Where do you stand on the issue of p*rn in your public library?

[smilesonly]

let's see if i can do a better poll this time.;) yep-talking about *real* p*rn-no fluff.

 

feel free to give your whys, any experiences, etc..

 

talkin bout internet access to p8rn

Edited November 5, 2011 by smilesonly
clarity

[twoforjoy]

Like, actual pornography? Or stuff that might be considered "pornographic" by some segment of the population but is seen as acceptable by many others?

 

If we're talking about actual pornography, is *anybody* in favor of it being in public libraries?

[Jean in Newcastle]

Like, actual pornography? Or stuff that might be considered "pornographic" by some segment of the population but is seen as acceptable by many others?

 

If we're talking about actual pornography, is *anybody* in favor of it being in public libraries?

 

Yes. It really depends on your definition. And does soft p*rn like many of the Harlequin Romances nowadays count?

[dangermom]

How do you mean?

 

Do you mean "Should there be filters on Internet terminals in the public library, and what do we do if there aren't?" Or, "should certain books be allowed in YA collections?" Or, "Should the library subscribe to Playboy, and if so, should such magazines be kept in a separate area?" Or, "Should 'It's So Amazing!' be allowed in the children's collection?

 

Librarians argue over some of these things a lot. None of them think that 'It's So Amazing!' should be disallowed from a children's collection, though.

 

IMO:

 

Internet terminals should have filters in the children's room but not in other areas. This is why Internet terminals are usually visible to the general public--it serves as a deterrent. If a patron insists on viewing p*rn anyway, asking that person to leave is fine.

 

YA books should be allowed in YA collections. Only the parents can decide what is appropriate for their children.

 

Very few libraries subscribe to Playboy, but those that do usually keep it behind the reference desk and make it available upon request. My opinion is that if you can't buy it legally, you shouldn't be allowed to check it out, so I would make it 18+.

[twoforjoy]

If we're talking about library internet access, I don't know. I don't think libraries should have filters, but that's mainly because I'm not aware of any filters that only catch pornographic sites without accidentally filtering some non-pornographic sites. I don't want somebody unable to do a web search on "breast cancer" or to see images of how to do a breast self-exam because of a filter.

 

But, I do think it's fine to ask a patron viewing porn to stop or leave. I've run into people watching porn on library computers many times, in areas that are accessible to everybody, and the screens are viewable by everybody, and I think it's inappropriate. I also think there'd be a lot more free computers if people knew they couldn't just sit there looking at porn for an hour.

[Remudamom]

I don't have to take a stand on it because our town has the world's best librarian and she won't put up with it in her library.

 

If she suspects someone is viewing porn on one of the computers she marches up and checks it out. If she's right, and they are, I think she slaps them on the back of the head and calls their mother. Even if they're grown.

 

The computers in our library are mostly on the children's level, and all placed where Miss Hope can monitor them.

[smilesonly]

Like, actual pornography? Or stuff that might be considered "pornographic" by some segment of the population but is seen as acceptable by many others?

 

If we're talking about actual pornography, is *anybody* in favor of it being in public libraries?

 

Yes. It really depends on your definition. And does soft p*rn like many of the Harlequin Romances nowadays count?

 

I frankly could care less, but as the PP asked, are we talking actual porn (magazines and videos and stuff) or just something with pornographic tones in a book?

 

just edited-man i cannot pull off a good poll!:glare: yes-the real thing.

[smilesonly]

If we're talking about library internet access, I don't know. I don't think libraries should have filters, but that's mainly because I'm not aware of any filters that only catch pornographic sites without accidentally filtering some non-pornographic sites. I don't want somebody unable to do a web search on "breast cancer" or to see images of how to do a breast self-exam because of a filter.

 

But, I do think it's fine to ask a patron viewing porn to stop or leave. I've run into people watching porn on library computers many times, in areas that are accessible to everybody, and the screens are viewable by everybody, and I think it's inappropriate. I also think there'd be a lot more free computers if people knew they couldn't just sit there looking at porn for an hour.

 

filters can and do keep out p*rn while still allowing medical research such as breast cancer.:grouphug:

[smilesonly]

I don't have to take a stand on it because our town has the world's best librarian and she won't put up with it in her library.

