Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 31, 2012
Teh Internets A Mother's Crusade to Remove Hardcore Pornography from the Middle of Seattle Libraries
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:11 AM
North Seattle resident Julie Howe sent this email:
To the Editor at The Stranger:
I was at the Lake City Library with my two daughters (7 & 10 years old) at 4:45 on Sunday, January 22, 2012. I left them in the children’s section and went to look through the movie section, where I noticed that a man was watching hard core pornography (including anal penetration & other adult content) on a computer where the screen was facing out into the library. I told the librarian and asked for help in having him move to a more discreet location. She could see the screen from the information desk where we were standing and was sympathetic, but said that the library doesn’t censor content and they can’t be in the business of monitoring what their patrons are doing at any given computer. I then asked the man to please move to another computer. He declined. In the process of this interaction, I didn’t notice that my daughters had wandered over looking for me and one of them saw what was playing on the screen.I have had extensive conversations with the library about this incident as well as with the police and local representatives. The man's right to access constitutionally protected information is fully protected (which I’m not in argument with) but our right not to be inadvertent viewers is not. The library is apologetic, but devoted to its guiding principle of supporting intellectual freedom, and I detected no urgency to ensure that not one more child is exposed to pornography in a Seattle Public Library.
I told the library that I will do my best to get this in the public forum as people need to know what’s going on and the potential risks to them and their children of being exposed to adult content while visiting the library. Please help us have a public discussion on this issue as I am sure that the library can create a safer space for children (and adults) and not infringe on other adults’ right to information.
Sincerely,
Julie Howe
Okay, then, let's have this discussion in a public forum.
"We are not censors," says Seattle Public Libraries spokeswoman Andra Addison. "Pornography is not illegal."
Addison says the issue of porn in the library "occasionally does come up." But the library allows porn: For about a decade now, Seattle has maintained a policy of filtering adult content from computers in the children's portions of the libraries while allowing the full range of constitutionally protected content at the main terminals for adults.
Further, the library computers all have privacy screens that only allow content to be viewed head-on. The risk of inadvertent exposure—by, say, a person walking past and looking over a computer user's shoulder—may be more likely in smaller branches, Addison says, where "there is limited space between the collection and the computers." But library staff don't monitor content and don't see their role as asking a library user to move to a less visible terminal if someone complains.
The concern would be a library user deliberately trying to expose someone to offensive or controversial content against their will by directing their screen at someone else or trying to get their attention. Someone walking by—even in the middle of the library—who is inadvertently exposed doesn't violate that principle, Addison says.
"The minute you start going down the the slippery slope of censoring this or that, some don’t like kids looking at video games and or some people don’t like this political view," Addison says. The library's goal is to let people "access information in a confidential way and without scrutiny. Our rules of conduct are all about monitoring patrons' behavior, not about censoring content."
1
This woman's kids saw anal sex because she took it upon herself to go stand right next to some anal sex!
2
I'm shocked! Who could possibly have guessed that the Stranger would defend perversion and indecency instead of appropriate public bavavior and child welfare?
I'm just stunned, really, since otherwise you guys have the highest journalistic standards.
(Sorry, I forgot. Journalistic standards probably are words too complicated for Stranger writers. Some of you might gently explain the concepts involved to the poor dears.)
I'm just stunned, really, since otherwise you guys have the highest journalistic standards.
(Sorry, I forgot. Journalistic standards probably are words too complicated for Stranger writers. Some of you might gently explain the concepts involved to the poor dears.)
3
I won't address the ethics and morality of the subject, but those privacy filters only work if you're at a severely oblique angle to the screen. At the University branch a few weeks ago I saw a man (from 20 feet away, off to the side a bit) watching footjob porn and lesbian strapon DP action. I wasn't offended by it, just confused as to why a person would want to watch it at a public library. He knew others could see what he was watching.
4
@1
You might remember that there are ways to behave publicly and ways to behave privately. If this deviant wants to spend his nights soiling his computer keyboard watching anal sex on his own computer, it ain't my business. If you want to cuss like a sailor in your home or in a biker bar, have at it.
But you do owe others around you some respect too, or didn't you know that?
You might remember that there are ways to behave publicly and ways to behave privately. If this deviant wants to spend his nights soiling his computer keyboard watching anal sex on his own computer, it ain't my business. If you want to cuss like a sailor in your home or in a biker bar, have at it.
But you do owe others around you some respect too, or didn't you know that?
5
This is definitely a more radical defense of civil liberties than I would have mounted, but it is kind of cool to see an institution take a such a tough stance in favor of freedom.
6
i find seattleblues perverse and indecent. can someone at the stranger please censor him from the comments section? i'm concerned my children will learn some horrible form of ineffective internet sarcasm.
9
@ Seattleblues,
Owing people respect is not a law. It's not in the U.S. Constitution.
Freedom of speech IS a law, it IS in the Constitution.
A public library is forbidden from censoring material. Are you saying you want the government to tell us all what we can and can't do? You want the government to ignore the First Amendment?
Owing people respect is not a law. It's not in the U.S. Constitution.
Freedom of speech IS a law, it IS in the Constitution.
A public library is forbidden from censoring material. Are you saying you want the government to tell us all what we can and can't do? You want the government to ignore the First Amendment?
10
@3, you answered your own question.
There's got to be a middle ground here, where libraries can be differentiated from porn theaters. If he pulled it out and started jerking off, he'd be breaking the law; I don't see how this is any different. You're telling me that you won't censor ANYTHING? What if I want to watch hardcore bondage or whipping or rape porn or snuff porn?
I know -- how about "no computers in libraries"?
There's got to be a middle ground here, where libraries can be differentiated from porn theaters. If he pulled it out and started jerking off, he'd be breaking the law; I don't see how this is any different. You're telling me that you won't censor ANYTHING? What if I want to watch hardcore bondage or whipping or rape porn or snuff porn?
I know -- how about "no computers in libraries"?
11
The ultimate irony: It's legal to play porn in the public library, but illegal to play it at The Eagle.
13
This is usually where common decency would kick in, but that's a pretty foreign concept to the type of person who watches porn in public.
14
I thought it was illegal to expose kids to porn? The other thought I have about this is that the function of libraries is changing drastically. They are becoming community centers more and more. So the argument about not censoring content seems less appropriate.
15
I have a friend who works in the SF public library system and this issue comes up *A LOT*. Libraries are in the business of sharing information and it's impossible to block pornography without restricting access to non-pornographic content. Their solution is to have private computer rooms for people who uh, need them. If a patron complains about someone else's viewing habits, the pornoviewer is asked to move to a private room.
These problems tend to sort themselves out because most people prefer privacy for this sort of thing but there are always going to be some who just don't care. Just one of the many hazards of living in a free society.
These problems tend to sort themselves out because most people prefer privacy for this sort of thing but there are always going to be some who just don't care. Just one of the many hazards of living in a free society.
16
I realize the particulars of censorship can be tricky, but I'd probably come down on the side of not letting people watch porn in the library. It would probably be frowned upon if two people started having anal sex in the library, right?
17
@8, so you think it's cool to sexually molest kids in the library? Because that's what this guy is doing.
18
If you wanna see the powers that be get worked up about something at the library, just try to use your cell phone. They'll pounce on you like a pit-bull on a small child.
19
it's also not against the law to pour soda on books, or to burn them. do they let people do that?
20
We can't just turn the desks around so the screens point toward the wall? Or, where that's impossible, put in a few of those desks that have the screen sunk down below the desktop, with plexiglass and a blinder around the top, so the view is private? That doesn't seem so difficult. This problem has already been solved.
21
As a parent of a nine year old girl, I want to be more sympathetic to this mother's issue, as I often have similar protective instincts, but I just can't bring myself to recommend any substantive changes.
I don't know if the library spokesman put it strongly enough: It is antithetical to the librarian's job to censor and putting them in a "police" role will eventually result in confrontation and probably violence. Even if the library system added training and insurance, I do not believe this would be an appropriate use of resources.
It would also be nice if everyone was reasonable and conscientious. Laws and policy have to deal with the fact that they are not. When it comes to principles, I think freedom beats decency.
Lastly, won't someone please think of the children? Throughout the arc of civilization, most children were exposed somewhat to sex, both from the animals they raised and the adults they shared a single room with. For the most part, people turned out okay. Clearly, this then requires some additional parenting, but last I checked, that was part of the job.
I don't know if the library spokesman put it strongly enough: It is antithetical to the librarian's job to censor and putting them in a "police" role will eventually result in confrontation and probably violence. Even if the library system added training and insurance, I do not believe this would be an appropriate use of resources.
It would also be nice if everyone was reasonable and conscientious. Laws and policy have to deal with the fact that they are not. When it comes to principles, I think freedom beats decency.
Lastly, won't someone please think of the children? Throughout the arc of civilization, most children were exposed somewhat to sex, both from the animals they raised and the adults they shared a single room with. For the most part, people turned out okay. Clearly, this then requires some additional parenting, but last I checked, that was part of the job.
22
I get that the SPL is taking a hard (snicker) stance on freedom of speech, but it strikes me that this dude - and to grossly generalize - most men (are there women who do this? I'd bet not) who watch porn in public where they know they can't whip it out and jerk off are doing this to express some kind of fetish around shocking the people around them.
Fetishists who take pictures of women in dressing rooms are invading privacy. Foot fetishists who stare at other people's feet on the bus are within their rights, but creepy. I'd say this falls somewhere between the two - not explicitly invading privacy, but something more publicly harmful than foot-looking.
Being a stalwart of free speech is awesome - but there must be a compromise that a sane community can come up with. Right?
Fetishists who take pictures of women in dressing rooms are invading privacy. Foot fetishists who stare at other people's feet on the bus are within their rights, but creepy. I'd say this falls somewhere between the two - not explicitly invading privacy, but something more publicly harmful than foot-looking.
Being a stalwart of free speech is awesome - but there must be a compromise that a sane community can come up with. Right?
23
I have to work in the library at least once a week for my job, and I can't tell you the number of times creepy mouth-breathing older dudes are clicking through endless amounts of porno on their laptops. While the main public-access computer have privacy screens, private laptops don't. IT FUCKING SUCKS. I've finally been able to find some quiet desks on the 9th floor where no one goes, but jesus christ public-porn-watching-people, have you no shame? Answer: obviously not.
24
I don't detect a whole lot of urgency on the mom's part to make sure she knows what her kids are up to. Sounds like she was too busy being a busybody about what somebody else was using the library computers for to keep an eye on her kids. A little personal responsibility goes a long way lady, and that doesn't mean expecting the rest of the world to work the way you want it to.
26
[no sarcasm intended]I love Seattle.[/nsi] I'll bet in some small town in the south right now they're discussing whether swear words should be allowed in books at their library.
Your kids are in a public place, where that same guy is allowed to have porn printed on his t-shirt while talking to his friend about his sex life. Freedom can be messy, but I'll take it anyway.
Your kids are in a public place, where that same guy is allowed to have porn printed on his t-shirt while talking to his friend about his sex life. Freedom can be messy, but I'll take it anyway.
27
@9
The first amendment grants people like the author of this article the right to express an unpopular (with most people) advocacy of pornography watching in front of other peoples kids in a public library.
It grants the right for this deviant watching porn to verbally disagree if asked to stop doing so out of respect to other patrons of the library, particularly children.
It grants the right of the producer of the porn or some other agent to make it available on the internet.
It does not grant a right to endanger or ruin public spaces at public expense (since taxpayers paid for the computer, the building in which it sits and the internet connection the pervert is viewing his porn on) for other people.
Basically, this is a perfect example of the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' exception to the first amendment.
The first amendment grants people like the author of this article the right to express an unpopular (with most people) advocacy of pornography watching in front of other peoples kids in a public library.
It grants the right for this deviant watching porn to verbally disagree if asked to stop doing so out of respect to other patrons of the library, particularly children.
It grants the right of the producer of the porn or some other agent to make it available on the internet.
It does not grant a right to endanger or ruin public spaces at public expense (since taxpayers paid for the computer, the building in which it sits and the internet connection the pervert is viewing his porn on) for other people.
Basically, this is a perfect example of the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' exception to the first amendment.
30
@26
Yep. Before I left for Italy I had some family business in Missouri. For 3 wonderful days I heard not one single swear word in public. I heard not one conversation over a cell phone in an elevator about that persons sex life. Not one bunch of loud mouthed mouth breathing adolescents ran down the road with a stereo you could hear 4 miles away.
Seattle could learn a thing or two from these good folks. Just because you have the freedom to ruin public spaces for others doesn't mean you have the obligation to do so.
Yep. Before I left for Italy I had some family business in Missouri. For 3 wonderful days I heard not one single swear word in public. I heard not one conversation over a cell phone in an elevator about that persons sex life. Not one bunch of loud mouthed mouth breathing adolescents ran down the road with a stereo you could hear 4 miles away.
Seattle could learn a thing or two from these good folks. Just because you have the freedom to ruin public spaces for others doesn't mean you have the obligation to do so.
31
@27 You said "Basically, this is a perfect example of the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' exception to the first amendment."
Uh, no. The Schenck case makes clear there has to be a clear and present danger. "Uh noes kids might see seks" doesn't cut it.
Uh, no. The Schenck case makes clear there has to be a clear and present danger. "Uh noes kids might see seks" doesn't cut it.
33
And yet a Seattle Public Library user requires a librarian's assistance to borrow Alison Bechdel's Fun Home.
34
@19 I'm pretty sure destroying someone else's property is illegal. If you want to burn or pour soda on your own books, sure that's legal, but I don't think that's what you meant.
35
interesting. and i see seattleblah is back with his pathetic moral outrage.
basically, this is an awesome story of free speech. you'd think that in most cases asking the guy to move where children arent in line with your screen would work.
but if people are watching hardcore porn in public and you are worried about kids, maybe the solution is to have the childrens area not so close to the computers. anyway there are lots of ways to resolve this without filtering legal content.
it is an amazing story though. would like to see someone go to the library and photograph the people who watch porn in public. would make for an interesting gallery.
basically, this is an awesome story of free speech. you'd think that in most cases asking the guy to move where children arent in line with your screen would work.
but if people are watching hardcore porn in public and you are worried about kids, maybe the solution is to have the childrens area not so close to the computers. anyway there are lots of ways to resolve this without filtering legal content.
it is an amazing story though. would like to see someone go to the library and photograph the people who watch porn in public. would make for an interesting gallery.
37
Seattleblues, you have a weird definition of mouth breathers. I guess my assumption would be that one of the most educated, literate cities in the country could probably teach Missouri a lot, rather than the other way around.
But if Branson is your cup of tea, please don't let the door hit you on the way out.
But if Branson is your cup of tea, please don't let the door hit you on the way out.
39
So I'm at the library, researching the frequency of condom use in pornography for my article in the JAMA, when some crazy woman comes up and starts yelling at me. Then I notice her kids all squeezing in behind me within the small viewable area to watch before I can hit the power button on the monitor.
Some people really should learn to control their kids.
Some people really should learn to control their kids.
40
Now in Baltimore, they do filter the internet at the library because it's a requirement if the library uses federal money to fund it's internet access.
Should libraries be required to filter graphic violence? I've seen all kinds of bloody violence on prime-time television. CSI, Law and Order, etc. Should the library stop people from watching the online episodes of violent network TV? What about R rated movies? Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? The Passion of the Christ? Should those be censored for the sake of the children?
Who gets to draw the line?
Should libraries be required to filter graphic violence? I've seen all kinds of bloody violence on prime-time television. CSI, Law and Order, etc. Should the library stop people from watching the online episodes of violent network TV? What about R rated movies? Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? The Passion of the Christ? Should those be censored for the sake of the children?
Who gets to draw the line?
41
I was wondering why so many comments in so little time, but of course it's Seattleblues, showing his true, unAmerican colors. (Also, an opportunity to try to show that he's smart, yet demonstrating, as is usual, the opposite - this isn't "fire in a crowded theater," as the only panic it causes is a moral one.)
42
It must REALLY suck to advocate a world view which requires defending public indecency so passionately.
Seriously, I feel really badly for you guys.
@32
By the Supreme Court? They do so in upholding public nuisance laws, like noise ordinances and so on.
Or didn't you know that?
Seriously, I feel really badly for you guys.
@32
By the Supreme Court? They do so in upholding public nuisance laws, like noise ordinances and so on.
Or didn't you know that?
43
@20 "This problem has already been solved."
You really want to pay for that? Are you whipping out your checkbook or just mentally cutting services?
You really want to pay for that? Are you whipping out your checkbook or just mentally cutting services?
46
@ 42, what really sucks is being someone who thinks sex is "indecent." I wonder what you have to do when the sexual urge rises in you - something not natural, I'm positive.
47
I'm with @22. It seems like for many people who watch porn in public, the public part is what matters. As Dan says, involving other people in your sex life, against their wishes, is not okay.
48
I love anal penetration porn as much as the next faggot, but at the library? Yeesh, ought to be a law. I don't think freedom of expression is incompatible with basic standards of decency.
50
@ Fnarf, there's no such thing as "snuff porn." You're too smart to have to resort to emotional arguments - don't do it.
51
@19 - it is against the law to pour soda on or burn the library's books, because that is destruction of another's property. Pour soda on and burn your own books all you like.
52
Hey, you posted while I was posting!
@ 49, the answer is better privacy screens.
The library is in the right here. Freedom of speech trumps freedom from being offended.
@ 49, the answer is better privacy screens.
The library is in the right here. Freedom of speech trumps freedom from being offended.
53
Well.
We ARE Skipping to Gommorah!
So this is just par for the course.
And mom should get used to it.
The next step will be for vagrants in the library to grab up her children and sodomize them.
(with the assent of the enlightened openminded staff, of course...)
That's how they did it in Gommorah, after all.....
We ARE Skipping to Gommorah!
So this is just par for the course.
And mom should get used to it.
The next step will be for vagrants in the library to grab up her children and sodomize them.
(with the assent of the enlightened openminded staff, of course...)
That's how they did it in Gommorah, after all.....
54
@46
"What really sucks is being someone who thinks sex is "indecent."
Uhh, who said that?
I think sex is wonderful between two people who care about each other. Or if you're a liberal an itch scratched in the trash strewn alley behind the bar with...Jill? Amanda? Who cares, you won't ever see her again, amiright bro?
I don't think it either desirable or appropriate to have sex with my wife in public. I don't think it respectful of her or our relationship. I don't think it respectful of others around us. Plus it's kind of illegal I'd guess.
And I don't think it's appropriate to use a public facility to expose others to your sexual urges online.
"What really sucks is being someone who thinks sex is "indecent."
Uhh, who said that?
I think sex is wonderful between two people who care about each other. Or if you're a liberal an itch scratched in the trash strewn alley behind the bar with...Jill? Amanda? Who cares, you won't ever see her again, amiright bro?
I don't think it either desirable or appropriate to have sex with my wife in public. I don't think it respectful of her or our relationship. I don't think it respectful of others around us. Plus it's kind of illegal I'd guess.
