be perfect, and people are attacking him for that, but that ad hominem form of argument does not make the essential issues he raises go away. That message is the community has every right to protect its children by every legal means available, Internet filtering is an effective and legal means, and the library has no right to cede control of the government’s finances and other matters to some third party organization from out of state.
Not coincidentally, the governmental leader in Monroe County, NY, told her local libraries she would withhold funding from the libraries if they did not use Internet filtering. After the usual false claims of censorship died down, the library added Internet filtering that is both working and legal, and everything is fine now. There are other such example of this. Pete Constant is not alone in what he is doing.
I hope you will rethink what Pete Constant has to say and do what’s right by your community, not by the ALA. It’s a PUBLIC library, not an ALA library. If the ALA wants to control it using local acolytes, let the ALA pay for it.
Gee, George, when you being attacked as a ranter on the County School Board, you sure came running to me for help.
It is always a pleasure to hear a guy like George who comes running for cover when the insiders are after him. blast the people he begged for support.
Never mind “the children”.
I’m an adult and I don’t like the idea of going to the library and having a porn-viewing masturbater sitting in the chair next to me.
I pay taxes. This is NOT what I pay taxes FOR.
Pete Constant, you are right.
Libraries have NEVER made Penthouse available to children There’s a reason for that.
This is no different no matter how the PC new-agers try to spin it.
Regarding the over and under blocking of current filtering software, go check out the report at http://www.sjlibrary.org/about/sjpl/commission/meetings.htm that has been posted on the the Library Commission agenda. Filters are imperfect; they still block legitimate sites and don’t block others that are unwanted. Email and attachments will get through and there are ways to work around filters. Let’s look at all the facts before jumping into a policy that was written by an out-of-state group purporting to know what San Jose citizens need.
I’d like to respond to other comments the Councilman made here.
“Perhaps this federal funding in our libraries can free up general funds to help fix our crumbling infrastructure” Hey, you think around $30K will do that? That’s about what CIPA/E-rate will bring in and that won’t even cover the costs of filtering.
“Many people don’t realize that with every library we open the city relies on neighbors to embark on fundraising efforts to fill the library with books and computers” Do you realize that the Library Foundation (http://www.sjplf.org) has worked with local businesses and neighbors to help in this effort? Did you know that library staff reserved critical C & C funds for new libraries and those dollars provided for the majority of items not covered by bond funds?
Let’s look at all the facts and come to a policy that serves all San Jose residents.
Thanks councilmember Constant for taking a stance in this issue which is meant to protect our young children. This is not a free speech issue. This is a matter of not providing hard core porn, at taxpayers expense, which attracts a sick part of our society to the very same place we encourage our children to go.
If you want an eye opener, go to the Megan Law data base, and pull up the zip code where the MLK library is located (95112). http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/disclaimer.aspx?lang=ENGLISH There are 208 registered sex offenders in this zip code alone. Take a look at their pictures. Honestly answer if you would like this person sitting directly next to your child in the library, while this registered sex offender surfed the internet for hard core porn. These are criminals who spent hard time in prison for rape, child molestation, and other sexual attacks. They never should have been let out, and most of them would not think twice about victimizing again if they knew they could get away with it. Even the most vigilant parent watching their child like a hawk could turn their head for a few moments, enough time for something awful to happen.
To those of you that say we should have the police enforce existing laws I ask where do we find these extra officers? We already have an extreme shortage of police officers in San Jose. There are no officers to magically provide extra enforcement. Whatever amount of money is necessary to provide filtering, or the miniscule amount of “legitimate” research inadvertanly filtered, would be a small price to pay if it prevented a child from being victimized by a sexual predator.
Thanks again to councilmember Constant.
What is wrong with our society that we’re even discussing this issue? Is this 1984, George? Pete Constant is obviously driven by a religious agenda and NOT by investigating and responding to the true needs of San Jose residents. He’s trying to shove something down our throats that we don’t want. So, here’s what I have to say to “our” representatives: We need representation that truly cares about the public’s views, that is objective, and that does not have a hidden agenda to foist on our community. LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN. We need to be VERY careful about who we elect in the future and do our due diligence.
Councilmember Constant,
You mentioned that the study, which i understand is still not complete, did not have accurate stats ( at the Rules meeting in which Ms.Light gave an update.) Could you let us know what stats you have and where you found them?
