I came across a
news story this morning that's all too familiar. It reminded me a lot about my own experiences at CPL back in 2008 and ruffled my feathers enough to get me to draft a post about it. This story was about a ten year old girl who was exposed to hardcore pornography in her public library during a Sunday mid-afternoon outing with her mother and sister. Read the news story linked above for the deets. But the mother was with her daughters - they were both being properly supervised.
Kudos to the mother for reacting in a very logical and appropriate, even sensible manner. The daughter was very upset by the experience. I'm upset too - and here's why:
- The mother noticed what was going on and tried to address it by asking the librarians about it (she was given the classic "that's their right to view that material" garbage line)
- The mother even asked the male patron (notice I chose to not use the term "gentleman" here) to view that elsewhere. And his reply was that he needed "30 more seconds". {ewwww... shudder}
- After her daughter had been exposed and started crying, the mother responsibly email the library administration to alert them to the situation. And she states excellent supporting points.
"At a minimum, there should be warning signs posted, stating that some screens may contain adult content. ... I had no idea my girls could be exposed to such images at our local library,"
Protecting prurient materials is not a constitutional right, regardless of the garbage we're being told. If you have any questions about that, check out the actual Constitution and Free Speech Amendment people are quoting without actually reading (obscene speech is not protected. prurient material is considered obscene). And most tax payers would shudder to think they're helping fund library porn. Particularly when children can be - and very much are - being exposed to hardcore pornography - and it's damaging effects.
More on
Freedom of SpeechThe
First AmendmentMore on
the First Amendment
No comments:
Post a Comment