Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Site news
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - GRT; Whitley; Forby; Punch; Guns (Use all caps in password) *** Updated x1 ***
Posted in:
Today is “Unity Day” for Illinois libraries…
Libraries across Illinois are being urged by an industry association to shut off free Internet access Monday to protest a proposed state law.
At issue is the Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act. The proposal was passed by a 63-51 vote in the Illinois House of Representatives last week and has been referred to the Senate’s Rules Committee.
Under the act, every library would need filters on public computers to prevent child pornography and other obscene images from appearing. Libraries would have to annually certify compliance or risk losing state grants.
The idea was initially bottled up in committee…
But last Wednesday, the Illinois House passed a new measure inspired by a December incident during which a man appeared to be looking at child pornography on a computer at the Mount Greenwood Public Library on Chicago’s Southwest Side.
The man turned out to be a sex offender.
Opponents are not pleased…
“This is designed to take away local decisions,” said Kip Kolkmeier, lobbyist for the Illinois Library Association. He added that it would require libraries to “spend money on technology that doesn’t really work.”
Some proponents are outraged at today’s blackout plan, including the Illinois Family Institute…
Part of ILA’s lobbying strategy is to have local libraries “turn off the Internet,” (or in other words, do not provide library patrons with the services they paid for with their tax dollars) and in the process, recruit outraged members of the public to their misleading cause by telling them that HB 1727 will cause them to lose Internet access at their library.
What does this say about the ALA, the ILA and various local library directors and boards — that they are they willing to completely shut out patrons from using tax-payer funded Internet computers to promote a pro-pornography-access agenda — yet they are unwilling to filter out degrading sexual images to protect the children and families they serve?
* Question, Part One: Where do you stand on state-mandated Internet filters for libraries?
* Question, Part Two: Do you think the Illinois Library Association is going too far, or is it justified in promoting this day of action?
(Ironically enough, my filter software may temporarily block some of your comments and my spam filter may block out others, but Paul will be checking comments throughout the day to unblock them. lol)
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 14, 07 @ 8:52 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Site news
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - GRT; Whitley; Forby; Punch; Guns (Use all caps in password) *** Updated x1 ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
From the Herald article: “Under the act, every library would need filters on public computers to prevent child pornography and other obscene images from appearing”
…Rich, wasn’t the act intended to prevent “pornography” in general?
Did the Herald just ‘up the ante’?
As to the QOTD — this act, if made into law, will do little more than inconvenience people. Savvy kids (let alone perverted adults) will know how to easily circumvent the filters and others who need to do legitimate research on normal, non-pornographic sites will find their material blocked for “questionable content” (the Trib quoted someone as saying that breast cancer sites would be blocked).
Essentially, that ends up making it pointless feel-good legislation that looks good as a bullet point on a political mailer.
I agree people ought not to be using public computers to access derogatory or denigrating material — but they can likely find similar questionable material on the bookshelves right behind those library computer banks if they’re looking. (Just as conservative Leslie Pinney why she wanted to ban books, instead of websites, at high schools.)
And, as I noted earlier at Illinois Reason, HB1727 may have the unintended consequence of also blocking legit blogs such as Illinois Review and others. George Dienhart found out that such filters at Internet kiosks in Sears stores are already blocking that blog.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, May 14, 07 @ 9:11 am
The ILA needs to answer this Q:
What does a library do if an employee files a “sexual harrasment” claim based on a display of sexually suggestive pictures”?
I think making people pay for their own porn privately is not too much of a burden.
I hope they do the “day of action”. Let lots of parents and taxpayers come complaining and asking the Lib board WHY the computers were turned off.
Or we could just dump the “Carnegie library” for the “Hefner Library”.
Comment by Pat Collins Monday, May 14, 07 @ 9:19 am
the Trib quoted someone as saying that breast cancer sites
It’s not 2001 anymore. This is not true for a properly set filter. My work firewall easily blocks porn sites while granting access to all sorts of cancer sites.
Comment by Pat Collins Monday, May 14, 07 @ 9:21 am
I’ll duck the Q if CapFax and Illinoize are proper, but I am only blocked from them in China (and then only illinoize, since they block all blogspot stuff)
Comment by Pat Collins Monday, May 14, 07 @ 9:22 am
If a small library has to choose between providing services and dealing with a problem that doesn’t exist at their library, why should the legislature be setting priorities for the library?
