 |
"If JPA Won't Filter Pornography, Withdraw
| from JPA"
|
|
| ||
This information is provided by the candidate | ||
|
|
"If JPA Won't Filter Pornography, Withdraw
| from JPA"
|
|
|
| ||
This information is provided by the candidate | ||
Pornography is at this moment available to young children at the public library at the corner of Sixth and Rosanna. This will come as no surprise to regular Dispatch readers. But since I am asking you to vote to put me on the City Council on November 4, it seems appropriate that I disclose where I stand on this volatile issue.
First a brief background: In 1994, the Internet became available for the first time to library patrons in Santa Clara County. Back then, the library had text-only terminals and patrons could not access pornographic images. Less than two years later in August 1996, terminals with graphic capabilities were installed by the Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA is the county library’s policy making board and consists of representatives from the various cities in our county.
Shortly after the new terminals were installed, local parents learned that children were using the terminals at the Gilroy library for a disturbing past-time: "porn surfing." Since then, the issue has been in and out of the Dispatch. It has also captured national attention; CNN, Forbes Magazine, and PBS’s "News Hour With Jim Lehrer" have all been involved at some point. Most recently, the JPA brought the Ethics Center at my alma matter Santa Clara University into the fray.
But nothing has really changed. Porn surfing by children at the local library is still perfectly fine with the JPA. To the JPA and its librarians, pornography is just another class of information that all patrons are entitled to regardless of age.
Gilroy’s representative on the JPA is City Councilwoman Connie Rogers. Connie is a fine woman with a long history of devoted service to our community. She and I, however, differ over whether young children should be able to have unrestricted access to these obscene images at the public library. Connie says yes; I say no.
Admittedly, it is a complicated issue. It creates tension between two of our society’s fundamental values: One value has to do with full, open access to information in general and the incredible medium of the Internet in particular. But on the other hand, our culture has long valued protecting children from bizarre, harmful experiences.
For readers without Internet experience, "porn surfing" means viewing the crudest of pornographic images -- from bondage to bestiality -- with the greatest of ease. Councilwoman Rogers was quoted in a San Jose Mercury article two weekends ago as insisting that this smut is "not as easily available as you might expect." Wrong. It is far more available than you could possibly imagine.
For example, the journalist that wrote the Mercury article reported on his own first-hand research. He reported entering a search word that a child might: toys. Instantly, he encountered 1,438 sites that matched this search term. Those sites included titles ranging from Kay-Bee Toys to "Horny Housewives and Their Boy Toys."
A few clicks of the mouse later, this same journalist encountered the image of a nude "homemaker" straddling a "boy toy" on the first page of this site. On the second page, he encountered 11 images of hardworking housewives in the act of "giving new meaning to the Daily Grind." Any "guest" to this site need only press the obligatory "I am 18" button to access countless explicit "free samples."
I have long been a passionate advocate of free speech. Take, for example, my recent writings on this page regarding the problems with the Gilroy Police Department Administration. In most parts of the world, I would be dead or missing. But in Gilroy, thanks to the First Amendment and the courage of our rank-and-file officers, my candidacy is endorsed by the Gilroy Police Officers Association.
But making pornography available to minors is a crime. California Penal Code section 313.1 makes it a crime to sell, rent, distribute, exhibit or send to children material deemed harmful (i.e. obscene) to them. That seems a sensible law to me.
Furthermore, we have the technology that we need to fix the problem in the least intrusive manner possible. Filters block these sites without blocking non-obscene material. For that reason, the terminal in the children’s area of the local library should be filtered.
Connie says that I am part of a "vocal minority" on this issue and that this is not really a problem that needs to be addressed. On the other hand, some people have said that we should withdraw from the JPA if the issue is not addressed. I fall into the second group.
