So, I ripped this one apart on my radio show yesterday (at length, and with great fury), but I thought I’d walk through this one once in print so it’s been laid out.
A woman by the name of Michele Child wrote a classic fear-mongering piece for the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle which was posted on March 23rd that concerned the issue of adult content filters at the library. She apparently writes for a D&C-supported site called ROCMoms.com. This site seems to be filled to the brim with uninformed woman, which is just what the Internet needs more of, if you ask me.
I’ll get to all of this after the jump because this turned out to be a long one. . . .
But let’s begin at the beginning, and break it all down for you:
Pornography at library: X-rated Web sites don’t belong || Democrat & Chronicle: Essays
Internet pornography doesn’t belong in the Central Library of Rochester. Porn is intended to cause sexual excitement and, frankly, I don’t want to be reading my son a Curious George book around some sexually aroused adult library patron. I’m not saying you have to be a pedophile to like porn, but why should we take the chance that the person viewing a pornographic Web site is a pedophile?
OK, for Christ’s sake, stop there. The issue is not “pornography” in the library, although that may be a secondary issue. The issue is how content gets filtered and whether or not the filtering software can be unblocked on machines per the request of patrons over the age of 18. This issue has already been decided (more or less) by the Supreme Court. Certainly, there is no ambiguity on this one point: the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which requires filters on PC’s in libraries funded by the Federal government, is only legal because of the possibility of turning those filters off. The argument is largely over whether unblocking content is a requirement or a guideline.
So, let’s be clear: adult content of all types is in fact being filtered at the Rochester Public Library. There’s not going to be a guy whacking off next to you while you read “Curious George,” honey.
Let’s also address this rhetorical question: “I’m not saying you have to be a pedophile to like porn, but why should we take the chance that the person viewing a pornographic Web site is a pedophile?” Well, it’s good you don’t declare outright that people who enjoy pornography are automatically pedophiles, but you did throw it out there, didn’t you? Why can we not have a rational discussion of issues without some fear-mongering whack job taking things to their utter-most extreme?
And, though I realize the author did not intend there to be an answer, let me provide one: you have to take that risk at the library and anywhere else you go because you live in a democracy. The introduction or absence of pornography does not change that. Life’s risky, get a helmet.
Unfortunately, we live in a society where we must protect our children at all costs. A library is a place where children and families gather. If the Central Library chooses to unlock the filters to allow access to pornographic Web sites, then it shouldn’t take taxpayer money.
Protect the children at all cost. This is what passes for intelligent thought at the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle and their child agencies, apparently. Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I can only imagine what his impression would be of this woman, who is willing to throw out the lynchpin right of free peoples simply to shield her children from imaginary pecker-whackers in a library she never goes to. Mrs Childs is from fucking Chili, after all. Do you really think she even has a stake in this whole thing?
(not that there’s anything wrong with Chili. No, no, of course not! People’s personal domestic location preferences are nobody’s business but their own!)
And again, this is not a question of choice, right now. Regardless of your personal opinion, the question is whether the Supreme Court ruling makes removing the filters on a request basis a requirement or not. People seem to be getting quite confused about all this.
Case in point, the D&C’s half-assed attempt at counterpoint. There’s another article by Kelly Cheatle entitled Pornography at library: Do not install filters; they block both good, bad sites. People! Are any of you even listening, anymore? The library has to have filters, as indeed I completely approve of. The question is, well, Jesus. . . read above. . .
Mrs. Cheatle is from Farmington, where you’re not required to have done any reading whatsoever to form an opinion fit for publication. Is it too much to ask that we get some opinions published from people who a) have read the material and b) are Rochester citizens with a personal stake (however tangential) in the issue?
Or shall we just have Maggie Brooks run our news papers?
What irks me most are the people who say that banning Internet pornography at the library violates our First Amendment rights. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” I took constitutional law in college, but maybe I missed the day the teacher taught that the First Amendment requires governmental bodies to subsidize porn. And, nowhere does it say in the First Amendment that taxpayers must supply porn in public libraries.
Sigh. I love when the uninformed have a degree. That makes their “I failed special-ed Home-Ec. class” statements seem so much more credible.
No one says that the library has to provide pornography. But if they’re going to provide Internet access at all, they need to provide it in a way which does not violate our right to Free Speech. What most of us are talking about is how best to provide that service. The shrilling of the uninformed is not helping.
Finally, there is this statement:
Democrat & Chronicle: Essays
I am not big on government intervention, but in this case I am glad that Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks is strong-arming the Central Library, threatening to withhold county funds if the board decides to reopen the pornographic sites to library patrons. If Ms. Brooks holds her ground, I wouldn’t be surprised if this case goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
Well, everyone has their price, don’t they? For you, the mere thought of someone whacking off in a public library you never go to is more than enough to sell the Constitution down the river “at all costs.”
And really, holy shit, woman! With everything else we have going on in this County; with 100 million dollars-worth of deficit; with kids graduating and leaving in droves; with the once-powerful manufacturing base of our community drying up like an old man’s ‘nad-sac, you think that this is so important that we should distract the County Executive with a Supreme Court case? Jesus-fucking-Age Christ, woman. Talk about priorities!
Technorati Tags: Maggie Brooks, Censorship, Rochester Public Library
Powered by ScribeFire.
4 Responses to “Fear Mongering, Pedophilia and Politics”
-
[...] good friend DragonFlyEye is all over this one: So, let’s be clear: adult content of all types is in fact being filtered at [...]
-
[...] up trouble for the Public Library is a great first step, because everyone knows librarians are the most licentious of [...]
There are or will be guys whacking their pee-pee’s at the library? Which one? I need specifics. I could only hope something that exciting will be going on in Rochester. Will there be a festival? How about PudFest 2007? We could start a sports team. The Rochester ‘Baters.
Actually, I was driving pas the Central Library the other day, and I could swear I saw a boob. I’m not sure, but it might have been Maggie Brooks.
As for festivals, I think that would be good for downtown. How about “The Prick Avenue Fest,” or “The Corn Hole Festival?” We could sell fried-dough phalluses and hand-carved driftwood love dolls.
A sporting team seems like the next most logical step. The Rochester PeckerWhacks or the Red Wangs. The Rochester Am-jerks?
We’re going places with these ideas!