And I don't think it's appropriate to use a public facility to expose others to your sexual urges online.
55
anybody surfing porn in the library in full view of other patrons deserves a beating. WTF is wrong with people? I'm all for porn and understand it is the primary purpose of the internet, but this is beyond the pale.
56
@49, he was not showing porn to children, or molesting them for that matter. He was watching legal porn in a legal place to watch porn, and the kids came up and looked over his shoulder, because their own mother drew attention to the situation.
My vote is that if you know this is the library's policy, and you think accidentally seeing a few seconds of porn is going to destroy your kids, then don't let your kids leave the childrens' section where the computers have blocks on them. Problem solved.
My vote is that if you know this is the library's policy, and you think accidentally seeing a few seconds of porn is going to destroy your kids, then don't let your kids leave the childrens' section where the computers have blocks on them. Problem solved.
57
@ 54, viewing porn isn't having sex. That's why your comparison fails.
As I said, better screens are the solution.
As I said, better screens are the solution.
60
@52 - OK, what if a guy decides to use his own, personal laptop, and park his ass right in front of the 5th avenue entrance with the screen facing the revolving doors? Should they just put a blanket over him?
61
SeattleBlues is not an old, dreary, religious housewife? Really? I do not picture a man of any sort while reading those comments. Might be sexist, but true.
62
"or if you're a liberal an itch scratched in the trash strewn alley behind the bar"
Right, cause conservatives are ever so upright with their sexuality. How many affairs has Swingrich had? How many conservative youth pastors have diddled little boys? How many closeted Republican congressmen have turned out to be hypocrites?
Right, cause conservatives are ever so upright with their sexuality. How many affairs has Swingrich had? How many conservative youth pastors have diddled little boys? How many closeted Republican congressmen have turned out to be hypocrites?
63
Go here to comment on this issue to the Seattle Public Library: http://www.spl.org/about-the-library/con…
65
@56, the library is not an adult space, it is a public space. Children are welcome in all parts of the library.
If I was walking down the street and showing porn to kids on the sidewalk, I'd be in jail in sixty seconds, probably with some fresh head wounds.
These people are in fact getting off on watching hardcore porn -- not just "sex" but the whole gamut, from anal to torture porn -- in a public space. The fact that other people can see them is the thrill. This isn't "free speech", it's the freedom to assault your neighbors with impunity.
If I was walking down the street and showing porn to kids on the sidewalk, I'd be in jail in sixty seconds, probably with some fresh head wounds.
These people are in fact getting off on watching hardcore porn -- not just "sex" but the whole gamut, from anal to torture porn -- in a public space. The fact that other people can see them is the thrill. This isn't "free speech", it's the freedom to assault your neighbors with impunity.
66
Fnarf, you have a long history of calling other people "scolds," of disdaining "what about the children" arguments, and here you are, doing just that.
67
I'm not usually one for slippery-slope arguments, but it's a tiny step from watching porn in a library with children watching by, to just kinda beckoning to one of those kids walking by, with an almost imperceptible nod of the head, as if to say, "hey kid, get a load of this." The kind of people who have so little sense of decent boundaries as to do the former have a big overlap with the kind of people who do the latter, so there are probably plenty already kind of thinking about how they'd like to slide down that slope. We SLOGgers are such knee-jerk libertarians, me included, but come on, can't we call a creep a creep when read about one?
It tears me up inside to agree about _anything_ with Seattleblues (speaking of creeps) and I'm guessing a lot of commenters on this thread are more reacting against something he said (normally a sound instinct) rather than giving this any real thought. Let's not act like the stupid rightwing talk show hosts whose first (and only) instinct is to say "yes" anytime Obama says "no", and vice versa. It makes them look like idiots.
It tears me up inside to agree about _anything_ with Seattleblues (speaking of creeps) and I'm guessing a lot of commenters on this thread are more reacting against something he said (normally a sound instinct) rather than giving this any real thought. Let's not act like the stupid rightwing talk show hosts whose first (and only) instinct is to say "yes" anytime Obama says "no", and vice versa. It makes them look like idiots.
68
@29 - To be fair, if they just started breathing out of their noses I would have much less of a problem. But they (usually one particular guy) insists on sitting right next to the books I need to review. And walking by him you always get a glimpse of the slimey, engorged dicks shooting wads of come to and fro on his laptop screen. CREEPS! I hate them.
And one particular time, he had his porn DVD case out on the table (something like Cum Guzzling Teen Sluts 14 or something) just in case everyone wanted to know what he was watching without having to see his screen. I really don't like that man.
And one particular time, he had his porn DVD case out on the table (something like Cum Guzzling Teen Sluts 14 or something) just in case everyone wanted to know what he was watching without having to see his screen. I really don't like that man.
69
@67,
It's not just a matter of those creeps not having boundaries. Like Fnarf said, the *point* of it is to force their sexuality on other people. It's not that they don't have boundaries, it's that they get off on violating the boundaries of others.
It's not just a matter of those creeps not having boundaries. Like Fnarf said, the *point* of it is to force their sexuality on other people. It's not that they don't have boundaries, it's that they get off on violating the boundaries of others.
70
Sounds like the guy in question was demonstrating the same behaviour as any of the other patrons using any of the other computers. He was sitting there looking at the screen. His behaviour was not tantamount to, as others have suggested, masturbation, having anal sex in public, or child molestation. Porn is a series of flickering images. If you don't like those images, don't look. If you don't want your kids watching porn, supervise them.
71
@42
You're absolutely right. It does suck, and it would be great if people like you took complicated positions on issues like these once in a while instead of working yourselves into some towering sense of moral outrage. Do you have any idea how easy it is to do that? I would love to just let loose and condemn everything I deem offensive, and I say this as a parent. Unfortunately to live in a society that actually values freedom requires a level head... rather than to just pay freedom lackluster and dangerous lip-service the way you do.
You're absolutely right. It does suck, and it would be great if people like you took complicated positions on issues like these once in a while instead of working yourselves into some towering sense of moral outrage. Do you have any idea how easy it is to do that? I would love to just let loose and condemn everything I deem offensive, and I say this as a parent. Unfortunately to live in a society that actually values freedom requires a level head... rather than to just pay freedom lackluster and dangerous lip-service the way you do.
72
@61 My theory is that Seattle Blues is actually a Stranger Staffer. His comments sound like Paul Constant parodying a conservative.
73
No worries, I'll just tell my kids that sticking cocks in asses and selling it in feces is a guaranteed way to get sick and die a gruesome death.
You can then blame Reagan for your stupidity!
You can then blame Reagan for your stupidity!
74
"Their solution is to have private computer rooms for people who uh, need them"
Great. Next we'll have state funded tissues issued to these hobo-sexuals.
Great. Next we'll have state funded tissues issued to these hobo-sexuals.
75
@ 67, I don't know if you're a parent, but I am, and these days very few of us let kids (especially those under 10) go anywhere by themselves. Also, we do a pretty good job teaching them not to talk to strangers. Does that mean that your scenario (that library pervs are trolling for children to molest) is impossible? No, but it's uncommon enough to be regarded as unrealistic.
76
I work in a public library - one which forbids porn-watching on the computers, a policy which we enforce by asking people to stop, and banning repeat offenders. It's not an easy issue. Some people watch porn in public, including near children, because they get off on watching porn in public - also jerking off to it. Libraries, unsurprisingly, attract molesters because we have large collections of unsupervised kids. We also provide some of the only places some teens can see explicit material, and safe/accessible places to surf porn on your laptop during your lunch hour. There are a number of solutions tried by different libraries - privately located terminals and seating spaces works for those who want privacy, not so much for those who are getting off on others seeing what they do. Making the most prominent computers filtered, while the others are open, is another strategy (but technically complex for the averagely funded library). I didn't agree with the no-porn policy when I started, and I still oppose in policy discussions (someone has to!) but I must admit I struggle with how to juggle it all. People needing to do a job application should be able to do that without cleaning cum off the keyboard first.
We have a policy on the screens which asks people to use their own judgement in thinking about other people when using machines, and what might be reasonable to make the space accessible to others. We list a couple of dot points - including what can be seen on the screen (graphic violence as well as porn is an issue); the fact the library has limited bandwidth (so bit-torrenting all day is a wee bit inconsiderate); and keeping the machine reasonably clean. I'd rather have this atmosphere in the library - people act like this is a community. But then, I'd like all our skirted patrons to wear underwear too ;)
More...
We have a policy on the screens which asks people to use their own judgement in thinking about other people when using machines, and what might be reasonable to make the space accessible to others. We list a couple of dot points - including what can be seen on the screen (graphic violence as well as porn is an issue); the fact the library has limited bandwidth (so bit-torrenting all day is a wee bit inconsiderate); and keeping the machine reasonably clean. I'd rather have this atmosphere in the library - people act like this is a community. But then, I'd like all our skirted patrons to wear underwear too ;)
77
@30:
So, why didn't you stay? From the sounds of it, you'd be much happier there, and we'd be much happier having you there - win-win all around.
Personally, I prefer living in a place where people are free to exercise their Constitutional Rights, even if they do occasionally offend others, rather than feeling they must constantly censor themselves for whatever reason. Suppression of normal human behaviors simply isn't a healthy way to live, and at the very least, I'd rather see people presenting their true selves to the world than engaging in a form of social duplicity simply because it makes those around them feel less uncomfortable. Simply put: YOUR comfort is not MY responsibility.
Additionally, I don't want my taxpayer dollars spent on telling me - or anyone else for that matter - that they must refrain from engaging in perfectly legal activities, even if those activities go against the prevailing tide of other's personal sensibilities, because frankly, everyone is offended at something, and once you start making exceptions for this or that, well that slippery slope descends pretty quickly.
Personally, I think people who watch porn in a public library are a little "off", if you know what I mean; they've got some sort of exhibitionist fetish, but they're just too timid to put themselves in the role of the actor on the screen, because they know full well that would cross a line, and they could then be dealt with accordingly. The only way to really discourage them in situations like this is to deny them the thing they crave most: attention. The mother, while certainly reacting in an understandable manner, nevertheless is simply encouraging this type of behavior by engaging is such a public spectacle; and with the unintended consequence of actually exposing her kids to the very thing she wanted them to avoid seeing in the first place.
Probably SPL could do more in terms of limiting exposure to potentially offensive, albeit legally protected, activities, and I don't think it's inappropriate to encourage them to do so at every opportunity, which I think is where the mom is trying to go here. But, hopefully, this experience has also taught her a valuable lesson: that she has to accept the fact that there will always be assholes who will make a point of exercising their full, legal, and Constitutionally protected rights in the public sphere, even if that means others will find that exercise in some way, shape or form personally offensive.
Just remember: offending people isn't a crime. If it were, SB would have been locked up and had the key thrown away ages ago...
More...
So, why didn't you stay? From the sounds of it, you'd be much happier there, and we'd be much happier having you there - win-win all around.
Personally, I prefer living in a place where people are free to exercise their Constitutional Rights, even if they do occasionally offend others, rather than feeling they must constantly censor themselves for whatever reason. Suppression of normal human behaviors simply isn't a healthy way to live, and at the very least, I'd rather see people presenting their true selves to the world than engaging in a form of social duplicity simply because it makes those around them feel less uncomfortable. Simply put: YOUR comfort is not MY responsibility.
Additionally, I don't want my taxpayer dollars spent on telling me - or anyone else for that matter - that they must refrain from engaging in perfectly legal activities, even if those activities go against the prevailing tide of other's personal sensibilities, because frankly, everyone is offended at something, and once you start making exceptions for this or that, well that slippery slope descends pretty quickly.
Personally, I think people who watch porn in a public library are a little "off", if you know what I mean; they've got some sort of exhibitionist fetish, but they're just too timid to put themselves in the role of the actor on the screen, because they know full well that would cross a line, and they could then be dealt with accordingly. The only way to really discourage them in situations like this is to deny them the thing they crave most: attention. The mother, while certainly reacting in an understandable manner, nevertheless is simply encouraging this type of behavior by engaging is such a public spectacle; and with the unintended consequence of actually exposing her kids to the very thing she wanted them to avoid seeing in the first place.
Probably SPL could do more in terms of limiting exposure to potentially offensive, albeit legally protected, activities, and I don't think it's inappropriate to encourage them to do so at every opportunity, which I think is where the mom is trying to go here. But, hopefully, this experience has also taught her a valuable lesson: that she has to accept the fact that there will always be assholes who will make a point of exercising their full, legal, and Constitutionally protected rights in the public sphere, even if that means others will find that exercise in some way, shape or form personally offensive.
Just remember: offending people isn't a crime. If it were, SB would have been locked up and had the key thrown away ages ago...
78
THE CHILDREN THINK OF THE CHILDREN! I'm so sick of parents looking to society to take care of their children. If you're SEXUAL enough to have children, you're sexual enough to take care of them yourself.
What are the "potential risks" to children? That they will have sex like Mommy and Daddy?
What are the "potential risks" to children? That they will have sex like Mommy and Daddy?
79
@ 72, that's what they used to say about Loveschild and Ecce Homo. It's what they'll say about the next annoying and highly active right wing troll, and the one who comes after that one.
81
I would rather have to watch kids with greater care than give social conservatives a say in what one can and can't have in any library.
82
As a woman it would make me feel unsafe to have men watching porn at the library. It would infringe on my ability to access resources. Luckily in Canada we haven't lost our damn minds and have what we up here call a "sign" enforcing a "policy" of no porn on library computers. Jesus Christ you all sound like little children talking about "FREEDOM!" with no thought for social cooperation or, god forbid, respect.
84
How about bitch-killing porn, you know, tie up bitches, rape 'em, cut off their titties, and dance a jig? How about 'black bitches getting raped', ok with me watching that?
85
@66, and you have a long history of missing the point.
I seriously do not understand how anyone could think that viewing porn in a library is a good thing. I suspect it's mostly people who have never been IN a library. The computers are EVERYWHERE now, usually ranked in very close quarters indeed. The libraries are for everyone -- everyone except creeps who think that watching porn in public is awesome. Those creeps should be escorted out, the same as anyone else who can't comtrol their public behavior -- shouting obscenities, shitting on the carpet, ripping up the books. It's not what libraries are for.
I seriously do not understand how anyone could think that viewing porn in a library is a good thing. I suspect it's mostly people who have never been IN a library. The computers are EVERYWHERE now, usually ranked in very close quarters indeed. The libraries are for everyone -- everyone except creeps who think that watching porn in public is awesome. Those creeps should be escorted out, the same as anyone else who can't comtrol their public behavior -- shouting obscenities, shitting on the carpet, ripping up the books. It's not what libraries are for.
86
As much as my knee tends to jerk when thinking about this situation, I'm not going to demand laws to prevent it from happening and infringing on the freedoms we have. This strikes me as a modern, first-world problem--porn being accessible to children in a public place--but really, it isn't. At any time in history, in any culture, you could and did have children exposed to lewd behavior (flashers on street corners, etc). The difference was that communities were tighter knit and more concerned about the group. A beat cop would grab the flasher by the arm and escort him out of the neighborhood. Since you can't legislate every damn thing for every imaginable scenario, deal with it the only other way we can, and the way that has worked forever: community involvement. I don't think anybody disagrees that a person watching porn in public is a skeez, but the disagreement is in how to deal with him. Since shaming didn't work, ostracizing should.
89
"I prefer living in a place where people are free to exercise their Constitutional Rights,"
Unless it's sexist, racist, homophobic, tranniephobic, sizist, agist, dwarfism blah blah so-called 'hate speech' blah blah. Then we need restrictions.
Unless it's sexist, racist, homophobic, tranniephobic, sizist, agist, dwarfism blah blah so-called 'hate speech' blah blah. Then we need restrictions.
90
This has got to be the first time Fnarf and SB are totally in agreement. That doesn't make you the least bit uncomfortable Fnarf? I'm guessing you must have kids as having kids seems to cause many otherwise rational people to have some sort of authoritarian brain hemorrhage. Point is banning porn means censorship and that is the last thing libraries should be in the business of doing.
91
@ 85, Here's a point you're missing: it's a freedom of speech issue. I sure don't think it's a good idea to view porn in public, and nothing I said can be construed as such. Defense of free speech doesn't equal endorsing what's being said.
I take my kids to the library all the time, so I'm likely in a better place to assess this than you. Let's start with our actual experiences. I've never seen anyone viewing porn at the one we go to. It's not one of the bigger ones in the system, which may have something to do with that. Do you see people viewing porn when you go to the library? If yes, are they doing it near the main entrances, or the children's section? If not, just how conspicuous are they being?
Viewing something isn't a "behavior." Whipping it out is, but not just viewing.
I take my kids to the library all the time, so I'm likely in a better place to assess this than you. Let's start with our actual experiences. I've never seen anyone viewing porn at the one we go to. It's not one of the bigger ones in the system, which may have something to do with that. Do you see people viewing porn when you go to the library? If yes, are they doing it near the main entrances, or the children's section? If not, just how conspicuous are they being?
Viewing something isn't a "behavior." Whipping it out is, but not just viewing.
92
@ 90, posts like this usually inspire Fnarf to pull out a tired WC Fieldsism about children. I think he's now using them as a shield to cover his own discomfort.
93
@85 - agreed.
Can't we all just agree that watching porn in a public library is really, really, really fucking nasty?
Can't we all just agree that watching porn in a public library is really, really, really fucking nasty?
94
@85: "I seriously do not understand how anyone could think that viewing porn in a library is a good thing."
A value-laden argument. Research purposes, the difficulty in narrowing down what separates a naked lady, eroticism from hardcore pornography without "I know it when I see it" bullshit community standards.
Nobody is *encouraging* porn as you seem to be suggesting. Many of us believe it should be tolerated, the issue is in narrowing down when it shouldn't, and how to codify this.
A value-laden argument. Research purposes, the difficulty in narrowing down what separates a naked lady, eroticism from hardcore pornography without "I know it when I see it" bullshit community standards.
Nobody is *encouraging* porn as you seem to be suggesting. Many of us believe it should be tolerated, the issue is in narrowing down when it shouldn't, and how to codify this.
95
I'm kinda used to having porn restricted to consenting adult venues. As a porn consumer myself, I don't think it's overly restrictive of free speech to isolate its display from the general population. Heck, we even accept MPAA age rating restrictions on "serious" movies.
I think it's overly simplistic of the library to simply throw up their hands and say "free speech." I think they have more responsibility than that to come up with a better solution.
I think it's overly simplistic of the library to simply throw up their hands and say "free speech." I think they have more responsibility than that to come up with a better solution.
97
@95: "I think it's overly simplistic of the library to simply throw up their hands and say "free speech." "
Why should librarians NOT be concerned about slippery slope? States are CONSTANTLY trying to demand that they install terrible internet filtering software that bans sites on breast cancer and the like.
Why should librarians NOT be concerned about slippery slope? States are CONSTANTLY trying to demand that they install terrible internet filtering software that bans sites on breast cancer and the like.