At what point in the evolution of the internet did it become acceptable for library users to access pornography on taxpayer-supplied computers? I don’t remember voting for that, nor do I remember hearing any local leader making a case for it. So how did it happen? And how did we get to the point where decent people—library patrons and employees—are routinely subjected to images we wouldn’t allow posted outside a topless bar, or taped inside a firefighter’s station locker?
I suggest that there is but one answer to these questions, and that answer can be found in the politics of those in charge of the library. What we have here has all the earmarks of a political agenda, in this case the agenda to elevate personal freedom above any and all standards of conduct—provided that the standard is one based on morality. The distinction is important: notice that while not a librarian in America will willingly tolerate boisterous laughter from patrons reading humor, they all stand ready to defend their patrons “right” to have pornography beamed to them on library computer screens—no matter how adversely it might affect others. If it doesn’t strike you as odd that the librarian’s commitment to decorum comes to a dead stop upon encountering pornography, then you have apparently failed to notice that we are engaged in a Culture War.
For the record, I’ve not been persuaded that library filters are the solution—sorry, Councilman. But I am of the opinion that a librarian who equates the First Amendment with viewing pornography on library computers is either a fool or a political crusader, two classes of people we taxpayers do not need working for us. That this disturbing situation, a matter that could be handled using only simple rules and supervision, has deteriorated to the point where unwary patrons and unappreciative employees have to complain to the media, constitutes nothing short of a failure of management.
What a wonderful discussion! I applaud all those who have presented their opinions based on issue rather then attacking posters who have different opinions.
My hope is that discussion of filtering at the library becomes a non issue as the cost (at a time when our budget is already facing cuts across the board), as well as the fact that there are more serious issues we could spend out time discussing, gang violence being top on my list.
I appreciate Councilmember Constant wanting to protect our children, however I do believe this effort is misguided and his time and efforts could be best spent on other issues that San Jose needs to address.
David #63,
Do you think K-12 schools should allow unfettered access to the internet, or should there be some filter in place at public schools internet acces points to block most of the porn?
Why is it that conservatives who rail against “Nanny Government” are the first to call for these kinds of restrictions?
Pete Constant should worry more about potholes, police staffing and the city budget and less about trumped-up and sensationalized TV reports about the orgy of supposed sex crimes taking place in our library.
Trixie Johnson, a former Councilwoman well-known for cutting through BS arguments, makes an excellent point: How many of the Library’s reported crimes involved use of computers?
The solution, assuming there is a problem, is really very simple:
1. Install privacy filters on the screens so those doing legitimate research do not run the risk of offending failed State Assembly candidate Larry Pegram and others who are obsessed about masturbation.
2. If anyone reports illegal behavior call 911. There are already laws in place to deal with such crimes and San Jose’s Police are quite capable of handling the very small handful (sorry) of offenders.
When the manner in which a librarian stands up for “unfettered access to all research material” allows harm to come to the library environment, then that librarian’s manner needs to be changed. The use of a library computer is, as is the use of all library materials, a privilege, and a librarian that is incapable of administering library privileges needs to change careers.
Assuming the news reports and public complaints are accurate, it appears that the library’s response to a complaint about computer pornography is to issue some sort of privacy screen. That the screen is insufficient only makes the absurdity of it as a solution all the more obvious. The solution should instead be the termination of the offending user’s library privileges, along with an escort to the door.
The argument that the determination of what is pornographic or “objectionable” (#63) will necessarily take one on a dangerous path is specious, at best. Pornography, at least the graphic kind likely to offend employees or other patrons, is no more difficult for the library staff to determine than are any of the other numerous forms of disruptive conduct they identify and suppress daily. (An argument could be made that the assessment is easier, given that an offending webpage is easily reviewed.) Unlike other potentially objectionable websites (hate, gang-related, etc.), pornography sites are not designed to be read, they are designed to be viewed, and therein lies the distinction—as well as the reason that one user surfing them will unreasonably impact others.
For anyone who doubts that our librarians are not on a crusade of their own, here is a link to the latest newsletter/communique of the Social Responsibilities Round Table of the American Library Association:
http://libr.org/srrt/news/srrt160.pdf
And a librarian’s rant about how leftist activism has taken over the ALA (and his profession):
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i06/06b01201.htm
I think the trouble with just enforcing the laws is that the police have to come from somewhere.
