Library Bans Gun Websites

[JohnRich 4]

News:

SAF SUES LIBRARY SYSTEM OVER INTERNET CENSORSHIP OF GUN WEBSITES

The Second Amendment Foundation and three Washington State residents have filed a federal lawsuit against a north-central Washington regional library system for denying them access to websites that include information on firearms and publications dealing with guns.

SAF and its co-plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of the library district’s policy of using internet filters on publicly-available computer terminals to block access to constitutionally-protected speech...

“The library's policy of refusing to disable its Internet filters upon request is restricting the ability of speakers, content providers and patrons of the NCRL’s public library branches to access the contemporary marketplace of ideas,” the lawsuit states...

Source: www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=203

[christelsabine 1]

Interesting.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[PhreeZone 20]

Are they blocking free speech if they block access to porn websites for their users also?

I come from a background in daily useage and implemention of these filters. Unless there is a unique user name associated with the internet access it is hard to say Joe is allowed to access a website but Jane is not. It is an administrative cost to create those user names. Would you be ok if they said "To get those additional websites you need to pay a fee to cover the additional work"?

I do not like to restrict speech, but there is a limit to the technology currently being used in web filters. My personal site falls under 3 catagories on a major web filter, if any of those are block you can't get to my site. The site in question may be placed under categories that the libary does not want removed and they just happen to be gun related in this case. What if the sites were banned due to "Adult content"?

As an aside DZ.com has been filtered in and out of the adult content groups before due to the pictures posted in Bonfire so it can happen

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Andy9o8 3]

On the one hand, a site owner is free to restrict access to its computer network as it sees fit.
On the other hand, if it's a public or publicly-funded library, that might be construed as government censorship, in violation of First Amendment rights.
On the other hand, public libraries can choose what books to carry and not carry, right? I mean, they can't be sued for violating rights if they refuse to carry porno, right?
On the other hand, can public libraries ban Catcher in the Rye without running afoul of the First Amendment?
On the other hand, libraries have limited space, so they must pick and choose what books to devote their space to.
On the other hand, access to Internet information is not restricted by traditional space, although to a much lesser degree possibly by bandwidth.


OK, you know what? I don't know. And I don't have time to research it.
But yes, it's interesting.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Are they blocking free speech if they block access to porn websites for their users also?

Guns are not porn. I don't see any comparison.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Are they blocking free speech if they block access to porn websites for their users also?

this isn't porn blocking for the sake of young eyes,

this is pure meddling with a political agenda to ratchet away rights one little bit at a time - it's a disgusting agenda and likely pursued by people that think go around measuring the length of the grass in their neighbors' lawns to see if it's not complying with local statutes....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Guns are not porn. I don't see any comparison.

Writing and reading about guns is not 'keeping and bearing'; it's speaking about them - different amendments.

Looking at porn on the other hand is the same amendment.

[Andy9o8 3]

Oh, by the way...

Quote

They (the plaintiffs seeking to uphold the right to view the gun websites) are represented by the Seattle firm of Rafel Manville, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

[headoverheels 334]

Write down this date. I agree with John, and it's not one of his hiking posts.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Guns are not porn. I don't see any comparison.

Writing and reading about guns is not 'keeping and bearing'; it's speaking about them - different amendments.

Looking at porn on the other hand is the same amendment.

He means, "reading about guns, which are legal, and may have a (protected) political overtone, is not the same as looking at porn, which in some cases is illegal, and does not have a the same protected political overtone." And he's right.

Silly Brit lawyer.

[PhreeZone 20]

I just went out and looked at the largest filtering database on the net and they classify womenandguns.com as only in the Weapons category. The second largest does not have it classified at all. Its looking like they are trying to push an agenda and I do not like that at all.

Then again all the info we have is this little snippet and its lackign a lot of info.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

On the other hand, public libraries can choose what books to carry and not carry, right? I mean, they can't be sued for violating rights if they refuse to carry porno, right?
On the other hand, can public libraries ban Catcher in the Rye without running afoul of the First Amendment?

Legally, their choices must be "content neutral." That means they can choose to only have a certain number of books, but they cannot choose to have no books by African-American authors, or about firearms, or about golf. In fact, when the content in question is political in nature, courts usually apply a higher standard. A library, in other words, could probably choose to not have any books on golf, and get away with it in court. Having no books on the civil rights movement in the 60's? Unlikely that they're going to win that case.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mr2mk1g 10]

The point is though, the protected nature of the discussion of each subject is covered by the same amendment - the first. Under the circumstances, the legality or otherwise of the subject material is neither here nor there.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The point is though, the protected nature of the discussion of each subject is covered by the same amendment - the first. Under the circumstances, the legality or otherwise of the subject material is neither here nor there.

