Fred Martinez
Sunday, July 14, 2002

As expected, both the California appeals court and the federal appeals court have ruled that libraries cannot use computer filters to prevent children from viewing Internet pornography. As expected, editorials in the liberal San Jose Mercury News and other liberal newspapers invoked the First Amendment 'right' to view porn in public libraries.

What wasn't expected was the recent defense of liberal pornography laws by Brian Wilson, who follows Michael Savage on San Francisco's conservative talk radio channel KSFO.

He said it was ironic that after 9-11 everyone was for freedom, but now some want to take away the "principle of individual rights" from adults by calling for the use of computer filters so that kids can't view Internet pornography. He claimed that "the cure is worst than the disease."

Wilson and the Civil Liberties Union – which won the case – are united in defending this new constitutional right.

The "conservative" radio host suggested tongue-in-cheek that there be "libraries only for children" to insure adult "rights" to porn.

I have a better idea. If Internet porn is now authorized, why not have smutty magazines lying around the newspaper section. Also, we mustn't forget the adults' right to check out dirty magazines and videos. Maybe in the future, children will win this right by Supreme Court edict.

It would never get that far, though, because parents don't allow their children to go into porn shops. The libraries' funding would soon be voted down.

Then why aren't parents angered by libraries' access to Internet obscenity? For the same reason, I contend, that abortion is legal while infanticide is not. Babies and dirty magazines can be seen, but babies in the womb and Internet porn in libraries are usually unseen by parents.

Of course, the media could show the American public killings of unborn babies and kids looking at public-funded Internet smut. But the national media hide the evidence. They want to preserve our constitutional 'rights' to porn and abortion so they ban or prohibit those dangerous images of the unborn baby killings and state-sponsored corruption of youth.

They can hide the truth because the evidence is not easy to see. Like Clinton, they lie if not caught red-handed. When caught, they spin it in their favor.

Ask the representatives of the media, why isn't it also a child's right to check out porno magazines and videos? Why is it wrong to show killed unborn babies when it was right to present dead GIs during the Vietnam War? Why is it right to take hidden cameras into pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Centers but wrong to use hidden cameras to catch kids watching public-funded smut?

They will do a Clinton if you corner them with these questions.

As Clinton switched from "I don't know that woman [Monica]" to "Sex is not that big a deal," the media will switch from "We are only trying to preserve our constitutional rights" to the classic Kenneth Starr spin, "Why are you so obsessed with sex?"

We will never get a straight answer from the media elite, so we must ask ourselves the questions.

How perverted is our country when we allowed a president to sexually abuse a girl not long out of high school? How corrupt are our courts, media and some "conservative" talk show hosts when they fight against computer filters to prevent kids from viewing Internet pornography?

Contact Mr. Martinez at MrtnzFred@aol.com.

A product that might interest you:
Free E-mail Alerts From NewsMax.com