Pornagraphy exists because we feel compelled to hide our natural desires for physical pleasure, or even talk about them. Children are taught very young to avoid any mention of the ‘goings on’ under their pants and shirts. Mastrabation, sex, and birth control are almost never mentioned in intamate family circles. Sex education and relationship development courses are not being offered in our public schools. I challenge anyone to honestly disagree. Barrack Obama has emerged as the guiding light to parental involvement in our children’s developement, and this includes the developing their awareness of their bodies, their emotions, and the meaning of sex and love in their lives. If a child is given insight into the dark world of pornagraphy, of the sexual slavery, and how sex AND drugs AND hate can all be addictive, they will understand. A child armed with knowlege and insight will not be offended by a library user viewing pronography, and will likely advise the offender to go take his or her addiction elsewhere. Exposure of truth is the key.

It is bad enough to have adult pornography, but anything to do with children, or to cause children to be hurt in any way, I draw the line on a person’s right to view porn, any kind of porn. It is obvious the person that requires porn, has a serious addiction, needs to get a life, and needs therapy.

Whatever happened to an active imagination?
I’ve never watched pornography, why would anyone want to taint their brain, and memory?

But who the **** goes to the library to access the internet?

It is easy for you and me to respect the law and respect acceptable use policies. However, there is a segment of the population, and it is growing, that refuses to abide by such policies. Therefore, the policies are essentially useless against the very people you wished would have abided by the policies.

Filters, on the other hand, while not perfect and they never will be, go a very long way to enforcing acceptable use policies. Even if someone is intent on ignoring the acceptable use policy, the filter will be there (95% of the time per the ACLU) to enforce the policy.

No one method is ideal in preventing what a library may wish to prevent. Usually a mix of options is best. In that mix, filters are the sharpest tool in the box.

The American Library Association says the opposite. The ALA has been sidestepping US v. ALA, US Supreme Court, 2003, for over five years now. The ALA has the greatest stake in people thinking filters are ineffective–then the people will convince themselves not to use filters and the ALA will not have to do the dirty work.

Now when a library states it will filter in respect of CIPA (and US v. ALA), and the ALA convinces them not to, and some child is raped or molested by someone using the still unfiltered computers, one must seriously think whether there is a causal link between the rape and the ALA’s sidestepping US v. ALA and getting local librarians to follow ALA policy instead of local laws, customs, and practices.