Actually, the libraries in many larger cities do stock the likes of Playboy and Hustler. The reasons why smaller branches don’t is more economic than content based. This isn’t a problem with the Internet since it actually costs more to restrict content than to allow all content.
Libraries arn’t even the issue here. How many librarians have we seen saying that they just don’t have enough federal mandates for filters? I go to a large university full of sexually frustrated young people, with a dozen computer labs, where pornography is explicitly allowed to be viewed in the labs. In the years that this policy has been in place there has been exactly one incident. Porn on computers is not at the top of the list of librarian’s problems. In most cases it’s not even on their list at all. And when it is, they are free to take measures that best fit the specific needs of their library, which may include such things as moniter overlays that allow for privacy, creative furniture arrangement, seperate children’s computers, or whatever they feel is best.
The only reason to make this mandate is to prove a point. The Bush administration is not too big on free speech. We’ve gone decades without pressing obscenity charges on anyone (and our country didn’t even explode or anything) and now Bush is very pointedly dogging pornographers that have gone about their business without harming anyone for years. We’re not talking child porn, we’re talking about little mom’n’pop video makers and websites. The current administration wants to show that they have very strong views on morality and they arn’t afraid to impose them on anyone, even in non-sensical ways. This is a symptom of that.
Here in Finland, where I am for the moment, we have a free computer-system paid by EU.
It has filters. I can not be directly connected to Straight Dope, but cutting out the EU-stuff and through Google I get here.
There is also another board that has a ‘anti-religious’ name.
The situation is the same.
Even if it is EU who pays, we have to remember that it is we that pay.
If You pay as a privet citizen, You can put there what-ever restrictions You want.
But not the community!!!
We are the community!
Some articles in normal news-papers are totally impossible to reach. There is probaly some words like “rape”.
In Finnish, when You speak about bad grammar, You can often hear: “Do not rape Your mother-language” or such.
The example above is maybe not the best, but many news-papers uses “hard language” in their headlines = “bla bla bla-law was totally raped in the parliment” or something like that.
Always when something is forbidden, there is another side of the coin too.
When the government, community, or some fucking (see?) ‘silent majority’ or minority, for that matter, is abandoning something I am against.
In Sweden there was a list of “not good books”. One of the books was the most hilarious critisism of Sweden!
This kind of lists, laws or even suggestions, are always, always used as 1984-restrictions.
If people can’t see to that the kids does not look at the cover of Hustler in a news-stand, so what can we do?
“We did have one or two instances where a child accidentally accessed a site that was inappropriate. They came and told us and we cleared it out.”
I’m sure they all report that sort of thing.
The filters keep everyone away from important medical information as already explained by polycarp. They keep me from recipes for chicken breasts and apparently, in Illinois, they don’t work to block “inappropiate material”, whatever that is.
I didn’t intend to sound as if I was arguing that libraries should be in the business of distributing pornography — what I intended to convey was that minor’s access to pornography is as much a part of this issue as is free access to web information, albeit competing sides. IMO the intent of the law found constitutional isn’t to deny access to information but to protect minors and others. So it would seem to me that discussion of the appropriateness of pornography in a library setting is just as relevant to the issue as is your discussion of free, unfettered access to internet information. In other words, take away the problem pornography creates here and –blink- the issue goes away.
Society creates rules limit our access to information based on competing interests in many other areas. This isn’t a new concept. Doing research on cystic fibrosis doesn’t automatically provide me with access to the medical records of patients. There is an expectation of privacy there, and rightly so. Certainly, I would prefer that free and complete access to the internet without these additional concerns – but that’s not the real world problem we are faced with. The hypothetical harm created by unfettered access to everything on the internet is just as valid as the hypothetical harm created by the fettered access you described. So the question becomes a balance of those interests.
Society already prohibits minor children legal access to alcohol and tobacco that harm them physically. Many of us, who are no longer minors, are still “carded” when we attempt to purchase these items. If that person doesn’t have ID – no beer, no cigars. By analogy, the best Swedish pornography shelved by number in each library shouldn’t be available to minors. If an adult needs complete access to the internet – well, he or she must request that the filter be turned off. But turned off NOT to view pornography – turned off to gain responsible free access to all that is the internet. In short, for a library to knowingly provide a minor a means to pornography — and without the consent or even against the wishes of that child’s parent, is wrong. Why? A parent still makes decisions for their child – not our local librarians. Judgment on these issues, for most adults, is acquired over the long term. A parent’s judgment is typically much better than his or her child’s and as that parent, he or she should make decisions for the child in what they consider their child’s best long term interests. That’s why parents, responsible parents, don’t allow their children free access to all that is out there. The point here is that there are competing interests. This is one of them. IMO if the government is going to do its duty - than they are going to have to let the parent decide how he or she wants to raise their child in these areas. If one is the sort of parent that thinks his or her child can handle internet pornography before that child is a teenager - than I suppose that would be their decision and their parenting style.
Well, I’m a reference librarian in Colorado, and we pretty much allow anyone to access whatever they want. There are computers in the Children’s room, and they are closely monitored. There are about 40 computers in the Reference area - far too many to be monitored from the desk - and we place very little constraint on them. If a patron complains about what another patron is looking at, we give the “problem” patron a privacy screen. Frankly, I’ve always found it annoying how frequently one adult patron is likely to come up and “rat” on another adult patron (nevermind a child) for looking at something that is his or her own business. I find the proclivity of adults to “tell” on each other rather disturbing, though I understand that many people are very offended by the presence of pornography.
As long as the activity is confined to looking, there is no problem as far as our system’s rules are concerned. Unfortunately, some people actually start masturbating at the computers and they have to be escorted from the premises - sometimes with a police escort if they refuse to leave on their own.
Most pornography is not illegal; librarians do not and cannot act in the place of parental guardians. If parents worry about what their children look at on the screen, they should either accompany their child to the library or else keep them from going at all. Adults come into our library and look at porn; so do teens. I’m thankful I don’t have to stand over anyone’s shoulder and issue proclamations about what’s right and what’s wrong. I’ve got better things to do, like trying to find information for people who come and ask for it.
When CIPA originally passed, our system decided to quit pursuing federal funding because of the stipulations accompanying the money. We apparently won’t be seeking it anytime soon, either.
How is it only “his or her business” when he or she is viewing pornography in both a public setting where families are present, like a library, and in view of the other patrons?
If “patrons” are expelled for masturbating - what if, rather than actually masturbating themselves, they’re simply viewing are pictures or movies of people masturbating in full view of others? If no one complains than you take no action?
Why are you giving someone a private viewing screen so that they can view pornography? Is this the purpose of a library? It isn’t. In fact, it sounds a little too much like set-ups at a pornography business. IMO - if you continue to allow people to view this material - even in private booths or with the use of screens - you should also expect the problem you have with people masturbating at computer terminals to also continue. Needless to say - this is not the classical library environment –
I would have to make that choice as a parent? We’re taking about a library – I’m sorry, but there have to be better choices than that – Give me my CIPA -
No – if you or your children want to read the June copy T & A – I don’t care – I’m not forced to read it while you do. That is a different situation from viewing pictures and movies in the library. To carry the point further – as I understand, I’m not deciding your internet access for either you or your children under CIPA. As an adult, you have the freedom to request that the filter be turned off for the purpose of doing an unfettered search of the internet. If you choose, you also have the freedom to have the filter turned off for your minor child.
So the question remains – by what right do government officials knowingly provide minors access to internet pornography. It would appear that those who argue against CIPA are in effect taking a position that unfettered access is paramount – even when the government assumes the parent’s role and decides for the child’s parents to what internet material that child will have access – The proper response to gray areas and hard questions isn’t to just throw up our hands and do nothing –
Because he or she is the one viewing it, mayhaps? Because you (and your children) have no right to go forth into the world and not be offended, and especially not if you peek over people’s shoulders?
Also, I’m going to keep harping on Aztec until you reply. Why do you not worry about children grabbing written smut off the shelves?
(Incidentally, I would point out that most porn filters only can look at text. If you have a link or 5 to an all-image site with no dirty words in the HTML and an innocuous address, then you’re usually good to go.)
