Right to internet porn at the library? (Congressmen, interview, salary)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As most of you know, I am a public librarian - so I'll clear up a few points on this issue for ya.
1. This isn't about "Seattle liberalism," since it is a regulation (or lack thereof) set forth nationally by the American Library Association - oh yeah, and by the US Congress. The public library is for the PUBLIC, and freedom of access laws mandate that no filters or restrictions are to be placed on public Internet lines. If a library is willing to forfeit all federal funding, they are permitted to use filters, otherwise that is simply not allowed. If it were we'd be violating your freedom, which then results in what we call the "digital divide." That basically means people who can't afford computers or Internet at home will be limited in their access, which goes against everything in which the public libraries and US believe. Or do you support institutional and public censorship? Rules are different for children-only accessible computers (most libraries have at least a few of those) and for school/university libraries.
2. If we start restricting one thing that's viewable on a public library, there is a dangerously slippery slope that can be triggered... what if somebody is offended by religious websites, sexual-education materials, gay dating sites, politics, etc? Should we start restricting those too, and how would that be enforced?
3. When a library feels they DON'T want porn to be accessible or publicly viewable on their computers, there are a couple of ways to accomplish that. One is to state that "no filters are in place on our computers, but if another patron is proven to be affected negatively, they can file a complaint which may be enforced at the librarian's discretion. Another method is to offer privacy screens (like a filter-type thing that goes over the monitor) or a private viewing area, where nobody can accidentally catch a glimpse of their computer. That's what we did at my old library, and it pretty much kept everyone happy. My current library hasn't faced this issue since I've worked here, so I'm not really sure what we'd do in that event.
Does this make any sense to you guys now?
OK I somewhat stand corrected. It's not about Seattle liberalism, it's about national liberalism. Although it remains true that SPD in particular runs constant sting operations against local strip clubs and arrests people for basically the same thing, except in windowless, guarded, adults-only buildings, as opposed to in full view of 10-yr-olds. So there is a Seattle angle here.
Why not take all computers and other (largely) entertainment vehicles out of public libraries? No People magazine, no music CDs and no Hollywood DVDs, and no tarot card readings. Just when you thought King County couldn't get any sleazier... - The Dori Monson Show - MyNorthwest.com
Instead give the poor a negative income tax, as suggested by Milton Friedman, and let them spend their entertainment dollars however they see fit, to be enjoyed in private. Problem solved.
OK I somewhat stand corrected. It's not about Seattle liberalism, it's about national liberalism. Although it remains true that SPD in particular runs constant sting operations against local strip clubs and arrests people for basically the same thing, except in windowless, guarded, adults-only buildings, as opposed to in full view of 10-yr-olds. So there is a Seattle angle here.
Public vs private institution, so these two issues are in no way related.
Quote:
Why not take all computers and other (largely) entertainment vehicles out of public libraries? No People magazine, no music CDs and no Hollywood DVDs, and no tarot card readings.
That would eliminate about 75% of our users & circulation, not to mention it would again be violating the right to free access - which includes various forms of entertainment, and has for DECADES in public libraries. When was the last time you went to a library? And are you okay with saying "sorry poor folks; but you can't read anything other than Shakespeare, you can't watch movies or listen to music, and forget about the Internet! Want to apply for a job or college, which only have online applications? Sorry, but you're outta luck because some people think we're only supposed to carry literature."
And what do you deem "entertainment" vs "educational/acceptable" when it comes to reading materials? Is People Magazine somehow bad, while a Louis L'Amour or dime-novel is not? And what about graphic novels aka comic books? Hopefully you see how this can get confusing and censorship-like... and how the Internet in particular serves more purposes than just entertainment.
Anyway, it's simply not gonna happen, especially in this current economic climate - where the libraries are not only fighting to stay alive (and dropping circulation/attendance would kill our funding), but more & more people can't afford those things on their own. What is it with conservatives and hating the poor these days? And if you really want them to better themselves, it really doesn't help to take away access to computers... pretty much the only way to apply for jobs, write resumes, apply for schools & scholarships/grants, and so forth.