That's true if you're just talking about (discussing) porn. But when you are viewing porn, you are actually partaking in the activity.

A library is free to stop you actually carrying your guns onto the premises under the theory that you would then be potentially interfering with the primary purpose of the library (to disseminate information or similar). Same theory would apply to viewing porn on a library terminal. This theory would not apply to discussing porn, or pornography law, or reading about how to assemble firearms.

edit to add: This is the same reason that a government entity can stop you from holding a demonstration in the middle of a courtroom, or during a college lecture. They can't stop you from holding the demonstration in and of itself--but they can regulate time and place to protect a compelling public interest (justice or education).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mr2mk1g 10]

Damn I wish I was partaking in the activity depicted in porn just by viewing it...

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

On the one hand, a site owner is free to restrict access to its computer network as it sees fit.
On the other hand, if it's a public or publicly-funded library, that might be construed as government censorship, in violation of First Amendment rights.
On the other hand, public libraries can choose what books to carry and not carry, right? I mean, they can't be sued for violating rights if they refuse to carry porno, right?
On the other hand, can public libraries ban Catcher in the Rye without running afoul of the First Amendment?
On the other hand, libraries have limited space, so they must pick and choose what books to devote their space to.
On the other hand, access to Internet information is not restricted by traditional space, although to a much lesser degree possibly by bandwidth.


OK, you know what? I don't know. And I don't have time to research it.
But yes, it's interesting.

Jesus! How many hands do you have?!?!

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Are they blocking free speech if they block access to porn websites for their users also?

this isn't porn blocking for the sake of young eyes,

this is pure meddling with a political agenda to ratchet away rights one little bit at a time - it's a disgusting agenda and likely pursued by people that think go around measuring the length of the grass in their neighbors' lawns to see if it's not complying with local statutes....

Right on! Next we'll see the government taking down sites about nuclear weapons!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are they blocking free speech if they block access to porn websites for their users also?

this isn't porn blocking for the sake of young eyes,

this is pure meddling with a political agenda to ratchet away rights one little bit at a time - it's a disgusting agenda and likely pursued by people that think go around measuring the length of the grass in their neighbors' lawns to see if it's not complying with local statutes....

Right on! Next we'll see the government taking down sites about nuclear weapons!

Not to mention websites on how to run with scissors!

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[PhreeZone 20]

The issue becomes somewhat blurry on the "Adult content" websites because unless it is restricted to text only websites then odds are that photos will be included in the webpage either via the discussion, via ads or in some other way. So by blocking the website to block the pictures you also end up blocking the discussion portion. Don't you just love the issues that mixed media can present in terms of 1st admendment concerns.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[akarunway 1]

Quote

News:

SAF SUES LIBRARY SYSTEM OVER INTERNET CENSORSHIP OF GUN WEBSITES

The Second Amendment Foundation and three Washington State residents have filed a federal lawsuit against a north-central Washington regional library system for denying them access to websites that include information on firearms and publications dealing with guns.

SAF and its co-plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of the library district’s policy of using internet filters on publicly-available computer terminals to block access to constitutionally-protected speech...

“The library's policy of refusing to disable its Internet filters upon request is restricting the ability of speakers, content providers and patrons of the NCRL’s public library branches to access the contemporary marketplace of ideas,” the lawsuit states...

Source: www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=203

Make sure you have your ID w/ if you do try to acess those sites. Otherwise you might get TASARED

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are they blocking free speech if they block access to porn websites for their users also?

this isn't porn blocking for the sake of young eyes,

this is pure meddling with a political agenda to ratchet away rights one little bit at a time - it's a disgusting agenda and likely pursued by people that think go around measuring the length of the grass in their neighbors' lawns to see if it's not complying with local statutes....

Right on! Next we'll see the government taking down sites about nuclear weapons!

Not to mention websites on how to run with scissors!

I hope they also block public access to websites on cannabis, botany, and horticulture.

Everyone knows kids are going to the library to surf the web for porn, guns, drugs, bombs, etc. Come to think of it, libraries are arming future terrorists... better get Homeland Security on top of it!





I hope Dr. Seuss makes the approved reading list

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[Richards 0]

Quote

this isn't porn blocking for the sake of young eyes,

this is pure meddling with a political agenda to ratchet away rights one little bit at a time - it's a disgusting agenda and likely pursued by people that think go around measuring the length of the grass in their neighbors' lawns to see if it's not complying with local statutes....

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Damn I wish I was partaking in the activity depicted in porn just by viewing it...

Heh heh.

In all seriousness, though, being a consumer of porn, by viewing it, is particpating in the activity because it enables the exploitation of the actors. That's why - rightfully so in my opinion - mere possession of kiddie porn is illegal in the US. (And I'm a STAUNCH free speech/press/expression guy.)