children accessing porn; adults turning off filterware

[Jim Jatkevicius]

Brian Stone wrote:

> It sounds like your son is mature beyond his years. He does not sound
> like a typical teenage or pre adolescent boy. When I was 13, I knew
> everything. So did my friends and we were all preoccupied with sex.
> There were barriers to pornography. It was not freely available in
> public places. As someone said, you had to stare down the drug store
> clerk. This was a very powerful deterrent.  I guess I did not realize
> my
>
> constitutional rights were being violated.
>
> Well, as it turns out, I didn't know everything. I needed that
> protection.  I personally cannot think of a single positive benefit I
> got from looking at pictures of naked women. I can think of a lot of
> negative misconceptions I developed though.  I remember in the movies,
>
> that if a woman did not want to kiss the male lead, he just kissed her
>
> harder and eventually she submitted. I don't want my son growing up
> with
>
> this idea. Pornography creates much more confusion in young minds than
>
> old movies do.
>
> Free speech is a basic constitutional right. Protecting our children
> is
> our responsibility. We cannot relinquish that responsibility in the
> interest of free speech. Kids need our protection. They are not
> capable
> of making the same kind of rational decisions that we are.
>
> This free speech argument sounds so much like the gun argument. Owning
>
> guns is our right.  Guns are not dangerous, some people just misuse
> guns. We need to learn to use guns safely and properly. Is there a
> safe
> and proper use of pornography?
>
> This stuff damages kids.  If your solution prevails and libraries
> offer
> totally unrestricted access to the internet, then I want adults
> monitoring what kids see.  My public library doesn't have the staff to
>
> do that. The library will no longer a safe place for kids. I will not
> allow my kids inside a library without an adult present.
>
> Anyone who works in public libraries knows they are full of
> unsupervised
>
> kids. Who looks out for those kids. Don't we all have a responsibility
>
> for them?  Of course we do.  If we don't filter, then what?
>
> One last comment. Filtering is pretty effective if it is implemented
> responsibly.  Libraries have professional selectors that are well
> equipped to make rational decisions about content. Any filtering
> policy
> should have a review process where things can be added and subtracted
> from the filters based on patron input and selector approval. Don't
> purchase packages that don't allow  full customization of the filter
> lists and don't rely on your filter vendor to make all the decisions
> for
>
> you.
>
> Brian
>
> Shirl Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Okay.  I'll bite.  In our house, we allow free and unfettered acess
> to
>
> > the
> > Net.  My teenage son has looked at porn on the Net.  If he were
> > spending 12
> > hours a day locked in his room gazing at the screen, I would concede
>
> > that
> > we have a problem.  I don't consider that satisfying his curiousity
> > this
> > way is a problem.  Yes, he found his way to http://www.farmsex.com.
> > He
> > also brought it to our attention, and we had a rather interesting
> > discussion about people, their unusual sexual preferences, and the
> > proclivity of folks to utilize "new" technology for sexual
> > gratification --
> > to wit, Polaroid cameras and camcorders.  We also talked about why
> > "porn"
> > sites are so popular -- because it allows those who are
> > curious/interested
> > to partake in the privacy of their own homes, without having to
> enter
> > sleazy XXX-type establishments in less-than-desirable areas of town.
>
> >
> >

 First,

Has this thread now become a permanent fixture of this list?

Second, is the idea of limiting Internet access in public libraries to
"adult" users 18 and over, and to minors accompanied by a parent,
somehow perceived as simplistic and/or draconian? I'm amazed and a bit
wearied by the noise of axes being ground over this thread. Perhaps if
people feel the need to contribute further well-modulated nuances of
perspective on this issue, they can now take it private. Sorry.

And third,

I wish a facile misunderstanding of the gun rights issue hadn't been
inserted into this debate unneccessarily. Guns indeed ARE dangerous, but
you are in fact missing points such as the political demonization of
firearms as well as the public unwillingness to appropriately punish
felonious activitiy in our society and at the same time use felonious,
violent behavior as the measuring stick for how we will rule ourselves,
who remain in the main a law-abiding citizenry. Showing an unreasoned
prejudice against firearms does not contribute to this well-flaggellated
filtering debate.

Jim Jatkevicius
Oboler Library
Idaho State University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/attachments/19970708/8d964fd0/attachment.htm