99
@77
Why didn't I stay? Salt water sailing, snow skiing, and high mountain hiking and backpacking are good reasons. All my extended family living in Washington State is a better one. The fact that I live in a smaller town northeast of Seattle where people are halfway sane works too.
Yeah, the Puget Sound region is politically screwy. Sure, the traffic and noise if you're foolish enough to go into Seattles downtown is enough to drive someone bonkers. The hobos on every corner taking shifts to beg for money don't help.
But for natural beauty you really can't beat Washington State, and I say that as someone who's seen a pretty fair whack of the world as a younger guy.
FYI, the dream world you describe exists in fact. To see it, go to the Woodland Park Zoo and watch a band of Chimpanzees in action.
Why didn't I stay? Salt water sailing, snow skiing, and high mountain hiking and backpacking are good reasons. All my extended family living in Washington State is a better one. The fact that I live in a smaller town northeast of Seattle where people are halfway sane works too.
Yeah, the Puget Sound region is politically screwy. Sure, the traffic and noise if you're foolish enough to go into Seattles downtown is enough to drive someone bonkers. The hobos on every corner taking shifts to beg for money don't help.
But for natural beauty you really can't beat Washington State, and I say that as someone who's seen a pretty fair whack of the world as a younger guy.
FYI, the dream world you describe exists in fact. To see it, go to the Woodland Park Zoo and watch a band of Chimpanzees in action.
100
To paraphrase Louis CK, oh no, you might have to actually talk to your horrible fucking kids about what they saw on that monitor! No wonder you want to censor other people!
101
Fnarf, I object to people looking at Religious Web sites, I consider it Pornography and vile content. Religion has a current history of Child abuse, murder, hate, war and so on and so forth. Can I have those people escorted out of the Library too for looking at what I consider indecent content?
Where do we draw the line? At what offends children? At what offends Parents? At what offends me?
Where do we draw the line? At what offends children? At what offends Parents? At what offends me?
104
This is probably explains why most Seattle libraries look more like over priced homeless shelters than something actual tax payers can enjoy.
105
@98: I know you've barely graduated middle-school, but college-age students write essays on pornography and its effects, positive and negative.
If you can't imagine why someone might watch pornography for educational purposes and not get off on it, that's your ignorance.
I'm not saying the vast amount watched is for "educational" purposes, I'm saying that there might be a legitimate reason to access smut.
If you can't imagine why someone might watch pornography for educational purposes and not get off on it, that's your ignorance.
I'm not saying the vast amount watched is for "educational" purposes, I'm saying that there might be a legitimate reason to access smut.
108
@99:
Good job there - once again - of completely failing to address the substantive portion of the argument. But then, that's what you're especially good at I've noticed.
And frankly, I consider the WPZ primates far more civilized than many of the inbred, meth-addicted, junior high school dropouts I'm likely to encounter in places like Monroe or Cathcart, or whatever urban-taxdollar-sucking libertarian hickville utopia you live in up there.
Good job there - once again - of completely failing to address the substantive portion of the argument. But then, that's what you're especially good at I've noticed.
And frankly, I consider the WPZ primates far more civilized than many of the inbred, meth-addicted, junior high school dropouts I'm likely to encounter in places like Monroe or Cathcart, or whatever urban-taxdollar-sucking libertarian hickville utopia you live in up there.
109
I don't really think the anti-porn-in-library argument is limited to "think of the children!" I would be uncomfortable if someone next to me in the library was watching porn. Not because I'm offended by porn (I'm not), but because I think that watching porn, in public is a sexual act.
110
"but college-age students write essays on pornography and its effects, positive and negative."
Ok, you find one watching anal porn in a public area of a library and I'll cut off one of my testicles for you and frame it.
Ok, you find one watching anal porn in a public area of a library and I'll cut off one of my testicles for you and frame it.
111
@Fnarf: watching porn in a library is not a "good idea." It is also however, not against the law.
Showing a kid on the sidewalk a pornographic image is NOT the same as watching it on a computer with a screen to help obscure the image in the adult section of the library, and then having a kid walk up and accidentally seeing it.
It just is not the same. Not the same in intention. Not the same in actions. Not the same in outcomes. Not the same legally. In no way the same.
Showing a kid on the sidewalk a pornographic image is NOT the same as watching it on a computer with a screen to help obscure the image in the adult section of the library, and then having a kid walk up and accidentally seeing it.
It just is not the same. Not the same in intention. Not the same in actions. Not the same in outcomes. Not the same legally. In no way the same.
112
Why couldn't we restrict adult content to certain rooms in the library? It's not too much to ask. If your district library doesn't have these rooms, they have to go to central library. If complaints are made, action could be taken to move the offending user to a better location.
Although, I don't want librarians to become jizzmoppers, which is what would happen with free viewing booths. That's just mean.
Is not censorship to restrict viewing to certain areas. It's just common sense. I don't want to know when you're wanking to StileProject, or Playboy, whathaveyou.
Although, I don't want librarians to become jizzmoppers, which is what would happen with free viewing booths. That's just mean.
Is not censorship to restrict viewing to certain areas. It's just common sense. I don't want to know when you're wanking to StileProject, or Playboy, whathaveyou.
113
@ 109, maybe if the person is doing something sexual, like masturbating. But if he's just viewing it? That's like saying someone reading a recipe is actually cooking.
114
Fnarf, I didn't ask rhetorical questions @ 91. I want to know what are your personal experiences with library patrons viewing porn.
115
I'd like to commend the SPL. Clearly they get a lot of flak on their policy, but as a library user I feel very lucky to know they take a hardline stance against censorship.
116
@82 -- I'm a Canadian woman as well. I don't see how someone watching porn at the library would infringe on my ability to access resources, unless I was so horrified at the prospect of someone viewing porn in my general vicinity that I couldn't bring myself to enter the library in the first place. But that would be my problem. Different people are horrified or offended by different scenarios. Being in a library where someone was watching porn wouldn't make me feel unsafe, nor does living in a society where people watch porn.
117
When I worked at the UW Bothell library they had unrestricted internet access and a "we'll relocate you (or just make you stop if no other computers are available) if a patron complains" policy. Which meant staff couldn't tell the pervs to switch computers until a patron spoke to a staff member. It seemed a very reasonable policy to me.
And hey everyone, look at Seattleblues back from his imaginary vacation! Look at him having a reaction to an imaginary stance taken by The Stranger @2! Isn't he a marvel?
And hey everyone, look at Seattleblues back from his imaginary vacation! Look at him having a reaction to an imaginary stance taken by The Stranger @2! Isn't he a marvel?
118
@113. I disagree. Certainly, it's possible to watch porn in the library and have it not be a sexual act (e.g., research, humor). But, if you had to guess, why was the original anal-sex porn-watching guy watching porn? My guess would be for sexual gratification. And, it's certainly possible that his gratification is only heightened by the fact that other people could see what he was doing.
Also... if it's "indecent" if two people would be doing something in the library, why wouldn't it also be indecent to have a video playing of two people doing the same thing? (assuming that people could see the video relatively easily -- I don't have personal knowledge of how easy it would have been for others to see what was on his screen...
Also... if it's "indecent" if two people would be doing something in the library, why wouldn't it also be indecent to have a video playing of two people doing the same thing? (assuming that people could see the video relatively easily -- I don't have personal knowledge of how easy it would have been for others to see what was on his screen...
119
@91 MattFD, I'm a graduate of the UW LIS program and have a number of close friends who work as librarians for SPL, KCPLS and the library at UW. I'm fairly certain that they'd all disagree with you. There are a stable of pervs who are definitely getting their rocks off by letting everyone around them know that they're watching porn. I had a librarian friend tell me that have had to ask patrons to please reign it in when it's been obvious that they're trying to "share" what they're viewing with the rest of the library. The police are only be called if/when someone finally "whips it out," at which point, it's sort of too late anyways. These folks generally know this and try to get as close to the line as they can.
But porn perverts are only the tip of the iceberg in public librarianship. People defacing materials for fun. Restrooms covered in shit-spray. Pee in the stacks. And that's just the Young Adult section at the Fremont branch.
Despite all of this and the responsibility they feel for maintaining a safe, friendly environment for patrons -- especially children, each and every one of my acquaintances who are practicing librarians have told me that they do not believe in filtering. They are the last protectors of open access to information and one of our last truly public spaces.
Librarians are heros. Go hug one today.
Viewing something isn't a "behavior." Whipping it out is, but not just viewing.
@91 MattFD, I'm a graduate of the UW LIS program and have a number of close friends who work as librarians for SPL, KCPLS and the library at UW. I'm fairly certain that they'd all disagree with you. There are a stable of pervs who are definitely getting their rocks off by letting everyone around them know that they're watching porn. I had a librarian friend tell me that have had to ask patrons to please reign it in when it's been obvious that they're trying to "share" what they're viewing with the rest of the library. The police are only be called if/when someone finally "whips it out," at which point, it's sort of too late anyways. These folks generally know this and try to get as close to the line as they can.
But porn perverts are only the tip of the iceberg in public librarianship. People defacing materials for fun. Restrooms covered in shit-spray. Pee in the stacks. And that's just the Young Adult section at the Fremont branch.
Despite all of this and the responsibility they feel for maintaining a safe, friendly environment for patrons -- especially children, each and every one of my acquaintances who are practicing librarians have told me that they do not believe in filtering. They are the last protectors of open access to information and one of our last truly public spaces.
Librarians are heros. Go hug one today.
120
@118: Point is, offering to relocate the person is a better solution. The internet-facing computers aren't in the childrens' section of any library.
"it's certainly possible that his gratification is only heightened by the fact that other people could see what he was doing."
I find this far less likely. If people are forced to perv out at the library, it's because they don't own a computer at home for their prurient interests.
"it's certainly possible that his gratification is only heightened by the fact that other people could see what he was doing."
I find this far less likely. If people are forced to perv out at the library, it's because they don't own a computer at home for their prurient interests.
121
Most American libraries have specifically chosen to operate within the guidelines the ALA has put in place on this matter. They have explicitly refused to place limits on what patrons can view and have identified the attempt to place limits as an unconscionable infringement of first amendment rights. They refuse to try to differentiate between the "artistic merits" of "Basic Instinct", "Nine Songs", or "Juggs and Dog Collars." Where *do* you draw the line? What movies are acceptable for viewing in a library? Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet"? What about the violence in "Pulp Fiction"? Yes, you know porn when you see it, but that's been a piss poor standard since Potter Stewart's Day. Better to err on the side of freedom until you can craft a standard that doesn't involve subjective criteria and vague "community standards." Just because your moral values preclude certain legal acts does not give you the right to impose those values on other people who find those legal acts perfectly acceptable.
If the viewer is flogging his mule or saying "c'mere little girl" that's different, that's a crime, and that's when you call the cops.
So, as a technological matter, is there some sort of filter that could be placed over the screen that would allow viewing only by someone wearing a special set of glasses?
The American Library Association's Freedom to View Statement:
The FREEDOM TO VIEW, along with the freedom to speak, to hear, and to read, is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . In a free society, there is no place for censorship of any medium of expression. Therefore these principles are affirmed:
To provide the broadest access to film, video, and other audiovisual materials because they are a means for the communication of ideas. Liberty of circulation is essential to insure the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.
To protect the confidentiality of all individuals and institutions using film, video, and other audiovisual materials.
To provide film, video, and other audiovisual materials which represent a diversity of views and expression. Selection of a work does not constitute or imply agreement with or approval of the content.
To provide a diversity of viewpoints without the constraint of labeling or prejudging film, video, or other audiovisual materials on the basis of the moral, religious, or political beliefs of the producer or filmmaker or on the basis of controversial content.
To contest vigorously, by all lawful means, every encroachment upon the public's freedom to view.
This statement was originally drafted by the Freedom to View Committee of the American Film and Video Association (formerly the Educational Film Library Association) and was adopted by the AFVA Board of Directors in February 1979. This statement was updated and approved by the AFVA Board of Directors in 1989.
Endorsed January 10, 1990, by the ALA Council
More...
If the viewer is flogging his mule or saying "c'mere little girl" that's different, that's a crime, and that's when you call the cops.
So, as a technological matter, is there some sort of filter that could be placed over the screen that would allow viewing only by someone wearing a special set of glasses?
The American Library Association's Freedom to View Statement:
The FREEDOM TO VIEW, along with the freedom to speak, to hear, and to read, is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . In a free society, there is no place for censorship of any medium of expression. Therefore these principles are affirmed:
To provide the broadest access to film, video, and other audiovisual materials because they are a means for the communication of ideas. Liberty of circulation is essential to insure the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.
To protect the confidentiality of all individuals and institutions using film, video, and other audiovisual materials.
To provide film, video, and other audiovisual materials which represent a diversity of views and expression. Selection of a work does not constitute or imply agreement with or approval of the content.
To provide a diversity of viewpoints without the constraint of labeling or prejudging film, video, or other audiovisual materials on the basis of the moral, religious, or political beliefs of the producer or filmmaker or on the basis of controversial content.
To contest vigorously, by all lawful means, every encroachment upon the public's freedom to view.
This statement was originally drafted by the Freedom to View Committee of the American Film and Video Association (formerly the Educational Film Library Association) and was adopted by the AFVA Board of Directors in February 1979. This statement was updated and approved by the AFVA Board of Directors in 1989.
Endorsed January 10, 1990, by the ALA Council
122
@ 118, others have raised the possibility of research. (Yeah, I'm sure that's less than 0.01% of library porn consumption, with the rest being "sexual gratification."
But what is "sexual gratification?" If someone outwardly is just viewing it - not doing anything, and I do mean anything outwardly to show it - how is that different than, say, if he sees a woman and fantasizes about having sex with her?
It is certainly possible that the person is experiencing a thrill by viewing porn publicly. But if he's not physically showing it? How is that like actually having sex with another person, or even masturbating?
The key is how the person is behaving. I can agree that it's more likely for someone to behave inappropriately while viewing porn than while reading a recipe. But libraries do (or should) have policies in place for that.
What most people here are missing is that it would be very difficult for the library to restrict porn, if it wanted, without it affecting the ability of its patrons to view non-porn content. I've read more than one SLOG post where the author mentions that a reader couldn't access The Stranger from behind some firewall. I think we all know that SLOG and The Stranger sometimes posts R-rated images and tons of swear words, but do you think the net nannies at those places were targeting The Stranger, or porn?
I think there are reasonable measures the library can take so that children and uncomfortable adults are unlikely to see what the perverts are viewing. Adults over 18 shouldn't be allowed to use the computers in the children's section; those computers can have net nanny protection. The adult computers should be someplace distant and out of sight from the children's section and the entrances. Maybe they can be at individual desks, with screens, lined up by the wall with the monitors facing the wall. It would be hard for anyone to accidentally walk behind them.
More...
But what is "sexual gratification?" If someone outwardly is just viewing it - not doing anything, and I do mean anything outwardly to show it - how is that different than, say, if he sees a woman and fantasizes about having sex with her?
It is certainly possible that the person is experiencing a thrill by viewing porn publicly. But if he's not physically showing it? How is that like actually having sex with another person, or even masturbating?
The key is how the person is behaving. I can agree that it's more likely for someone to behave inappropriately while viewing porn than while reading a recipe. But libraries do (or should) have policies in place for that.
What most people here are missing is that it would be very difficult for the library to restrict porn, if it wanted, without it affecting the ability of its patrons to view non-porn content. I've read more than one SLOG post where the author mentions that a reader couldn't access The Stranger from behind some firewall. I think we all know that SLOG and The Stranger sometimes posts R-rated images and tons of swear words, but do you think the net nannies at those places were targeting The Stranger, or porn?
I think there are reasonable measures the library can take so that children and uncomfortable adults are unlikely to see what the perverts are viewing. Adults over 18 shouldn't be allowed to use the computers in the children's section; those computers can have net nanny protection. The adult computers should be someplace distant and out of sight from the children's section and the entrances. Maybe they can be at individual desks, with screens, lined up by the wall with the monitors facing the wall. It would be hard for anyone to accidentally walk behind them.
123
@114, every time I've been to the main library, I've seen creepy men in the stacks with laptops watching porn. At any given moment, there are probably ten porn watchers at the banks of library computers there; it's almost impossible not to see their screens if you want to use one of those computers.
I've also seen porn watchers in the Greenwood branch, where I go sometimes. In fact, I was once accosted by a librarian there and accused of having porn up on my screen at a table right by the front, near the information desk. It was, however, the greasy creepoid at the next table; the understandably upset mother had pointed out the wrong guy.
I agree with Julie in Eugene: watching porn in public is a sexual act.
@97, one of the reasons right-wingers spend so much time trying to block things that upset them in libraries is because we liberals refuse to even countenance common-sense restrictions, insisting that "free speech" includes showing porn to children in the library. Maybe a little reasonableness would take the wind out of their sails.
I've also seen porn watchers in the Greenwood branch, where I go sometimes. In fact, I was once accosted by a librarian there and accused of having porn up on my screen at a table right by the front, near the information desk. It was, however, the greasy creepoid at the next table; the understandably upset mother had pointed out the wrong guy.
I agree with Julie in Eugene: watching porn in public is a sexual act.
@97, one of the reasons right-wingers spend so much time trying to block things that upset them in libraries is because we liberals refuse to even countenance common-sense restrictions, insisting that "free speech" includes showing porn to children in the library. Maybe a little reasonableness would take the wind out of their sails.
124
I work at the library. We are not in the business of censorship. But, you will be happy to know that we ask patrons who view porn in the library to keep both hands visible at all times. Consider this: many people don't own computers, and cannot afford the luxury of viewing hardcore anal penetration on demand in the comfort of their own home, something you and I take for granted.
Guess what? We carry how-to sex guides and books with pictures of hoo-hoos and wee-wees. Should we ban those, too?
If you don't like it, don't look at it. It's a parent's responsibility to protect their children, not mine. If a child comes to the desk and wants to check out Blue Velvet or Eyes Wide Shut, I can't say no just because it's rated R. It's a parent's responsibility to shield their children from sexual content if they so desire.
We provide filtered Internet access in the children's section of every branch, so keep your delicate child in there if you wish to protect them from the perverts and fetishists. Thank you.
Guess what? We carry how-to sex guides and books with pictures of hoo-hoos and wee-wees. Should we ban those, too?
If you don't like it, don't look at it. It's a parent's responsibility to protect their children, not mine. If a child comes to the desk and wants to check out Blue Velvet or Eyes Wide Shut, I can't say no just because it's rated R. It's a parent's responsibility to shield their children from sexual content if they so desire.
We provide filtered Internet access in the children's section of every branch, so keep your delicate child in there if you wish to protect them from the perverts and fetishists. Thank you.
125
@123, without agreeing or disagreeing with you on any other particular point:
When has being reasonable *ever* taken the wind out of a right-winger's sails?
When has being reasonable *ever* taken the wind out of a right-winger's sails?