 

If she suspects someone is viewing porn on one of the computers she marches up and checks it out. If she's right, and they are, I think she slaps them on the back of the head and calls their mother. Even if they're grown.

 

The computers in our library are mostly on the children's level, and all placed where Miss Hope can monitor them.

 

Seriously?? :lol::lol:

[FaithManor]

I don't have to take a stand on it because our town has the world's best librarian and she won't put up with it in her library.

 

If she suspects someone is viewing porn on one of the computers she marches up and checks it out. If she's right, and they are, I think she slaps them on the back of the head and calls their mother. Even if they're grown.

 

The computers in our library are mostly on the children's level, and all placed where Miss Hope can monitor them.

 

 

AWESOME! Love the response!

 

I don't have too much of a dog in the fight other than if the library chooses to allow access, then they better be prepared to take action so children don't see it and aren't preyed upon. It is unfortunate, but those that would seek to go to a public library to watch p^*n on a open access in view of others computer, are the type that probably ought not be allowed around children.

 

I'm not a huge fan of censorship, but I do think that if one is going to allow it at the public library then there should be a hyper vigilant level of security and supervision to prevent the preschoolers coming to story hour from dealing with the kinds of men and women who don't have enough common sense to take care of their "needs" in private.

 

As for books, there should just simply be books and what not that are in the "no one under 18 can check these out" section. Beyond that, mums and dads, need to take responsibility for supervising their children at the library and holding the line on their personal convictions so that their children do not check-out material that is offensive to them or potentially harmful.

 

Though I don't use our public library much because it's all fluff and stuff and doesn't hardly possess a single piece of classical literature much less any modern literature of any relevance, the workers there are very concerned with protecting kids and they are STERN women. Seriously, I would not want to be a 15 year old attempting to check out a Harlequin Romance because they are going to call your momma and tell on you and if that doesn't work they'll call the school principal, your grandma, and the pastor of your church. Seriously, they KNOW EVERYONE and they will use that knowledge against you! :D

 

Faith

[Crimson Wife]

Disgusting and morally wrong, but if the individual is an adult and sitting in a carrel where what is on the screen is not visible to others, I don't think it's the library's job to be policing the content viewed (assuming that no laws are being broken like images of minors or whatnot).

[Impish]

I don't have to take a stand on it because our town has the world's best librarian and she won't put up with it in her library.

 

If she suspects someone is viewing porn on one of the computers she marches up and checks it out. If she's right, and they are, I think she slaps them on the back of the head and calls their mother. Even if they're grown.

 

The computers in our library are mostly on the children's level, and all placed where Miss Hope can monitor them.

When did *you* become a librarian?!

:lol:

[5kidsforME]

My question is, if you legally can't be naked (and for that matter have sex) in a public setting, why should you be able to view porn in a public setting?

[FiveOaksAcademy]

.

Edited November 5, 2011 by FiveOaksAcademy

[Remudamom]

Seriously?? :lol::lol:

 

Absolutely. She's awesome.

[ereks mom]

I think I'm misunderstanding the poll, so I didn't vote.

 

The question asks, "Where do you stand on the issue of filtering porn on your public librarys' computers?"

 

I started to click the first response: "I think it is perfectly fine & have no problem with it" because I DO think it is perfectly fine to filter porn on the library's computers.

 

However, the response choices seem to be better suited to the question, "Where do you stand on the issue of the viewing of porn on your public library's computers?"

 

Or maybe it's just me...

Edited November 5, 2011 by ereks mom

[Daisy]

I think it is disgusting and morally wrong.

 

It obviously isn't legally wrong though since they proudly do it all the time.

 

No filters on computers at our public library and yes, people look at disgusting things right there out in the open. Libraries are not allowed to do anything about it.

 

I think the library should be ALLOWED to block that garbage.

[twoforjoy]

No filters on computers at our public library and yes, people look at disgusting things right there out in the open. Libraries are not allowed to do anything about it.

 

I'm not sure that's true. If somebody is viewing pornography and its viewable by others, I'm pretty sure that they have every right to ask that person to stop viewing it or to leave.

[Remudamom]

When did *you* become a librarian?!

:lol:

 

She is a hoot. Makes me looked housebroken. And the kids love her.