Any officer called to the library to enforce such laws is someone pulled away from gang intervention programs, traffic safety, or other police tasks. You lose that officer’s time again when the court date comes up.
That doesn’t mean it is or isn’t worth the cost, but it certainly isn’t free.
Steve #64,
In fact, many schools don’t pay for filtering software and they don’t have problems. Why? Because children are always supervised when they are using computers. And students must follow codes of conduct and there are consequences when they don’t.
As long as there is a place for adults (and teenagers) to have unfiltered access to sensitive material online, I am not opposed to filtering in K-12 schools. The public libraries offer that access. Of course, given the financial challenges in schools, as well as in the city, the extra expense may not be prudent.
If the cost were minimal, I’d support filtering the children’s and teens rooms at the public library. That would prevent accidental exposure to adult-oriented material. As I’ve said before, I don’t believe children should wander unsupervised around the library outside the children’s rooms anyway.
Card Holder – last I heard, the “cutting through” that Trixie excelled at was with a knife and fork at first class eateries on the tax payer dime. Nonetheless please pass along the following facts.
– Pat Lopes Harris, a spokeswoman for San Jose State University, which co-manages the city’s main Martin Luther King Jr. Library downtown, said university police this year received 37 complaints of lewd acts at the library. Of those, 26 involved computer use, two involved online child pornography and 17 led to arrests or citations.
– “San Jose’s police blotter last year listed several arrests for child porn at the library—at least 10 cases of child molestation or other sex crimes involving kids and several cases of men viewing porn and performing a lewd act, right there at the table.
– Megan’s Law database shows 200+ sex offenders live within walking distance of MLK.
I get the feeling that this is yet another prime cut case of limousine liberalism.
The less fortunate and their children are paying the price for Jane “Avert your eyes” Light’s library policies.
I can’t access pornography from my City of San Jose workstation, What’s up with that? (not that I really want to.)
The distortion on this issue that keeps getting repeated by the “culture warriors” is getting tiresome. Librarians and library users are not standing up for the right of anyone to view pornography in public places. We are concerned about not allowing unfettered access to all research material on any topic. That, after all, is the purpose of a library. Filtering has been proven (even today) to falsely block at least 15% of legitimate searches on certain topics that may be useful to those folks doing legitimate research in the library. Since it should never be up to any third party (in this case, the filtering companies) to decide which material should be accessible, it is against the mission of public libraries to filter. That is why the vast majority of library systems that filter allow the user to choose filtered or unfiltered internet use. While that would comply with CIPA, it really does nothing to prevent viewing of material that others would find objectionable. Plus, it would cost the city money in a time of significant fiscal challenges. Finally, that is not the Councilman’s proposal – he does not want to allow users to turn off the filters.
The other point is how one defines “objectionable.” Once you start going down that path, there are many things that some would prefer people not do on public computers. Should children have access to gang websites? Should adults be able to gamble from the library? What about hate groups? Installing filters leaves all these questions open.
Finally, the red herring of taxpayer money funding access to pornography needs to stop. Taxpayer money pays for computers and internet access for everyone. That’s it. It just so happens that the internet is a vast repository of content unlike any to come before. I’d prefer not to use additional taxpayer money to start selectively blocking some sites, ultimately reducing the value of the service that is provided in the first place (allowing unfettered access to research material on even sensitive subjects).
Card Holder 66,
Novice: you must have laughed as hard as me when you read #66. I’d also like to know where she gets this reputation as you state “well-known for cutting through….” But Card Holder, YOU brought her up, so, I’ll comment on my perspective. I just Google TRIXIE JOHNSON and looked at the highest ranked page.
At a recent commission meeting on the subject, Trixie testified, (I’m looking at my notes I took) about the 1997 policy she voted on 11 years ago, she said “not much has changed since then” referring to the internet. That ‘it wasn’t needed then and it’s not needed now.’
I was coding web pages 11 years ago and am still now, and everyone knows things have changed in 11 years. Having PHOTOS on web sites 11 years ago was pretty tough. Has she even visited the web lately? Clearly she hasn’t done her homework.
Her credibility went right out the window with that statement.
