 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
Pathology and porn at the local libraryFebruary 28, 2007 |
February 28, 2007
I checked the U.S.
Constitution, particularly the First Amendment. Nowhere
could I find the part that says you are entitled to dirty
pictures, and if you cannot afford them they’ll be
provided at taxpayers’ expense in a public library near
you.
The Oro Valley Town Council recently made one of its rare intelligent decisions in restricting access to library porn via computer filters. The Pima County Board of Supes voted 3-2 for a more liberal policy, with Republicans Ray Carroll and Ann Day wanting a tougher standard. A reasonable initial response questions the use of blocking software because it blocks other things. A friend noticed information about his Air Force unit re-union was unreachable on a Tucson library computer. Library staff said that was because it was being held at a “Resort-Casino” and they were blocking patrons from online gaming. The inconvenience seems relatively minor and hardly a constitutional question. It’s intelligent library policy beyond any moral implication to keep finite computer time and space away from items like gambling and porn to allow for the more conventional uses some filter opponents are concerned with. Asking librarians to lift the block for purposes OTHER than porn doesn’t seem any harder than asking for a book not easily accessed. Some books aren’t openly shelved for several reasons, among them possible mutilation. Asking is a small price to pay for keeping kids away from porn and hardly comparable to Nazi book-burning. It isn’t just keeping kids away from porn, it’s about keeping those who go to a public library FOR porn away from the kids. There’s something wrong with those who cannot afford minimal cable or satellite service or a simple DVD player and who use porn in the library. Some may have reasons beyond abject poverty. Public porn watching should be handled like public smoking. Not around kids, thank you. Public libraries were originated to supply things not readily available, like many books in the 19th century. Porn hardly qualifies today. As to constitutional issues, the courts have already ruled allowing local jurisdictions sufficient discretion. Would those who claim constitutional rights to library porn go further and allow a porn shop to be built next to a preschool? If not, why not? Library porn may be an issue in the 2008 election for both the Pima County Board of Supervisors and the Oro Valley council. Announced Oro Valley candidate Salette Latas is already on record as opposing the town’s policy, claiming it somehow abrogates the rights of those seeking something other than porn to have it caught in the filter. I met Salette when her husband Jeff was running for the 8th Congressional District in last year’s Democratic primary. I wrote then that he was the class horse in the race and his fellow Democrats indicated their bad judgment by selecting a cliché laden airhead. Salette shows her bad judgment by getting tied to about the only issue where this council hasn’t blown it, from aardvarks to zithers. HINT: Google “Walmart” and “utility tax.” Appealing to that large Oro Valley voting block of homeless perverts hardly puts you on the cutting edge of the town’s burning issues. It’s like turning down the finest buffet in favor of road kill. Salette, get off it. These stiffs need some real opposition. No problem even being a liberal Democrat around here, within reason. You could probably whip most of this bunch with a Whig if he zipped his fly and didn’t drool. Hopefully, Salette doesn’t suffer from that major disease prevalent on the left — pathological egalitarianism. That’s the belief that anything somebody has should be provided to everybody else if they can’t afford it. In its advanced stages, it involves taking stuff away from those who have it to achieve the compelling goal of total equality. Hope I’m wrong — Oro Valley needs the fresh blood the Latas family brings. Tax-and-spend Republicans need to be kept honest.
|
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
