by David Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Last night, Julie Unruh, investigative reporter for Chicago's local WGN Channel 9, exposed how free Internet access is being widely abused in Chicago's Harold Washington Library, and how the library is unwilling to do anything about it. In this interview, Chicago Library Commissioner Mary Dempsey falsely claims that Internet filtering (to block out pornographic websites) does not work. She is either woefully uninformed or deliberately untruthful. Today's filtering technology works very well as many suburban library systems (e.g. Schaumburg, Lansing, Naperville) that are successfully blocking Internet smut have found.
Despite the fact that family and children are being visually assaulted with unwanted exposure to degrading and sexually hostile images, and despite the fact that hundreds of complaint have been brought to the attention of library officials from concerned taxpayers and patrons, Commissioner Dempsey and Chicago Public Library officials absurdly maintain that the constitutionally protected "freedom of speech" protects the right of citizens to view pornography in our public libraries.
Excuse me, Commissioner, this First Amendment right was not intended to protect obscenity and profanity. Nor is it an absolute right. Don't taxpayers have a right to determine what speech they are to provide and pay for?
This problem is not new. In late 2006, Chicago's local CBS Channel 2 investigative news team aired two separate reports exposing the problem of patrons surfing for Internet pornography in our local public libraries -– both in the city and the suburbs. You can watch the video clips HERE and HERE. Nor is the problem limited to Chicago. It is both prevalent and extensive. Click HERE to watch a similar investigative report from San Francisco: "Porn, Sex Crimes At Libraries": As the local San Francisco ABC investigative news team uncovered "several arrests for child porn at the library, at least ten cases of child molestation or other sex crimes involving kids and several cases of men viewing porn and performing a lewd act, right at the terminal."
For the past ten years I have worked with other pro-family citizens advocating for state and city laws that would require Internet filtering technology that would block these sexually graphic pictures to protect our children in public libraries. There is a range of sophisticated software that would provide libraries the ability to block access to pornography but not encroach on reasonable, proper use of computer terminals by the public.
What is even worse than the failure, thus far, of lawmakers to pass these common sense laws, is the shocking fact that the Chicago Public Library in conjunction with the American Library Association and the Illinois Library Association have actively opposed these efforts, citing their interpretation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech (at taxpayers' expense).
The idea that pornography is "protected free speech" is simply a myth. The First Amendment has never protected pornography as protected speech -- this was settled in 1973 in the Miller vs. California ruling when a three-pronged test was developed allowing communities to decide their own standards of decency. This standard is not to be decided arbitrarily by librarians and/or their associations.
While I'm at it, let me dispel another myth that is perpetrated by our liberal friends -- the argument that pornography is a "victimless" crime. The fact often ignored by both sides of this sometimes contentious issue is that the persons being portrayed in the pornographic material -- largely women -- are being exploited, and the persons viewing the material are being negatively affected. To learn more, please visit the Victims of Pornography website.
Consequences
There are also serious consequences for our families and communities. Take for example an incident that occurred in 2004 where a 23-year-old homeless man was arrested in the City of Philadelphia for a brutal sexual assault of an 8-year-old girl in a library bathroom. He frequently came to the library to use the Internet to surf for free pornography and had just finished a library porn session before attacking this innocent young girl. Only the very naive would doubt his source of inspiration.
There is no question that if you remove the incentive of free and easy access to pornography -- much of which is illegal -- perverts, pedophiles, and sex offenders will lose interest in visiting our neighborhood libraries. We must tell perverts that there's no porn for them to see on library computers. This could easily be accomplished with Internet filtering technology.
How many more news stories do we have to hear and read telling us about this problem? We have to ask ourselves: Just why are we supplying free, often illegal pornography to anyone, let alone potential sexual predators that may attack our children?
Shouldn't a library be a place to build young minds without polluting them with porn, rather than a place where porn addicts and sexual predators rub shoulders with our children and families?
Taxpayer-funded institutions, like public libraries, have no obligation to provide obscene or illegal material, especially to children. I would argue that, in fact, they have a positive obligation not to provide such materials. What is it going to take to get our elected officials in Illinois to act to protect our families from this danger and offense in our neighborhood libraries?