126
@112:
Well, that's part of the dilemma for the library: if you segregate "adult content" to a specific, closed viewing area, there's absolutely nothing to prevent viewers from engaging in the sort of behavior you really don't want happening in a public library. Keeping it in an open room basically prevents that, even though it also presents the possibility of other patrons inadvertently viewing material that personally offends them. But, I think it's ultimately better to have the person in full-view of library staff, who are then in a better position to monitor their actual behavior, and respond accordingly.
And yeah, nobody's really HAPPY about sitting next to some skeevy guy watching porn at the library, but I'd feel pretty much the same way if they were reading "Mein Kampf", or "The Turner Diaries", or watching a racially offensive Bugs Bunny cartoon, or Al Jolson in blackface; because after all, sex isn't the only thing that offends people.
But, do I have the RIGHT to FORCE the other person to stop watching something they have a legal right to peruse? I can suggest, cajole, & rant in an effort to convince them to stop, or move, or whatever, but if that person chooses not to moderate their viewing in some way that makes ME more comfortable, there's really nothing I can do, short of moving to another location myself.
Well, that's part of the dilemma for the library: if you segregate "adult content" to a specific, closed viewing area, there's absolutely nothing to prevent viewers from engaging in the sort of behavior you really don't want happening in a public library. Keeping it in an open room basically prevents that, even though it also presents the possibility of other patrons inadvertently viewing material that personally offends them. But, I think it's ultimately better to have the person in full-view of library staff, who are then in a better position to monitor their actual behavior, and respond accordingly.
And yeah, nobody's really HAPPY about sitting next to some skeevy guy watching porn at the library, but I'd feel pretty much the same way if they were reading "Mein Kampf", or "The Turner Diaries", or watching a racially offensive Bugs Bunny cartoon, or Al Jolson in blackface; because after all, sex isn't the only thing that offends people.
But, do I have the RIGHT to FORCE the other person to stop watching something they have a legal right to peruse? I can suggest, cajole, & rant in an effort to convince them to stop, or move, or whatever, but if that person chooses not to moderate their viewing in some way that makes ME more comfortable, there's really nothing I can do, short of moving to another location myself.
127
@ 119, I was relating my personal experiences with Fnarf in the hopes of drawing out his own personal experiences. I never alleged that porn consumption must therefore be not happening. On the contrary, my sister is a shelver, and I know two librarians, and they have all related stories about skeevy porn users. BUT... they haven't concluded from these stories that these behaviors constitute a major problem, or suggest that they stop allowing porn access. (They also relate all kinds of other stories, much like what you share.)
Anyway, sounds like you missed the important thing in my remark. All the things you relate are not "just viewing." Just like whipping it out isn't "just viewing."
Anyway, sounds like you missed the important thing in my remark. All the things you relate are not "just viewing." Just like whipping it out isn't "just viewing."
128
@123 Your 'common-sense restrictions' are my censorship. That doesn't sound uncomfortably close the sort of euphemism a self-righteous right-wing prick like SB would use to you? Did you note above that the American Library Association agrees with those of us lacking in that special kind of authoritarian hysteria that people with children often seem to have? A bunch of radicals there, the ALA that is.
129
@123: "I agree with Julie in Eugene: watching porn in public is a sexual act."
What is "porn", and how do you know what it is?
What is "porn", and how do you know what it is?
131
"one of the reasons right-wingers spend so much time trying to block things that upset them in libraries is because we liberals refuse to even countenance common-sense restrictions"
No, it's because we stock pornographic magazines and don't filter the internet in the interest of a false "common sense".
"insisting that "free speech" includes showing porn to children in the library."
Except that's not library policy. There's no need to create straw arguments to knock down.
No, it's because we stock pornographic magazines and don't filter the internet in the interest of a false "common sense".
"insisting that "free speech" includes showing porn to children in the library."
Except that's not library policy. There's no need to create straw arguments to knock down.
132
I have to say, I don't equate "public" with "g-rated, kid friendly."
For me, public means everybody. And in a library, if you are going to isolate a certain demographic, isolate the kids, not the adults. That is why there is a kid section, for parents who want to limit the viewing of kids.
In the article, the mother's kids move from the kids section to the regular section. Instead of asking this man to move from the regular-adult section, she could have told her kids to stay in the kids section. That would have saved her many calls to the police, representatives, and who ever else she called that day.
Why is everybody talking about the man moving or not moving, and no one is talking about the kids keeping to the kids section (which the mother could have easily done).
For me, public means everybody. And in a library, if you are going to isolate a certain demographic, isolate the kids, not the adults. That is why there is a kid section, for parents who want to limit the viewing of kids.
In the article, the mother's kids move from the kids section to the regular section. Instead of asking this man to move from the regular-adult section, she could have told her kids to stay in the kids section. That would have saved her many calls to the police, representatives, and who ever else she called that day.
Why is everybody talking about the man moving or not moving, and no one is talking about the kids keeping to the kids section (which the mother could have easily done).
133
Well, it's late where I am, so I'll thank you all for what you've taught me about how liberals view public indecency.
To wit-
It isn't the guys fault for being a creep in public, it's the kids fault for wandering by the guy being a creep in public.
Or it's the parents fault for daring to take their children to such a dodgy place as the public library.
We should never at any time expect people to behave with any regard for those around them in public places, so long as the letter of the law allows their behavior. We should be able to be loud, vulgar, obscene, rude, pushy or irritating to others, indeed encouraged to be all these things if they are 'who we are.'
The 1st Amendment means that anyone can say or do anything at any time no matter how offensive or tenously connected to actual free expression. (Though even a cursory google search should have disabused a rational person of that particular notion. And consider, the prostitution inherent in porn films would be illegal if they weren't erroneously called 'artistic.')
Most people don't view porn for sexual titillation. No. They view it for education and research. (That't my favorite for unintentionally side splitting. I haven't heard this one since 'I read Playboy/Hustler etc for the ARTICLES. Thanks Undead!)
Having kids makes a person an authoritarian asshole. (Here again, most of us with kids know the opposite to be true. You tend to think much more about your behavior since you have a watching emulating audience at nearly all times, an audience whose behavior is your moral and legal responsibility.)
Libraries aren't a place where a person should be able to take their family or their college textbooks and expect to have a pleasant or educational experience. They're a free floating adult theater paid for by the people who can no longer take their kids to them.
Again, thanks for the insight into the mindset here.
More...
To wit-
It isn't the guys fault for being a creep in public, it's the kids fault for wandering by the guy being a creep in public.
Or it's the parents fault for daring to take their children to such a dodgy place as the public library.
We should never at any time expect people to behave with any regard for those around them in public places, so long as the letter of the law allows their behavior. We should be able to be loud, vulgar, obscene, rude, pushy or irritating to others, indeed encouraged to be all these things if they are 'who we are.'
The 1st Amendment means that anyone can say or do anything at any time no matter how offensive or tenously connected to actual free expression. (Though even a cursory google search should have disabused a rational person of that particular notion. And consider, the prostitution inherent in porn films would be illegal if they weren't erroneously called 'artistic.')
Most people don't view porn for sexual titillation. No. They view it for education and research. (That't my favorite for unintentionally side splitting. I haven't heard this one since 'I read Playboy/Hustler etc for the ARTICLES. Thanks Undead!)
Having kids makes a person an authoritarian asshole. (Here again, most of us with kids know the opposite to be true. You tend to think much more about your behavior since you have a watching emulating audience at nearly all times, an audience whose behavior is your moral and legal responsibility.)
Libraries aren't a place where a person should be able to take their family or their college textbooks and expect to have a pleasant or educational experience. They're a free floating adult theater paid for by the people who can no longer take their kids to them.
Again, thanks for the insight into the mindset here.
134
Even the best liberals, it would seem, have their blind spots. For Goldy, it's selling Old Overholt at the AM/PM. For Fnarf, it's onscreen depictions of buttfucking at the library. Anyone else want to share their illiberal beliefs?
135
Why not just have the SPD stomp on the neck of any person viewing pornography within range of children?
136
go to the library without your kids. if he's there, take his picture, then sweetly inform him it's going on the internet WITH a descriptive caption. it's a public place so it's not against the law. that is, if he still frequents that library after you called him out.
137
@ 133, a misrepresentation all around, and also revealing in that you can't even acknowledge all the liberals who are in full agreement with you. God, admitting that must be worse than poison to you.
138
@133 Define indecency in a way that doesn't just mean whatever you want it to mean. And "everybody knows what it is" is not an acceptable basis for laws or regulations.
139
"Having kids makes a person an authoritarian asshole. (Here again, most of us with kids know the opposite to be true."
Chuckle
Chuckle
141
@116,
There's a very long history of men using porn to harass and shame women, especially in the workplace. Telling those women to just nut it up and forget about the *intent* of using porn to force them out of their jobs and public places is shitty and extremely naive.
There's a very long history of men using porn to harass and shame women, especially in the workplace. Telling those women to just nut it up and forget about the *intent* of using porn to force them out of their jobs and public places is shitty and extremely naive.
142
I agree with SeattleBlues, Fnarf, ryanayr et al and all those who believe this guy's access to hardcore porn at SPL should be restricted. I don't believe it is a violation of the 1st amendment. For SPL, it's more a problem of accomodation, that of the patron that's into porn AND children or anyone else that finds viewing porn uncomfortable. I do believe it should be controlled.
Recall that not too long ago no one under 18 was allowed in a "adult" movie house or a "peep" show. Why? Because it displayed pornography. If these patrons that view pornography have to wait for a station to view pornography so be it. Other patrons have to wait for conventional use as well. They are getting internet access for free.
Recall that not too long ago no one under 18 was allowed in a "adult" movie house or a "peep" show. Why? Because it displayed pornography. If these patrons that view pornography have to wait for a station to view pornography so be it. Other patrons have to wait for conventional use as well. They are getting internet access for free.
143
@142- "Recall that not too long ago no one under 18 was allowed in a "adult" movie house or a "peep" show. "
That hasn't changed.
That hasn't changed.
144
@142 Alright who gets to define porn? If it is SB I would say our library shelves would be pretty bare.
Did you note that those crazy radicals at the American Library Association disagree with your simplistic viewpoint? Are you volunteering to be the arbiter of what constitutes porn?
Did you note that those crazy radicals at the American Library Association disagree with your simplistic viewpoint? Are you volunteering to be the arbiter of what constitutes porn?
147
@75: Yes I do have kids, and indeed I let them live a much more free-range lifestyle than many of their age peers, because I don't especially believe in the ubiquity of child-snatchers. The stats just don't suport that fear. I don't especially worry about these library creeps actually "trolling for kids to molest", any more than most flashers are trolling for people to molest, but, yes, as various people above mentioned, these guys are definitely getting their jollies from the idea that people, and sure, young people, are seeing what they're doing. They're creeps. They know that taking out their own wangs will get them sent to jail, so they wave some else's wang, instead, on their laptops, and have their civil liberties vigorously defended by sloggers. Without doing any dreaded censorship, you could go make them sit in a designated creep corner.
148
There must be some way to discourage creepy guys from watching porn in the library, but I can't guess what it would be. Wish I could, though, because YUCK.
149
Actually, before I go I'll leave you with this gem from one of those posting, and an apology.
Some of you do seem to get that when we're in public we do owe others courtesy and respect. Some of you get that watching porn in an environment frequented by kids is a very bad idea. So for lumping everyone together in 133 I do apologize.
For the rest of you, you might get a charity together for the sufferers mentioned in 124. "Consider this: many people don't own computers, and cannot afford the luxury of viewing hardcore anal penetration on demand in the comfort of their own home."
I'll be covered with shame and grief for the rest of the night for not considering the right everyone has to masturbate to porn online. Truly, it's an American tragedy that these poor souls can only find surcease in our libraries.
Have a pleasant evening.
Some of you do seem to get that when we're in public we do owe others courtesy and respect. Some of you get that watching porn in an environment frequented by kids is a very bad idea. So for lumping everyone together in 133 I do apologize.
For the rest of you, you might get a charity together for the sufferers mentioned in 124. "Consider this: many people don't own computers, and cannot afford the luxury of viewing hardcore anal penetration on demand in the comfort of their own home."
I'll be covered with shame and grief for the rest of the night for not considering the right everyone has to masturbate to porn online. Truly, it's an American tragedy that these poor souls can only find surcease in our libraries.
Have a pleasant evening.
150
Why not just start a campaign to buy the library better privacy screens? I mean, I wouldn't want to risk some child under my care being exposed to hard-core religion on someone else's screen, but I also don't feel that someone viewing religious sites at a computer in the library should have to move because of my beliefs and values. Better privacy screens help everyone. Computer users can watch what they want, and everyone else can not be affected. it only harms anyone who deliberately wants to shove content on others, and that is not something people should have a right to do.
151
i want to see photos of the people watching porn in public spaces. this is fascinating. who are they? i would take a shot at it but im no longer in a big city.
btw, is the weird stinky dude with the big naked belly and food all over himself still riding the u-district routes? this is culture people.
btw, is the weird stinky dude with the big naked belly and food all over himself still riding the u-district routes? this is culture people.
153
OK, ok, let's do a thought experiment, shall we?
What if a guy walked into the downtown SPL, got naked, and started doing jumping jacks. No self-touching, no explicitly sexual acts. Obviously the guy is getting off on making other people see him naked. He would be arrested for public indecency/indecent exposure. The library on a Tuesday afternoon is a not a time or place for nudity. Summer solstice at Fremont or any time at the gym is totally acceptable. The context of the action is obviously really important, right?
Now let's say the same guy came into the library with his laptop, sat down, and started watching a DVD of butt-fucking. Is that ok, because....it's on a screen? But, as said above by a librarian commenter, there are a cadre of dudes who watch porno in public to get of on others' viewing of it. So, in both cases, these dudes are getting off on forcing other people to look at things they don't want to. It's a control thing - and it's fucking sick. And this isn't even an internet thing. The dude who lurks on the 9th floor next to the phone books watches porn DVDs on his laptop. Watching porn amongst other people is great when you're say, at a porno theatre, at club Z, or at a sex party. Not on the 9th floor of the library where I'm trying to fucking work.
Long story short, get a fucking room, or at the very least, getting a fucking jack-off stall. But basically, the above is my thought process. Hope that helps or whatever.
What if a guy walked into the downtown SPL, got naked, and started doing jumping jacks. No self-touching, no explicitly sexual acts. Obviously the guy is getting off on making other people see him naked. He would be arrested for public indecency/indecent exposure. The library on a Tuesday afternoon is a not a time or place for nudity. Summer solstice at Fremont or any time at the gym is totally acceptable. The context of the action is obviously really important, right?
Now let's say the same guy came into the library with his laptop, sat down, and started watching a DVD of butt-fucking. Is that ok, because....it's on a screen? But, as said above by a librarian commenter, there are a cadre of dudes who watch porno in public to get of on others' viewing of it. So, in both cases, these dudes are getting off on forcing other people to look at things they don't want to. It's a control thing - and it's fucking sick. And this isn't even an internet thing. The dude who lurks on the 9th floor next to the phone books watches porn DVDs on his laptop. Watching porn amongst other people is great when you're say, at a porno theatre, at club Z, or at a sex party. Not on the 9th floor of the library where I'm trying to fucking work.
Long story short, get a fucking room, or at the very least, getting a fucking jack-off stall. But basically, the above is my thought process. Hope that helps or whatever.
154
I used to work at SPL, in the main branch. I was in IT back in the period when the Internet was first becoming the main venue for porn. The discussions about it were constant. The main problem is not the guy who just wants to see some graphic stuff and doesn't have his own computer; the main problem is the creepy fuckstick who WANTS other people to see the graphic stuff. And believe me, they do...there's a small, but determined subset of shitheads who make SURE they bring up the really graphic stuff when the place is crowded with kids (right after school lets out, for instance).
One of the worst problems we used to have with them was sending really nasty shit to the printers when they knew a lot of kids were there printing out school assignments, so that the kids would pick up the hardcore stuff along with their essay on ducks. They'd sit and watch for that. If you don't believe that happens, you haven't spent much time in the library watching the way people use the computers.
On the whole, SPL does a pretty damn good job. They tried the in-desk monitors a few places, but those are horrific to use, especially for people with any kind of physical challenges. The privacy screens aren't perfect, but they beat the hell out of nothing. You do have to be within a few degrees of right in front of the monitor to clearly make out the images. They do ask people who are being particularly obnoxious to move on, or at least move to computers that are less exposed, but most branch libraries are way too small to have that luxury; the computers are crammed into carrels or onto desks within inches of one another right in the middle of the room. The real problem is that we don't fund libraries adequately enough for them to provide anything like privacy on any of the computer screens.
The library administration has maintained a hard line on freedom of content for some 14 years, and I think that's admirable. Individual librarians will often take a bit more responsibility to tell a creepy patron that he's stepping over the limit by bringing up a hardcore video and then moving ever so slightly to the side to make sure the 200 kids that just swarmed in when school let out can all see it. But their hands are pretty much tied so long as the guy doesn't start wanking.
Supervising kids in the library and keeping them in the children's section is not practical, especially in the branch libraries. A LOT of kids are required to do quite a bit of schoolwork and research on computers, and don't have them at home to use, so the minute school lets out, the libraries fill up with kids doing schoolwork before they go home. Those kids aren't supervised, because they're unescorted. Generally, those are slightly older kids, so one would assume a bit of hardcore isn't going to traumatize them for life, but that's assuming their parents have taken the time to have the "porn talk" with them, like my husband did with his boys when they were 9 and 12 and first stumbled on real hardcore. (Kids are often pretty damn confused by why anyone would WANT to look at that stuff - what my husband did worked pretty well. He basically told them that anything that confused or disturbed them, they should come talk to him about it.)
More...
One of the worst problems we used to have with them was sending really nasty shit to the printers when they knew a lot of kids were there printing out school assignments, so that the kids would pick up the hardcore stuff along with their essay on ducks. They'd sit and watch for that. If you don't believe that happens, you haven't spent much time in the library watching the way people use the computers.
On the whole, SPL does a pretty damn good job. They tried the in-desk monitors a few places, but those are horrific to use, especially for people with any kind of physical challenges. The privacy screens aren't perfect, but they beat the hell out of nothing. You do have to be within a few degrees of right in front of the monitor to clearly make out the images. They do ask people who are being particularly obnoxious to move on, or at least move to computers that are less exposed, but most branch libraries are way too small to have that luxury; the computers are crammed into carrels or onto desks within inches of one another right in the middle of the room. The real problem is that we don't fund libraries adequately enough for them to provide anything like privacy on any of the computer screens.
The library administration has maintained a hard line on freedom of content for some 14 years, and I think that's admirable. Individual librarians will often take a bit more responsibility to tell a creepy patron that he's stepping over the limit by bringing up a hardcore video and then moving ever so slightly to the side to make sure the 200 kids that just swarmed in when school let out can all see it. But their hands are pretty much tied so long as the guy doesn't start wanking.