Units of local government are being squeezed in a variety of ways. Health care costs are a big expense that results from state and federal government mismanagement.
So, it’s kinda a pain for local libraries to have to spend money on this.
If the state wants to buy all the libraries this type of software then have at it. Otherwise, don’t state legislators have a budget to pass? How do our pension funds look?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, May 14, 07 @ 9:36 am
I think they are nuts for protesting with my tax dolalrs
Comment by Wumpus Monday, May 14, 07 @ 9:54 am
If a Library bars X rate material from its library shelves, they should similarly block such mterial ftom their internet computers.
Comment by Truthful James Monday, May 14, 07 @ 10:10 am
I’m all for porn in libraries. If I wasn’t looking at porn, I’d probably looking at your kids in the children section. Of course, if I couldn’t get porn on the internet I wouldn’t be in the library in the first place.
GET RID OF PORN ACCESS.
I was in a Chicago Library and a man was watching something pornagraphic and the girl next to him got a librarian because she was uncomfortable. The man then started sexually berating the girl and screaming how he had the “right” to do this. It sickened me and I think they need to block access to those sites.
Comment by Chester the Child M...... Monday, May 14, 07 @ 10:27 am
This bill sounds like another example of legislators trying to act before thinking things out. Who cares about creating another unfunded mandate for some program that almost certainly won’t even get done the job it was intended to do? Not the silly voters who elected these legislative clowns!
Comment by fedup dem Monday, May 14, 07 @ 10:39 am
Mr. Collins, None of that explains why that Sears kiosk blocked Mr. Dienhart from perusing Illinois Review, as I mentioned.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, May 14, 07 @ 11:03 am
What I find utterly disgusting about the whole thing is not only the Libraries, but the Illinois State government using their main web page to advocate the Governor’s political initiatives (Illinois Covered, a program that is nothing more than an idea at this point), and school districts (using school grounds to champion their tax increases), etc. and the list goes on.
The fact is my tax dollars are not supposed to be paying for political causes. I can tolerate political groups borrowing space at government offices because they do allow everyone equal access, but when a government service gets shut down as a protest from the service provider, that is a violation in the trust of government, and libraries who engage in this behavior should be ashamed of themselves.
Illinois has a serious problem with government going overboard with the taxpayer’s reseources.
Comment by Mike Monday, May 14, 07 @ 11:04 am
The libraries are in a no win scenario here. No matter what they do is wrong to someone. They need to be open to the public yet someone will be offended by the slightest percieved sexual reference. Filters are needed to control access. Does the legislation provide funds to purchase or provide the software specific for library systems? Or is this another typical unfunded state mandate for an organization with very tight dollars that provides a feelgood PC moment? Libraries deal with a very wide range of the public. They have a right to limit what is available locally based on their Board policies, local accepted practices, and their liability issues. Technology is forcing issues that simply did not exist 10-15 years ago and it will become more complicated with time. It is not just porn. What is the library’s responsibility if it is shown that the library computers were used to set up a crime and meet someone as seen on Chris Hansen’s predator stories on MSNBC. The library systems need to hang tough to get what they need.
Comment by zatoichi Monday, May 14, 07 @ 11:05 am
Isn’t the easiest and most cost-effective way to comply with this law for libraries to provide no Internet access?
A good chunk of the working poor need libraries to provide Internet access (and training) to allow them to apply for jobs.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, May 14, 07 @ 11:20 am
Rich, do you have a link to how House members voted on this?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, May 14, 07 @ 11:23 am
Nevermind.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, May 14, 07 @ 11:23 am
Here is a thought. Do what we do in our home. Put the computers in a very public area and then walk past them regularly when someone is on line. Doesn’t cost a dime.
Comment by leigh Monday, May 14, 07 @ 11:27 am
Q1 - state mandated filters - against
Q2 - Library action day today - for. Anyone or any organization should be able to make their point.
Comment by Way Northsider Monday, May 14, 07 @ 12:49 pm
Q2 - Make your point, but don’t do it on goverment time with government resources. Afterall, isnt this the kind of thing the new ethics laws were meant to stop?