[Quad Shot Academy]

My children and I were going from the children's room to the shelf where they keep the holds and ran smack into a 40 year old viewing it on the computer right in front of us! :001_huh: I pray my children did not see those images, because I still see them. I went up to tell the librarian and she said she would get them a privacy screen! :blink: I was horrified! Needless to say, we now go the long way around to avoid the computers. I agree with Momto4kids and think the guy should have been arrested. :glare:

[Daisy]

I'm not sure that's true. If somebody is viewing pornography and its viewable by others, I'm pretty sure that they have every right to ask that person to stop viewing it or to leave.

 

They say they can do nothing about it even though they find it reprehensible. I know there have been plenty of lawsuits about filtering library computers. My guess is that this is the policy of our library system and librarians are simply following procedure in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit.

 

I think the only way they'd kick a person out of the library for viewing porn is if the person was BEHAVING (not going to elaborate) inappropriately. I've seen that happen.

[redsquirrel]

Our library has separate adult and youth computers. And the library isn't in the business of telling people what people may or may not read or look at on the computer. And yes, my friends who work there cannot stand the fact that people use the adult computers for looking at that. And they do, all day long. If I as a patron see another patron looking at things that make my uncomfortable, I may go and complain to the librarian and that patron will be asked to change what they are looking at.

 

The youth computers are only for youth with a signed permission slip from their adult guardian. But, the library makes it very, very clear that they do not have the staff to monitor and/or supervise what the kids will be looking at. There is some filtering on the youth computer, but the staff assures me that the kids all know how to get around it. My friend recently retired as the youth services librarian and she was actually yelled at by parents for suggesting to some kids that their parents would not want them looking at something in particular. She had this happen more than once and decided it was officially none of her business what the kids were looking at. If the parents weren't there to supervise then obviously they didn't care.

[Cheryl in NM]

I think it's wrong and I think it is soul sucking activity. I don't think it should be allowed in the public library. I really don't think our founding fathers meant to include such things in the 1st amendment. In the public library there is the opportunity for a child to witness this stuff, that trumps the 1st amendment in my mind.

[smilesonly]

I think I'm misunderstanding the poll, so I didn't vote.

 

The question asks, "Where do you stand on the issue of filtering porn on your public librarys' computers?"

 

I started to click the first response: "I think it is perfectly fine & have no problem with it" because I DO think it is perfectly fine to filter porn on the library's computers.

 

However, the response choices seem to be better suited to the question, "Where do you stand on the issue of the viewing of porn on your public library's computers?"

 

Or maybe it's just me...

 

sorry.:blush::o i'm not too crafty with my writing, obviously.

[Wabi Sabi]

Eh, not my thing, but I really don't care one way or the other as long as it's viewed in private and precautions are taken to make sure it isn't accidentally viewed by others. Admittedly, I think that it's probably best viewed in one's home and the library seems like an odd place to go for that particular kind of computer activity. Not to be too graphic, but I've always assumed that most people who view porn like to do so while, um, pleasuring oneself and THAT is certainly not okay in a public space.

 

I do find most pornography to be distasteful but that alone doesn't make it immoral, IMO.

[smilesonly]

I don't want to spend my tax dollars on it. It's not about feeling disgusted or a feeling that it is immoral, I just don't think people should be asked to pay for it to be in a library.

 

actually, you're paying for it one way or another. filtering it is costly, too.

[Jennifer3141]

Eh, not my thing, but I really don't care one way or the other as long as it's viewed in private and precautions are taken to make sure it isn't accidentally viewed by others. Admittedly, I think that it's probably best viewed in one's home and the library seems like an odd place to go for that particular kind of computer activity. Not to be too graphic, but I've always assumed that most people who view porn like to do so while, um, pleasuring oneself and THAT is certainly not okay in a public space.

 

I do find most pornography to be distasteful but that alone doesn't make it immoral, IMO.

 

I mostly agree with Wabi. I don't want libraries to censor porn because I am nervous about what individual definitions of porn are. However, I'd give a pretty good stink eye to anyone viewing it around my kids. At my library, it's all Farmville!!!

 

What the heck is going on that people are viewing it in public? Even if you don't have a computter, sheesh. Go buy a flipping magazine!!! :glare:

[smilesonly]

There are two questions:

 

Is "it" or is "it" not First Amendment rights?

