Internet filters in libraries?

Great Debates
41

carnivorousplant –

No, I personally don’t have a problem with someone looking at Nazi stuff on the internet. That’s me. However - since I live in a community – if those other people are offended, with good reason, by Nazi paraphernalia – I’d modify my behavior. I don’t doubt that Nazi paraphernalia presents a different issue depending on the people you find yourself around and the culture that you live in. In Germany, with her special history, she has laws which prohibit ownership. So - almost all issues come equiped with their own gray areas. By the same token - and to use an example already given – if someone is going to masturbate, typically they’re not going to whip it out in front of grandma with the attitude that “it’s none of her business”– at least not here in the United States, instead they’ll modify their behavior there also.

So - moving into a gray area and away from the main issue just invites me to do likewise in response. Should “patrons” be allowed to masturbate in the library? I’d hope you’ll say “no” – but why “no?” They’re not making physical contact with anyone but themselves. They’re minding their own business. And if “no” - what about watching a hardcore movie without the provided ‘screens’ or backrooms? Forgive me – but I’m having a very difficult time seeing why libraries should provide this service –

So – until it becomes acceptable behavior to view this material in front of children and until the traditional idea of what a library is - is changed, I think CIPA is a good idea. I really doubt there is a section of the country where either exposing children to pornography or changing the proper use of a library to include viewing pornography has been accepted.

42

No, that’s called indecent exposure.

You cannot decide what is pornography for others. Nor may I.

What makes your ideas better than mine? You might decide that Botecelli’s (sp) Detail of Flora is pornographic.

43

Okay, Tigers, let’s concede that libraries should not permit the viewing of pornography.

Let’s further assume that they have an affirmative responsibility (as many do from their charters) “to promote the free and open dissemination of information” and amend this with the phrase, “non-pornographic.” In other words, if it’s not porn, it’s the library’s responsibility to make it available to the public on request, subject to any economic or availability constraints that might exist. In other words, they have no onus to spend 30% of the library’s budget to obtain copies of manuscripts in Old Dalmatian kept in the Dubrovnik Museum – but if they can offer Internet access to information, or obtain it by interlibrary loan, they have an affirmative duty to do so.

Now, how precisely do you suggest that they honor that duty, bearing in mind the complaint that occasioned this thread in the first place – that the filters now in existence restrict access to non-pornographic material in their efforts to filter out porn.

Bluntly, I’m tired of arguing with you about pornography – this thread is not and never was about pornography but about the problems that “porn filters” cause to people accessing other matrial. The burden is now on you, should you choose to accept it, to explain how the libraries are going to carry out their duty to make non-porn material available to their clientele.

44

Polycarp –

As already stated in the posts above, including mine, the adult patron only needs to request that the filter be turned off. The court’s opinion indicated that filters could be unblocked upon request and “without significant delay.” In fact, libraries probably should provide notice at each terminal that a filter is on and will be turned off upon request. Now the fact that the filters will be turned off at the request of an adult without substantial delay is one of the facts that the decision rests upon. Now I suppose you side with the SCotUS dissenters in regards to difficulties one can expect when turning off the filters. If so, all I can say there is that if these are not the facts, as the dissenters contend, than I am sure that we will see other court cases argued on those grounds – since it would appear that the court’s majority decision wouldn’t apply to the new / different situation.

On your other point ----- if you want to only talk about the problems associated with internet filters and do that in a vacuum, as if no competing interests exist, than of course, filters lead to the blocking of legitimate information and it certainly isn’t proper absent other interests involved. Get rid of them and you have no argument from me and I doubt you’ll see a debate from anyone here.

45

[
**
[/QUOTE]

QUOTE]*Originally posted by montag01 *
**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. **

Wow. If this is what libraries have reduced themselves to there should be written permission from parents of children requesting a library card that includes an explanation of the sexual services offered by the library. I agree with your position that parents should accompany children to libraries. However, I seriously doubt the majority of parents are aware of the situation that you described.

**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. **

So someone who points out a porn surfer is annoying but having to call the police for a masterbator isn’t.? Again, wow.

**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. **
[/QUOTE]

There is no social reason for a library to be used for sexual gratification. NONE. If the people of Colorado new what was going on you would find yourself in a world of financial hurt. Feel free to prove me wrong by writing to your newspaper in defense (or promotion) of your position.

The argument that is impossible to define porn is nonsense. The courts do it all the time. The fact that there might be a gray area is immaterial. If it is tying up your time, a filter should reduce the interruptions.

46

The difference between an internet site that is pornographic and a book that is pornogrpahic is its much harder to find the book. You can go to any search engine and type in any number of keywrods and easily come up with pornography. You have to know the name of a book and where to find it in order to get your hands on it. Plus there is a difference between written literature and pictures.

      I happen to think this is a wise decision.  I appear to be in the mintory on this board.  Free access to pornography is not what the library is for and as a parent you like to think that at least at the library they are not going to have access to such material.  How is this different than not lending R rated movies to kids at libraries?  I have actually heard that this is not the case in some places and they can get such movies, but I have always thought this was likely the exception and not the rule.  

     If they need access, just turn off the filter.  I don't understand why this is such a sticking point with the librarians.  It's bad that kids might actually have to ASK and EXPLAIN what they are doing to have the filters turned off?  Why is this a problem?   In fact, is it possible under this law for the libraries to actually have th filters installed but just turn them all off if they don't like the law?  Would this put them in jeopardy of losing funding?  

