“He’s apparently peddling his opinion all over the Net whenever the filters get criticized.”
The reality is the opposite. What’s peddled all over the Internet is that filters do not work. This Boing Boing post by Cory is an example. In the very rare case where I make an observation as I did here, people like to attack the messenger to say I’m “apparently peddling [my] opinion all over the Net” without commenting on the substantive issues raised.
Cory Doctorow: I challenge you to a public debate on that filtering-doesn’t-work propaganda you just “peddl[ed] … all over the Net.” It’s false, you know it’s false, you spread the lies anyway, you have a huge audience to spread the lies far and wide, so you should have absolutely no fear debating me on this issue. Filters work and work well. ALA said that when cornered. FCC said that. ACLU said that. You say they do not work and you promote ALA saying they do not work and calling for the elimination of filters and an abrogation of the CIPA law. So let’s debate. You’re going to win, right?
This might be a good time to mention that the ALA is not the only national organization for libraries in this country. It’s a membership organization which does not represent the majority of libraries. In other words, don’t assume it speaks for all libraries or librarians.
Agree, it doesn’t. Many libraries and librarians oppose the American Library Association, a few even openly. Doing so usually has negative job affects, hence most have learned to keep silent. Library Journal, for example, will censor out certain things critical of the American Library Association, or not even report them at all. For example, when the CIPA author wrote that ALA controls about a third of American libraries, Library Journal did not cover that story, and the Editor-in-Chief at that time even mocked the CIPA author.
Not my opinion. I am reporting. I am reporting on what the FCC said. I am reporting on what the ALA said. I’m just reporting, not publishing my opinion. I have no opinion on whether or not filters work because I do not know and I do not use them. But I am reporting the FCC said they work really well and I am reporting even ALA said they work well when forced into the admission by a National Public Radio affiliate. I am allowed to report these reliable sources and not be attacked as “peddling my opinion.”
This is not an issue of censorship. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2003 the use of CIPA filters is not censorship. Claiming it is “censorship” is false and is used to bully people. I am reporting that CIPA filters work according to the FCC, the ACLU, even the ALA when it was forced into admitting it by a National Public Radio affiliate. The proper use of CIPA filters has absolutely nothing to do with censorship.
Oh, the name of that SCOTUS case? United States v. American Library Association. Perfect.
Claiming kudos from Megan Fox didn’t give me warm fuzzies about his motives either… But hey @Dan_of_SafeLibraries is new here. Dan do stick around and maybe you will be enlightened.
She is winning again and again in the courts and with her state’s Attorney General against a public library that follows American Library Association policy to allow child pornography in public libraries (claiming only judges can determine what is child pornography, not librarians, so librarians must not assist police), so I am happy to help her expose ALA for doing that. Her library became such a joke after she exposed its policies, after all, that Saturday Night Live even joked about it the night Lady Gaga guest hosted: http://youtu.be/RnPgSVG698E
So if Megan Fox is giving me kudos for helping her to stop the ALA from promoting child porn in public libraries, I’m perfectly fine with that.
I’m merely pointing how the American Library Association misleads people intentionally into violating various laws. I think it is wrong to mislead people. ALA could give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and let people decide for themselves. Instead it uses its position and power to mislead people. I think that’s wrong and where I can show instances of it from reliable sources, I’ll do that.
Here’s an example of ALA misleading people. ALA recently stated that librarians have never been and likely never will be sexually harassed in public libraries. That is flat out false. And worse, it is harmful. The false information leaves librarians open to sexual harassment. Sexually harassed librarians are told if they don’t like the sexual harassment that results from following ALA’s policy as applied locally, then don’t let the door hit them on the way out. Does anyone here think ALA should be misleading librarians in this way? Here’s the reliable source, the ALA itself, saying what I’m reporting: See “Sexual Harassment of Librarians Never Happens; Child Pornography is Intellectual Freedom”: https://www.facebook.com/USIMLS/posts/10203547339227686
Really think of the children? Look child porn is already illegal for good reasons and nobody is allowing the kids unfiltered access at least in the kids part of the library. Adults? well they look at things that not all other adult deem proper in public but the library IS NOT PROVIDING CHILD PORN and probably not allowing it even. I will argue for better privacy screens (hell I don’t mind porn but then I don’t wanna always see it either) and that trying to rub one out under the table while at the library is unacceptable but that’s not the same as watching naked people do naked people things.
Filters suck cause they filter out stuff people need to access and well the kiddie porn is going to be like playing whack a mole, hit one, it moves, two more pop up, etc. and I am also willing to bet the people looking for that stuff are not doing it in the library and if they are then man the stupid it burns.
It’s happening on Boing Boing. Librarians send out the message I’m writing here and they all report my posts and my posts are being censored, by Boing Boing, on a post supposed opposing censorship. This is how librarians fight, with censorship and silence, not with substantive argument. This is why I am challenging Cory Doctorow to a public debate – unless that comment too was censored and he didn’t see it.
The article in question is the testimony of a lawyer for ALA discussing lawsuits related to sexual harassment. At no time does she state that there has “never been and likely never will be sexually harassed in public libraries…”, nor does she say anything similar. It’s very short and I encourage the interested to go look.
That’s strike three, and that’s just with me. Yer gonna have a long, hard slog here.
Actually this is the BBS not the main site but whatevs, and your post were flagged and still there if people wanna click through. Probably flagged as you are a trolley and an obvious and pretty lame one at that. I didn’t flag them as while you are a shill you are at least reasonably polite and so god awful obvious about it. But you know the moderators will be by and decide whether you are worth the banhammer or not. Considering your past, and the fact that you look like you are not gonna be swayed by any argument from us, well don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out…
ETA @Dan_of_SafeLibraries read this xkcd: Free Speech that will splain it all for you.
More likely a true-believer activist on a mission. I don’t see the fluidity of argumentation in his other interactions over the Net that’d be indicative of a true trolley, nor attempt to hide real identity.
If it’d be on me, I’d suggest to observe and study as a model specimen. The Other Side’s thought processes can be important to be familiar with in long term.
