Need help opposing Family Foundation's Internet filtering bills

[Neurotica]

In the 2006 session these bills lasted until the very last day, and were narrowly defeated.

The Family Foundation has stated that mandatory Internet filters are their top priority this year.

Please let me know if you can help.

I can provide a lot more information on this subject.

Thank you!


Edited to add that even a phone call to your delegate or state senator would be helpful (once the bill numbers are known and the bills have been assigned to a committee).

[LetsThink]

1. Can you please update this thread when Bill nos are known?

[Neurotica]

2. Yes -- I'll update the post asap

One of our major concerns is that legislators do not hear from Virginia constituents who oppose mandatory filters for adults. Legislators have told us repeatedly that they need support to vote against these types of bills.

Meanwhile, the Family Foundation has tons of money for lobbyists and pr campaigns. They are roaming the halls every day during the session.

And of course, it's an election year in Virginia so many GOP legislators and hopefuls will be using this issue to portray anyone who dares to oppose these bills as "pro-pornography" and not willing to protect children. Honestly, I am concerned about the Democratic caucus and how they will respond given what happened last year. (In 2006, so many delegates, including most Democrats, voted in favor of mandatory filters that the Family Foundation was able to cite the vote as showing "overwhelming support.")

It took the help of the State Senate to finally defeat these bills (but as I mentioned before, it was a narrow defeat).

So the Family Foundation has redoubled their efforts to pass legislation that they claim will stop sexual predators in libraries (not that this is a big problem to my knowledge).

One of my personal favorites from last year (from a Victoria Cobb Information Alert): "Once again, the state Senate decided that protecting children from sexual predators was not as important as keeping the ACLU and the Virginia Library Association happy. The failure to pass common sense legislation is a slap in the face to mothers and fathers around Virginia desperately trying to protect their children in a culture of perversion."

Mandatory filters are not the answer.

Filters are not perfect -- they block out a lot of educational material and still allow some objectionable material through. Filters should not be mandatory for adults and if a library chooses to have filters available, parents should be able to decide for themselves and for their own minor children whether or not filters should be used.

Some try to say disabling options are a good answer. However, this turns librarians into police officers and there's no guarantee that the filters can be turned on and off without delay. What's more, having to request that filters be turned off may dissuade some patrons from performing vital research (e.g., about a personal medical condition such as breast cancer).

[swimboy]

3. Let me know.

I'm certainly willing to talk to my representatives in the Assembly.

[Neurotica]

4. Here's the first bill -- HB 2197 (patron -- Nixon)

HB 2197 -- Technology protection measures; public libraries.

Requires the library board or governing body of a library that receives state funding for any purpose to include in its acceptable use policy for the Internet provisions on selecting and installing on those computers that have Internet access a technology protection measure to filter or block Internet access through such computers to child pornography as set out in § 18.2-374.1:1, obscenity as defined in § 18.2-372, and, with respect to minors, materials deemed harmful to juveniles as defined in § 18.2-390. The bill also requires the policy to include a provision for disabling the technology protection measure at the request of a patron in instances of bona fide research or other lawful purposes.

Patron -- Samuel A. Nixon, Jr.

Not assigned to a particular committee yet.

I haven't looked yet, but this bill seems to be identical to the one from last year (at least from standpoint of the summary).