I believe there would certainly be ENOUGH information available to library patrons doing ANY research on ANY subject with these filters installed.
Much has changed in 11 years, but unfortunately filtering is still an imprecise technology. See the SJPL report here: http://www.sjlibrary.org/about/sjpl/commission/agen0208_report.pdf
Councilmember Constant’s proposal is flawed on so many levels that I can’t believe so much time and money has been spent debating it. First of all, he wants two levels of filtering on library computers. The first level would block all illegal content. Such a filter doesn’t exist, and if it did don’t you think that those “illegal content creators” would then be easily apprehended? Is this the way Mr. Constant approached policing? “Stop all illegal activity at the city’s border. And I mean it.”
Second, Mr. Constant’s proposal calls for an “IT specialist” to be available at all times to decide if individual sites should be unblocked. This puts an unfair burden on the library user to gain access to information. Besides that, why should an “IT specialist” make the determination about whether a site should be unblocked? How does that person determine? And why, if it’s determined that it should be unblocked, would it be available for only 24 hours? And where will the salary for that “IT specialist” come from? Mr. Constant? If people need help with their Internet searches, they should just ask the trained information retrieval professional – the librarian.
If Mr. Constant truly wanted to have a serious discussion about illegal activity in the library, I think he should have taken the time to craft a proposal that actually was possible to implement. His attempts to win people over through fear-mongering is divisive and doesn’t belong in our city.
If Novice’s stats are accurate, you can’t deny there is a problem. I would bet my house that none of those advocating free unfettered computer access in the library have had their own child victimized by one of these perverts.
“I get the feeling that this is yet another prime cut case of limousine liberalism. “
As opposed to the single-driver SUV boneheadism you’re espousing. If your kids find the San Francisco Sex Information hotline, all that expensive Christian school abstinence-only education will fly out the door! If they find the LYRIC queer youth community, they might realize that gay people are ok, and that it’s even ok to be gay! Think of the shame you’ll feel!
But, if searches for “sex help” and “gay teens” are forbidden, you won’t have a problem. You’ll just have pregnant, infected kids, or kids with horrible neuroses caused by repressed sexuality. And, knowing what you boneheads think about sex, I know you’d prefer it.
“I would bet my house that none of those advocating free unfettered computer access in the library have had their own child victimized by one of these perverts.”
I would bet my house that you and your library-hating cronies haven’t set foot in a public library—or read a book of substance—in more than a decade.
A hundred years ago, you losers were lynching librarians who stocked pictures of Renaissance nudes. Fifty years ago, you were blacklisting librarians who stocked Tropic of Cancer. Now, you’re leveling the bugaboo of child molestation librarians who believe that the unrestricted access to the largest body of information ever assembled is more important than installing censorship programs that don’t work.
Want to find pictures of naked kids? Go to the library’s book stacks and look up Lewis Carroll. ON PAPER!
Lewd acts are already illegal. SJSU has campus police. Judging from the statistics posted here, they are doing a very good job of keeping the library free of sex crimes.
SUVs? Library haters? Able to read the minds of boneheads?
I’m not sure that I understand it all – but I know one place where you’ll be amongst those who will – http://www.missioncitylantern.blogspot.com/
$$$$$$,
Who is attacking Christians? You are. Did you really fail to notice your own words quoted in my post, or are you just embarrassed at how foolish your rants appear when they come back at you.
“Fascists and Theocrats…” destroying lives? Confirm we are still discussing internet filters at the library?
Though you want to confine the issue to teenagers looking for helpful information there is another side to the controversy, that being porn-viewing in a public place, and it is that issue that’s raised the concern of many good people (i.e. not Fascists or Theocrats). But you, and many others like you, don’t have the time or inclination to treat the issue responsibly because of your eagerness to assail Christians, right-wingers, and SUV owners (your words again, from post #74).
For a person so intent on attacking those who believe in Christianity you sure do believe a lot of stuff yourself. An opposing view on this matter does not equal hate, no matter what you believe. Unplanned pregnancies and STD’s, which you believe to be the result of a dearth of information, are these days rarely the result of anything other than faulty decision-making and a lack of self-control. Today’s teenagers, like gays in the Castro, understand the rules of safe sex, they just don’t always follow them.