Supervising kids in the library and keeping them in the children's section is not practical, especially in the branch libraries. A LOT of kids are required to do quite a bit of schoolwork and research on computers, and don't have them at home to use, so the minute school lets out, the libraries fill up with kids doing schoolwork before they go home. Those kids aren't supervised, because they're unescorted. Generally, those are slightly older kids, so one would assume a bit of hardcore isn't going to traumatize them for life, but that's assuming their parents have taken the time to have the "porn talk" with them, like my husband did with his boys when they were 9 and 12 and first stumbled on real hardcore. (Kids are often pretty damn confused by why anyone would WANT to look at that stuff - what my husband did worked pretty well. He basically told them that anything that confused or disturbed them, they should come talk to him about it.)
155
@150 - the people I run into at the library watching porn do so on laptops. And what of them?
@151 - Oh my god! I forgot about him! He was terrible, and so stinky!
@151 - Oh my god! I forgot about him! He was terrible, and so stinky!
156
There is some merit to the idea that people should have more consideration when in public places. Alas, it's not enough to require libraries to filter what adults can look at on the Internet.
And what will these parents do when their kids discover the collection of magazines Daddy has saved in the attic? Blame the builders for making houses with attics that people might store stuff in?
And what will these parents do when their kids discover the collection of magazines Daddy has saved in the attic? Blame the builders for making houses with attics that people might store stuff in?
157
@92, I don't usually say this to you, no matter how tiresome you become, but here goes: GO FUCK YOURSELF.
It has nothing to do with my "discomfort" and I find the suggestion to be be offensive in the extreme. Let me just add BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS.
What it has to do with is common decency and appropriate use of a public facility. I don't think it's appropriate to watch porn in a public library, and I don't think it's appropriate to take a shit on the floor in city council chambers, and I don't think it's appropriate to hold a Klan rally inside a post office, and I don't think it's appropriate to build a campfire in the middle of I-5, and I don't think it's appropriate to manufacture toxic chemicals in a national park.
I believe in common decency and respect for others. This is the socialist ideal towards which we strive. I think people who jump the turnstiles in the subway should be punished. I think people who watch porn in a library should receive the same. They are abusing a public resource and a public privilege. This is perfectly compatible with my other views on subjects like beer gardens: they are not a problem in themselves; it's people who abuse them that are the problem.
Fuck 'em, in other words. Throw them out, and bar them permanently on the second offense.
You do whatever the fuck you want there in fucking Denver, OK? You and 5280 can have swordfights right there in the DVD section, I don't care. Just don't do it here.
It has nothing to do with my "discomfort" and I find the suggestion to be be offensive in the extreme. Let me just add BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS.
What it has to do with is common decency and appropriate use of a public facility. I don't think it's appropriate to watch porn in a public library, and I don't think it's appropriate to take a shit on the floor in city council chambers, and I don't think it's appropriate to hold a Klan rally inside a post office, and I don't think it's appropriate to build a campfire in the middle of I-5, and I don't think it's appropriate to manufacture toxic chemicals in a national park.
I believe in common decency and respect for others. This is the socialist ideal towards which we strive. I think people who jump the turnstiles in the subway should be punished. I think people who watch porn in a library should receive the same. They are abusing a public resource and a public privilege. This is perfectly compatible with my other views on subjects like beer gardens: they are not a problem in themselves; it's people who abuse them that are the problem.
Fuck 'em, in other words. Throw them out, and bar them permanently on the second offense.
You do whatever the fuck you want there in fucking Denver, OK? You and 5280 can have swordfights right there in the DVD section, I don't care. Just don't do it here.
158
I think the computers have to go. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Really all of you, this is about CHILDREN. Delicate, weak, innocent, pure, untainted (unlike you lot of low lifes) CHILDREN. They are the FUTURE of this country and the LESS THEY KNOW the better. Think of the CHILDREN! Get rid of the computers so that the CHILDREN NEVER see anything that upsets their parents. It's a public Library after all, not the adult book store! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
159
@157 You hit on something there. Socialists, as in socialists in Europe are often absolutely fine with all manner of censorship and authoritarian thuggery. Liberals, as in liberals in the US, not so much.
No one is arguing about whether watching porn in the library represents 'common decency'. I would think we can all agree it does not. What you are arguing for is censorship plain and simple. Lets be clear on that. Shitting on the floor is not equivalent to reading a book or looking at a book or computer screen. That is a lazy-ass argument. And the American Library Association disagrees with you. That pack of wild out of control libertines!
No one is arguing about whether watching porn in the library represents 'common decency'. I would think we can all agree it does not. What you are arguing for is censorship plain and simple. Lets be clear on that. Shitting on the floor is not equivalent to reading a book or looking at a book or computer screen. That is a lazy-ass argument. And the American Library Association disagrees with you. That pack of wild out of control libertines!
160
Fnarf (and others), what do we ban? How do we ban it? How do we define what is and is not acceptable viewing in a library? How do we monitor and/or filter that content?
I don't like the idea of jerks watching porn in public, either. I agree that it's disrespectful and possibly even offensive. But you know what? I don't like folks shouting racist or sexist garbage while standing on a street corner--but that's protected.
Better screens, yes. Wider latitude for library staff to kick out (or require to move) the jerks who purposely invite others to see what they're watching, yes. But I don't think banning content on libraries is the way to go.
I don't like the idea of jerks watching porn in public, either. I agree that it's disrespectful and possibly even offensive. But you know what? I don't like folks shouting racist or sexist garbage while standing on a street corner--but that's protected.
Better screens, yes. Wider latitude for library staff to kick out (or require to move) the jerks who purposely invite others to see what they're watching, yes. But I don't think banning content on libraries is the way to go.
162
I have heard of naked gyms, but I'm guessing most gyms would frown on such a thing, not least because they don't want the liability if a member gets something caught in a machine. At my gym, we're not even allowed to go barefoot or wear flip flops outside of the locker room.
any time at the gym is totally acceptable
I have heard of naked gyms, but I'm guessing most gyms would frown on such a thing, not least because they don't want the liability if a member gets something caught in a machine. At my gym, we're not even allowed to go barefoot or wear flip flops outside of the locker room.
163
@160 - it's easy, no watching porn in the library. You monitor it by seeing the porn being watched by some creep, and booting the creep. Done. What is porn you might ask? Video of sex with no artistic merit whatsoever. That's too broad? Fine. Filthy fucking video, who gives a shit. Get a goddamned room. OR AT LEAST GO FIND A SECLUDED CORNER AND FACE THE SCREEN TO THE WALL. it's not hard - for people with any decency. But, again, my only problem is laptop porn in the book stacks, so if you can't angle those public use screens, well, my bad. .
OK, OK, again, let's do a thought experiment. Let's say a dude is on a laptop at Elliott Bay Book Company. He's watching porno. A costumer complains to the staff. The staff makes him leave. Just because it's a library doesn't mean it has to be any different. Substitute the above with Online Coffee (RIP) to make the analogy work for purely the SPL computer bays.
OK, you (not just 160) support people watching porn in the library. Fine. Go down there, find someone watching porn (shouldn't be hard), sit down next to them. Look them in the eyes and say "I support you sir, and your right to watch porn in this public library" give him a hug, cry a tear, and take a long shower afterwards. Log back on to your slog account, and type in "I win Ryan, I win", and I will agree.
OK, OK, again, let's do a thought experiment. Let's say a dude is on a laptop at Elliott Bay Book Company. He's watching porno. A costumer complains to the staff. The staff makes him leave. Just because it's a library doesn't mean it has to be any different. Substitute the above with Online Coffee (RIP) to make the analogy work for purely the SPL computer bays.
OK, you (not just 160) support people watching porn in the library. Fine. Go down there, find someone watching porn (shouldn't be hard), sit down next to them. Look them in the eyes and say "I support you sir, and your right to watch porn in this public library" give him a hug, cry a tear, and take a long shower afterwards. Log back on to your slog account, and type in "I win Ryan, I win", and I will agree.
164
Just want to put out there that I have totally watched porn for academic purposes on more than one occasion. That's probably not what this creepazoid was doing -- for starters, I would've moved to a different computer, or watched at a more subtly placed one, if I REALLY needed to go to the library for that research -- but just sayin'.
166
@157 You're smarter than this, Fnarf.
"What it has to do with is common decency and appropriate use of a public facility. I don't think it's appropriate to watch porn in a public library"
Doesn't mean it should be illegal. I don't want what you happen to define as appropriate or decent determining policy.
"and I don't think it's appropriate to take a shit on the floor in city council chambers"
Already illegal.
"and I don't think it's appropriate to hold a Klan rally inside a post office"
I guess it would depend on permit issues? I hate Illinois nazis as much as the next guy, but let 'em march, y'know?
"and I don't think it's appropriate to build a campfire in the middle of I-5"
Illegal.
"and I don't think it's appropriate to manufacture toxic chemicals in a national park."
Illegal.
In other words: utterly no relationship between your examples.
"What it has to do with is common decency and appropriate use of a public facility. I don't think it's appropriate to watch porn in a public library"
Doesn't mean it should be illegal. I don't want what you happen to define as appropriate or decent determining policy.
"and I don't think it's appropriate to take a shit on the floor in city council chambers"
Already illegal.
"and I don't think it's appropriate to hold a Klan rally inside a post office"
I guess it would depend on permit issues? I hate Illinois nazis as much as the next guy, but let 'em march, y'know?
"and I don't think it's appropriate to build a campfire in the middle of I-5"
Illegal.
"and I don't think it's appropriate to manufacture toxic chemicals in a national park."
Illegal.
In other words: utterly no relationship between your examples.
167
Well if you want to turn public libraries into giant circle jerks filled with hobo-sexuals, making it impossible for taxpayers to enjoy, then I won't cry when their funding gets cut….and it will….I promise you.
Don't worry Seattleblues, Seattle's left is already planning Hobo-sexual Pride Week with a march, complete with floats of dog-tied womyn getting ejaculated on. After all, free speech is free speech.
Don't worry Seattleblues, Seattle's left is already planning Hobo-sexual Pride Week with a march, complete with floats of dog-tied womyn getting ejaculated on. After all, free speech is free speech.
168
I'm working on my MLS degree, I'm a parent, and I'm a woman. Censorship, even of gross-as-hell nasty-ass porn, is against the library's purpose. Like others have said, you roll with the punches unless a patron comments or the dude whips it out.
Yes, watching porn in public is, quite often, a sexual act. So is the guy sitting in the park watching the Ballard High School girls' soccer practice every day, but that dude's not getting arrested for being a creepy fucking asshole. Personally, I find it completely offensive and don't want those dickbags anywhere near my kid. But professionally, as a librarian, I have to respect their right to watch seven hours of bukkake by the reference desk. Frankly, I'm just as offended by: the person who spat all over the stacks, the guy who watched conspiracy videos at top volume, the parents who complain about Baby Be-Bop because the gay protagonist finds true love, and the kids who seem to think that the study carrels are actually acceptable places to make it to third base. They're all part and parcel of a public library.
If you don't want your kids seeing the porn, don't draw attention to it while they're with you, and be a responsible parent. My mom managed to keep an eye on what I checked out of the library until I was 14. Wait until this mom's kids realize there's also The Joy of Sex, the Anarchist's Cookbook, and the Bible in the library system. Those all offend somebody and they're still in circulation.
Yes, watching porn in public is, quite often, a sexual act. So is the guy sitting in the park watching the Ballard High School girls' soccer practice every day, but that dude's not getting arrested for being a creepy fucking asshole. Personally, I find it completely offensive and don't want those dickbags anywhere near my kid. But professionally, as a librarian, I have to respect their right to watch seven hours of bukkake by the reference desk. Frankly, I'm just as offended by: the person who spat all over the stacks, the guy who watched conspiracy videos at top volume, the parents who complain about Baby Be-Bop because the gay protagonist finds true love, and the kids who seem to think that the study carrels are actually acceptable places to make it to third base. They're all part and parcel of a public library.
If you don't want your kids seeing the porn, don't draw attention to it while they're with you, and be a responsible parent. My mom managed to keep an eye on what I checked out of the library until I was 14. Wait until this mom's kids realize there's also The Joy of Sex, the Anarchist's Cookbook, and the Bible in the library system. Those all offend somebody and they're still in circulation.
169
@163, your examples of Elliot Bay and Online Coffee--those are private enterprises, yes? I don't live in Seattle, please forgive me. There's a difference between public and private.
Video of sex with no artistic merit, huh? That's what you're going with? How about 'The Red Shoe Diaries' or 'Henry and June', or 'Eyes Wide Shut', or 'Brokeback Mountain'? And what constitutes the definition of 'video of sex' for these purposes? Does one have to see a penis? Erect, or would flaccid suffice? How about labia/clitoris--is seeing female genitalia necessary and/or sufficient? What about female breasts--are they acceptable?
What about violence with no artistic merit? Do people watch 'Faces of Death' at the library--if so, should we ban that too? I find that stuff a little nastier than porn, myself, but others may disagree.
Again, I'm not in favor of people doing this (did you read the whole of my earlier post?) but I don't see how limiting information and content is good for libraries.
Video of sex with no artistic merit, huh? That's what you're going with? How about 'The Red Shoe Diaries' or 'Henry and June', or 'Eyes Wide Shut', or 'Brokeback Mountain'? And what constitutes the definition of 'video of sex' for these purposes? Does one have to see a penis? Erect, or would flaccid suffice? How about labia/clitoris--is seeing female genitalia necessary and/or sufficient? What about female breasts--are they acceptable?
What about violence with no artistic merit? Do people watch 'Faces of Death' at the library--if so, should we ban that too? I find that stuff a little nastier than porn, myself, but others may disagree.
Again, I'm not in favor of people doing this (did you read the whole of my earlier post?) but I don't see how limiting information and content is good for libraries.
170
I gotta say, the library should really set up some computer cubicles or something. I'm all for freedom of speech, but a guy who walked around in a public library swearing audibly (something else which we try not to do in front of children) would be asked to go elsewhere.
Also, what kind of creepy spud watches porn in a public library?
Also, what kind of creepy spud watches porn in a public library?
171
@166, you appear to be an idiot. Those other examples are illegal, or at least against the rules -- and this should be too: AGAINST THE RULES.
Some facts about free speech in libraries:
The notion that "we are not censors" is blatantly false. Every library makes decisions about what materials to have on hand.
* the library doesn't stock porn DVDs. Isn't that censorship? No. It's a library deciding what is appropriate to carry.
* go into your local branch and ask the person at the desk where they keep all the Aryan Nations material and see what happens. "We are not censors", my ass.
* try this: stand up in your local library and start reading from The Bible at the top of your lungs and see if anyone comes over and restricts your "free speech".
* the nitwit in the far corner whose headphones are so loud that everyone in the building can hear his music gets a visit from a librarian telling him to turn it down. That's a violation of his right to "free speech" -- but no one sees an injury to the First Amendment there.
* the jerk shouting into his cell phone, "no, dude, fuck, I'm at the library, I dunno when I'm going to be back" is exercising his right to free speech, but that right is curtailed by the librarian, with perfect justification.
* the guy sitting in the corner and reading a sexy book, or a violent one, or a politically offensive one, or a dangerous bomb-making one, is left alone, because no one else can see what he's reading, because it's text: silent, non-moving.
* likewise, a guy reading whatever he wants on a computer screen is bothering no one, because no one can see it.
Porn, particularly video porn, IS VISIBLE TO OTHERS. And people watching it ARE HAVING A SEXUAL EXPERIENCE IN VIEW OF OTHERS. That's not appropriate, and it violates no one's rights to stop it.
The restriction "video of sex" is not complicated. "Sex" plus "video". If that means "Eyes Wide Shut" is disallowed, so be it. The library is a terrible place to watch video in the first place. And, in reality, patrons are not watching commercial movies on library computers; they're viewing web content.
If you're going to tell me that video of women bound, gagged, and suspended from an overhead bar with their breasts strapped between two boards until they've turned purple, and obviously screaming in agony -- which I have seen in a library -- is acceptable behavior in public, you are, quite simply, a tool.
It is not suprising that in Seattle a large number of people have no concept of what appropriate public behavior is, though; I see it every day on the buses, in the street, in bars and restaurants. I've seen your giant dogs jump up on people and slobber on them; I've seen you driving with your phone. It's not the behavior of the creeps in the libraries that bothers me most; it's the supposedly decent citizens who defend them, because they themselves are slovenly, self-absorbed boors who don't know how to act in public.
More...
Some facts about free speech in libraries:
The notion that "we are not censors" is blatantly false. Every library makes decisions about what materials to have on hand.
* the library doesn't stock porn DVDs. Isn't that censorship? No. It's a library deciding what is appropriate to carry.
* go into your local branch and ask the person at the desk where they keep all the Aryan Nations material and see what happens. "We are not censors", my ass.
* try this: stand up in your local library and start reading from The Bible at the top of your lungs and see if anyone comes over and restricts your "free speech".
* the nitwit in the far corner whose headphones are so loud that everyone in the building can hear his music gets a visit from a librarian telling him to turn it down. That's a violation of his right to "free speech" -- but no one sees an injury to the First Amendment there.
* the jerk shouting into his cell phone, "no, dude, fuck, I'm at the library, I dunno when I'm going to be back" is exercising his right to free speech, but that right is curtailed by the librarian, with perfect justification.
* the guy sitting in the corner and reading a sexy book, or a violent one, or a politically offensive one, or a dangerous bomb-making one, is left alone, because no one else can see what he's reading, because it's text: silent, non-moving.
* likewise, a guy reading whatever he wants on a computer screen is bothering no one, because no one can see it.
Porn, particularly video porn, IS VISIBLE TO OTHERS. And people watching it ARE HAVING A SEXUAL EXPERIENCE IN VIEW OF OTHERS. That's not appropriate, and it violates no one's rights to stop it.
The restriction "video of sex" is not complicated. "Sex" plus "video". If that means "Eyes Wide Shut" is disallowed, so be it. The library is a terrible place to watch video in the first place. And, in reality, patrons are not watching commercial movies on library computers; they're viewing web content.
If you're going to tell me that video of women bound, gagged, and suspended from an overhead bar with their breasts strapped between two boards until they've turned purple, and obviously screaming in agony -- which I have seen in a library -- is acceptable behavior in public, you are, quite simply, a tool.
It is not suprising that in Seattle a large number of people have no concept of what appropriate public behavior is, though; I see it every day on the buses, in the street, in bars and restaurants. I've seen your giant dogs jump up on people and slobber on them; I've seen you driving with your phone. It's not the behavior of the creeps in the libraries that bothers me most; it's the supposedly decent citizens who defend them, because they themselves are slovenly, self-absorbed boors who don't know how to act in public.
172
The problem with attitudes like the one SB extols is that it seems to manifest itself as a sort of arrested-adolescent, narcissistic myopia, formed around an inherent assumption on their part that restricting the legal rights of someone else for doing something they don't like will never have any negative consequences on their own actions.
