More relativism Guarino-style

Joe Guarino's crusade against the relativists, nihilists, and purveyors of porn in the Greensboro library continues. However, his latest post only helps to expose more relativism on his part.

One of the great services that Joe performs for the citizens of Greensboro is to field questionnaires for city council candidates and to post the responses. I may disagree with Joe's slant on a lot of things, including some of the loaded questions on the questionnaire, but I have to salute him for giving voters a wealth of candidate information that wouldn't come out otherwise.

Why bring up the questionnaire? Well, in today's post, Joe expresses disappointment with a city council candidate who flip-flopped on a question about filtering (she responded that she supported computer filtering on the questionnaire and then didn't support Danny Thompson's ill-conceived motions regarding filtering).

It appears, however, that filtering wasn't exactly the be-all and end-all issue when Joe was making endorsemens. For example, in the District 2 race last year, he endorsed Dan Fischer whose response to the filtering question was “No. I want our children to be able to look for what they need to for research purposes. And there are plenty of people who use the library computers other than our children. If we had a section just for children then yes, I would want some kind of filters on the computers.”

He favored Fischer over Nettie Coads, whose response to the filtering question was "Yes, some should be filtered for exclusive use by young people."

In another race, Joe endorsed George Hartzman, whose very adamant response to the filtering question was, "First Amendment. It is up to parents to raise their children, not the state. Next thing you know somebody is burning books. Who gets to decide what’s filtered?" In that race, Joe passed over a candidate who gave a more positive response.

In another race, he initially endorsed Nancy Vaughan, whose response to the filtering question was "(No) I do not think that the libraries’ should filter computer content. Parents should take responsibility for their children’s computer use. " There were other candidates in the race unambiguously supported filtering.

In another race, Joe endorsed Mary Rakestraw, who did not complete a questionnaire, over Joel Landau whose short but sweet answer to the filtering question was "yes."

Joe continues to cast people who oppose filtering as "amoral" and castigates them as "relativists."

These parties have collectively decided that the false god of "library information" accessed through the internet is at a higher level of priority than the moral imperative of protecting minors. They have constructed an idol in their minds-- and that idol is unobstructed access to the internet.

But in several instances Joe's actions show that he had higher priorities than "the moral imperative of protecting minors." Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a single case where Joe even mentioned filtering in his endorsement posts.

Joe had an opportunity to make moral choices related to filtering--it was either an all-important issue with him or it wasn't. Joe chose to elevate other concerns.

Guarino's relativism

For the three of you from Greensboro who may have missed the latest goings on, a fierce debate has been raging over whether the public library should install filters on its computers to reduce the amount of porn that's allegedly being downloaded.

The debate was ignited a few weeks ago when a poorly informed and ill-prepared councilman, Danny Thompson, waved a thick stack of papers implying that the majority contained examples of porn-viewing and other indecent behaviors in the libraries. The councilman then introduced a motion to install filters on the computers. A subsequent examination of the papers revealed that only a few indecent incidents had occurred and that such incidents had actually been substantially reduced over the last year. Nevertheless, the intrepid councilman pressed on.

The matter was revisited at a subsequent city council meeting, which voted the councilman's filtering motion down but asked library staff to provide more data.

The ever-excitable Joe Guarino immediately hyperventilated that council members had voted "to permit porn surfing" (nevermind that the available evidence showed that existing library policies were reducing these incidents, not increasing them). Brother Joe has since been on a tear accusing library staff and those who oppose the filters of "moral relativism."

Sayeth Joe,

We are worshipping the idol of unrestricted access to 'library information,' and placing that at a greater level of importance than protecting minors.

He goes on to accuse the library of "peddling" porn.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The library actually has a comprehensive approach that includes registering users, having them agree to usage terms, running throttling software, and having staff and security personnel present. In fact, the councilman's papers are evidence that restrictions are present and result in sanctions. Yet Joe equates these layered restrictions to peddling porn and suggests that the library staff be arrested for distributing child pornography.

Another local blogger, Tony Wilkins, now reports that "two anonymous sources" have told him that 21,000 visits to porn sites occurred last month in the local public library. Multiply by 12, and the number rises to 252,000 annually. Naturally, this has inflamed Joe who now says that "the burden is now on the relativists and the nihilists to demonstrate why filters are not appropriate."

Let's put aside the obvious question of why Tony's sources might have requested anonymity and go with his figures. It appears that Joe is the true relativist here. The most optimistic estimates for the filters indicate that they might screen 97 percent of objectionable material (albeit at the cost of lots of non-objectionable material also being blocked). Apply that likely inflated screening rate to 252,000 page visits, and Greensboro still ends up with over 7,500 porn views.

Joe and the councilman got their knickers in a bunch over a few dozen incidents, yet they would have us adopt a technology that would permit thousands of porn views each year. You tell me who's a relativist.

The only "correct" absolutist position is to immediately remove the execrable internet from the public library. While we're at it, the internet should also be removed from public schools and any public place where children might see someone else surfing--that includes all public wi-fi in non-adult venues (don't want those kids who wandering through Caribou Coffee to accidentally view "Debbie Does a Double Latte" or some such).

Until Joe is willing to remove all possibilities for inappropriate browsing in public places he is the moral relativist.