 

AND

 

If "it" IS a First Amendment right under free speech, who pays for it?

 

If the public is required to pay for this right, then why not *all* rights? Why not taxpayer funding for any flag burner, or Nazi rally, or the Westboro Baptist crowd?

 

very good question.

[Rosy]

None of the above. I do think it's morally wrong and disgusting, I don't believe my tax dollars should be used to pay for it. I *do* care about the first amendment, I just don't think that stuff should be protected as free speech.

[J-rap]

I say, filter away! I think porn in any form should not be allowed in a public setting. It is not allowed in our library. All computers sit right in front of the librarian's desk where the screens can be observed. We don't have a Miss Hope, but we have a Dave, another world's greatest librarian!

[kwickimom]

I think p*rn is disgusting and it has led to so much damage in this world. Breaks up marriages, degrades women, gives an untrue fantasy world, desensitizes people to s*x and thus had allowed so much crap to be "acceptable." S*x has been twisted from being a loving act between 2 people to so much more. Regular s*x becomes old and boring because it is everywhere and thus people have to see and do so much more. Pretty soon nothing is enough and people are led into s*x addiction and all kinds of other junk. It allows people to "cheat" without cheating, allows pedophiles to "see" their fantasies, allows kids to see stuff they shouldn't see.......

 

I do not think it should be available for viewing on any computer, let alone a public library. I cannot believe a person would try and view it in a public place. That disgusts me. Our library doesn't allow it thank God. I sure wouldnt want my money going to that.

 

If you wanna see s*x get married and watch your partner.

Edited November 5, 2011 by kwickimom
typo

[whiskeywife]

I don't have a problem with porn itself, but to allow someone to view it in a public setting where children may stumble across it, I do have a problem with that. Thankfully I've never come across that situation and never really thought about it. I'll be making sure to wash my hands extra long next time I use a library computer though. I would wonder why someone would go to the library for that purpose. But I guess since everyone seems to have computers nowadays, I would imagine the majority of people who are there for that purpose are probably married men whose wives frown upon porn.

[jakesask]

It's a policy of my library system (a system of libraries in rural western Canada, but the HQ is in a large city) that you cannot use library computers to view pornography. You also can't use the libraries in our system to access MySpace, Facebook, or YouTube, because of bandwith concerns.

 

I think libraries should be able to make some rules.

 

Years ago, when I was in university, I was working on a cartography assignment in a campus computer lab. Sitting just off to my left was a young guy looking at a website called "Bound and Gagged," and the images I could see were of women being tied up and raped.

 

That was definitely against the rules of the university, but it happened anyway.

[Ellie]

People have the First Amendment right to read and write anything they want. That doesn't mean that my tax dollars--whether they are local or federal--have to pay for p*orn to be put in a public library.

[Mrs Mungo]

I did not vote. I think those sites download a bunch of bad stuff to computers. Therefore, sites like that should be blocked on computers maintained by tax dollars.

 

It doesn't has anything to do with rights. You have the right to free speech. But nobody is required to publish your novel or pay for your computer access to anything.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[amey311]

My library has a filtering policy: http://www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org/pageView.jsp?id=6995

 

The Library uses filtering technology on all computers with Internet access. Patrons 17 years of age or older are given a choice of an Internet session with a basic filter or one that has additional filtering. The intent of the basic option is to block websites that are considered to be pornographic. The intent of the additional filtering is to block websites that are not appropriate for children. If a patron wishes to access a site that is blocked by filtering software, that patron may request Library staff to unblock the site. Requests for unblocking and blocking Internet websites can be made by submitting a request online.

 

That request? It can take up to 48 hours to get a response to a patron's "Unblock this, please" request.

 

Also:

Computers in the Children's and Teen's areas, express computers, wireless hot spots and all computer use for library users who are less than 17 years of age are filtered at the "additional filtering" level.

 

I was wondering if the wireless connection was somehow filtered. There are always people working on laptops at the various library branches we use. I use the wireless connection on my ipod to access the library's search engine when I'm browsing the shelves so I don't have to go find an open catalog computer :)

 

As for the person who said, "Go buy a magazine" - a photo is definitely not the same as a video. Would you rather look at pictures of baseball players or watch a game? :tongue_smilie:

[Mommy22alyns]

No way should it be allowed. If someone wants to exercise their first amendment right to view that crap, they can buy a computer and do it on their own turf.

[mcconnellboys]

I know that our library system was experiencing problems with children trying to access inappropriate content, so they put strict limits on what they are able to access. They also were experiencing some difficulty with adults at some branches and I know that they had instituted monitoring of even the adult computer usage at those branches....

[Crimson Wife]

None of the above. I do think it's morally wrong and disgusting, I don't believe my tax dollars should be used to pay for it.

 

The library already uses my tax dollars to purchase materials to which I object. I was in the library yesterday and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion was very prominently displayed. As a Christian, I find that book personally offensive. But as someone with libertarian leanings, I don't think it's the government's job to be the morality police. I have no objection to the library purchasing the Dawkins book if they believe that there is patron interest in it (and given that it has been checked out 847 times, I'd say that shows definite patron interest :(). Allowing unfiltered access to the 'net would fall into the same category.

[Ellie]

No way should it be allowed. If someone wants to exercise their first amendment right to view that crap, they can buy a computer and do it on their own turf.

:iagree:

[Iucounu]

People seriously think this is a First Amendment issue? As far as I know, there is no First Amendment right to view porn on a computer in a public library. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Library_Association

[nrg]

I think it is disgusting and I understand my library's limitations on restricting it. When computers first came to our library, lots of problems with this came with them. Now, screens are blocked to others' views, and anyone leaving that kind of thing on a screen for the next viewer is subject to legal action.

 

My own son, while I was working at the library, was the victim of a child predator who left a disturbing image on the screen for him to find and watched him find it. He, at 14, was in tears, and felt he could never erase the image. The man was arrested. This was before filtered computers in the children's room.

 

Our library has trouble with computer use, and has all computers in the middle, visible with screens filtered. That way, the librarians can see the viewers (all of them), but nobody else is subjected to the screen. Patron's cards are taken, so identification of violators is easy.

 

Our library system has tried to filter the computers, but has been told it would infringe on patron's rights. I do not understand this, as collections of books are necessarily selected, nobody could stock every possible book, so why can't the library make the same kinds of decisions about internet content? It is not censorship; it is selection.

 

This is a very touchy subject among librarians, with arguments on all sides. One thing that is agreed upon, is that this content increases the use of the library by "questionably" safe folks, another touchy subject.

[amey311]

I think our library also has some physical thing on many of the screens so that you can't always tell what someone is doing on the computer if you're looking at it from an angle (know what I'm talking about? it's not polarized, but like that). I'm sure that's to give some hint of privacy when typing. The screens often look grey until I'm right behind someone when i'm walking past the computers.

[6packofun]

I'm not sure on the poll wording, but I do care about 1st amendment rights and still think that filters on computers in an open, public setting are perfectly fine. There are not SO many people who just happen to be doing research on breast cancer--this is always the example given for those poor censored researchers, lol--and with the enormous volume of information available on the internet, enough proper information will get through. Are filters perfect? No, but I'm more interested in protecting children than in protecting a person's right to fulfill their sexual desires in public. Sexually explicit materials typically aren't OK on advertisements in public places or played on televisions displayed in a store (or facing out to the street), so why should it be OK for them to be advertised in another setting where children regularly go?

[Ester Maria]

I do not consider it to be the First Amendment issue - rather, I consider it to be an issue related to the more general function of the public library and Internet access within that context.

 

A computer in a public library is not your private home computer which you can use for anything you please. It is normal and reasonable that there are restrictions related to what you can actually do there - and if you ask me, those restrictions would be even stricter than they are currently in most libraries. I would personally completely block social networking and computer games too, in addition to the complete prohibition of pornography. A library computer should primarily be used for research and study, not entertainment and especially not adult entertainment.

 

To be perfectly blunt, I cannot understand the psychological constitution of a person who accesses sexually explicit content in a public library. I just do not get it. Even if I were to believe that that content is not morally objectionable per se - which I do not, I have a radically negative view of pornography in general - I would still hold it to belong strictly to the private sphere, NOT the public one.

