How Far Would You Go To Protect A Child?

Last month the San Jose (California) City Council voted against a proposal to put filters on public library computers to protect children from exposure to porn sites (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=6771963). Opponents of the proposal sited First Amendment "rights" and the cost of filters. This isn't the first municipality to rule against protecting children. I've written on First Amendment rights in the past and on how there needs to be a balance. As far as the cost of filters goes, I'm the IT Director where I work and I use a free and open source software (FOSS) filter that gets the job done better than the one I used to pay for.

What do you think workers of a public library would do if some people came into their library and stated they were going to a corner of the library to take pornographic pictures (but of course quietly so they wouldn't "disturb" other patrons)? Would they allow it because everyone has the "right" to freedom of expression or would they immediately dial 911? Chances are, the latter. And I'm willing to bet that the majority of society would also agree that such expression would be inappropriate. So if we don't allow such lewdness through the front doors of libraries why do we allow it through the Internet doors? Have you ever been to a public library that had Playboy magazines or porn films on their shelves? Then why allow access to such things on their computers?

Someone attending the meeting said, "Why use anyone's money to filter where nothing happens?" Apparently that person was uninformed that, "There have ... been 14 complaints to library staff regarding the use of explicit content," and that "ABC7's 2006 I-Team investigation captured several library patrons performing lewd acts while visiting porn sites." But it doesn't just happen in San Jose (see Man arrested on child pornography charges following library incident, Isabella Co. Man Arrested for Printing Child Porn on Library Computers, and Man arrested with child pornography after leering at children outside Covington library to name a few). The fact is, it does happen too frequently and there are free and low cost ways to alleviate it.

"But they have a 'right' to view it if they want to," others may say, "the First Amendment guarantees it." Since when did the First Amendment guarantee that the government supply illicit material to its people?

Of course the ACLU was there to defend their everything/anything goes stance. Their representative, Skyler Porras, said we should "not deny people access to important health and sexuality information." Again, where exactly in the Constitution does it say the government must supply this? Should we supply this to our children? According to City Council Member Pete Constant, "Studies have shown that 75-percent of children get to pornographic sites inadvertently and that's something I think we should be protecting our youngest children from in our libraries."

The most common argument seems to be the "legitimate research" (e.g., breast feeding or other physical health related issues, etc.) that an upstanding citizen can't get to because a filter has miscategorized it. Are these people saying that they are unwilling to go to an Internet café or a friend's house to do their research instead of a public library because their inconvenience is more important than protecting children from debauchery? Also--and I hate to sound like a broken record here--but why is it the government's responsibility to provide this research for free?

So what's more important to you: protecting children or protecting your selfishness?