children accessing porn; adults turning off filterware

[Robin Aurelius]

I am for turning off filterware as one more technical nightmare we don't 
need. If we want to filter, why not try violence where there is 
consensual agreement of all parties. We need to cut back on the worst 
examples, and filtering would help. Perhaps when we find it works for 
violence we can then include pornography that is really hurtful to folks.
Sincerely
Robin Aurelius
High School Library person


On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Jacques Presseault wrote:

> Title:               The business of pornography. (cover story)
>  Subject:         PORNOGRAPHY -- United States
>  Source:         US News & World Report, 2/10/97, Vol. 122 Issue 5, p42,
> 9p, 10bw
>  Author:         Schlosser, Eric; Gittler, Ian
>  Abstract:       Discusses the underlying economics of pornography in
> the United States.
> 
> "But Flynt's theory--that legalizing porn will eventually reduce the
> demand--may not be as outlandish
> as it seems. That is exactly what happened in Denmark a generation ago.
> In1969, Denmark became  the first nation in the world to rescind its
> obscenity laws, an act taken after much deliberation and
> study. According to Vagn Greve, director of the Institute of Criminology
> and Criminal Law at the
> University of Copenhagen, when the Danish obscenity law was overturned,
> there was a steep rise in
>  the consumption of porn, followed by a long, steady decline. "Ever
> since then," he says, "the market
>  for pornography has been shrinking." Porn sales remain high in
> Copenhagen mainly because of
>  purchases by foreigners. Greve's colleague at the institute, the late
> Berl Kutchinsky, studied the
>  effects of legalized pornography in Denmark for more than 25 years. In
> a survey of Copenhagen
>  residents a few years after the "porno wave" had peaked, Kutchinsky
> found that most Danes
>  regarded porn as being "uninteresting" and "repulsive." Less than a
> quarter of the population said
>  they liked watching hard-core films. Subsequent research confirmed
> these findings. "The most
>  common immediate reaction to a one-hour pornography stimulation,"
> Kutchinsky concluded, "was
>  boredom."
> 
> 
> 
> brian stone wrote:
> 
> > Dianne,
> >
> > You make some good points. This problem is primarily a guy thing.
> > Perhaps that is why you understate it. This is not just an issue of
> > young boys driving their parents crazy. If we allow all children
> > access
> > to pornography, some will not be damaged, but others will. How many
> > kids
> > should be sacrifice to this problem?  Should we make heroin legal
> > because only a small percentage of the population will abuse it? It
> > may
> > be small, but it will be larger than it is now. You may think that
> > this
> > is not a valid comparison but both pornography and heroine can lead to
> >
> > addictions that can ruin peoples lives.
> >
> > I'm guessing here, but I suppose the "adult men with low self esteem"
> > you  might mean men who have a problem with pornography. If so, why
> > would any of us want to contribute to an increase in that population.
> > The "low self esteem" men of today were the confused adolescents of
> > yesterday. Does anyone believe that these men are better fathers,
> > husbands or role models than those without "low self esteem"?
> >
> > A subscription to playboy does not help a young boy develop a healthy
> > attitiue towards women. What's available on the internet is much worse
> >
> > and can cause much greater harm to young minds. I want my kids and
> > your
> > kids to grow up whole. It is not their responsibility to make correct
> > choices, it is ours. If the kids are damaged, it is our fault.
> >
> > This is a very big problem. Why do you think that porno sites are by
> > far
> > the most popular sites on the web. It's way beyond being explained by
> > Curiosity.
> >
> > Libraries should not be part of this problem. No one should expect
> > that
> > it is their right to access pornography in their public library. There
> >
> > are many places better suited for this.
> >
> > Intelligent filtering works. At least better than any other solution
> > that has been suggested so far.
> >
> > Dianne L Parham wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think you're talking about children accessing porn.  Do you
> > > really think most girls have much interest?  Eliminated 50%+ of
> > > the children who are disinterested females.  Then there are boys who
> >
> > > quickly
> > > recognize pornography is boring and ridiculous and are far
> > > more interested in sports, science, and other normal events.  So
> > > basically
> > > you are talking about filtering for a minority of male children who
> > > want to drive
> > > their parents crazy because they know this is an issue that they
> > can't
> > >
> > > deal with.  And this minority is forcing filtering onto the majority
> >
> > > of
> > > the public.  So the reason I'm agin it, if not for free speech, is
> > > because I don't think any minority has the right to make decisions
> > on
> > > behalf of the majority...especially if that minority is theoretical.
> >
> > > No
> > > one has given any figures on children accessing pornography.  I
> > > suspect
> > > the main people interested are adult men with low self-esteem and a
> > > high
> > > need to get attention from any source, no matter how pathetic.
> > > Pedofiles,
> > > who are a real hazard, would be disguised more innocently.  Dianne
> > > Parham,
> > > who as always speaks for herself and not for her organization and
> > > happily deletes all flames
> > > without reading them so she doesn't keep getting angry about this
> > > tedious
> > > subject but goofed this time
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, earl young wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pardon me, but the real issue for this thread is kids and porn.
> > > There
> > > > were a couple of messages from others yesterday stating in passing
> >
> > > that
> > > > "there was a case to be made" in favor of allowing such access,
> > and
> > > I
> > > > merely asked them to make the case.  This isn't First Amendment,
> > > CDA,
> > > > filters, or much of anything else.  I merely wanted to know what
> > the
> > >
> > > > case is for such access in libraries.  The excludes access in
> > homes,
> > >
> > > > excludes the issue of whether such material belongs on the 'net in
> >
> > > > general, and for that matter anything else.  This isn't rhetoric
> > mpr
> > > an
> > > > attempt to diminish rights.  What is the case in favor?
> > > >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Jacques Presseault  jacques at olsn.on.ca
> Ontario Library Service - North (Sudbury)
> http://www.library.on.ca/index.html
> Tel.: (705) 675-6433 Fax: (705) 671-2441
> 
> 
> 
>