LAUREN writes: 

Laura writes:

The librarian told me that freedom of speech prevents the library from filtering the websites that the library patrons can access.

You might ask the librarian if this is true then why aren’t their pornographic books and magazines on the library’s shelves? In the interests of free speech, shouldn’t the library’s collection represent the tastes of everyone? 

Libraries have always engaged in selection of materials. Selection involves rejection of other materials. The Internet should pose no change in the library’s traditional authority to manage its collections. But instead librarians have caved in. Their laziness, moral cowardice and eagerness to market the library to all and serve the public with this exciting new technology have gotten the better of them. 

It’s not necessary for them to give up. A library in Washington State was sued by the ACLU because of its Internet filters that blocked porn and gambling sites, and the library won. I suggest you inform your librarian of the case. According to The Seattle Post Intelligencer, the Washington State Supreme Court in its decision said:

A public library has traditionally and historically enjoyed broad discretion to select materials to add to its collection of printed materials for its patrons’ use. We conclude that the same discretion must be afforded a public library to choose what materials from millions of Internet sites it will add to its collection and make available to its patrons,” the opinion said. “A public library has never been required to include all constitutionally protected speech in its collection and has traditionally had the authority, for example, to legitimately decline to include adult-oriented material such as pornography in its collection. This same discretion continues to exist with respect to Internet materials.

By the way, one of the three dissenting judges in that opinion, Justice Tom Chambers wrote:

“Simply put, the State has no interest in protecting adults from constitutionally protected materials on the Internet. These policies do exactly that. The filter should be removed on the request of an adult patron. Concerns that a child might see something unfortunate on the screen must be dealt with in a less draconian manner.” [emphases added]

That case is now pending in federal court and it is very possible the library’s right to protect its collection will not be maintained. The federal judiciary, as you well know, has repeatedly usurped the right of states and communities to govern their affairs and do things such as ban pornography and the sale of violent video games. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of  the Incorporation Doctrine, under which the First Amendment, including the phrase “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” applies not just to the Congress but to state and local governments, is at work here.

But this is about more than this extension of First Amendment rights never dreamed of by the Founders. Notice that Justice Tom Chambers said that an image of violent sex is “something unfortunate” for a child. That’s all. A misfortune. The truth is, he doesn’t believe sexual images, particularly violent images, are highly damaging to children.

As pointed out in the previous entry, these images are no less damaging to children than an exhibitionist. They are a form of sexual abuse. Not only should porn not be viewed in libraries, but anyone viewing it in a public library should be arrested. 

Now suppose you mentioned to your friends that someone in the library was displaying on a computer their private bank account information or pictures of them naked. Suppose you told the librarian that her personal tax forms were up on the screen and someone was looking at them. I can’t imagine they’d display the same indifference, no matter what legal rights were involved. They have given up because they don’t think the fight is important.

It is a lonely battle. You’ll have to separate yourself from those who don’t share in it.

                                                                        — Comments —

James N. writes:

While I agree with your correspondent who complains that these images are damaging to children (they are), we should not give up on the idea that they are also damaging to adults.

The fact that restoring the (universal) ban on pornography now seems impossible does not mean we should ever forget that banning it was once normal and acceptable, and should be so again.

Laura writes:

Good point.

A Grateful Reader writes:

Laura writes:

You might ask the librarian if this is true then why aren’t their pornographic books and magazines on the library’s shelves? In the interests of free speech, shouldn’t the library’s collection represent the tastes of everyone?” 

Be careful what you ask for! Alas, it is too late. The librarians have already included obscence materials in the adult and teen sections and are increasingly doing so in the children’s section. They shelve the soft-porn novels and perverse stories like “Heather Has Two Daddies” among the classics of literature and the sweet fairy tales so as to make them all seem equally worthy of reading. 

Lauren writes:

They were not as shocked as I was and one said that I have lived too sheltered of a life. I feel as though I am living in the twilight zone. Managing my daily duties (of caring for my family and home) now seems to include getting out there to fight these kinds of battles, alone.

My husband insists our society is so bizarre that until you are criticized for sheltering your children too much or for being overprotective, you are not protecting your children enough. Congratulations, Lauren, you are caring for your children properly in this twilight zone. Many others are fighting the battles in the hedgerows, lonely though they may be. Fortunately, Mrs. Wood brings us together as any good general should.

Please follow and like us: