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

[silliness7]

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...

 

 

Woopsie!! I totally misread the poll. I knew I wasn't feeling with-it today. I need a re-vote.;)

[ereks mom]

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

 

Heehee! Don't worry about it. I figured it was just me. Nobody else seemed to have any trouble. :tongue_smilie:

[AvasMom]

Ok, I have to admit that the reference to the 1st amendment bugs me. The first amendment prevents you from going to jail for viewing porn. It does not entitle you to viewing it at the expense of tax payers. The first amendment is not relevant in this situation.

[In2why]

But isn't p*rn in the eye of the beholder often times? I know some people that actually cover art in books with black electrical tape because they think it qualifies. Others think that National Geographic is p*rnographic.

 

I collect watercolors of semi-nudes and sometimes I bid on them on Ebay, I can't imagine a time I would ever need to use a public computer, but if I did, and someone came up and smacked me on the back of the head, I would probably smack her back.

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

That is because they have to make selections about books, as each book comes to more money. The internet isn't like that - they pay a fee and it gives access to everything. If they had unlimited funds for books, there would also be an argument for purchasing any legal material of interest to patrons.

[In2why]

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:

 

 

Yeah what she said! :lol:

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

 

Would you also disallow books that are primarily for entertainment? Pulp fiction, cheap comic books, etc?

 

Remember that the guidelines for what kind of information patrons can use is going to have much the same guidelines as the information available in books. So if they offer entertaining books that are basically fluff, then there is little argument not to offer entertaining fluff on the computer.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I didn't see an other, so I couldn't participate in the poll. While it sickens me that people might use computers at the library for viewing porn, there is no perfect filtering software. Many of them filter legitimate research while letting inappropriate things go through. I ran into this as a childbirth educator researching medical issues. In our library, the computer lab is set up where all the screens are visible to people walking by, so there is a strong disincentive to use them for inappropriate purposes.

[Spy Car]

But isn't p*rn in the eye of the beholder often times? I know some people that actually cover art in books with black electrical tape because they think it qualifies. Others think that National Geographic is p*rnographic.

 

I once checked out a copy of Rosemary Sutcliffe's Black Ships Before Troy from the library only to discover a previous patron had carefully placed Post-it Notes over all of Alan Lee's offending artwork.

 

The act had "homeschooler" written all over it :D

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

I once checked out a copy of Rosemary Sutcliffe's Black Ships Before Troy from the library only to discover a previous patron had carefully placed Post-it Notes over all of Alan Lee's offending artwork.

 

The act had "homeschooler" written all over it :D

 

Bill

 

Better than sharpie in a Sister Wendy book!

[Spy Car]

Better than sharpie in a Sister Wendy book!

 

Much better.

 

Bill

[LaxMom]

This isn't a free speech issue. The First Amendment protects the right to publish porn, not to look at it. There are other laws in place that require adults-only material be kept from the view of children. Adult videos are sequestered in a closed area of video stores, magazines are sleeved and kept on a separate shelf from general magazines. "Gentlemen's clubs" have covered windows. It's not unreasonable to ban the same images from public view at the library.

 

OpenDNS and other services block at the router level (OD is free), so would also block personal computers on the wifi. I use it at home and have had no trouble viewing anything else I want. Since the database of sites lives online, there is no update required on my part, but I could access my account dashboard and add something to the "permitted list" manually if it blocked something legitimate. (There is a refresh period, which is probably why the library policy posted mentions the delay.)

 

In short, I see no difference between the "s3x offender" who was urinating in the bushes and the one watching movies in the public library. Well, that's not true. The guy taking a leak in the bushes probably didn't have a reasonable expectation of children being around.

[LaxMom]

Better than sharpie in a Sister Wendy book!

 

My grandmother used to sharpie bad language in her favorite - Danielle Steele, et al - library books. :svengo: I'm surprised they didn't ban her.

[Ester Maria]

Would you also disallow books that are primarily for entertainment? Pulp fiction, cheap comic books, etc?

 

Remember that the guidelines for what kind of information patrons can use is going to have much the same guidelines as the information available in books. So if they offer entertaining books that are basically fluff, then there is little argument not to offer entertaining fluff on the computer.

If speaking of social networking and games (I think you quoted me in that context), I am not sure that pulp fiction or comics would be paper equivalents, but in principle I do not have a problem with those works in a public library, though I absolutely believe that the *primacy* should be given to publications of scientific, historical and artistic value, rather than just mere entertainment. Which is often not the case today, but I primarily see the function of the library to be an archive of scholarly useful material (with the understanding, of course, that "scholarly useful" happens on different levels in different age groups, so I have absolutely no problems with children sections and material adapted to children, etc.). If the library has extra funds / donors of some of those materials, no problem, they can always offer more, encourage reading this way, etc., in addition to fulfilling their primary and historical purpose.

 

If speaking of pornography (which you did not, though, so this is my addition), a more adequate comparison would be the one of adult magazines or De Sade's works. I like the way one library that I know of solved the issue of De Sade, but that was before the electronic catalogues became mainstream - if an adult person explicitly asked for De Sade's works, they were brought from the basement where they were neatly kept, but just by browsing the library books, one would never stumble across them. They were catalogued in the library card system (which almost nobody used anyway) without description and with a basement reference, so you knew they existed (if you actually used the card system, which hardly anyone did LOL), but they had to be specifically asked for.

In many cases in literature the line is VERY blurred, but anything in the ranks of De Sade was kept in the basement (along with out-of-use works, rarities, and all other kids of material that had to be specifically asked for to be used).

 

My problem with social networking is that it is private communication typically devoid of any informational value (and therefore something to be done in one's private life at home, not in a library), and with games that it is "pure" entertainment also of the kind one does at home. Library computers, in my view, are used for research, writing, learning of some type, communication related to that learning, etc. I see no reason why somebody should occupy a place in a public library with something devoid of educational purpose and value, because I believe that the primary function of a public library is not entertainment, but facilitating learning (whether formal or informal). Imagine not being able to access a computer you need to research something / access a database of texts / whatever, there are no free slots, but half people who use computers are Facebooking. I used to be :confused: in such circumstances, now I am more like :toetap05: because it really gets me sometimes how people seem to lack in ability to separate private from public and estimate that not all of their private interests ought to (even if they are formally allowed) be dealt with in public places whose primary functions are something else. I think consuming pornography in public libraries is only the extreme form of the same fundamental problem - not recognizing that some things are just not appropriate for some contexts.

 

Mind you, these are not people who research something and then take a two-minute FB break. Nor are they people who want to check their FB or email, so they take one of many free computers for ten minutes. These are people who seem to specifically take computers for activities that belong to private life, not an institution with historical and often professed ties to learning. I know that I am old-fashioned, but these things pretty much fall into the etiquette category for me. In fact, I wish there was no NEED to specifically block such sites, I wish people shared my common sense about things which are just not done in a public library, but from what I could observe in the recent years (and not only), many libraries and many people who wish to research things there could really profit from a stricter approach to what can be done on the computers.

[Bluegoat]

If speaking of social networking and games (I think you quoted me in that context), I am not sure that pulp fiction or comics would be paper equivalents, but in principle I do not have a problem with those works in a public library, though I absolutely believe that the *primacy* should be given to publications of scientific, historical and artistic value, rather than just mere entertainment. Which is often not the case today, but I primarily see the function of the library to be an archive of scholarly useful material (with the understanding, of course, that "scholarly useful" happens on different levels in different age groups, so I have absolutely no problems with children sections and material adapted to children, etc.). If the library has extra funds / donors of some of those materials, no problem, they can always offer more, encourage reading this way, etc., in addition to fulfilling their primary and historical purpose.

 

If speaking of pornography (which you did not, though, so this is my addition), a more adequate comparison would be the one of adult magazines or De Sade's works. I like the way one library that I know of solved the issue of De Sade, but that was before the electronic catalogues became mainstream - if an adult person explicitly asked for De Sade's works, they were brought from the basement where they were neatly kept, but just by browsing the library books, one would never stumble across them. They were catalogued in the library card system (which almost nobody used anyway) without description and with a basement reference, so you knew they existed (if you actually used the card system, which hardly anyone did LOL), but they had to be specifically asked for.

In many cases in literature the line is VERY blurred, but anything in the ranks of De Sade was kept in the basement (along with out-of-use works, rarities, and all other kids of material that had to be specifically asked for to be used).

 

My problem with social networking is that it is private communication typically devoid of any informational value (and therefore something to be done in one's private life at home, not in a library), and with games that it is "pure" entertainment also of the kind one does at home. Library computers, in my view, are used for research, writing, learning of some type, communication related to that learning, etc. I see no reason why somebody should occupy a place in a public library with something devoid of educational purpose and value, because I believe that the primary function of a public library is not entertainment, but facilitating learning (whether formal or informal). Imagine not being able to access a computer you need to research something / access a database of texts / whatever, there are no free slots, but half people who use computers are Facebooking. I used to be :confused: in such circumstances, now I am more like :toetap05: because it really gets me sometimes how people seem to lack in ability to separate private from public and estimate that not all of their private interests ought to (even if they are formally allowed) be dealt with in public places whose primary functions are something else. I think consuming pornography in public libraries is only the extreme form of the same fundamental problem - not recognizing that some things are just not appropriate for some contexts.

 

Mind you, these are not people who research something and then take a two-minute FB break. Nor are they people who want to check their FB or email, so they take one of many free computers for ten minutes. These are people who seem to specifically take computers for activities that belong to private life, not an institution with historical and often professed ties to learning. I know that I am old-fashioned, but these things pretty much fall into the etiquette category for me. In fact, I wish there was no NEED to specifically block such sites, I wish people shared my common sense about things which are just not done in a public library, but from what I could observe in the recent years (and not only), many libraries and many people who wish to research things there could really profit from a stricter approach to what can be done on the computers.

 

The mission of the library is going to define what it is they are trying to do. There are libraries which have the primary purpose of research or archiving, but most public libraries have a broader mandate than that. They are always going to to have to select their books and govern other media usage according to the mandate they've been given.

 

I don't really see that we need to be bound by what libraries have done historically. That would mean keeping out particular classes of people, or censoring religious material. Public libraries are meant to be what the community wants, and that's what we fund them for. The guy who wants to read Louie L'Amoure novels pays his taxes just like you do, so why should your preference for educational texts take precedence over his preference for light fiction?

 

I don't think porn is really appropriate for public libraries because it is public nudity, if it can be seen by others as well. But that isn't really about the library mission. I also think it is a bad idea to filter adult computers. I wouldn't have a problem putting material that was potentially very offensive behind the desk, though I would be careful of it - historically that has included things like basic texts about sex from a medical POV, or books with "questionable" religious perspectives.

[Parrothead]

I'm a combo of 2 and 3, but voted 3. I don't really care, each to his own. I do not think it truly falls under the 1st amendment. If someone wants to view it in a public place one should be in a room alone or with others viewing similar materials.

[Ester Maria]

I don't really see that we need to be bound by what libraries have done historically. That would mean keeping out particular classes of people, or censoring religious material. Public libraries are meant to be what the community wants, and that's what we fund them for. The guy who wants to read Louie L'Amoure novels pays his taxes just like you do, so why should your preference for educational texts take precedence over his preference for light fiction?

Point taken, I should have been more specific about that "historical purpose". :)

 

The issue of taxes you bring up is interesting. It opens a can of worms if applied to most other fields, though (education, medicine, etc. - where we all use what we pay for unequally). I tend to view it as one of these things, so my general attitude is that of priority, i.e. if a library has to give up something, it should give up schund rather than scholarly material. Though I agree that if you set up a library with a different mission behind its collection, things change. Most libraries though attempt to bridge the two, but still at least formally profess a preference for educational materials.

[Bluegoat]

I'm a combo of 2 and 3, but voted 3. I don't really care, each to his own. I do not think it truly falls under the 1st amendment. If someone wants to view it in a public place one should be in a room alone or with others viewing similar materials.

 

I think there are really two questions.

 

One is about what kind of information a library can provide, and should provide. This would be a freedom of information issue, in relation to the mission of the institution.

 

The other is what is appropriate to view in a public space, and possibly what the library should do to provide private viewing (which can be an issue with things besides porn - rare materials for example).

[Bluegoat]

Point taken, I should have been more specific about that "historical purpose". :)

 

The issue of taxes you bring up is interesting. It opens a can of worms if applied to most other fields, though (education, medicine, etc. - where we all use what we pay for unequally). I tend to view it as one of these things, so my general attitude is that of priority, i.e. if a library has to give up something, it should give up schund rather than scholarly material. Though I agree that if you set up a library with a different mission behind its collection, things change. Most libraries though attempt to bridge the two, but still at least formally profess a preference for educational materials.

 

I don't know that I would say that they do. Most public general use libraries, IME, spend pretty equally on educational materials and fun things like genre literature. Often on setting up there is a tendency to lean to the more expensive basic reference items which many people can only access at the library - and often those things have some shelf life. Novels and such are more ephemeral, and need to be kept up to date. In a very small library the weight of the collection may remain on the reference stuff. But once the basic collection is established popular works tend to have a big role in the budget.

 

Of course specialized libraries are going to have much narrower focus.

[kathymuggle]

I think people have the right to look at what they want on the computer as long as it is legal.

 

That being said, your rights do not get to infringe on my rights.

 

I have the right not to see porn if I walk by your computer screen - and I am darn well going to complain (loudly if my kids are with me) if I walk by a computer and see porn.

 

If libraries want people to be able to view porn, they need to create some private-ish spaces; if they don't they have to be prepared to monitor the computer terminal a bit more.

 

It is an infringement on my rights to let someone view porn in such a way that a passerby can see it whether they want it or not.

 

FWIW, I work in a small public library in Canada, we have 3 computer terminals and all face the public (there is a privacy screen available if you want to do banking or other private stuff). We do not have a 1st amendment and I would totally stop someone from watching porn on the computers. Kids walk by them!

Edited November 6, 2011 by kathymuggle

[mom2denj]

Absolutely not!! We have enough problems in the world with porn, we do not need to give the truly sick people easy, free access. Especially in a place where there are children EVERYDAY!!!! I can't even imagine that this is a possibility. Please tell me it is not!!:glare::confused:

[pqr]

nt

Edited November 6, 2011 by pqr

[Iucounu]

A thought: the analogy to fluffy, entertaining books breaks down for personal uses such as communicating with friends on Facebook. People don't go to the library for books written by their pals. Thus while I'd agree that some entertainment-related use of library computers might be all right, I don't see any real value in paying for computer resources to be used for purely personal communication.

[Haiku]

None of your poll answers fit my thoughts so I didn't answer the poll, but my opinion is that watching porn is a sexual activity and since there are laws against sexual activity in public, library patrons should not be allowed to watch it and should be told to leave if they are. Having worked in a library, I think having signs by the computers that state that watching porn is prohibited and you will be told to leave if you do is appropriate. The library I worked at was very wishy-washy about the issue. They would ask offending patrons to please stop but when they were doing it again 5 minutes later they acted like there was nothing they could do about it. And the library was basically one giant room, so the "adult" computers could be seen from almost everywhere in the library. If a patron is told to leave, that ends the issue. If the patron is banned from the library for repeat offenses, even better. I don't think that the fact that libraries are "public" means that anyone should have access at any time. If you can't follow the rules, you've given up the right to use the library.

 

At our libraries, you have to sign in to the computers with your library card. I am perfectly fine with patrons who can't follow the rules having their internet access blocked.

 

Tara

 

Tara

[twoforjoy]

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.

 

There's a difference between suing over the library using filtering software and suing because you can't sit and watch porn on a computer that other people can see in a public place.

 

The problem with filtering software is that, AFAIK, none of it is perfect. I'm not aware of any filtering software that doesn't inadvertently also block some non-porn sites.

 

Personally, I'm not in favor of libraries using filtering software. I'm in favor of them having a posted, clear, and enforced policy of not allowing people to view pornographic material on the computers, and being asked to leave if they do.

[joannqn]

Our library has computers in the children's area and main area that are filtered internet. Another bank of computers are unfiltered but they are recessed under the desk and viewed through a glass in the desk and surrounded by a hood. You'd have to try very hard to accidentally see what the person is viewing. They've done a pretty good job of protecting the innocent from seeing what they don't want to see.

 

Because of that, I have don't have a problem with unfiltered internet at the library.

[pfamilygal]

Isn't the point of looking at porn usually to masturbate? Because that certainly isn't library appropriate behavior!

[scrapbookbuzz]

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.

 

 

 

Love this! A librarian who gives "Gibbs slaps" to people who should KNOW better!

[LidiyaDawn]

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.

 

 

Another Canadian here, same kinda rules ~ and I can't believe (well, I believe it because people said it) that people have actually SUED over libraries not letting them do certain things on the computers. I mean, what the heck? It's not your home, it's not your computer!

 

I don't have any "moral objections" to pornography that was produced and is being viewed by consenting adults (it ain't my thing, but whatever) - but come on people, in the middle of a library? Have some respect for those around ya. :rolleyes:

[laughing lioness]

Saw 2 about 10-11 year olds pulling up full blown unadulterated porn in the library from the kids section the other day, going to the adult computers and printing it off, walking back and forth, holding it out,showing thier buddies (in the kiddy section, by adults, etc). I don't think it should be accessed in the kids section and the way the computer screens are in the adult section (side-by side in a cirle) not there either. It's almost impossible NOT to see it if someone else is.

[LidiyaDawn]

Saw 2 about 10-11 year olds pulling up full blown unadulterated porn in the library from the kids section the other day, going to the adult computers and printing it off, walking back and forth, holding it out,showing thier buddies (in the kiddy section, by adults, etc).

 

Now surely your star spangled gun waving free speech libraries can stop THAT?

 

Aren't there laws being broken there? Laws that protect children?

[smilesonly]

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.

 

the lawsuit they are fearing is from the ala and the aclu.

 

 

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.

 

you raise a good point. however, it is the ala and the aclu that will fight to protect the right for patrons to view p*rn.

 

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

 

yep. what about the libraries that choose not to take federal monies? anyway, this is still being fought as the ala is powerful, especially combined with the aclu. just because this 2003 ruling was won does not mean the issues and problems have gone away from individual communities.

 

 

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.

 

that is beyond maddening and i'm sorry that happened to your ds.:grouphug: the people saying it would infringe on a patron's rights is the actual ala.

 

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..

 

well, it is a 1st amendment issue-but not coming from the patron-coming from the ala.

 

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.

 

the first bolding-if the courts can't regulate it then how can a library?

 

second bolding-so basically a library should have an adults only room to view p*rn? isn't that what adult bookstores are for?

 

third bolding-what about if a librarian tries to send the offender away, but the offender literally fights back? even assaulting a librarian?

 

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!

 

it is up for debate because dc are being exposed to p*rn in a place that is supposed to be safe.

 

Ok, I have to admit that the reference to the 1st amendment bugs me. The first amendment prevents you from going to jail for viewing porn. It does not entitle you to viewing it at the expense of tax payers. The first amendment is not relevant in this situation.

 

well, the ala and the aclu would disagree with you.

 

This isn't a free speech issue. The First Amendment protects the right to publish porn, not to look at it. There are other laws in place that require adults-only material be kept from the view of children. Adult videos are sequestered in a closed area of video stores, magazines are sleeved and kept on a separate shelf from general magazines. "Gentlemen's clubs" have covered windows. It's not unreasonable to ban the same images from public view at the library.

 

OpenDNS and other services block at the router level (OD is free), so would also block personal computers on the wifi. I use it at home and have had no trouble viewing anything else I want. Since the database of sites lives online, there is no update required on my part, but I could access my account dashboard and add something to the "permitted list" manually if it blocked something legitimate. (There is a refresh period, which is probably why the library policy posted mentions the delay.)

 

In short, I see no difference between the "s3x offender" who was urinating in the bushes and the one watching movies in the public library. Well, that's not true. The guy taking a leak in the bushes probably didn't have a reasonable expectation of children being around.

 

unfortunately, it is. the ala thinks it is a patrons right to view it as it is in a public domain.

 

 

 

I'm a combo of 2 and 3, but voted 3. I don't really care, each to his own. I do not think it truly falls under the 1st amendment. If someone wants to view it in a public place one should be in a room alone or with others viewing similar materials.

 

so basically, there should be a room for adults only to view p*rn? isn't that what adult bookstores are for?

 

There's a difference between suing over the library using filtering software and suing because you can't sit and watch porn on a computer that other people can see in a public place.

 

The problem with filtering software is that, AFAIK, none of it is perfect. I'm not aware of any filtering software that doesn't inadvertently also block some non-porn sites.

 

Personally, I'm not in favor of libraries using filtering software. I'm in favor of them having a posted, clear, and enforced policy of not allowing people to view pornographic material on the computers, and being asked to leave if they do.

 

who would enforce that?

 

Our library has computers in the children's area and main area that are filtered internet. Another bank of computers are unfiltered but they are recessed under the desk and viewed through a glass in the desk and surrounded by a hood. You'd have to try very hard to accidentally see what the person is viewing. They've done a pretty good job of protecting the innocent from seeing what they don't want to see.

Because of that, I have don't have a problem with unfiltered internet at the library.

 

ok-well, what about the guy fresh off of viewing p*rn on the adult only computer and then heading straight to the bathroom that is shared with kids? is that protecting the innocent? what about a preschool visiting a library for story time and little johnny needs to go to the bathroom and will need to go into the bathroom by himself as his teacher is female and waits outside the bathroom door....and also inside that bathroom is a guy getting off after his viewing time?

 

Saw 2 about 10-11 year olds pulling up full blown unadulterated porn in the library from the kids section the other day, going to the adult computers and printing it off, walking back and forth, holding it out,showing thier buddies (in the kiddy section, by adults, etc). I don't think it should be accessed in the kids section and the way the computer screens are in the adult section (side-by side in a cirle) not there either. It's almost impossible NOT to see it if someone else is.

 

 

which is exactly why this has become a huge issue. can you imagine? it's not like the old days when boys would look in the sears catalog and get off-this is hardcore p*rn being accessed by dc.

[Jennifer3141]

Now surely your star spangled gun waving free speech libraries can stop THAT?

 

Aren't there laws being broken there? Laws that protect children?

 

YEP. Every porn site in the world has a "Click here if you're over 18" button. So yes, the library could have legally enforced this. That's why the button is there.

 

Still there. Just checked on a site I like. :lol:

[kathymuggle]

YEP. Every porn site in the world has a "Click here if you're over 18" button. So yes, the library could have legally enforced this. That's why the button is there.

 

Still there. Just checked on a site I like. :lol:

 

:rofl:

[Jennifer3141]

:rofl:

 

And I came back after I checked too!! I didn't get sucked in. I'm also not naked right now. :lol::lol::lol:

[Bluegoat]

A thought: the analogy to fluffy, entertaining books breaks down for personal uses such as communicating with friends on Facebook. People don't go to the library for books written by their pals. Thus while I'd agree that some entertainment-related use of library computers might be all right, I don't see any real value in paying for computer resources to be used for purely personal communication.

 

It's all information. Many libraries see themselves as information access points. Here we have what are called CAP sites for the public to have access to computers, and all public libraries are CAP sites. Lots of information is passed over even social networking sites. I get information on FB from my MP, from some advocacy groups, and from people who link to articles on topics I am interested in.

 

It's an important function, especially when you consider that increasingly things like communication with government and political representatives is done through email and even social network sites.

[elizabeth]

very good question.

 

We do pay for it, Nazi marches, Westboro etc in the taking out of permits, police protection for those in the offensive group and those who are counter demonstrating. It is the price of democracy and I am glad to pay it. My husband is Jewish and actually walked by neo nazi protestors in front of our courthouse as they were disturbed by homosexuals having the same civil liberites as those who are heterosexual including the right to marry...I know ludicrous that neo nazi's think they have the moral high ground on that one but there you go. Porn sickens me and our library has seperate computer areas for children and teens versus the upstairs adult only computer lab. IT is a free speech issue BUT who decides that something has no value and is only of a prurient interest thus pornographic. That is a tough one. Also filtering software would prohibit for example a picture of a woman's vagina with genital warts. That is information many people need for self referral and information about their condition. It is not porn but would be blocked by filtering software. As I said I absolutely loathe the thought of porn being available but who defines what it is and how to control legitimate though graphic displays of health related issues is a deal breaker.

[Mrs Mungo]

the lawsuit they are fearing is from the ala and the aclu.

 

 

 

 

you raise a good point. however, it is the ala and the aclu that will fight to protect the right for patrons to view p*rn.

 

This has already been through the Supreme Court.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/supreme.html

[smilesonly]

That is a tough one. Also filtering software would prohibit for example a picture of a woman's vagina with genital warts. That is information many people need for self referral and information about their condition. It is not porn but would be blocked by filtering software. As I said I absolutely loathe the thought of porn being available but who defines what it is and how to control legitimate though graphic displays of health related issues is a deal breaker.

 

it is a tough call. from my understanding the latest and greatest filtering ware blocks the unquestionable p*rn while still allowing for medical research such as your example.

 

This has already been through the Supreme Court.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/supreme.html

 

in that case, yes. however, that is only in situations where a library is using federal funding in agreement with the cipa laws. what if a library doesn't accept this federal funding? many don't. besides, a library can put filters on and keep them on the lowest filtering level-which still allows for the most extreme material to pass through. so basically, on *paper* a library system is following the law, but at a closer look, not so much.

[Mrs Mungo]

it is a tough call. from my understanding the latest and greatest filtering ware blocks the unquestionable p*rn while still allowing for medical research such as your example.

 

I think having a couple of computers that are in corners, and allowing adults to request a lower level of filtering for medical research would be an acceptable compromise. Sure, it's open to abuse, but you can also get around filtering software if you are determined enough.

 

in that case, yes. however, that is only in situations where a library is using federal funding in agreement with the cipa laws. what if a library doesn't accept this federal funding? many don't. besides, a library can put filters on and keep them on the lowest filtering level-which still allows for the most extreme material to pass through. so basically, on *paper* a library system is following the law, but at a closer look, not so much.

 

My point is that libraries certainly have the authority to filter what their patrons access according to SCOTUS. If a library is choosing a lower filtering level, it's because they want to, not because they fear a lawsuit.

[littleWMN]

Well, I have never really thought of this, but I can assure you I will be more careful of my surroundings at the library now!

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, I have never really thought of this, but I can assure you I will be more careful of my surroundings at the library now!

 

So that nobody accidentally sees your p*rn? Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :lol:

[sewingmama]

I've actually never even thought about this because every public library I've ever been to in Australia has had a heavy filter. I just assumed that is what every library did and I'm very suprised to find out that there are ones that allow it.

 

All the computers I've ever seen have always been in a very open, public area all clustered around each other in a group -there aren't any private ones and they are always in a spot that everyone has to walk past to access the other parts of the library -so taking that into consideration - I vote no it shouldn't be allowed because I don't want my children (or myself) to see it as we walk past.

 

Most of our public libray computers are used by teens after school (who should not be looking at porn anyway) or out of work people during the day checking their email or looking/applying for jobs.

 

Facebook,myspace and Youtube are all blocked - and you can't play any games on them either.

 

In our library there is an X-box and tv set up in the teen room for those who want to play games - leaving the computers free for those who are trying to do their homework.

Edited November 7, 2011 by sewingmama

[LaxMom]

I am also not allowed to use my cell phone in the (federally funded) library... Or in a courtroom, for that matter. One may not take photographs in many state and federal buildings (not just secure facilities).

 

I find it difficult to believe anyone has a constitutionally protected right to view what has been determined (by SCOTUS) to be "adults only" in mixed-age public place. It's not a personal rights issue, it's an acceptable use issue. These are NOT personal computers on a private network in a private space. They are owned by the library, which is "owned" by the community. If I sharpie one of my books, it is my prerogative; if I sharpie a library book, I am defacing public property.

 

Really, it just peeves me that there has to be such high level debate over what should be a common sense issue.

[LidiyaDawn]

"Someone might need to see photos of genital warts" is NOT a good enough reason for everyone else to be subjected to pornography - especially children.

 

There are PLENTY of health care places that will have pamphlets and posters and even some 3D videos for ya if you really need to see what those look like.

[elizabeth]

If you are a poor person without health insurance or a person who cannot be insured due to preexisting condition or without a car to get to the PP clinic or a teen this is lifesaving information. Free computer access is the gateway to many positive and essential pieces of information.

[littleWMN]

So that nobody accidentally sees your p*rn? Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :lol:

 

:tongue_smilie: