GLEN ELLYN, Ill., May 14 /Christian Newswire/ -- Taxpayers are footing the bill
for a planned protest by Illinois librarians against a proposed internet
filtering bill. On May 8th, the Illinois Library Association (ILA) issued an
"action request" calling for a coordinated protest against the Internet
filtering bill, HB 1727, recommending that all public libraries in the state to
obstruct Internet access on Monday, May 14th.
The American Library Association vehemently opposes all filtering of public library internet access. They view filtering as “censorship” and a threat to first amendment protection of freedom of speech. This, of course, is ludicrous!
Imagine, for example, that someone offered to donate a large truckload of new books to a public library. The only catch is that 5% of the books contain graphic depictions of sexual torture, and the librarian must select all or nothing.
Almost all librarians would reject such a donation. Librarians would insist on selecting the material they want from the donation and they would reserve the right to dispose of any material they didn’t want. They would never think of such selection as censorship.
In the case of the internet, however, the American Library Association pressures librarians to accept the whole truckload and many librarians simply buy into conventional ALA “wisdom” and follow along like sheep (after all, there is nothing worse in the library profession than to be labeled a “censor”)!
American society does not allow minors to enter porn shops, why should we allow minors to enter libraries that make porn available to minors? Either public libraries need to filter internet access to minors, or like porn shops, public libraries need to be held legally liable when they allow minors to access pornography.
2 comments:
The Illinois Librarians' May 14th protest was calculated to mislead the public. Under the guise of “educating” their patrons, librarians across Illinois parroted talking points directly from the radical left wing Illinois Library Association’s website in an effort to build opposition to pornography filters. Aside from the fact that librarians have no right to use public funds and facilities to wage a political protest, the public deserves the full story in order to fill in the gaps of these “talking points.”
Talking Point: If HB 1721 passes, libraries could be forced to discontinue Internet service. Fact: This is utter nonsense. Virtually 100% of the public libraries in the United States provide Internet access and 21 states have legislation similar to HB 1721. Obviously, Internet filtering legislation has not led to the loss of Internet access in public libraries.
Talking Point: Filters are too expensive. Fact: The cost of installing filters is offset by federal funding and actually saves taxpayers money in the long run. Poor/urban libraries gain the most federal funding once they filter.
Talking Point: Since filters aren’t perfect, librarians can’t “in good conscience” sign a pledge to follow this law because they don’t want to be held accountable if some pornography slips through. Fact: Librarians will be held accountable for utilizing the filters, not ensuring their perfection.
Talking Point: This law takes away local control. Fact: No, it doesn’t. Libraries get most of their revenue from local sources, not the state. This law only affects state funding. Libraries can choose to forego state funding if they really want to continue to provide access to Internet pornography. As it is, these libraries are already passing up federal funding for the same reason and passing the costs on to the taxpayers.
Talking Point: Filters are inflexible. Fact: No, they’re not. Incorrectly blocked sites can be easily unblocked.
Talking Point: Filters hurt the poor. Fact: Utilizing filters saves libraries an average of $17,000 per year in federal funding and libraries in poor areas are entitled to the greatest discounts. The fact is that NOT filtering hurts the poor.
Worse, Dennis, the US Supreme Court has already determined in US v. ALA, 2003, that the ALA is wrong on this very issue. So this is not just a viewpoint of the ALA's anymore, now this is just open defiance of the law.
Post a Comment