The bottom line is that, for better or for worse, viewing porn in public is LEGAL, just as it is legal to view people dying violent deaths in traffic accidents, or in combat, or people stomping on cute little fuzzy kittens, or (in many locales, since the example has been cited in several comments) to be naked. Is it considered inappropriate or even offensive to the great majority of individual adults? Absolutely, but what causes offense to an individual, or even a group of individuals has been consistently rejected as the standard by which such conduct is or should be restricted, for the very simple and obvious reason that, no two individuals have exactly the SAME standards, and it would be presumptuous to the point of hubris for an individual or collection of individuals to insist that THEIR standards of public conduct must be THE standard by which ALL should adhere.
Despite what many people apparently mistakenly believe, you do not have a right to not be offended; quite the contrary in fact, as the First Amendment is specifically crafted to ensure that citizens are allowed to express unpopular views, and to engage in conduct that others may find offensive. That's why the loonies at Westboro Baptist Church, or members of the American Nazi Party, or the Klu Klux Klan have the RIGHT to say and do what they say and do. We tolerate them, not because we approve of what they say, and despite our natural revulsion to their words, because it represents a form of behavioral reciprocity that is one of the fundamental tenets of a free society. If they can say whatever they want without fear of reprisal, then so may we.
The First Amendment is strict on this point, because it HAS to be in order to protect an individual's right to free expression; otherwise, anyone could claim just about ANY form of speech as being offensive to them in some manner, to the point that eventually ALL speech would have to be restricted, since there is literally nothing that can be said that someone, somewhere, at some point cannot claim offends them. For anyone who thinks this is a ridiculously unlikely conclusion, I would merely point them to the YouTube video of the Russian Pop Star singing a song essentially comprised of nonsensical vocal warbling, because the censors of the time were terrified that ANY words might be deemed offensive in light of the established "community standards". Now granted, 1970's Russia is not present-day America, but regrettably, there are many in this country who would send us down that road, not in quest of similar ideological goals, but rather for very similar moral ones.
Frankly, I doubt most adults would prefer to live in a society where standards of conduct are predicated on what some parent THINKS might offend a six year-old child, especially when, nine times out of ten, it's not the child that's having the problem with the conduct, but rather the adult themselves, who all too frequently use their kids as a convenient shield to cover their own personal discomfort.
More...
The bottom line is that, for better or for worse, viewing porn in public is LEGAL, just as it is legal to view people dying violent deaths in traffic accidents, or in combat, or people stomping on cute little fuzzy kittens, or (in many locales, since the example has been cited in several comments) to be naked. Is it considered inappropriate or even offensive to the great majority of individual adults? Absolutely, but what causes offense to an individual, or even a group of individuals has been consistently rejected as the standard by which such conduct is or should be restricted, for the very simple and obvious reason that, no two individuals have exactly the SAME standards, and it would be presumptuous to the point of hubris for an individual or collection of individuals to insist that THEIR standards of public conduct must be THE standard by which ALL should adhere.
Despite what many people apparently mistakenly believe, you do not have a right to not be offended; quite the contrary in fact, as the First Amendment is specifically crafted to ensure that citizens are allowed to express unpopular views, and to engage in conduct that others may find offensive. That's why the loonies at Westboro Baptist Church, or members of the American Nazi Party, or the Klu Klux Klan have the RIGHT to say and do what they say and do. We tolerate them, not because we approve of what they say, and despite our natural revulsion to their words, because it represents a form of behavioral reciprocity that is one of the fundamental tenets of a free society. If they can say whatever they want without fear of reprisal, then so may we.
The First Amendment is strict on this point, because it HAS to be in order to protect an individual's right to free expression; otherwise, anyone could claim just about ANY form of speech as being offensive to them in some manner, to the point that eventually ALL speech would have to be restricted, since there is literally nothing that can be said that someone, somewhere, at some point cannot claim offends them. For anyone who thinks this is a ridiculously unlikely conclusion, I would merely point them to the YouTube video of the Russian Pop Star singing a song essentially comprised of nonsensical vocal warbling, because the censors of the time were terrified that ANY words might be deemed offensive in light of the established "community standards". Now granted, 1970's Russia is not present-day America, but regrettably, there are many in this country who would send us down that road, not in quest of similar ideological goals, but rather for very similar moral ones.
Frankly, I doubt most adults would prefer to live in a society where standards of conduct are predicated on what some parent THINKS might offend a six year-old child, especially when, nine times out of ten, it's not the child that's having the problem with the conduct, but rather the adult themselves, who all too frequently use their kids as a convenient shield to cover their own personal discomfort.
173
Also: stripping is considered to be "speech", protected speech. Is stripping allowed in libraries? Why not? Isn't that "censorship"?
174
@168
But I assume that spitting on books or playing loud videos etc are against the rules of the library. The shocking thing to me is that it is within the rules to watch graphic pornography ata public computer at the library.
We really don't need to get into the finer details of what constitutes porn at this point, because we can't even seem to agree that someone watching anal penetration hardcore should be kicked out.
And it really isn't just about kids. Congrats to those of you who feel perfectly safe, but my life experience has taught me to be afraid of and avoid men who involve me in their sex lives without my consent. I'm no prude, but I don't hang around men with poor boundaries and a disregard for the rights of others.
But I assume that spitting on books or playing loud videos etc are against the rules of the library. The shocking thing to me is that it is within the rules to watch graphic pornography ata public computer at the library.
We really don't need to get into the finer details of what constitutes porn at this point, because we can't even seem to agree that someone watching anal penetration hardcore should be kicked out.
And it really isn't just about kids. Congrats to those of you who feel perfectly safe, but my life experience has taught me to be afraid of and avoid men who involve me in their sex lives without my consent. I'm no prude, but I don't hang around men with poor boundaries and a disregard for the rights of others.
175
Dear clashfan,
Yeah, i know, public vs private are big differences, more of saying that policing behavior could be done in similar ways. A bible bookstore could kick out somebody who says they love satan, but a library couldnt. And sure, why not ban faces of death, that movie sucks. And im not sure porn is information. But really, i just wish the creeps could be more discrete. And if not, kicked out. Thats it. Not arrested, just kicked out.
Yeah, i know, public vs private are big differences, more of saying that policing behavior could be done in similar ways. A bible bookstore could kick out somebody who says they love satan, but a library couldnt. And sure, why not ban faces of death, that movie sucks. And im not sure porn is information. But really, i just wish the creeps could be more discrete. And if not, kicked out. Thats it. Not arrested, just kicked out.
176
I just saw this article (been in meetings all day) and scrolled down to the bottom to see where the conversation had gone. Fnarf @171 says almost everything, so I'll just say +1 to him.
The one thing I would add is that, if you want libraries to be public spaces shared by kids and perverts, they will in the end be the exclusive sphere of perverts, because normal people are not going to put their kids into that environment, no matter how much they believe in civil liberties.
The one thing I would add is that, if you want libraries to be public spaces shared by kids and perverts, they will in the end be the exclusive sphere of perverts, because normal people are not going to put their kids into that environment, no matter how much they believe in civil liberties.
177
Fnarf, are you implying that I don't know how to act in public? You've never met me, so I have no idea how you would try to judge such a thing.
179
"The restriction "video of sex" is not complicated. "Sex" plus "video". If that means "Eyes Wide Shut" is disallowed, so be it."
Yep it's not complicated. What you are talking about is censorship plain and simple. Obviously you think you are well qualified to determine what is appropriate to be viewing at the library. Trouble is so are cranks like SB. Who decides? And a book with pictures can certainly be seen by others and the precious wee ones can go and take it off the shelf in any case.
Restricting disruptive behavior like making a ton of noise is, just like your bogus example of preventing someone from taking a shit on the floor, not equivalent to making judgements about whether what someone is looking at is appropriate. And as your example of Eyes Wide Shut amply demonstrates many libraries certainly do stock DVDs that wide segments of the population would consider porn. And they sure stock plenty of books with pictures that would also qualify. What is the difference between a static and moving image? Just an arbitrary distinction you are making? Or are you not making that distinction and you are actually advocating removing any books containing questionable pictures as well?
Yep it's not complicated. What you are talking about is censorship plain and simple. Obviously you think you are well qualified to determine what is appropriate to be viewing at the library. Trouble is so are cranks like SB. Who decides? And a book with pictures can certainly be seen by others and the precious wee ones can go and take it off the shelf in any case.
Restricting disruptive behavior like making a ton of noise is, just like your bogus example of preventing someone from taking a shit on the floor, not equivalent to making judgements about whether what someone is looking at is appropriate. And as your example of Eyes Wide Shut amply demonstrates many libraries certainly do stock DVDs that wide segments of the population would consider porn. And they sure stock plenty of books with pictures that would also qualify. What is the difference between a static and moving image? Just an arbitrary distinction you are making? Or are you not making that distinction and you are actually advocating removing any books containing questionable pictures as well?
180
@169,
In any library I've been in that had spaces to watch movies, the TVs were set up in private cubicles so you generally couldn't see what other people were watching. If SPL is so hell-bent on allowing patrons to look at porn unrestricted, they should set up cubicles like that, where patrons are directed when others complain.
Since when? There's a reason why you can't even see into the windows of a porn shop (the few that still exist).
Seattle Public Library has policies to deal with homeless patrons, to keep them from bringing all their worldly possessions into the library and camping out while they're there. SPL puts those policies in place to balance the right of homeless people to use the library with the right of other patrons to be able to find a seat and to walk around without tripping over some hobo's hoard.
That SPL doesn't have a policy to balance the right of perverts to look at their porn with the right of the vast majority of patrons to not have to look at that shit shows that they don't give a fuck. It does not demonstrate that pervs have an inalienable right to do whatever they want with impunity.
In any library I've been in that had spaces to watch movies, the TVs were set up in private cubicles so you generally couldn't see what other people were watching. If SPL is so hell-bent on allowing patrons to look at porn unrestricted, they should set up cubicles like that, where patrons are directed when others complain.
viewing porn in public is LEGAL
Since when? There's a reason why you can't even see into the windows of a porn shop (the few that still exist).
Seattle Public Library has policies to deal with homeless patrons, to keep them from bringing all their worldly possessions into the library and camping out while they're there. SPL puts those policies in place to balance the right of homeless people to use the library with the right of other patrons to be able to find a seat and to walk around without tripping over some hobo's hoard.
That SPL doesn't have a policy to balance the right of perverts to look at their porn with the right of the vast majority of patrons to not have to look at that shit shows that they don't give a fuck. It does not demonstrate that pervs have an inalienable right to do whatever they want with impunity.
181
@ 124, 168 -- Thank you.
I'll often spend entire days writing at the Central branch and I've never been affected by -- or even noticed -- anyone's porn use. I find a desk on the top floor and sit down with my laptop. I've been distracted by couples making out or loudly fighting, crazy people having public meltdowns, people who were too dumb or lazy to go to the bathroom and blow their noses sitting there sucking their own snot and making a lot of gross noise. I'd trade those people for someone quietly watching porn at the computer banks on the lower levels any day.
I'll often spend entire days writing at the Central branch and I've never been affected by -- or even noticed -- anyone's porn use. I find a desk on the top floor and sit down with my laptop. I've been distracted by couples making out or loudly fighting, crazy people having public meltdowns, people who were too dumb or lazy to go to the bathroom and blow their noses sitting there sucking their own snot and making a lot of gross noise. I'd trade those people for someone quietly watching porn at the computer banks on the lower levels any day.
182
@179,
I'm guessing that you're way too old to play coy.
The problem with letting library patrons watch video porn within view of others is that those others have no choice whether they stumble over that shit. There is a distinct difference between unwittingly looking at someone else's graphic porn when browsing the stacks and deliberately seeking out erotic materials under your own power while at the library. But I suspect you know that.
I'm guessing that you're way too old to play coy.
The problem with letting library patrons watch video porn within view of others is that those others have no choice whether they stumble over that shit. There is a distinct difference between unwittingly looking at someone else's graphic porn when browsing the stacks and deliberately seeking out erotic materials under your own power while at the library. But I suspect you know that.
183
@182 Let me guess, you have kids right?
The distinction between a picture book with pictures that would offend a prude and a video that would offend a prude is arbitrary.
No one on this thread who is coming out for censorship has addressed at all how one is supposed to be making a distinction. Perhaps because that is just a little problematic? Sounds perfectly reasonable to be banning 'perverts' who are looking at 'graphic porn' until you ponder for six seconds that whoever is making the distinction about who is a pervert and what constitutes 'graphic porn' would quite possibly not be so reasonable.
The distinction between a picture book with pictures that would offend a prude and a video that would offend a prude is arbitrary.
No one on this thread who is coming out for censorship has addressed at all how one is supposed to be making a distinction. Perhaps because that is just a little problematic? Sounds perfectly reasonable to be banning 'perverts' who are looking at 'graphic porn' until you ponder for six seconds that whoever is making the distinction about who is a pervert and what constitutes 'graphic porn' would quite possibly not be so reasonable.
184
@175, I agree that discretion would be better if someone's going to be in the library doing that. And I want to repeat my call for more effective screens and wider latitude for staff members to require patrons to move or leave if they're being inappropriate.
kenmeshi, I don't think it's that the SPL "doesn't give a fuck" about pervs in their reading rooms. It's just that they care more about censorship. And so do I.
kenmeshi, I don't think it's that the SPL "doesn't give a fuck" about pervs in their reading rooms. It's just that they care more about censorship. And so do I.
186
Clashfan @178: I am a libertarian. I donate to the ACLU. I have also, occasionally and in the privacy of my own home, viewed internet porn.
This is a case where what is in question is not just the consumption of some information, but a public behavior. It's legitimate and even important that libraries regulate the public behavior of their patrons so as to provide a shared civic space. Their doing so does not constitute the government preventing access to that information. (Yes, maybe some of those patrons don't have their own internet-connected computers. But the 1st amendment doesn't require the government to provide you with the means to read some book; it only requires that the government not prevent you from getting it and reading it by your own means.)
This is a case where what is in question is not just the consumption of some information, but a public behavior. It's legitimate and even important that libraries regulate the public behavior of their patrons so as to provide a shared civic space. Their doing so does not constitute the government preventing access to that information. (Yes, maybe some of those patrons don't have their own internet-connected computers. But the 1st amendment doesn't require the government to provide you with the means to read some book; it only requires that the government not prevent you from getting it and reading it by your own means.)
187
great shit everyone. thanks @154, crazy shit.
rem koolhaas set out to design the "library of the future". those might have been his words. i love the aesthetic concepts, but the library of the future is a design disaster. it was on slog years ago where i read that. some homeless dude bathing in the bathroom wrote it on the door, "this library is a design disaster".
the library of the future, it turns out, is alot more like a social services facility with access to vast quantities of porn. these things need to be separated, but unfortunately they have been all brought together under the same roof, in the same open room, along with everyone else doing more traditional library activities.
rem koolhaas set out to design the "library of the future". those might have been his words. i love the aesthetic concepts, but the library of the future is a design disaster. it was on slog years ago where i read that. some homeless dude bathing in the bathroom wrote it on the door, "this library is a design disaster".
the library of the future, it turns out, is alot more like a social services facility with access to vast quantities of porn. these things need to be separated, but unfortunately they have been all brought together under the same roof, in the same open room, along with everyone else doing more traditional library activities.
189
@186, how do we decide what content is 'porn'? Or 'hard-core pornography'? How do we enforce it? Filters suck, we all know that. Is it based on what other patrons see? What offends you might not offend me, and vice versa--I don't want someone else deciding what's appropriate for me to view.
You know these arguments.
You know these arguments.
190
@182, 186, etc. - I think that the most glaring problem with your--and many others'--argument is that you keep using the word "porn" or "video of sex" without defining the terms. If you're talking about restricting what people can look at in a place where there are legitimate free speech issues, you'd better have a good definition.
When I was in 6th or 7th grade I saw a video in my health class showing both penis and vagina. Would a video like that be banned? Surely some unattended child could wander by and be exposed to the horror. Or is it just penetration of penis-vagina, penis-anus, penis-mouth? Maybe girl-on girl or just titty-fucking, since there's no real penetration? Hotdogging? Maybe it's only when another person is in contact with another person's genitals. But then, I guess medical videos are out. Perhaps you just mean video showing any exposed naughty body part. What if it's a video of a museum tour and it shows the statue of David? If that's okay, what if I carve a marble statue of David with a boner and film that?
And on and on. You can complain about hardcore anal sex, or whatever is alleged to have been on this guy's computer, but until you definitively state what you feel should be the parameters of decency your argument is far too broad.
When I was in 6th or 7th grade I saw a video in my health class showing both penis and vagina. Would a video like that be banned? Surely some unattended child could wander by and be exposed to the horror. Or is it just penetration of penis-vagina, penis-anus, penis-mouth? Maybe girl-on girl or just titty-fucking, since there's no real penetration? Hotdogging? Maybe it's only when another person is in contact with another person's genitals. But then, I guess medical videos are out. Perhaps you just mean video showing any exposed naughty body part. What if it's a video of a museum tour and it shows the statue of David? If that's okay, what if I carve a marble statue of David with a boner and film that?
And on and on. You can complain about hardcore anal sex, or whatever is alleged to have been on this guy's computer, but until you definitively state what you feel should be the parameters of decency your argument is far too broad.
191
@ 166, you are just proving Fnarf's point. Taking a shit, building a campfire and manufacturing toxic chemicals are all perfectly legal activities in and of themselves. The point is that we as a society have agreed to disallow these activities in certain public places, for obvious reasons. Viewing porn is perfectly legal, yet it should be disallowed in public libraries so that all patrons can feel safe and comfortable using the space. I do agree that libraries should not block access to certain sites, and I support librarians' opposition to such censorship. But I am completely baffled by the vehement opposition to simply having a sign up asking people to refrain from viewing explicit sexual material, and of having librarians asking people to stop if another visitor complains.
Video is not the same as print. I have to make an effort to read what the person next to me is reading, but I have to make an effort to NOT notice what the person next to me is viewing on their screen. And this has nothing to do with "think of the children!"; I am a grown woman, I enjoy porn in the privacy of my home, and I would be seriously uncomfortable if I encountered someone watching porn in the library.
Video is not the same as print. I have to make an effort to read what the person next to me is reading, but I have to make an effort to NOT notice what the person next to me is viewing on their screen. And this has nothing to do with "think of the children!"; I am a grown woman, I enjoy porn in the privacy of my home, and I would be seriously uncomfortable if I encountered someone watching porn in the library.
193
@173:
Apparently, in some libraries stripping is not only perfectly acceptible, it's even - dare I say? - encouraged and promoted.
And of course, one would imagine most libraries would have ample printed, and perhaps even video material, related to the subject, because, you know, libraries store all kinds of information on a veritable cornucopia of surprising subjects, right there on the stacks for anyone to just pick up and peruse.
Apparently, in some libraries stripping is not only perfectly acceptible, it's even - dare I say? - encouraged and promoted.
And of course, one would imagine most libraries would have ample printed, and perhaps even video material, related to the subject, because, you know, libraries store all kinds of information on a veritable cornucopia of surprising subjects, right there on the stacks for anyone to just pick up and peruse.
194
@Halifax, I'm not sure that the 'comfortable' argument is going to hold much water. What's sexually explicit to one person might not be so to another. What makes me uncomfortable might be something you're perfectly fine with.
195
@192 - point well taken. I agree that it's absolutely impossible to draw a definite line as to what constitutes "porn", or more to the point, what constitutes acceptable viewing in a public library. And I understand the fear that this is a slippery slope to widespread censorship. But just because you can't draw a definitive line doesn't mean there should be no restrictions.
Take, for example, public displays of affection. I'm sure some people are uncomfortable with watching a couple kiss next to them on the bus. But they put up with it because minor displays like that are generally considered ok by most. But if two people strip naked and start having sex on the bus, they will be kicked of and quite likely charged with public indecency. So what about a couple making out and groping? where do you draw the line? hand under the shirt? hand in the pants? nudity? penetration of some sort? We all have different comfort zones and we'll never all agree on where exactly to draw the line, but i think almost everyone can agree that nobody should be allowed to have an orgy on the bus.
What I'm trying to say is that I agree that there will be issues with enforcement and implementation of a "no porn at the library" policy, but that doesn't mean we should just allow anything. I know it's a lot to put on the shoulders of individual librarians, but I think it often comes down to a case-by-case basis. A group of female college students watching scenes from Eyes Wide Shut at 10 am (when kiddies are in school) as research for a women's study class? Probably ok most of the time. A middle-aged man watching Anal Destruction IV - Mandy Does Manhattan at 4 pm with a 12 year old at the next computer? Never, ever ok. I'll repeat that I don't agree with specific websites being blocked, but I fully support librarians being able to tell someone to turn of the porn, and to ban repeat offenders.
More...
Take, for example, public displays of affection. I'm sure some people are uncomfortable with watching a couple kiss next to them on the bus. But they put up with it because minor displays like that are generally considered ok by most. But if two people strip naked and start having sex on the bus, they will be kicked of and quite likely charged with public indecency. So what about a couple making out and groping? where do you draw the line? hand under the shirt? hand in the pants? nudity? penetration of some sort? We all have different comfort zones and we'll never all agree on where exactly to draw the line, but i think almost everyone can agree that nobody should be allowed to have an orgy on the bus.
What I'm trying to say is that I agree that there will be issues with enforcement and implementation of a "no porn at the library" policy, but that doesn't mean we should just allow anything. I know it's a lot to put on the shoulders of individual librarians, but I think it often comes down to a case-by-case basis. A group of female college students watching scenes from Eyes Wide Shut at 10 am (when kiddies are in school) as research for a women's study class? Probably ok most of the time. A middle-aged man watching Anal Destruction IV - Mandy Does Manhattan at 4 pm with a 12 year old at the next computer? Never, ever ok. I'll repeat that I don't agree with specific websites being blocked, but I fully support librarians being able to tell someone to turn of the porn, and to ban repeat offenders.
196
Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000 requires that public libraries, as a condition of receiving federal subsidies for Internet connectivity, employ filtering software to prevent patrons from using Internet terminals to view images of obscenity and child pornography, and to prevent children from viewing images "harmful to minors", a phrase encompassing pornography that has been held by the Supreme Court to be protected by the First Amendment for adults. The act allows librarians to disable the filtering software for adult patrons with "bona-fide research or other lawful purposes". The act was challenged by the American Library Association on First Amendment grounds, and enforcement of the act was blocked by a lower court. In June 2003, the Supreme Court reversed and ruled that the act was constitutional and could go into effect. ^ U.S. v. American Library Association, No. 02-361, 2003. That's from Wikipedia, I don't really think Wikipedia is a valid source, but in a pinch.
That would seem to indicate that libraries certainly do have the ability to filter content without violating the 1st ammendment. It seems to be required if the library is the recipient of certain federal funding. I haven't found anything that indicates that this has been reversed.
I have children. I watch porn. I do not watch porn with my children (not a sentence I ever thought I would construct), nor are they allowed to watch porn. The younger 2 at least, the 20 year old can watch whatever she wants. The others, 10 and 14, not so much. That's my responsibility, no one else is responsible or accountable for ensuring that my minor children are not in a situation where they might inadvertantly get an eyeful. It is also my responsibility to talk to them about what they've seen in the event that this should happen. And it is entirely possible that this could happen just about anywhere--all of those people with the flip down screen in their vehicles, do you think that none of them are watching porn on the road?
This, however, is a non issue for me. My library system (I'm a bit further south from Matt) doesn't have hardcore erotica on the shelf, pretty sure no one in Pleasantville is able to watch porn on the library internet. Take this out of the library for a moment: can I, on my personal laptop on an open network connection in a coffee house, watch porn? What about in the park, on a tethered internet connection--can I watch porn there? We (as private individuals) don't get to legislate morality. I don't think the government should be able to legislate morality, either.
I'm of two minds on this one. I don't feel that I have the right to impose my morals or will upon other people, but I also do not feel that others have the right to impose their viewing habits on my or anyone's children. And that doesn't just apply to porn, the majority of the crap that Ben Affleck has been involved in is similarly offensive to me.
More...
That would seem to indicate that libraries certainly do have the ability to filter content without violating the 1st ammendment. It seems to be required if the library is the recipient of certain federal funding. I haven't found anything that indicates that this has been reversed.
I have children. I watch porn. I do not watch porn with my children (not a sentence I ever thought I would construct), nor are they allowed to watch porn. The younger 2 at least, the 20 year old can watch whatever she wants. The others, 10 and 14, not so much. That's my responsibility, no one else is responsible or accountable for ensuring that my minor children are not in a situation where they might inadvertantly get an eyeful. It is also my responsibility to talk to them about what they've seen in the event that this should happen. And it is entirely possible that this could happen just about anywhere--all of those people with the flip down screen in their vehicles, do you think that none of them are watching porn on the road?
This, however, is a non issue for me. My library system (I'm a bit further south from Matt) doesn't have hardcore erotica on the shelf, pretty sure no one in Pleasantville is able to watch porn on the library internet. Take this out of the library for a moment: can I, on my personal laptop on an open network connection in a coffee house, watch porn? What about in the park, on a tethered internet connection--can I watch porn there? We (as private individuals) don't get to legislate morality. I don't think the government should be able to legislate morality, either.
I'm of two minds on this one. I don't feel that I have the right to impose my morals or will upon other people, but I also do not feel that others have the right to impose their viewing habits on my or anyone's children. And that doesn't just apply to porn, the majority of the crap that Ben Affleck has been involved in is similarly offensive to me.
197
Another member of team Fnarf here. Also, a member of team everybody who pointed out that displaying porn in public creates a hostile environment for women too, not just kids.
Rhizome asked at 183:
"No one on this thread who is coming out for censorship has addressed at all how one is supposed to be making a distinction. Perhaps because that is just a little problematic? Sounds perfectly reasonable to be banning 'perverts' who are looking at 'graphic porn' until you ponder for six seconds that whoever is making the distinction about who is a pervert and what constitutes 'graphic porn' would quite possibly not be so reasonable."
Personally, I'd be happy to leave the definition of graphic porn to the librarians' discretion. Librarians are educated, thinking people who value free expression, and I feel that I could trust them to make a reasonable judgment the vast majority of the time. I wouldn't trust Seattle Blues to make the call, true, but he's not a librarian. He doesn't even rhyme with one.
Rhizome asked at 183:
"No one on this thread who is coming out for censorship has addressed at all how one is supposed to be making a distinction. Perhaps because that is just a little problematic? Sounds perfectly reasonable to be banning 'perverts' who are looking at 'graphic porn' until you ponder for six seconds that whoever is making the distinction about who is a pervert and what constitutes 'graphic porn' would quite possibly not be so reasonable."
Personally, I'd be happy to leave the definition of graphic porn to the librarians' discretion. Librarians are educated, thinking people who value free expression, and I feel that I could trust them to make a reasonable judgment the vast majority of the time. I wouldn't trust Seattle Blues to make the call, true, but he's not a librarian. He doesn't even rhyme with one.
198
I'm way late on this thread, but this whole discussion is why I love Slog: for the most part, everyone is making some really good points pro/con/in between without resorting to labels.
Count me in on the Fnarf side, and I'll repeat his point that libraries are "censoring" all the time with what they choose to put in the library.
Also, Blip @ 15 pointed out with his San Francisco library example:
Count me in on the Fnarf side, and I'll repeat his point that libraries are "censoring" all the time with what they choose to put in the library.
Also, Blip @ 15 pointed out with his San Francisco library example:
Their solution is to have private computer rooms for people who uh, need them. If a patron complains about someone else's viewing habits, the pornoviewer is asked to move to a private room.If that flies down there, why can't it be used here?
199
@3, it might be that the library porn viewers get off on the possibility that they will make someone uncomfortable. In which case, they are involving people who have not consented.
200
Speaking of perverts, porn and filtering . . .
My little sister's first school project involving Internet use back in the mid-nineties had my mom helping her search. My sister had to write a paragraph on one of the "simple machines"--all the students had to draw their simple machine from a hat. Poor thing got "the screw". Imagine how that played out with mom facilitating her scholarly search. Mom hadn't even thought about any other meaning before she hit enter, waited for the dial-up, and then promptly exited the browser when the first search results started to load. Ohhh, good times. ^_^
That is why censoring computers with programs just doesn't work well. It's not just the loss of breast cancer information. Sometimes, filters can destroy a motivated first-grader's search on simple machines. Yes, she got explicit material, but, together they learned how to search more effectively and there was no filter to block them when they did find the right search string.
Education-1, Ignorance-0!
My little sister's first school project involving Internet use back in the mid-nineties had my mom helping her search. My sister had to write a paragraph on one of the "simple machines"--all the students had to draw their simple machine from a hat. Poor thing got "the screw". Imagine how that played out with mom facilitating her scholarly search. Mom hadn't even thought about any other meaning before she hit enter, waited for the dial-up, and then promptly exited the browser when the first search results started to load. Ohhh, good times. ^_^
That is why censoring computers with programs just doesn't work well. It's not just the loss of breast cancer information. Sometimes, filters can destroy a motivated first-grader's search on simple machines. Yes, she got explicit material, but, together they learned how to search more effectively and there was no filter to block them when they did find the right search string.
Education-1, Ignorance-0!
201
@198:
For the simple reason, as I suggested earlier, that most of us would probably rather have our librarians performing other tasks besides scrubbing the chum of pervy men who, for whatever reason, can't (or won't) wank in the comfort & privacy of their own abodes. Keeping the computers out in the common area, while certainly raising the potential of people seeing things they don't want to see, at least greatly minimizes the likelihood of such wankery also being seen, and thus placing the wanker in the position of being charged with an actual crime.
@199:
People do things all the time that make others uncomfortable and without their consent, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is against the law. And of course the pervs are getting off on this; it's all about power and control and they KNOW the more upset they make people, the more power they have over them. Frankly, the best way to dissuade them from continuing this practice would be to simply ridicule them without mercy. Five minutes of pointing, laughing, and aggressively getting in their face, while mockingly pointing out to all present what feeble, pathetic, limp-dicked fucktards they are that they have to get their jollies off by trying to creep out soccer moms and six year-olds at the public library, would probably be more effective than any other remedy that's been suggested so far.
For the simple reason, as I suggested earlier, that most of us would probably rather have our librarians performing other tasks besides scrubbing the chum of pervy men who, for whatever reason, can't (or won't) wank in the comfort & privacy of their own abodes. Keeping the computers out in the common area, while certainly raising the potential of people seeing things they don't want to see, at least greatly minimizes the likelihood of such wankery also being seen, and thus placing the wanker in the position of being charged with an actual crime.
@199:
People do things all the time that make others uncomfortable and without their consent, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is against the law. And of course the pervs are getting off on this; it's all about power and control and they KNOW the more upset they make people, the more power they have over them. Frankly, the best way to dissuade them from continuing this practice would be to simply ridicule them without mercy. Five minutes of pointing, laughing, and aggressively getting in their face, while mockingly pointing out to all present what feeble, pathetic, limp-dicked fucktards they are that they have to get their jollies off by trying to creep out soccer moms and six year-olds at the public library, would probably be more effective than any other remedy that's been suggested so far.
202
I have some questions for the folks who advocate banning porn in the library. Do you feel that your arguments might also apply to violent videos and movies? If not, why not? Would you agree that violent video should be banned from the library? Are you as comfortable with the slippery slope problem when it comes to videos showing violence as you seem to be with videos showing sex?
203
I don't know guys...maybe we should try this exercise out first off before flying off the handle, passing new laws, library codes of conduct, etc: if you are in a library and somebody near you is watching porn on a computer and it's making you uncomfortable, ASK THEM TO STOP. don't start out by making a scene, calling over a librarian or complaining to the media...that's what you do when things escalate. I swear to Christ this whole thread is Seattle's passive-aggressive persona in action. we deserve the perverts for not being able to deal with them ourselves.
204
@197 so when displaying say gay male porn in public this would create a hostile environment for women? Actually I don't doubt that it would given that it is pretty much women (helped out by men associated with the clergy or with pure little angels of their own) who are responsible for about 99% of the pearl clutching/hand wringing going on around here regarding this issue.
I think you are right to trust the librarians though. The librarians say we don't censor. And so far civilization has not collapsed. So we can agree - no policy change. Good.
Question for those who are always bleating out 'think about the children': What do you imagine exactly is going to occur if your child happens to see a nude adult or a split second of grainy video of people having sex? Instant future sex offender? I would suggest that you might do better analyzing your own hang-ups and unquestioning absorption of received puritanical ideas than the creepy fetishes of smelly bums who hang out at libraries
I think you are right to trust the librarians though. The librarians say we don't censor. And so far civilization has not collapsed. So we can agree - no policy change. Good.
Question for those who are always bleating out 'think about the children': What do you imagine exactly is going to occur if your child happens to see a nude adult or a split second of grainy video of people having sex? Instant future sex offender? I would suggest that you might do better analyzing your own hang-ups and unquestioning absorption of received puritanical ideas than the creepy fetishes of smelly bums who hang out at libraries
205
Jesus Christ, people. I can't believe this is even an argument. Where I live, to access the internet on the computers at the public library, you have to click on a disclaimer that essentially says you won't use it to access porn. It's no big deal, and I'll bet it rarely comes up as an issue, since most people have the common sense not to look at porn in the goddamn library anyway. The idea that there's some kind of slippery slope toward censorship lurking in that makes me roll me eyes so hard.
206
to answer your question, mike @ 202 -
codes of conduct exist all over the place, from not talking on the phone at the theater to not wearing shirts with profanities on them at school to not smoking in bars and restaurants. i think it's perfectly reasonable to have a code of conduct about not sexually gratifying yourself in a public space.
i would not object to violence on screen in the library because (with the exception of a few) the person viewing a violent movie or video game or tv show in a public space is not doing it as a means of including bystanders in a sexual situation without their consent.
it's not about "think of the children," but about just insisting on conduct that doesn't interfere with others' ability to use the space under circumstances that don't harm them. i am pro-porn and pro-first amendment, but i wouldn't want someone in the seat next to me on an airplane watching porn, for example, and i wouldn't object to the flight attendant asking him/her to stop.
it took me until there were 184 comments to fully decide where i fall on this, because i know it's complicated and there are some fundamental issues at stake here. the truth is i don't know exactly where i would draw the line, but after much consideration i've decided that watching porn in the library in view of other patrons is on the other side of it.
codes of conduct exist all over the place, from not talking on the phone at the theater to not wearing shirts with profanities on them at school to not smoking in bars and restaurants. i think it's perfectly reasonable to have a code of conduct about not sexually gratifying yourself in a public space.
i would not object to violence on screen in the library because (with the exception of a few) the person viewing a violent movie or video game or tv show in a public space is not doing it as a means of including bystanders in a sexual situation without their consent.
it's not about "think of the children," but about just insisting on conduct that doesn't interfere with others' ability to use the space under circumstances that don't harm them. i am pro-porn and pro-first amendment, but i wouldn't want someone in the seat next to me on an airplane watching porn, for example, and i wouldn't object to the flight attendant asking him/her to stop.
it took me until there were 184 comments to fully decide where i fall on this, because i know it's complicated and there are some fundamental issues at stake here. the truth is i don't know exactly where i would draw the line, but after much consideration i've decided that watching porn in the library in view of other patrons is on the other side of it.
207
i'm curious as to how this pans out with SPLs own guiding principles:
it hardly 'supports children and youth' to have laid out computers so minors could be exposed to pornography...
furthermore, SPL maintains a plethora of 'rules of conduct' which could be construed as violations of free speech... so why is some free speech censored, but other free speech acceptable? i think fnarf is dead on with this one...
not allowed at SPL:
-entering in shoeless or shirtless
-offensive body odor or personal hygiene
-distributing literature, signature gathering
-possession of a firearm
-obscene acts such as sex acts & indecent exposure
furthermore, "Library computers and wi-fi may not be used for any illegal activity including... Displaying, printing or sending any material that is obscene, libelous, threatening or harassing"
SPL seems to be as consistent as mitt romney.
it hardly 'supports children and youth' to have laid out computers so minors could be exposed to pornography...
furthermore, SPL maintains a plethora of 'rules of conduct' which could be construed as violations of free speech... so why is some free speech censored, but other free speech acceptable? i think fnarf is dead on with this one...
not allowed at SPL:
-entering in shoeless or shirtless
-offensive body odor or personal hygiene
-distributing literature, signature gathering
-possession of a firearm
-obscene acts such as sex acts & indecent exposure
furthermore, "Library computers and wi-fi may not be used for any illegal activity including... Displaying, printing or sending any material that is obscene, libelous, threatening or harassing"
SPL seems to be as consistent as mitt romney.
208
How is it that in fifteen years of using libraries and internet cafes of every shape and size all over America, I can't remember a single time I've deciphered what other patrons are doing at their screen?
I was taught not to read over other people's shoulders, which I also apply to looking at their screens. A porn-viewer could be trying all day long to get his jollies off by making me uncomfortable by watching porn at the library and I would never know, because I avoid looking over at what strangers are doing on their computers/laptops. Volume is a different thing, and it should have rules placed on it. Looking at someone's screen is the same as looking over their shoulder as they read. It's rude and annoying.
Seriously, if you can view someone's screen (especially their *laptop* screen) in public long enough to tell what is going on, as some here have mentioned, you are nosy. You are not in a cramped space, you are simply nosy and need a reminder that minding your own business is free, legal, and takes no extra time. It's not a rule, but in the public library it ought to be the first expected standard of public behavior.
