These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
Does 'Homeland Security' include freedom from pornography?
Published on February 17, 2006 By singrdave In Current Events
Okay, what exactly is going on here?

From today's Washington Post:
Two uniformed men strolled into the main room of the Little Falls library in Bethesda one day last week and demanded the attention of all patrons using the computers. Then they made their announcement: The viewing of Internet pornography was forbidden.

The men looked stern and wore baseball caps emblazoned with the words "Homeland Security."
The bizarre scene unfolded Feb. 9, leaving some residents confused and forcing county officials to explain how employees assigned to protect county buildings against terrorists came to see it as their job to police the viewing of pornography.

After the two men made their announcement, one of them challenged an Internet user's choice of viewing material and asked him to step outside, according to a witness. A librarian intervened, and the two men went into the library's work area to discuss the matter. A police officer arrived. In the end, no one had to step outside except the uniformed men.

They were officers of the security division of Montgomery County's Homeland Security Department, an unarmed force that patrols about 300 county buildings -- but is not responsible for enforcing obscenity laws.

In the post-9/11 era, even suburban counties have homeland security departments. Montgomery County will not specify how many officers are in the department's security division, citing security reasons. Its annual budget, including salaries, is $3.6 million.

Later that afternoon, Montgomery County's chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, issued a statement calling the incident "unfortunate" and "regrettable" -- two words that bureaucrats often deploy when things have gone awry. He said the officers had been reassigned to other duties.

Romer said the officers believed they were enforcing the county's sexual harassment policy but "overstepped their authority" and had to be reminded that Montgomery "supports the rights of patrons to view the materials of their choice."

The sexual harassment policy forbids the "display of offensive or obscene printed or visual material." But in a library, which is both a public arena and a county workplace, the U.S. Constitution trumps Montgomery's rules.

At most public libraries in the Washington area, an adult can view pornography on a library computer more or less unfettered. Montgomery asks customers to be considerate of others when viewing Web sites. If others are put off, librarians will provide the viewer of the offending material with a "privacy screen."

Fairfax County forbids library use of the Internet to view child pornography or obscene materials or to engage in gambling or fraud. But Fairfax library spokeswoman Lois Kirkpatrick said, "Librarians are not legally empowered to determine obscenity."

D.C. library spokeswoman Monica Lewis said the system is working on guidelines for Internet use, but she added that recessed computer screens generally ensure patrons their privacy.

Although many library systems in the United States use filtering software, the D.C. and Fairfax systems do not, and Montgomery uses such software only on computers available to children. Leslie Burger, president-elect of the American Library Association, said the reality is that "libraries are not the hotbed of looking at porn sites."

Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement.
(Bold added for emphasis.)

First Amendment rights take a back seat to Homeland Security in some very limited, special cases... but this is ridiculous. What happened here? What or who empowered these guys to do what they did and whose heads are gonna roll over it?

Comments
on Feb 17, 2006
Too much time sitting in the car, sucking exhaust fumes and drinking coffee? ...could be, could be...
on Feb 17, 2006
Not all that different behaviorally from some of the fundamentalist you'll encounter while patrolling our borders with Minuteman Project members.
on Feb 17, 2006
Not all that different behaviorally from some of the fundamentalist you'll encounter while patrolling our borders with Minuteman Project members.

Really? I haven't been down there with the Minutemen, though I am from Arizona and I am familiar with the Border Patrol's issues.

So how was it? Was it difficult? Did you have a good time, or was it hard cruising through the desert protecting our borders with the Minutemen? That looks like it'd be tough, and I'm sure the people there are definitely dedicated, even if they are misguided. I really admire you for patrolling our borders with the Minutemen.

Or are you just making a blanket generalization based on what you see on TV?
on Feb 17, 2006
First Amendment rights take a back seat to Homeland Security in some very limited, special cases... but this is ridiculous. What happened here? What or who empowered these guys to do what they did and whose heads are gonna roll over it?

So your complaint is they won't let you look at porn in the library? That's pathetic.
on Feb 17, 2006
There are alot of people that when put into a position of power will abuse it. I am from Canada and my brother works in the US. He was visiting for the holidays and had to renew his work visa at the border before I dropped him off at the airport in Buffalo. We had to wait for over 2 hours, by withc time he would not have made the flight anyway while the people over there were talking about what they had done over the weekend and which new movies they planned to see. There were also two girls waiting there, they were on the way for their grandmothers burial. When of them them asked how much longer it would be one of the immigration officers blew up and started calling them names I don't feel comfrotable writting here and threaten to throw them into jail.

I guess asking someone to get off their fat ass and actually do their work is a crime punishable with jail time.
on Feb 17, 2006
First Amendment rights take a back seat to Homeland Security in some very limited, special cases...

I must wholly disagree with this statement. The US Constitution was NOT written to "give rights" to the individual, but rather to RESTRICT the power of the government. This is abundantly clear in the wording of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence (which establishes that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights), and the writings of the founding fathers (the Federalist Papers are one source of information on this topic). The President was never meant to be able to issue an edict to override the Constitution.
on Feb 17, 2006
I must also point out, these agents need to be reminded that Mohammed Atta et al were not accessing porn in their 9/11 attempt. I do believe in REASONABLE (read: NOT UnConstitutional) efforts to thwart terror attacks, but this is WAY over the top. Even if the use DID violate sexual harassment laws, it is NOT, and should NOT be, the jurisdiction of Homeland Security.
on Feb 17, 2006
Obviously these were two local yahoos that were probably more interested in something they cooked up at their church than a real policy by the DHS. Everyone is looking for loopholes in new policies to use to further what they normally can't do.

They'd better be a bit more careful embarassing people and asking them to 'step outside' needlessly. I know of a few places that would be dangerous, gun and badge and all. Folks who walk with that kind of swagger in some places I have lived have to grow eyes in the back of their heads...
on Feb 19, 2006
Gideon:
The US Constitution was NOT written to "give rights" to the individual, but rather to RESTRICT the power of the government.

You are absolutely right, so maybe I should rephrase my statement: Homeland Security issues sometimes override First Amendment rights, particularly when terrorists meet together (assembly), plot over the internet or by phone (speech), or in their mosques (religion).

I do believe in REASONABLE (read: NOT unconstitutional) efforts to thwart terror attacks, but this is WAY over the top. Even if the use DID violate sexual harassment laws, it is NOT, and should NOT be, the jurisdiction of Homeland Security.

I wholeheartedly agree. By posting this story, I in no way support or condone their actions. I think they were a couple of blinkered morons who thought their role as Montgomery County, MD, DHS officials gave them the authority to impose religious or social beliefs on others.

Or, in other words,
Baker:
Obviously these were two local yahoos that were probably more interested in something they cooked up at their church than a real policy by the DHS.