Lastly, you believe the call for internet filters is a censorship plot by right-wing government. But internet filters are intended to control publicly-owned equipment (library computers), not content available to the general public. (If that qualifies as censorship, then so does the rule against readers sharing their thoughts in the margins of library books.) And please tell me, where in this matter is the right-wing government that you fear? This proposal is for the city council to decide, and they hardly qualify as a right-wing anything.
As I have previously stated I do not support using filters and believe this contentious issue the result of the librarian’s ideology-based refusal to use common sense when confronted with complaints about library patrons accessing porn sites. Rather than enforce accepted standards of public decency, the librarian chose to allow the library to become a taxpayer-funded sex arcade. As a result, she has shown herself to be incompetent.
I hope she enjoys the attention.
For lessons on tolerance, we should all listen to $$$$…
“that expensive Christian school abstinence-only education will fly out the door!” What is it that you hate more, Christians, abstinence, or the idea that in matters of personal morality the beliefs of a child’s parents—and not those of the state, academia, or the ACLU, might somehow influence a young person?
“the LYRIC queer youth community, they might realize that gay people are ok, and that it’s even ok to be gay!” You seem convinced that, absent exposure to a support or outreach group, young Christians are incapable of viewing gay people objectively. Really? Where did you learn that? Where is the data or the evidence? Have I missed the reports on the out-of-control bashing being done by local Christians, or is it more of a matter of your head having been bashed with hysterical, anti-Christian nonsense?
You seem to believe that unfettered library internet access is going to have a positive impact on teen pregnancy, STD rates, and sexual neurosis. If you’re right, then I suspect that should we compare the rates of those problems between now, when the majority of kids have access to the internet, to the 1950’s, when the internet did not exist, we will discover how really bad things were back then. Or will we? My lord, the Christians could be right? Maybe pushing family values is the right response.
“knowing what you boneheads think about sex” So what is it you know, and who is it you know about? Are you saying that all Christians are sexually repressed, or is it only those who favor internet filters? Now, to be honest, I’m no expert on Christianity, but I do remember reading about Jimmy Swaggert, Martin Luther King, and a few others in his line of work, and, for the life of me, I just don’t remember them as being repressed.
“I would bet my house that you and your library-hating cronies haven’t set foot in a public library—or read a book of substance—in more than a decade.” Wow. I guess my friend was right, they really are awarding liberal arts degrees in Smugness.
$$$$, your conviction that internet filters is the wrong approach is nothing more than your opinion on an issue in which both sides have legitimate concerns. There is no real law operating here, despite the fact that you react as if the Constitution itself were being challenged. And it is your reaction, your gross intolerance and borderline insane reaction to the presence of Christians and Christian groups among those with an opposing point-of-view, that makes it obvious that your concern is less with the issue at hand than it is with silencing of the Christian voice. In that, you have a lot of company. Suppressing Christian influence is big these days, especially with the diversity drones and the self-proclaimed agents of tolerance.
LOOK OUT! THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY IS OUT TO GET YOU! SPOOOOOOOOOKY!
(Who is attacking Christians? Who is even talking about religion? Your paranoia makes you look foolish! Please stop changing the subject. We are talking about the reasons that government censorship is terrible, not your paranoid fantasies. Maybe you should check your medication, because it’s affecting your ability to think clearly. It’s quite pathetic.)
I know what right wing boneheads think because I read the things they write and listen to the things they say. Nothing requires me to tolerate the actions of fascists or theocrats who would destroy millions of lives to bring back an utopia that never existed.
You have a lot of nerve to act offended when phrases like “limousine liberals” are used around here.
Obviously, if teenagers are trying to find information about safe sex or queer communities at the public library, they come from a household where they would be punished for trying to learn about this. It is also quite obvious that if they are trying to find this information that they desperately need it. It boggles my mind that people like you hate young people so much that you want them to suffer. Why do you hate young people? Why do you want them to suffer abuse?
The better informed people are about sex, the fewer diseases are spread and the fewer unplanned pregnancies and abortions there are. Because you are the one making the ridiculous claim to the contrary, the burden of proof is on you.
I just named two very important resources that right-wing government censorship of the internet would deny to the very minors you all seek to protect. These resources could save their lives. Will there be any sensible replies, or will I just get more ranting and raving about the ACLU and the poor, persecuted Protestants of America?
$$$$,
If you’re claiming that the library staff calls the police to report porn-surfers then I ask for the evidence that this has happened even once. However, if this is not your claim, then you have once more offered a response every bit as confused as your cognitive circuitry.
