Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: OT: Second Amendment Foundation and ACLU sue E WA libraries over internet filter

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    I like to see this kind of cooperation between groups who are overly characterized as being opposed to one another.

    I work at a library, and before anyone makes some comment about the ACLU and people's "right to internet porn," I think I should make something clear about library internet filters: They don't just take out porn. They block at least 90% of the internet. They block anything that requires you to log in, such as blogs, email, yahoo, twitter, online classes, forums, myspace, this site, etc. They block sites based on the mere presence of keywords, such as "sex" or "gun." It has nothing to do with porn. At my library we have ten normal internet computers, and two filtered ones. There's usually a one to two hour wait for the normal ones, and about two people per 9hour day use the filtered, usually for typing, because internet is useless on it.
    The reason the SAF is suing is because the libraries block firearm-related sites for all library users, and refuse to remove the filter when adults request it.
    As a library employee myself, I'm appalled by this. The library is essentially a part of the government: we operate on tax money, to serve the community that pays us. The idea that we can or should control what information they can access is worthy of great insult.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420a...y_filters.html

    from the SAF: http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=203


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    430

    Post imported post

    I am thinking back a year or so some one did sue and won. Island county regional library system rings a bell. Or Arlington or Darington. the town of Republic in eastern WA. (one of those places)
    She was restricted to firearm web sites. She was learning about gun safety.
    But the government said no.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    This is probably the same case. It's at WA Supreme Court right now.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    I like to see this kind of cooperation between groups who are overly characterized as being opposed to one another.

    I work at a library, and before anyone makes some comment about the ACLU and people's "right to internet porn,"
    Does not matter - right to view porn is constitutionally protected. End of issue.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    cynicist wrote:
    I like to see this kind of cooperation between groups who are overly characterized as being opposed to one another.

    I work at a library, and before anyone makes some comment about the ACLU and people's "right to internet porn,"
    Does not matter - right to view porn is constitutionally protected. End of issue.
    Bingo.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    cynicist wrote:
    I like to see this kind of cooperation between groups who are overly characterized as being opposed to one another.

    I work at a library, and before anyone makes some comment about the ACLU and people's "right to internet porn,"
    Does not matter - right to view porn is constitutionally protected. End of issue.
    Bingo.
    Double Bingo.

    And its a plus that, this particular case is on gun issues.

    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    cynicist wrote:
    I like to see this kind of cooperation between groups who are overly characterized as being opposed to one another.

    I work at a library, and before anyone makes some comment about the ACLU and people's "right to internet porn,"
    Does not matter - right to view porn is constitutionally protected. End of issue.
    End of issue? Really? How about the right to view porn at taxpayer expense? How about the right to view porn in a place where children routinely walk past your viewing station? How about the right to view porn on a computer accessible by the general public, including children, which caches web pages and graphics, making them inadvertently accessible by children? How about the ability of a viewer to view "illegal" porn such as child porn? Is that protected by the Constitution and should it be allowed on a public library computer?

    I think you are being somewhat over broad with your assertion that the issue is ended.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    cynicist wrote:
    I like to see this kind of cooperation between groups who are overly characterized as being opposed to one another.

    I work at a library, and before anyone makes some comment about the ACLU and people's "right to internet porn,"
    Does not matter - right to view porn is constitutionally protected. End of issue.
    End of issue? Really? How about the right to view porn at taxpayer expense? How about the right to view porn in a place where children routinely walk past your viewing station? How about the right to view porn on a computer accessible by the general public, including children, which caches web pages and graphics, making them inadvertently accessible by children? How about the ability of a viewer to view "illegal" porn such as child porn? Is that protected by the Constitution and should it be allowed on a public library computer?

    I think you are being somewhat over broad with your assertion that the issue is ended.
    See generally, http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/81123op.htm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •