Gwinnett.talk

By Bruce Wilcox

April 22, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

I’m sure Varenhorst is elated that our libaries meet her seven levels of control and censorship. We all need another mother hen, big brother must not be doing his job.

By SafeLibraries

April 22, 2007 9:25 PM | Link to this

Bruce Wilcox’s comment contains the big lie, that filtering computers in accordance with the law is censorship. The law specifically says it is not censorship. Then Bruce Wilcox falls back on the old standby for those who know they are wrong, and that is to personally attack, in this case Denise Varenhorst as a “mother hen.”

Here is the truth the people like Bruce Wilcox do not want people to read, direct from the “mother and father hens” of the US Supreme Court in 2003: US v. ALA

Denise Varenhorst gets credit for recognizing libraries that recognize the law, thereby significantly reducing the chances for the library’s children to be victimized by those using computers without Internet filters.

By Precious Memories

April 22, 2007 11:24 PM | Link to this

Wilcox, try not to lie, twist and distort. You might actually become man when you do.

By Bruce Wilcox

April 23, 2007 12:32 AM | Link to this

There is no lie, a library filters it’s computers according to the law and some how they deserve an award for following the law?

Let’s look at the other six -

1)Pornography filtering software is used on all computers in accordance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act.(It’s the Law)

2)Parents are given full access to their minor child’s borrowing record except when prohibited by law. (Builds real trust between children and their parents)

3)Parents are given the option to limit their minor child’s borrowing privileges to only certain collections within the library.(Common sense)

4)A Parent Preview Section is utilized if citizens wish to separate particular books from the children’s browsing area. (Who decides which books will be separated, who are these special citizens?)

5)Material collection and placement policies reflect local community decency standards. (Again, who are these special citizens that decide what the community decency stanards are?)

6)Age-appropriateness based on both reading level and controversial content shall determine material placement within the library. (That is refered to as common sense)

7)Promotional displays consider the sensibilities of the library’s youngest patrons and reflect local community decency standards.(Again with the local decency standard, where I can I find a list of areas of high and low decency standards?)

Four I consider censorship and control, two are just plain common sense and one is the law. Where are the twists and lies?

The last thing we need is putting up roadblocks to keep children from enjoying the libraries and reading.

By Supreme Roadblocks

April 23, 2007 2:53 AM | Link to this

Ok Mr. Twist, Distort and Lie. First you attribute seven levels of control and censorship to Varenhorst. When in one, it turns out that the Supreme Court is actually responsible for this control and censorship as cited in case law U.S. v ALA (not by a worthless personal attack opinion) then you go into doing the twist and shout… but…. but…. but…

Let’s look at the other six?

Then trap yourself by admitting to what? Oh now it is the law, no longer does it belong to Vanerhorst’s seven levels of control and censorship under your point 1. A lie, twist and distortion caught by your own words.

Looking at your number 5, again the mother and father hens of the Supreme Court are responsible (not Varenhorst or “special citizens” that decide community standards) for control and censorship in defining decency (what free speech is and what is obscenity) in Miller v California.

This case established a three-pronged test to identify obscene materials. To be considered obscene, a material must:

The twists and lies are all over your comments according to the mother and father hens of the Supreme Court.

By SafeLibraries

April 23, 2007 7:49 AM | Link to this

Bruce Wilcow says, “Four I consider censorship and control, two are just plain common sense and one is the law. Where are the twists and lies?”

Not having a lot of time, let me say just this. It is common sense to use common sense in public libraries. However, Bruce Wilcox either doesn’t know or doesn’t want us to know that common sense is not used in a public library that slavishly follows the dictates of the American Library Association.

The ALA specifically says not to use common sense. It specifically says librarians cannot use common sense because that would be “age” discrimination. The ALA holds this to be so important that it implants this in its “Library Bill of Rights” and continues to force this into local communitites despite what the US Supreme Court said in US v. ALA.

“The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.” Now that’s common sense. As a response, the ALA said, “Despite the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), … ALA policy is unchanged … because [of the] block[age of] legal information to which users are entitled under the Constitution.” To this day, despite US v. ALA, the ALA continues to ensure children maintain access to all material despite common sense. Indeed, the ALA even awards books with oral sex as the best books of the year for kids 12 and up. I personally got the author to admit he wouldn’t even give his own ALA award-winning book to his own 12 year old, if he had one. See http://www.safelibraries.org/pushers.htm

So common sense is a common sense idea, but it is simply against the policy of the ALA to use common sense. Therefore, Bruce Wilcox’s claims regarding common sense are either based on a lack of knowledge or an intention to deceive. Based on what he is saying, I’ll assume the former. His personal attacks don’t help his case, however.

By Bruce Wilcox

April 23, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Personal attacks? On your level of decency disagreeing with Varenhorst is considered a personal attack, yet your conduct in a simple discussion leaves a lot to be desired, I guess it’s up to what self-righteous group is making the rules.

Sounds like it’s more of a cat fight between SafeLibraries v. Free Speech, aka American Library Association. While you quote from the SafeLibraries web-site all I have as a defense is the United States Constitution - Amendment I- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As far as the Supremes, they’re not gods, many of their rulings many of “The People” disagree with, it is a weak defense on your part.