Comment by Mike Monday, May 14, 07 @ 12:53 pm
I’m so glad the IFI is involved, because normally, it’s hard to make the “slippery slope” argument when talking about censorship, but the IFI is clear that it doesn’t intend to stop at internet filters - it supports banning books from schools and censoring broadcast and cable TV, video games and music. When the IFI says “obscene” it doesn’t just mean child pornography, it means taking Freakonomics out of schools because it talks about abortion.
Plenty of libraries curtail illicit activity, without having filters mandated, by having separate computers for kids and adults, requiring users to log in with library cards and barring people who access illegal material or act inappropriately. And, yes some libraries use filters, because that’s what they think is best.
Letting a library and it patrons come to a decision on how to handle internet pornography is the appropriate course.
As for the internet black-out, libraries aren’t actually going to do it. It’s a rhetorical rallying cry. Something the IFI is very familiar with – remember the “Homosexual/Shack-up Teachers Bill”?
Comment by Underdog Monday, May 14, 07 @ 1:27 pm
My tax dollars hard at work. First we have the day of silence at schools - gee that really helps the educational process when kids don’t have to talk - how about discussion as to why it’s not okay to hate some based on their sexual preference. Now the libraries want to deny certain legitimate services, because they are mad that they might have to do something they don’t like. GREAT! Maybe I can go to work for a day, expect a full paycheck, and not do the things I really don’t like, I’m sure my boss would understand and not FIRE MY A**. Yeah right.
Comment by Concerned Voter Monday, May 14, 07 @ 2:38 pm
Edge of the wedge?
Comment by i d Monday, May 14, 07 @ 2:41 pm
Concerned Voter, when did schools actual enforce, promote, or enact by board or administrative decree the ‘day of silence’? Those were students making a political statement in a public place.
The “government” schools had nothing to do with it.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, May 14, 07 @ 2:41 pm
First Amendment rights run into public decency. Oh my!
Why not make a portion of the computers internet free (for people word processing and such)? Filter a portion of the machines so they can’t access “adult” sites and have a machine or two with total access to the entire web.
Have the unrestricted computers screens facing the librarians so they can glance over and monitor whether or not the internet is being misused.
Compromise, adapt, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Comment by Papa Legba Monday, May 14, 07 @ 2:46 pm
I didn’t say that the schools enforced it, but in many areas, they knew it was coming and basically said it was okay for the students to not speak if they didn’t want to. Political statement in a public place is fine, on your own time especially if you are an adult. If these, as the day of silence website said,”middle school and high school students” wanted to skip school that day, take a tardy for a demonstration in the morning fine, but not on the taxpayers dollars.
Comment by Concerned Voter Monday, May 14, 07 @ 2:46 pm
Papa Legba, a great idea, but unfortunately it is common sense and that never flies in the government.
Comment by Concerned Voter Monday, May 14, 07 @ 2:52 pm
School libraries are also included in this bill. Yet, it would be difficult to find one that is not already filtered. I asked both the ISBE and the Illinois Century Network if they had stats on the number of schools that are already filtered. They do not keep stats but if a school is receiving federal funds such as E-Rate discounts for internet access or technology grants for equipment to access the Internet, the district has to comply with filters. Each year, an administrator has to certify that to the feds. The bill is redundant for schools.
I told the maker of the bill that schools were covered when it came to filters and it was not necessary to include the school library and having librarians sign off on the filter was unfair. I guess he (Joyce) wants the credit for filtering schools. At least he changed the law to have the administrator sign off that the filter is working. In schools, librarians rarely have anything to do with the filters. They are managed by the technology coordinator who answers to the administration. The bill also took out the perjury clause if a filter was found not to be functioning properly.
I personally in my years of teaching have not had anything like child porno show up in my school library. Tasteless jokes, hate sites, and others not educational sites have gotten through. When the tech people find out and get the web adress they can block them.
I have had filters block other sites that students could have used. One is at the mercy of the company until the tech people adjust the filter.
At one time we could not access our library system’s online catalog because the search window where students could type in a title or key words was considered a danger by the filter. Took the tech people a week and a lot phone calls to get the filter’s maker to give them the directions for correcting the situation.
During that time our students could not use the catalog and it is now all we have since the card catalog was closed in 1999.
Comment by Nearly Normal Monday, May 14, 07 @ 4:55 pm