letter to editor for publication:

response to discarding p*rn; bill requiring anti-p*rn software altered in senate


by jason jacks, 1 mar 2006, timescommunity.com

[note: p*rn appears with an asterisk only to bypass email filters, ironically. please remove from publication and replace with the intended word.]

dear mr. jacks:

the characterization of anything as "anti-p*rn" dooms it to failure. of course no one wants "anti-p*rn groups" to "infringe on citizens' civil liberties." as described, public library internet filters requested by anti-p*rn groups violate our civil liberties and should not be used. after all, librarians are in a better position to know what is right and they say internet use policies are the best way to control the internet.

even some legislators say people are not abusing the computers "by and large." then the media jumps into the act saying loudoun county filters were found unconstitutional by a "federal judge."

these are perfect examples of the propaganda effort that ensures children have continued access to material inappropriate for them, and criminals have continued access to children in public libraries.

p*rnography is not the issue. the legislation is not "anti-p*rn." no one's rights can be infringed by library internet filters. internet usage policies fail everywhere, every time, to stop criminals from fueling their desires in public libraries, then acting out on little children and others. the us supreme court says filters may be used to enforce existing book collection practices that do not allow unfiltered p*rn. librarians are not in a better position to make decisions in part because they believe it is "age" discrimination for a librarian to keep a child from inappropriate material.

"by and large"? sure, library crimes are not an everyday occurrence. but they happen on a regular basis, rape after rape, molestation after molestation. is the politician suggesting that filters are such a burden that a few children slipping through the cracks are an acceptable tradeoff? exactly who are his constituents?

and while it is true regarding loudoun county about the federal judge, what is totally ignored is that the case eventually went to the us supreme court. in us v. american library association [ala], yes the same people now saying filters violates people's civil rights, the court found that internet filters do not violate civil rights and protecting children from inappropriate material in a public library is a "legitimate, and even compelling" interest.

virginians must decide. do they have more faith in the us supreme court or the ala that argues us v. ala is irrelevant? do they want to protect all children from harm in a perfectly constitutional fashion or do they just want to protect most "by and large"? do they want to read us v. ala for themselves or do they want to accept the ala's and the media's misrepresentation of the case?

virginians. part of the first thirteen colonies. proud people. i cannot believe you have given up your fight and would willingly allow your children to be sexualized at the hands of the ala and it many supporters. virginians, please wake up and support those fighting to protect your children from harm. join them and you too will be mischaracterized as "anti-p*rn."


louis vuitton outlet