Rob Brading Protests Too Much, Methinks

Rob Brading supporters at Blue Oregon are attacking Karen Minnis, alleging her supporters wrongly claim that Brading is "in favor of children viewing porn."

It's a good question. Lets look at the record.

Does Rob Brading disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court, who held in
Multnomah County Library et al. v. United States of America, "the interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree..."

A case can definitely be made that Brading, at least back in 2004, could have believed there was no such compelling interest.

As a member of the Multnomah County Library advisory board, Brading's vote was part of a unanimous decision by the advisory board to recommend saying "no thanks" to $104,000 in federal funding so the library would not have to follow provisions of the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which stated that "a public library may not receive federal assistance to provide Internet access unless it installs software to block images that constitute obscenity or child pornography, and to prevent minors from obtaining access to material that is harmful to them."

Granted, the advisory board wasn't the final decision maker on this question. But Brading and his fellow advisory board members were unanimous in their vote to recommend saying no to $104k in federal funding. Given that the county library was and is strapped for funding, why would Brading vote to give up $104k unless he, like the others on the advisory board, intended to avoid CIPA restrictions protecting minors from harmful internet content? And the next question is, if Brading was/is against protecting minors from harmful internet content, does that mean he's in favor of allowing minors to have access to harmful internet content?

Here's more quoted below from Multnomah County et al. v. United States of America:

" To address the problems associated with the availability of Internet pornography in public libraries, Congress enacted the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), 114 Stat. 2763A-—335. Under CIPA, a public library may not receive federal assistance to provide Internet access unless it installs software to block images that constitute obscenity or child pornography, and to prevent minors from obtaining access to material that is harmful to them."

". It provides that a library may not receive E-rate or LSTA assistance unless it has “a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes the operation of a technology protection measure … that protects against access” by all persons to “visual depictions that constitute obscen[ity]” or “child pornography,” and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions” that are “harmful to minors.” 20 U.S.C. § 9134(f)(1)(A)(i) and (B)(i); 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6)(B)(i) and (C)(i). The statute defines a [t]echnology protection measure” as a specific technology that blocks or filters Internet access to material covered by” CIPA. §254(h)(7)(I). CIPA also permits the library to “disable” the filter “to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes. 20 U.S.C. § 9134(f)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6)(D).


What say you, Rob Brading? Why did you vote to recommend cutting off federal funds in order to bypass the requirements of CIPA? Do you or don't you agree with the Supreme Court's decision? Do you or don't you agree with CIPA? Do you believe minors should be protected from harmful internet content? If you do, then why did you vote to recommend the bypass of the CIPA requirements?

Here's an excerpt from a May 5, 2004 Oregonian column by Renee Mitchell that explained what happened back then:

"A few weeks ago, the advisory board of the Multnomah County Library unanimously endorsed a public policy that defies the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court and the opinion of most parents who care about their children's mental health.

As a result -- if our new library director Molly Raphael approves it -- young, impressionable minds can continue to get free access to hard-core pornography at any one of the system's 17 branches. The county will also be kissing off access to federal funding at a time when library hours, services and material purchases will be cut by $1.5 million.

The county -- arguing that it doesn't want its librarians to be gatekeepers of information -- was the lead agency challenging the Children's Internet Protection Act all the way to the Supreme Court. But last June, the court ruled against Multnomah County Library et al. v. United States of America, saying the government has an obligation to protect children from porn.

Libraries were given until this July to comply or risk losing eligibility for federal aid. So on April 13, our library board thumbed its nose at popular opinion. It said "no thanks" to the $104,000 in federal money it had applied for during 2003-04."