    There can't be a librarian watching every person at all times, so I don't but the argument that the "filter" in place currently, essentially the librarian, is good enough.
47

No, it’s obvious to you folks that nobody would ever go to the library to do anything but look up pornography! :mad:

In several previous posts, I and others have indicated what the filters are blocking that is not pornography under any stretch of the definition – and identified occasions when a person, particularly a teenager, might feel embarrassed at asking that the filter be turned off so that they can access it.

But do, please, proceed with the argument that the library is not for pornography.

And when you (if female) or your wife or mother (if male) dies because a nurse could not get the knowledge she needed to detect breast cancer early, you can feel proud of yourself at having defended the morals of the American library-using public from smut.

And ask any librarian – TVeblen? You watching this thread, by chance? – what happens when you get a group with power to censor – they don’t stop with clearcut pornography; they decide what’s inappropriate for you to read. Like that masterpiece of pornography, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Or I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Or the Harry Potter books.

48

polycarp – I think you’re missing my direct responses to each of your direct questions. First, this issue isn’t one dimensional. Second, my last response was on point and I’ll quote it here -

49

One of the objections to filters in libraries has been somewhat overlooked here.

One of the tenants of democracy in the U.S. has always been local control of local institutions. Most communities have school boards, library boards, park district boards, etc. that set policies for for those institutions, within the bounds of state and federal laws. Most of these boards are elected directly by the people they serve, and some are appointed by the local municipality.

For the Federal Government to say: “All public libraries receiving federal funds must have a policy to prevent minors from being exposed to indecent materials.” is fine. Each board can decide what is indecent, and how best to protect minors from it. If the community disagrees with what they’ve done, they lose their seats on the board at the next election.

But what CIPA says is: “All public libraries receiving federal funds must protect minors from indecent materials by installing internet filters.” It not only dictates the implementation to the local boards, but by specifically requiring internet filters, it wipes out the community’s ability to determine what it finds indecent. What is filtered out is set by the company that wrote the software. These companies hold that information to be proprietary and won’t disclose it.

Personally, I find this to be analogous to a local school board being forced to let a private company set cirriculum and not ever getting the chance to see what’s in it before it hits the classrooms.

Also, on a practical note: what makes anyone think that internet filters are any more effective than spam filters?

50

Of course we can turn the filters off–the level of difficulty depends on the software. The thing is sometimes people may be embarassed to ask us to turn it off for them for reasons that have nothing to do with pornography. A teen may be looking for personal answers to questions related to his/her sexuality–I seriously doubt that he/she would ask us to turn the filter off if the search is blocked. This could even have the added effect of making them feel like what they’re trying to find out about is “bad” because the filter is blocking their access to it.

I believe the wording that was used was that the filters can be turned off for “valid research purposes.” Who am I to determine what constitutes valid research? My job is to provide access to information to the patrons who use our library. Those patrons who view sites that are deemed unsuitable for viewing in a public place by our online policy are asked to close the browser and reread our policy. If the behavior persist, they are asked to leave and their access to the Internet may be suspended. This has worked well for us.

We have some patrons who will report children for playing online games because they find this to be an inappropriate use of the library’s computers, or because they think the kids should be outside playing instead of inside playing computer games, or they should be reading books instead of using the computer. All three of these scenarios have happened at my library recently, by the way. But whatever the case, it’s not that person’s responsibility to make that decision for that child. If you asked ten different patrons what they thought was acceptable Internet use in the library you’d get ten different answers. And while I do agree that viewing porn is not acceptable for a library setting, it’s not something that can easily be turned off–if it were, we wouldn’t be having this debate right now. There are no easy answers but I’ve never thought censorship was the way to go.

51

I agree that it would be better if each community could tweak the filter software so that it is individualized to what the community deems “pornography” as it applies to children. I say “applies to children” since I’m certain you’re not using a standard that was intended to be applied to adults – since children, in any community that I am aware of, can’t pop into the local 7-11 store and purchase a Penthouse just because the community has determined that it is lawful for an adult to purchase. This makes me wonder just how varied that standard would be when children are the viewers. There doesn’t seem to be the wiggle room that your post seems to imply. So, I don’t think the downside of a uniform standard outweighs the benefits to children provided by the CIPA.

52

Tiger2b: So you think that a public library in San Francisco and one in Provo will have the same definition of what is inappropriate for children? As a nation, we can’t even agree on the suitability of Huckleberry Finn.

And what of a library that has separate computer labs for children and for adults? By CIPA the library would have to purchase filters for all of the computers, and then turn off the filters for the adult computers. This is where CIPA’s lack of wiggle room starts costing the local library money and hassle.

53

No I didn’t say the “same definition.” I said it would be better IF communities could tweak the software so that it is individualized to each community. What I DID say is that, as it applies to children, the standard will probably not vary in the way you seemed to suggest. The adult standard for New York City, I assume, is vastly different than the adult standard for Memphis – where prosecutors decided to bring the “Deep Throat” case. I assume (and I only assume here) that there are no real “standards” for children and pornography – but if created they wouldn’t vary the way adult standards do — In short, I doubt that a child is allowed to purchase a Penthouse magazine in either San Francisco OR Provo.

54

Actually, filters have to be present and in use on all library computers with Internet access–I’m assuming this includes staff computers and those in areas other than the children’s room. But I’m sure the FCC will be along real soon to spell it out much more clearly for us all. It’ll be very interesting to see what they come up with. Many libraries have already opted not to receive federal funding in order to aviod filtering.

55

I agree that no library is going to allow children to view Hustler online, but I bet there are plenty who woudn’t want their kids to see the paintings of Reubens or Michelangelo’s David on nudity grounds, and plenty of parents who would be offended if their kids were denied that.