Dear Editor:
This is a rebuttal to Ms. Walker’s June 27 column, which was
nothing more than an unwarranted harassment of the libraries and
librarians.
Dear Editor:
This is a rebuttal to Ms. Walker’s June 27 column, which was nothing more than an unwarranted harassment of the libraries and librarians.
Paragraph 1. “Child Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.”
The CIPA is the great grandchild of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, next was CDA II, then the Children’s Online Protection Act, all were ruled unconstitutional.
Now that CIPA has passed muster in the Rehnquist Court, why imply that it is the same issue that has been around for all these years?
Paragraphs 2 and 3. The use of Internet software without a First Amendment issue developing, has been shown by the joint powers authority to be possible, that there can be a compatible compromise without the need to impose unreasonable governmental restraints.
The irony of Ms. Walker’s joy is that she has been fighting against any form of government intervention for years.
Though Justice agrees that the use of Internet software is not illegal, he does say that “… in my view, this restraint is unconstitutional.” Page 1.
Paragraph 4. This was set up with quotation marks, but they are Ms. Walker’s own words.
Paragraph 5. The implication here is that the American Library Association is willing to give children access to Internet pornography, because a portion of its policy states that libraries must provide open access regardless of the age. 1) That policy refers to the library items that they have on loan to the public without recitation by age. 2) Libraries do not have pornography in their collections, which the librarians carefully review for content. 3) Computers are “tools” used to access the Internet. It contains “an enormous amount of valuable information that individual librarians cannot possibly review.” Information that changes daily. Think of all the Internet, as paradoxical Pandora’s box filled with good as well as evil.
It is also part of the ALA’s policy not to second guess a parent or guardians wishes, so it is left to the parent or guardian to control their minor children’s choices.
Paragraph 6. Internet software is a technology that is tailored “… to text only, not images … CIPA, by its own terms, covers only “visual depictions”… image recognition technology is immature, ineffective … Web site publishers may use image files … making automated review of their textual content impossible.” Justice Stevens, dissenting. Page 2.
Did I overlook Ms. Rogers’ view on this in the paper?
Paragraph 7. As “sweetly” as Ms. Walker could make it, she called librarian Lani Yoshimura a liar in each of the next three paragraphs. Walker also echoed Ms. Zappa’s complaint she made back in 2000. That Ms. Yoshimura assessment that there has only been “a handful of complaints” about porn viewing minors. Ms. Walker claims that by 1999, KIDS collected 26 complaints. Oddly enough in 2000 Ms. Zappa said it was only 17.
Paragraph 8. Ms. Walker said that our librarian was not “altogether truthful” about minors being “… helped out of their sites …” then proves her point by retelling an old anecdotal story that was told years ago.
Paragraph 10. “I do wish we could take Lani Yoshimura’s word that there is no problem …” Ms. Walker mistakenly presumes that she can speak for everyone, when she said “we”. When it should be “I” as in it is Ms. Walker who has the problem, or as she put it in paragraph 12, “I know a many parents who don’t share my prejudice.”
Paragraph 11. “… I cannot, of my own experience, offer any recent incidents about library net porn.” She also no longer takes her daughter so they can hang out at library, because “… I don’t think it is safe place for children”.
In my view, Walker is uncomfortable being seen at the library after what KIDS members tried to do to the libraries with their “evidence.” But she can’t blame them if old wounds have been opened up with her sophomoric display of “take that.”
Harold D. Williams, San Jose
Submitted Thursday, July 3