Quote:
Instead give the poor a negative income tax, as suggested by Milton Friedman, and let them spend their entertainment dollars however they see fit, to be enjoyed in private. Problem solved.
I do agree with allowing people to view pornography on a library computer, { though who would do it is beyond me } but I think it necessary to have maybe one or two computers in a private area where nobody else could view it inadvertantly. Problem solved.
"I tapped him on the shoulder. I leaned down and asked if he could move. He said, 'I'm almost done. Thirty more seconds.' "
Hey, at least he's quick about it!
FWIW, in all the years I've worked in public libraries, I have never personally witnessed anyone "pleasuring themselves" within public view. I can't say what they do in the bathroom, and we did have a perv expose himself in the children's section once (which led to an arrest)... but I have yet to see anyone sitting at a computer, watching porn and taking care of business right there. Usually they're just looking at non-explicit shots like women in bikinis/lingerie, and leering but not touching. If they were touching or exposing themselves, it WOULD violate our guidelines of use - not to mention the laws of public indecency. So we are not condoning all of that, just allowing people to view whatever they choose to access. But like it was just stated above, for the life of me, I can't figure out why they'd want to do that at a library!
Public vs private institution, so these two issues are in no way related.
Both government policies, so yes they are quite related. In one case it's police policy, and in the other library policy. Both gov't entities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
That would eliminate about 75% of our users & circulation, not to mention it would again be violating the right to free access - which includes various forms of entertainment, and has for DECADES in public libraries. When was the last time you went to a library? And are you okay with saying "sorry poor folks; but you can't read anything other than Shakespeare, you can't watch movies or listen to music, and forget about the Internet! Want to apply for a job or college, which only have online applications? Sorry, but you're outta luck because some people think we're only supposed to carry literature."
So you're telling me that 75% of libary service is entertainment? Wow. Sounds like a great opportunity to slice budget deficits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
And what do you deem "entertainment" vs "educational/acceptable" when it comes to reading materials? Is People Magazine somehow bad, while a Louis L'Amour or dime-novel is not? And what about graphic novels aka comic books? Hopefully you see how this can get confusing and censorship-like... and how the Internet in particular serves more purposes than just entertainment.
As a librarian, you surely realize that libraries have always had to make these distinctions. Libraries can't possibly stock everything in print, so they have to. How many libraries carry 'Hustler' mag? Is it 'censorship-like' if they don't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
Anyway, it's simply not gonna happen, especially in this current economic climate - where the libraries are not only fighting to stay alive (and dropping circulation/attendance would kill our funding), but more & more people can't afford those things on their own. What is it with conservatives and hating the poor these days? And if you really want them to better themselves, it really doesn't help to take away access to computers... pretty much the only way to apply for jobs, write resumes, apply for schools & scholarships/grants, and so forth.
I agree with you that it's 'simply not gonna happen.' But only because of politics. As for 'free access,' again, I would prefer just to give the poor the money with which to buy their own computer and internet, and let them decide privately what is best for them. You want them to have to use an intercessor--namely you. And prop up your gov't job in the process. Now who is 'hating the poor?'
As a librarian, you surely realize that libraries have always had to make these distinctions. Libraries can't possibly stock everything in print, so they have to. How many libraries carry 'Hustler' mag? Is it 'censorship-like' if they don't?'
To use this comparison, if the library carries Hustler magazine, and then refuses to loan it out, yes thats sensorship because the taxpayers have already paid for access.
Who in their right mind would ever think that looking at porn in a PUBLIC library is OK?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The public library is for the PUBLIC, and freedom of access laws mandate that no filters or restrictions are to be placed on public Internet lines. If a library is willing to forfeit all federal funding, they are permitted to use filters, otherwise that is simply not allowed. If it were we'd be violating your freedom, which then results in what we call the "digital divide." That basically means people who can't afford computers or Internet at home will be limited in their access, which goes against everything in which the public libraries and US believe. Or do you support institutional and public censorship? Rules are different for children-only accessible computers (most libraries have at least a few of those) and for school/university libraries.