Speaking of your circuitry, I will assume from the directive about your thumb that you’ve confused SJI for the Mo Howard Intellectual Society to which you rely on for guidance and inspiration. You need to stick your thumb where you won’t misplace it.
As for your gripe about the term “limousine liberals,” I don’t know to whom you directed your email, but I will not be responding to it because I neither used the term nor took offense from it.
They do use common sense. They call the police.
Grab my thumb…
How would you respond to the attack, “limousine liberalism,” you single-driving SUV bonehead? Tell me why liberals should put up with your crap.
lim·ou·sine lib·er·al
Of, pertaining to, based on, self proclaimed uber-compassionate types who from behind their Mac widebooks and between sips of socially conscious coffee post to SJI railing against common sense internet filtering whilst across town library pages and less fortunate families and their children are forced to deal with and navigate around child molestors and other perverts drawn to MLK as a result of unfettered internet access policies.
See also. hypocrisy.
#1 wrote:“What parent is going to allow their small children to wander the MLK Library? How many floors does that library have? Would a parent allow their small children to wander a shopping center without any supervision?
When my children were younger they were never out of my sight, even at playgrounds. Further, since when is a library the size of the MLK library supposed to be a place for a child to roam unattended?”
50 years ago as a child I roamed my public library alone, unsupervised; ran and played in the parks unsupervised. I had instruction from my parents about what to watch for, and thankfully, nothing bad happened to me.
#1 is right, though. Sadly, in the span of a mere half century, the bad guys, the perverts now have free roam, and our children cannot be left alone. Even worse, people like Ms. Light defend THE BAD GUYS, and apparently have no regard in their PC world for our kids/grandkids, etc. Just like in the courts—defendants have rights, victims don’t.
It is muddle-headed thinking like Ms. Light’s that impedes a solution. Go back to school, Ms. Light. The protections of the Constitution of free “speech” allows the production and distribution of pornographic material without governmental interference or interdiction.
The VIEWING of pornographic materials is not speech, Ms. Light, nor is it protected by court decisions. Perhaps this distinction is lost on you, but it is a significant one.
According to our Supreme Court, at least, the production and distribution of porn is protected speech. There is no corresponding “free speech” right to view porn at a public library, free of charge.
A poor analogy is OJ, or Barry Bonds, or Roger Clemens. They are entitled to the presumption of innocence only in A COURT OF LAW. There is no presumption of innocence in the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.
Our biggest problem in regard to porn and other issues arose when ACTS became SPEECH. The US Supreme Court did a great disservice to us all when it became unable to discriminate between actions (previously unprotected) and speech (protected).
Sorry, but watching porn at taxpayer expense at the library just isn’t speech, Ms. Light.
Lest someone believe I am a religious nut job, think again. I am a non-believer in any god.
Living in a free society always involves the balancing of competing interests/rights/responsibilities. OOOPs, responsibility died about 50 years ago in this country. But anyway, the balance has shifted to a huge imbalance. Since when do the rights of a few cheapskate masturbaters who won’t buy their own porn exceed the rights of everyone, not just our kids, from being exposed to unwanted graphic images?
A proposed solution has been to force the kids to be segregated to rooms with filters. That’s backwards. If Ms. Light wants to provide free porn, then the porn viewers should be the ones that have to go to a separate place to get their free jollies. If any inconvenience is to be borne, the few porn viewers should bear it, not the 99.9% that make up library users.
Breaking News…
An undisclosed source has just informed us the San Jose Public Library just signed an agreement with the owner of the old art decco Burbank Theater on Bascom. Dell Computers has agreeded to retrofit the back of all theater seats with wide flat screen dispay and drop-down keyboard-mouse trays. In a first of it’s kind….. San Jose again takes the lead in open free web access. Nora Campos was quick to chimb in, “We need one in our District.” Forest Williams agreed and said, “It’s only money.”
Have any of the individuals who have shared such inciendiary remarks actually been inside a library lately? I can assure you that San Jose Libraries are well managed, pleasant environments that are community-focused. Why not go into your branch library before you launch into a tirade?