No – if you or your children want to read the June copy T & A – I don’t care – I’m not forced to read it while you do. That is a different situation from viewing pictures and movies in the library. To carry the point further – as I understand under CIPA, I’m not deciding internet access for either you or your children. As an adult, you have the freedom to request that the filter be turned off for the purpose of doing unfettered searches of the internet. If you choose, you also have the freedom to have the filter turned off for your minor child.
So the question remains – by what right do government officials knowingly provide minors access to internet pornography. It would appear that those who argue against CIPA are in effect taking a position that unfettered access is paramount – even when the government assumes the parent’s role and decides for the child’s parents to what internet material that child will have access –
Now if, for whatever reason, a library director makes a decision that viewing pornography in his or her library is acceptable behavior – as seems to be the case in the one described above – than that behavior should be removed from the general library population. Maybe a separate room away from children and other patrons could be set aside for the men – and any women – who want to view this material could congregate. Since, unlike the businesses, access at the library is free - I’m sure demand would explode once the word spread. While I would still have a strong objection to this set-up, since this is not the function of a library as I view that, I would have far less an objection than I would when a library allows this activity to occur among the general library population. But in all events --the proper response to gray areas and hard questions isn’t to just throw up our hands and do nothing -
Sorry about that sort of double post – I didn’t know it posted the first time since I’m having all sorts of problems getting on this board today- got called away and added a little more as you see –
How so? You are seciding what other people can see.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by Tigers2B1 *
**
Now if, for whatever reason, a library director makes a decision that viewing pornography in his or her library is acceptable behavior – as seems to be the case in the one described above – **
[/QUOTE]
That is obviously not what libraries are for.
There are always crazies at public libraries. I worked at one while I was in college. We don’t let their behavior dtermine what others can see or read, either.
I went upstairs (above in the thread) and ssaw where you mentioned Aztec as “smut.” If Aztec is really the sort of “smut” that you describe it as than no - it should not be available to children without their parents consent — questions?
carnivorousplant -
Seeing a picture displayed on a monitor can be done by anyone within 50 feet. Reading the words in a book being read by someone else takes effort – Some goes for the smut found in Aztec –
Oh my god! The memories! I think I read Aztec when I was about eleven or twelve. Damn, that book had EVERYTHING. Incest, homoerotica, cannibalism, orgies, drugs, sex while on drugs, penile amputation, pedophilia(several instances), conquistadores, DAMN. And you’re right. The library didn’t bat an eye. Well, actually they did, but it was more at the idea of such a young person checking out such a large book. No one mentioned the contents. Oh my GOD that book is total smut. It’s like a 1000-page Penthouse Forum letter. Gotta admit I got my “one-handed reading” wings on that one.
An individual library could choose to prohibit their computers from being used to view pornography. They could enforce their decision by means of a filter or by personal observation. Suppose your public library made this choice. Would that be censorship? Sure. Would it violate the 1st Amendment? Of course not. Public Libraries can choose what material to provide, even though they’re governmental entities.
Similarly, the US may choose to donate money only to libraries that prevent the viewing of porn. There’s not a first amendment violation. (I think it’s a tenth amendment violation, but that’s a lost battle.)
Note that the American Library Association doesn’t object to the government prohibiting porn. They think it’s OK for their members to do so. They just don’t like some other governmental entity telling their member’s governmental entity what to do.
And if it offends you, they put up a screen. Maybe I don’t have internet service at home. Maybe as a nice Jewish boy I’d be offended by your child looking up Nazis for a school report, and they’d put up a screen for me. But then, I’d try not to look over his shoulder.
Or as I’ve already mentioned (see above) – have a separate viewing room. In the back somewhere - away from the kids. The question than becomes – is this what libraries are for? So people can come a view free internet porn?
Yeah. Whatcha gunna do about it? Do you have any steps to go from ‘this should not happen’ to ‘these will prevent this from happening’?
Incidentally, I’d like to digress and point out that filters aren’t a way of getting from ‘public porn should not happen’ to 'these will prevent public porn from happening.
Sigh. I could say yes, and we could have an extended debate about repositories of information and porn being information, but I won’t bother. I could bring up that you’re setting a dangerous precedent, and that there is literally no way to stop people from getting porn in public places, and that attempts to do so fail in a non-safe manner, but again I won’t. The ball is in your court. Why shouldn’t libraries be places people can look at free internet porn?
