Related articles:

Library may use filters to battle Net porn Screens to hide porn at librariesFiltering porn on library computers to be determined by committee

Construction
Komatsu Equipment Co
Mechanic Education
Assessment Technology, Inc
Social Studies Content Writer Health Care
Rio Salado College
PA's/Online Instructors General
CORT
WAREHOUSE/DRIVER General
CORT
Warehouse Supervisor

Every time a politician starts making speeches about pornography and universal standards of decency and the need to protect our young, our ears perk up and our hearts sink. There is something fundamentally indecent about a politician who wants to manipulate constitutional guarantees of free speech.

Make no mistake about it, that's just what's unfolding here and elsewhere in the debate over those who use public library computers to view pornography. Certainly, at a gut level very few residents are happy to know that some patrons are using library computers to cruise porn sites. But this is not a debate about what offends our emotions.

It's a battle that has one group imposing its values on another as though the law that protects both — the First Amendment to the Constitution — did not exist. The First Amendment is a unique and carefully thought-out law. It is remarkable that so many contemporary politicians need to be reminded of that fact.

Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll believes all library computers must have porn filters installed. In May, he cited a state law that supports his position. The law states that it is "unlawful for any person knowingly to place explicit sexual material upon public display, or knowingly to fail to take prompt action to remove such a display from property in his possession or under his control after learning of its existence."

Furthermore, a recent opinion from the Pima County Attorney's Office suggests that filtering all Internet access at public libraries may be legally permissible. If it "may" be permissible, that suggests that it also "may not" be legally permissible.

The degree of control that any institution may impose on public expression clearly is not an open-and-shut case. Every entry-level lawyer knows that.

For a politician, however, the library porn issue is like fishing in a barrel: You just can't lose. Wrinkle your brow and declare that public money for libraries shouldn't be used to feed the prurient minds of those lesser creatures who get their jollies looking at touched-up pictures, and you've hit an instant 10 on the public outrage meter.

As long as we don't think too deeply about what that means, we can pat our upstanding politician on the back and maybe even vote for him in the next election.

If we allow the shell that surrounds the First Amendment to be cracked open wide enough to restrict what a person may view on a library computer today, we are setting a precedent that permits another politician or special-interest group to limit other forms of free speech tomorrow.

It was that line of thinking that motivated the U.S. Senate to recently defeat a proposed constitutional amendment that would have made flag desecration illegal. The Supreme Court had already ruled that flag burning for purposes of dissent represented a form of free speech, and therefore could not be banned without violating the First Amendment.

Like viewing porn on library computers, flag burning is distasteful; some would say reprehensible. That doesn't mean it should be illegal.

We must be very cautious about the limitations we try to impose on people in a free society. One restriction leads to another, and control can too easily morph into repression.

Carroll may have good intentions and, understandably, feels a need to protect his own children from obscene Web sites. We urge him to understand that other parents have the same concerns and hope he accepts that parents do not need political action to handle that issue. It's a responsibility most parents can address without any intervention from the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Carroll would like the library to restrict Internet access more than it already does.

According to a story by reporter Erica Meltzer in Sunday's Star, local policy requires that "All computers used by children have filters. Adults can choose whether to filter or not, but all adults must comply with the Internet-use policy, which prohibits viewing obscene material, child pornography and material harmful to minors."

Members of the Board of Supervisors are expected to address the library filtering policy at their meeting today.

We hope Carroll's colleagues will remind him that this community's families can legislate what their children see and don't see very well without his help.