Do those people not have a minimal, healthy dose of... shame? :confused: I cannot fathom entertaining such material in a public place where there is a chance somebody may pass by and see what I am doing - I would probably feel extremely ashamed even if I ran into it by accident in such a context. And even more so, I cannot fathom the idea of occupying a place in such an institution - and possibly occupying the place of somebody who would otherwise use it to study - with such activities. THAT is what I find to be the most morally objectionable in the whole thing. It is just a wrong context for that type of activity.

[Denise in Florida]

It is too broad based a definition, not everyone agrees on the line between porn and not-porn. If the courts have trouble defining it, I would not require a library employee to.

 

Filters and censorship are notoriously hard to regulate. Even saying no nudity could require exceptions for art and medical texts.

 

Too tricky, I would not touch it.

 

There should be large reminders that this is a public place and to use best discretion. Possibly a 'closed' area where people could move if the librarian instructs them to take it out of the public eye.

 

After that it should be handled like any of disturbance or nuisance. The librarian should have the right to send obnoxious people away whether that is porn related or not.

[Cricket]

I do not consider it to be the First Amendment issue - rather, I consider it to be an issue related to the more general function of the public library and Internet access within that context.

 

A computer in a public library is not your private home computer which you can use for anything you please. It is normal and reasonable that there are restrictions related to what you can actually do there - and if you ask me, those restrictions would be even stricter than they are currently in most libraries. I would personally completely block social networking and computer games too, in addition to the complete prohibition of pornography. A library computer should primarily be used for research and study, not entertainment and especially not adult entertainment.

 

To be perfectly blunt, I cannot understand the psychological constitution of a person who accesses sexually explicit content in a public library. I just do not get it. Even if I were to believe that that content is not morally objectionable per se - which I do not, I have a radically negative view of pornography in general - I would still hold it to belong strictly to the private sphere, NOT the public one.

Do those people not have a minimal, healthy dose of... shame? :confused: I cannot fathom entertaining such material in a public place where there is a chance somebody may pass by and see what I am doing - I would probably feel extremely ashamed even if I ran into it by accident in such a context. And even more so, I cannot fathom the idea of occupying a place in such an institution - and possibly occupying the place of somebody who would otherwise use it to study - with such activities. THAT is what I find to be the most morally objectionable in the whole thing. It is just a wrong context for that type of activity.

 

This is why I don't even know why it is up for debate. Children are not allowed in adult stores or strip clubs so I'm not sure why it would be okay for someone to view basically the same things in the presence of children and in a public setting.

 

As for a healthy dose of shame, not many people have that nowadays, unfortunately. It has become politically incorrect to say anything to anyone about any kind of behavior. I think more libraries need a librarian like Remudamom has!

[Mrs Mungo]

I find the argument that the library computers should not be used for entertainment to be a little strange since most people probably check out books for entertainment.

 

Again, I am for filters because of the maintenance issues that come up with viruses from those types of sites.

[TravelingChris]

I am with Mrs. Mungo (first post) on this. I also didn't vote and it has nothing to do with first amendment rights. As someone else mentioned, those type of sites that are supposedly free are routinely bad sites for your computer system too. They are notorious for bringing in viruses, malware, and all sorts of other computer issues. I can also see a library deciding not to allow movie watching, music downloading , etc. on public computers due to high bandwidth.

 

I have never seen this activity myself but I have no idea if it is because I am not observant or because of filtering or simply that people aren't doing that. I think the base library has very strict protocols on what the computers can be used and I am sure porn isn't one of the choices at that library.

 

I also thought that someone's argument that since you can't be naked in the library or have sex in the library, you should be allowed to display such acts on the library's computer so that others aren't exposed is a good argument too.

[Spy Car]

I think there should be a zero-tolerance policy for porn-viewing in libraries. If patrons are discovered viewing porn they should (at minimum) lose their library privileges, and if done in the presence of minors the police should be called and the offender should be arrested for lewd conduct.

 

However, I'm not certain about filtering. My understanding is filtering software is a pretty blunt instrument, often blocking legitimate sites and searches along with the porn. If the technology exists for precise blockage of porn without blocking sites about breast-cancer (to give one example), my concerns on this front evaporate. But I would want to weigh the problem vs the solution.

 

Bill