San Jose Mercury Editorial

[Wilfred Drew]

Please see my comments interspersed in your editorial.

Filtering Facts wrote:
> 
> Today I got my first editorial published in the San Jose Mercury.
> http://www.mercurycenter.com/opinion/docs/profilter.htm
> 
> Filters keep smut away from kids
> 
>  BY DAVID BURT
> 
>  THE Internet is an incredibly rich source of information and entertainment. We
>  librarians have come to rely on the Internet as a vital information tool.
> Teachers and
>  parents find the Internet to be a fantastic resource for the education and
>  enlightenment of children.

I agree with the above.

> 
>  But the Internet has its dark side: Pornography. A search for ``sex'' in
> the Alta
>  Vista search engine retrieves 1,270,540 documents.
> 

How many of those documents were about sex education and not necessarily
pornographic?


>  A child using an unrestricted Internet terminal in a public library is only
> a few
>  keystrokes away from being exposed to some of the sickest and most graphic
>  pornography imaginable. 

That child is also "a few keystrokes away" from material considered
controversial by various groups around the world.  How do you keep
pressure groups from forcing libraries to exclude access to resources
that they don't agree with?

>  Across the country, public libraries report horror stories about children
> accessing
>  pornography. In the King County, Wash., library, groups of junior high
> school boys
>  printed pornographic pictures, and sold them to younger children.
> 

How many children were emotionally scared for life?  Probably none. Why
not campaign for educating parents and other adults to teach their
children to behave responsibly?  Why not campaign to stop things that
really hurt our children such as lack of food, lack of parental support,
lack of medical insurance and good medical care?  Those are issues
really worth your time.


> 
>  When the filters are set to screen out only pornography, questions of what
> sites are
>  appropriate for different ages of children disappear, since pornography is not
>  appropriate for minors of any age.

Define pornography.  I find hunger and mistreatment of children more
pornographic than beastiality or bondage.  What are you doing about
those problems?  I am doing something through my church and other groups
I am affiliated with.


>  In other words, filtering is a rejection of free speech absolutism, and a
> deference to
>  common sense.

No it is not.  There are no half measures in defending free speech. The
definition of pornography based on community standards could easily be
extended to include any controversial speech or writings. Filtering
flies in the face of common sense.  It is the responsibility of the
parent not the responsibility of the public library to supervise
children.  Go to the library with your child.  Surf the internet with
him/her.  Put the responsibility back where it really belongs.

I do find this editorial to be very well written and I think this issue
needs to be openly debated.
--
Wilfred Drew (Call me "Bill"); Associate Librarian (Systems, Reference)
SUNY College of Ag. & Tech.;   P.O. Box 902;  Morrisville, NY 13408-0902
E-mail: DREWWE at MORRISVILLE.EDU powwow:drewwe at wedrew.lib.morrisville.edu
Phone: (315)684-6055 or 684-6060 Fax: (315)684-6115
Homepage: http://www.morrisville.edu/~drewwe/
Below is 3 lines of blatant self-promotion:
Author of _Key Guide to Electronic Resources: Agriculture, 1995,
Information Today.
Not Just Cows: http://www.morrisville.edu/~drewwe/njc/ Best guide to
agriculture on the net.
LibraryLinks: http://www.morrisville.edu/pages/library/  Great set of
library pages
--
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vcard.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 467 bytes
Desc: Card for Wilfred  Drew
Url : http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/attachments/19970925/61f707ed/vcard.vcf