By Milla

April 23, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

So, you don’t think comparing a lady to a hen should be considered a “personal attack”… How would you feel, Bruce, if someone compared your mother to a hen? As for filters, aren’t kids worth a bit of our discomfort?! The left (I suppose, your side) loves to ask people to “think of the children”! It’s from Hillary, not Denise, the idea that “it takes a village”! What happened with that?

By Bruce Wilcox

April 23, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

Milla there are seven levels of control and censorship, why can only one be defended?

Mother hen is no more of an insult than big brother, get over it.

Family Friendly Libraries are directly connected to “Citizens for Community Values (CCV) which exists to promote Judeo-Christian moral values, and to reduce destructive behaviors contrary to those values, through education, active community partnership, and individual empowerment at the local, state and national levels.”, not quite defenders of the First Amendment.

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” — Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

By Book Advisor

April 23, 2007 6:17 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wilcox, Recommended reading for you: Don Quixote de la Mancha by Cervantes.

I think it’s available at the Gwinnett County Public Library.

By SafeLibraries

April 23, 2007 8:43 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wilcox said, “As far as the Supremes, they’re not gods, many of their rulings many of ‘The People’ disagree with, it is a weak defense on your part.”

He is actually saying the US Supreme Court is a “weak defense” against the American Library Association.

He then quotes Justice Brennen but ignores US v. ALA or Bd of Educ. v. Pico (1982), and ignores that libraries have since the beginning always filtered out inappropriate material, even before the advent of computers. And since when is pornography an “idea” public libraries must have despite what the US Supreme Court said?

He excuses his personal attacks on a lady while claiming her efforts to applaud those complying with the law (that “weak defense” he was talking about) are tied to certain religious issues.

So whether arguments against unfiltered computers are made for religious/moral reasons, as he accuses, or whether they are made in compliance with the law, which he calls a “weak defense,” Bruce Wilcox has found a convenient excuse why any way you go to protect children is blocked. How convenient.

I think we can all see Bruce Wilcox makes arguments based on politics and feelings instead of the truth and logic, and if he smears good people in the mud along the way, of if a few children are victimized along the way, he cares not.

I see no further reason to respond to such a person.

By Bruce Wilcox

April 23, 2007 9:15 PM | Link to this

No the arguments are made based on the Constitution and on the Family Friendly Libraries web-site. As far as the SafeLibraries web-site, anyone who considers Bill O’Reily an expert I really have to question their credibility.

I ask again, why is it you can only defend one of controls and censorship rules set down by Varenhorst? Your entire defense is based on one issue forgoing the other six.

By SafeLibraries

April 23, 2007 11:17 PM | Link to this

Bruce Wilcox said, “As far as the SafeLibraries web-site, anyone who considers Bill O’Reily an expert I really have to question their credibility.”

Mr. Wilcox, do your personal attacks ever stop? Do your factual distortions ever stop.

The O’Reilly material is there only because of the statements made by the attorney in response to O’Reilly. The attorney, when asked if a 7 year old girl sees porn in a public library, is that bad, answers, “Who cares.”

Indeed, here you are essentially saying who cares. At least the attorney was facially honest and did not launch into personal attacks on those with whom he disagreed.

By Bruce Wilcox

April 24, 2007 12:56 AM | Link to this

This is my original comment “I’m sure Varenhorst is elated that our libaries meet her seven levels of control and censorship”, now will you please address the other six?

As far as O’Reily talk about distortions and creative editing, I invite anyone to read the transcript, that is what I mean about credibility.

You parrot the web-site perfectly, if you want to consider that an insult, well it is the web-site you quote.

Library Bill of Rights The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services.

I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.

II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.

VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.

Seem like a good Bill of Rights to me.

By SafeLibraries

April 24, 2007 1:46 AM | Link to this

ALA: “V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of … age….”

US Supreme Court in US v. ALA which the ALA lost and lost big: “The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.”

ALA Response to the US Supreme Court: “Despite the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), … ALA policy is unchanged ….”

Does anyone here know anyone who gets to ignore the US Supreme Court so openly, other than the ALA’s top leader?

Whom do you chose to follow? The ALA (and Bruce Wilcox) or the US Supreme Court? Do you believe, as does the “Library Bill of Rights” and Mr. Wilcox, that it is “age” discrimination for a librarian to keep a child from sexually inappropriate material?

Do not be fooled by Mr. Wilcox’s persistent obfuscation. At first it seemed a mere understanding. But now it seems to be more deliberate. Read US v. ALA for yourselves and decide for yourselves. Then go to your local libraries and see if they are family friendly or if they are ALA friendly.

By Bruce Wilcox

April 24, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

Yawn, again defending one issue and leaving the other six undefended? Could it be that she knows that four of the other rules are pure and simple censorship which makes my original statement correct?

The Supremes ruling only applies if a library caves into the pressure from self-righteous christian censorship groups, otherwise they follow the United States Constitution.

Remember folks, I’m not the one trying to get you to drink the kool-aid, I just present the facts.

By Milla

April 25, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

Lil’ Bruce always has to have the last word… The thing is, public libraries should NOT put books such as Looking for Alaska and Rainbow Party in their children or young adult areas. And don’t give me this bs of parents have to decide what their children read! How can parents decide anything if schools send kids to libraries and let them wonder alone and librarians will alow them to check out anything they please?!

By SafeLibraries

April 25, 2007 7:00 PM | Link to this

No wondering alone! No wonder! :)