I was taught not to read over other people's shoulders, which I also apply to looking at their screens. A porn-viewer could be trying all day long to get his jollies off by making me uncomfortable by watching porn at the library and I would never know, because I avoid looking over at what strangers are doing on their computers/laptops. Volume is a different thing, and it should have rules placed on it. Looking at someone's screen is the same as looking over their shoulder as they read. It's rude and annoying.
Seriously, if you can view someone's screen (especially their *laptop* screen) in public long enough to tell what is going on, as some here have mentioned, you are nosy. You are not in a cramped space, you are simply nosy and need a reminder that minding your own business is free, legal, and takes no extra time. It's not a rule, but in the public library it ought to be the first expected standard of public behavior.
209
Plenty of things are legal to do in the privacy of your own home that aren't allowed jn the library: drinking alcohol, for starters, and physical fights. I can't believe the Constitution conflicts with a rule that patrons watching porn have to turn their screens so other patrons can't see them. And no, the answer is not to turn all the computers toward the wall. That place is going to turn into Dirtbag Alley and nobody else is going to want to use the library's computers.
If you're homeless and you don't have a private space in which to watch your porn, oh excuse me, Eyes Wide Shut, you're out of luck. I'm a far left Democrat and I'm still OK with not spending tax money to build you a viewing booth. I have watched "video of sex" myself at home often enough, but not when my Internet connection is down. You can live without it too.
Also, +1 to Fnarf an team. I mean, shit, people.
If you're homeless and you don't have a private space in which to watch your porn, oh excuse me, Eyes Wide Shut, you're out of luck. I'm a far left Democrat and I'm still OK with not spending tax money to build you a viewing booth. I have watched "video of sex" myself at home often enough, but not when my Internet connection is down. You can live without it too.
Also, +1 to Fnarf an team. I mean, shit, people.
210
@208, not sure about Seattle, but Portland's computer sections are sometimes quite crowded. Better privacy screens are the answer, I think.
@204, no, I think (at least here in Slog) that three of the most vocal pro-censorship folks have been dudes--Fnarf, ryanayr and kenmeshi.
@197, well, around here, SB is a contrarian--that rhymes with librarian!
Which brings me to my final point: If you find you're on Seattle Blues' side in an argument, reconsider your position.
@204, no, I think (at least here in Slog) that three of the most vocal pro-censorship folks have been dudes--Fnarf, ryanayr and kenmeshi.
@197, well, around here, SB is a contrarian--that rhymes with librarian!
Which brings me to my final point: If you find you're on Seattle Blues' side in an argument, reconsider your position.
211
@202 - Thank you so much for asking that! I am if anything quite a bit more bothered by violence on screens than by most porn (violent porn such as Fnarf was describing is a special category that I am extra bothered by). I just don't want to see that! But I will defend someone else's right to watch it, no matter that I am deeply concerned about the implications of people choosing to watch that kind of thing. Rights are for everyone, even people doing things I don't approve of.
And in fact in this modern world I think it would probably do us all good to be a little more discriminating about what images we put into our brains. Once it's in there, you can't take it out. That said, not looking at things I don't want to see is mostly my own responsibility.
However. I am startled and kind of apalled by all the people on here equating a desire for consideration for others in shared spaces with repressive censorship. I will, therefore, try to be clear and to differentiate between the two.
I do not want a law prohibiting graphic sexual and violent material, or religious or scientific or any other material, from the library. I do not want content filters on the computers. I do not want censorship.
What I DO want is simple: I want library patrons, who are after all enjoying a shared space that belongs to none of us individually, to act with respect and consideration for those around them. I don't see anything wrong with a library having a policy to that effect, with a statement that a patron engaging in behavior that bothers another patron will be asked to stop, and persisting in that behavior will be asked to leave.
This applies equally to a person having a cellphone conversation, watching porn or erotica, watching youtube videos of people jumping out of the world trade center, listening to loud headphones, and many other things. Shoot, I've been asked to put a large-format illustrated anatomy book flat on the table instead of upright because it was upsetting to someone. I didn't mind; I felt bad that I hadn't thought of that.
The other part of this equation is that if someone is doing something that bothers you, you have to SAY. Ask the person to have their conversation elsewhere. Tell them that what they are watching is distracting or upsetting to you and ask them to stop or move. And then if they don't, the librarian should have the authority to ask them to stop or leave.
This doesn't require any censorship at all. It just requires that people make the really minimal effort required to refrain from bothering their neighbors in a public space. It is totally possible to watch porn, or read porn, or masturbate in a library without bothering anyone else; I've done all of these. The basic precondition is a desire not to bother anyone else. If they are unwilling to make that effort, I don't see any need for them to be welcomed into the public space.
More...
And in fact in this modern world I think it would probably do us all good to be a little more discriminating about what images we put into our brains. Once it's in there, you can't take it out. That said, not looking at things I don't want to see is mostly my own responsibility.
However. I am startled and kind of apalled by all the people on here equating a desire for consideration for others in shared spaces with repressive censorship. I will, therefore, try to be clear and to differentiate between the two.
I do not want a law prohibiting graphic sexual and violent material, or religious or scientific or any other material, from the library. I do not want content filters on the computers. I do not want censorship.
What I DO want is simple: I want library patrons, who are after all enjoying a shared space that belongs to none of us individually, to act with respect and consideration for those around them. I don't see anything wrong with a library having a policy to that effect, with a statement that a patron engaging in behavior that bothers another patron will be asked to stop, and persisting in that behavior will be asked to leave.
This applies equally to a person having a cellphone conversation, watching porn or erotica, watching youtube videos of people jumping out of the world trade center, listening to loud headphones, and many other things. Shoot, I've been asked to put a large-format illustrated anatomy book flat on the table instead of upright because it was upsetting to someone. I didn't mind; I felt bad that I hadn't thought of that.
The other part of this equation is that if someone is doing something that bothers you, you have to SAY. Ask the person to have their conversation elsewhere. Tell them that what they are watching is distracting or upsetting to you and ask them to stop or move. And then if they don't, the librarian should have the authority to ask them to stop or leave.
This doesn't require any censorship at all. It just requires that people make the really minimal effort required to refrain from bothering their neighbors in a public space. It is totally possible to watch porn, or read porn, or masturbate in a library without bothering anyone else; I've done all of these. The basic precondition is a desire not to bother anyone else. If they are unwilling to make that effort, I don't see any need for them to be welcomed into the public space.
212
@209
But hobosexuals are Seattle's latest disadvantaged, oppressed minority!! If we can't protect the rights of members of our newest 'vulnerable community' to surf and jerk in front of the whole world, and ruin our public libraries by turning them into government funded peep show salons, well you know what happens next? Fascism!
But hobosexuals are Seattle's latest disadvantaged, oppressed minority!! If we can't protect the rights of members of our newest 'vulnerable community' to surf and jerk in front of the whole world, and ruin our public libraries by turning them into government funded peep show salons, well you know what happens next? Fascism!
213
Fnarf, if pointing out your inconsistencies and hypocritical attitudes means not being your friend anymore, I'm good with that. Honestly, if you are in such agreement with SB, and that doesn't give you the slightest pause…
Civil liberties trump all. Irresponsible and yucky behaviors already have remedies, and can be addressed without impeding them.
That is all.
Civil liberties trump all. Irresponsible and yucky behaviors already have remedies, and can be addressed without impeding them.
That is all.
214
@209 by Team Fnarf I mean keshmeshi (who I believe is female), ryanayr, Sea Otter, mr. herriman et al, not Seattleblues or the "hobosexual" troll @212.
@210 and 213, just pointing out that SB has cooties is not enough. I probably don't share his reasons for not wanting to see somebody else's porn in the library, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, any more than liking to draw makes me Hitler or being refreshed by a glass of water makes me Charles Manson.
@210 and 213, just pointing out that SB has cooties is not enough. I probably don't share his reasons for not wanting to see somebody else's porn in the library, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, any more than liking to draw makes me Hitler or being refreshed by a glass of water makes me Charles Manson.
215
@ 214, you're not Fnarf, though are you? You're not making the argument that Fnarf is, are you? One which happens to be emotive, based on exaggerated personal accounts (see his comment @ 123) and exaggerated comparisons? Tactics SB always employs?
Basically, what's going one between Fnarf and me is what's going on between Fnarf and me, and what I say to him isn't fully representative of my position here. If you want a better stated argument, COMTE does a splendid job here. (Notice Fnarf doesn't take him on?)
Basically, what's going one between Fnarf and me is what's going on between Fnarf and me, and what I say to him isn't fully representative of my position here. If you want a better stated argument, COMTE does a splendid job here. (Notice Fnarf doesn't take him on?)
216
@213Civil liberties? Really? Not being able to look at porn in the library is not "censorship," and does not impede anyone's civil liberties. Saying so is basically just abusing those words. See @209.
Again, where I live the public library has an explicit "no watching porn on the computers" policy. I have hardly ever thought about this, and consider it a perfectly reasonable request, given that it's a public space and there are children around, but from what I'm reading here it appears that I should be calling Amnesty International over it. Maybe I should stage a Rosa Parks style protest by refusing to refrain from watching porn in the library.
Sheesh.
Again, where I live the public library has an explicit "no watching porn on the computers" policy. I have hardly ever thought about this, and consider it a perfectly reasonable request, given that it's a public space and there are children around, but from what I'm reading here it appears that I should be calling Amnesty International over it. Maybe I should stage a Rosa Parks style protest by refusing to refrain from watching porn in the library.
Sheesh.
217
mr. h. @206:
By "sexually gratifying," do you mean that you think everybody watching porn in the library is masturbating? Or are you saying that enjoying a pleasant sexual thought is sexual gratification? If it's the first, then I must have misread the complaint(s), because I didn't get the idea that the library patrons were masturbating at the computer. If it's the second, then I hate to tell you that I sexually gratified myself a couple of times on the bus to downtown. Sorry! There was a beautiful person who smiled provocatively and I had a dirty thought or two. Hopefully there were no kids on the bus.
My question here is: is it the actual video that hurts other people in the library, or the intent of the watcher? Because as I've read this discussion, you're making it about the intent of the watcher here.
A moment ago it was about having a boner in the library, and now it's about hurting people. I'm losing track of where you stand. Or are you saying that having a boner in public is hurting people? I can't believe that's your position.
But in any case you haven't answered my question. Why is porn in the library hurting people but violent movies aren't?
I have a broader question to the no-porn-in-library folks: what happens to a kid who inadvertently sees porn? Brain damage? Seizure? Instant sexual activation? How many of us never once saw porn when we were kids?
And why is porn so much more offensive/harmful than video of people being beaten, tortured or killed? Why is slavery worse than anal sex, but a video of anal sex worse than a movie about slavery?
I ask these questions genuinely. The anti-censorship crew's position is clear-cut and distills to an easy implementation guideline, while the anti-porn-in-libraries folks' position seems to me to be largely undefined and seems to come down to "have some consideration" or "nobody should be made to feel uncomfortable in a library," which do not reduce to easy implementation guidelines but are instead prone to lots of interpretation and ultimately disagreements involving the ACLU.
More...
i think it's perfectly reasonable to have a code of conduct about not sexually gratifying yourself in a public space.
By "sexually gratifying," do you mean that you think everybody watching porn in the library is masturbating? Or are you saying that enjoying a pleasant sexual thought is sexual gratification? If it's the first, then I must have misread the complaint(s), because I didn't get the idea that the library patrons were masturbating at the computer. If it's the second, then I hate to tell you that I sexually gratified myself a couple of times on the bus to downtown. Sorry! There was a beautiful person who smiled provocatively and I had a dirty thought or two. Hopefully there were no kids on the bus.
My question here is: is it the actual video that hurts other people in the library, or the intent of the watcher? Because as I've read this discussion, you're making it about the intent of the watcher here.
it's not about "think of the children," but about just insisting on conduct that doesn't interfere with others' ability to use the space under circumstances that don't harm them.
A moment ago it was about having a boner in the library, and now it's about hurting people. I'm losing track of where you stand. Or are you saying that having a boner in public is hurting people? I can't believe that's your position.
But in any case you haven't answered my question. Why is porn in the library hurting people but violent movies aren't?
I have a broader question to the no-porn-in-library folks: what happens to a kid who inadvertently sees porn? Brain damage? Seizure? Instant sexual activation? How many of us never once saw porn when we were kids?
And why is porn so much more offensive/harmful than video of people being beaten, tortured or killed? Why is slavery worse than anal sex, but a video of anal sex worse than a movie about slavery?
I ask these questions genuinely. The anti-censorship crew's position is clear-cut and distills to an easy implementation guideline, while the anti-porn-in-libraries folks' position seems to me to be largely undefined and seems to come down to "have some consideration" or "nobody should be made to feel uncomfortable in a library," which do not reduce to easy implementation guidelines but are instead prone to lots of interpretation and ultimately disagreements involving the ACLU.
218
Just a quick self-serving note here, as once again someone has come up to me asking about my comments here: my name happens to be David Wright. (@176) Unlike David Wright (@176), I am not a libertarian. I am a librarian. Like the other DW, however, I do donate to the ACLU share the his appreciation for the occassional internet porn.
I think this is actually one of the better discussions of this issue that I've seen. It is certainly true that this is an area of frequent concern, especially at smaller branches, and also that the use of laptops and tablets in libraries have added much complexity to the mix. The best solutions are compromises on top of compromises; I do hope (given our limited means)we are able to find better compromises, while not compromising our responsibilities as a government institution as regards the constitution.
I think this is actually one of the better discussions of this issue that I've seen. It is certainly true that this is an area of frequent concern, especially at smaller branches, and also that the use of laptops and tablets in libraries have added much complexity to the mix. The best solutions are compromises on top of compromises; I do hope (given our limited means)we are able to find better compromises, while not compromising our responsibilities as a government institution as regards the constitution.
219
@216 Allowing creepy guys to watch porn on the computers because "the library doesn’t censor content" sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit or the paranoid rambling of a right wing television evangelist.
220
I agree with what's been said before by Fnarf @171 and Thisbe @211. Instead of approaching this from the standpoint of censorship, it should be an issue of public conduct. If you're in a library you are in a public place; ergo, you should not be watching porn. It doesn't matter if you are using library computers or your own laptop, it's the disruptive behavior that is the problem.
The library staff should have the authority to ask people who are watching porn or otherwise disrupting the study environment to stop doing so. If the patron refuses, the library staff should be able to ask them to leave, and should be able to ban repeat offenders. This is similar to the policies for all other kinds of disruptive behavior in the library, isn't it?
The library staff should have the authority to ask people who are watching porn or otherwise disrupting the study environment to stop doing so. If the patron refuses, the library staff should be able to ask them to leave, and should be able to ban repeat offenders. This is similar to the policies for all other kinds of disruptive behavior in the library, isn't it?
221
This is a design issue. Privacy screens, 18+ computer rooms (both hands on the table please). When you are over 18 you can view what you want. Under 18 you have to have parents permission. No porn viewing allowed in all ages areas. What's so hard about that?
And the notion that "a hostile environment for women" @197 is a form of exceptionalism. It can equally be considered a hostile environment for anyone by your logic, not just one group. Fact is, many people are just offended by porn regardless of sex.
And the notion that "a hostile environment for women" @197 is a form of exceptionalism. It can equally be considered a hostile environment for anyone by your logic, not just one group. Fact is, many people are just offended by porn regardless of sex.
222
@202 - Thank you so much for asking that! I am if anything quite a bit more bothered by violence on screens than by most porn (violent porn such as Fnarf was describing is a special category that I am extra bothered by). I just don't want to see that! But I will defend someone else's right to watch it, no matter that I am deeply concerned about the implications of people choosing to watch that kind of thing. Rights are for everyone, even people doing things I don't approve of.
And in fact in this modern world I think it would probably do us all good to be a little more discriminating about what images we put into our brains. Once it's in there, you can't take it out. That said, not looking at things I don't want to see is mostly my own responsibility.
However. I am startled and kind of apalled by all the people on here equating a desire for consideration for others in shared spaces with repressive censorship. I will, therefore, try to be clear and to differentiate between the two.
I do not want a law prohibiting graphic sexual and violent material, or religious or scientific or any other material, from the library. I do not want content filters on the computers. I do not want censorship.
What I DO want is simple: I want library patrons, who are after all enjoying a shared space that belongs to none of us individually, to act with respect and consideration for those around them. I don't see anything wrong with a library having a policy to that effect, with a statement that a patron engaging in behavior that bothers another patron will be asked to stop, and persisting in that behavior will be asked to leave.
This applies equally to a person having a cellphone conversation, watching porn or erotica, watching youtube videos of people jumping out of the world trade center, listening to loud headphones, and many other things. Shoot, I've been asked to put a large-format illustrated anatomy book flat on the table instead of upright because it was upsetting to someone. I didn't mind; I felt bad that I hadn't thought of that.
The other part of this equation is that if someone is doing something that bothers you, you have to SAY. Ask the person to have their conversation elsewhere. Tell them that what they are watching is distracting or upsetting to you and ask them to stop or move. And then if they don't, the librarian should have the authority to ask them to stop or leave.
This doesn't require any censorship at all. It just requires that people make the really minimal effort required to refrain from bothering their neighbors in a public space. It is totally possible to watch porn, or read porn, or masturbate in a library without bothering anyone else; I've done all of these. The basic precondition is a desire not to bother anyone else. If they are unwilling to make that effort, I don't see any need for them to be welcomed into the public space.
More...
And in fact in this modern world I think it would probably do us all good to be a little more discriminating about what images we put into our brains. Once it's in there, you can't take it out. That said, not looking at things I don't want to see is mostly my own responsibility.
However. I am startled and kind of apalled by all the people on here equating a desire for consideration for others in shared spaces with repressive censorship. I will, therefore, try to be clear and to differentiate between the two.
I do not want a law prohibiting graphic sexual and violent material, or religious or scientific or any other material, from the library. I do not want content filters on the computers. I do not want censorship.
What I DO want is simple: I want library patrons, who are after all enjoying a shared space that belongs to none of us individually, to act with respect and consideration for those around them. I don't see anything wrong with a library having a policy to that effect, with a statement that a patron engaging in behavior that bothers another patron will be asked to stop, and persisting in that behavior will be asked to leave.
This applies equally to a person having a cellphone conversation, watching porn or erotica, watching youtube videos of people jumping out of the world trade center, listening to loud headphones, and many other things. Shoot, I've been asked to put a large-format illustrated anatomy book flat on the table instead of upright because it was upsetting to someone. I didn't mind; I felt bad that I hadn't thought of that.
The other part of this equation is that if someone is doing something that bothers you, you have to SAY. Ask the person to have their conversation elsewhere. Tell them that what they are watching is distracting or upsetting to you and ask them to stop or move. And then if they don't, the librarian should have the authority to ask them to stop or leave.
This doesn't require any censorship at all. It just requires that people make the really minimal effort required to refrain from bothering their neighbors in a public space. It is totally possible to watch porn, or read porn, or masturbate in a library without bothering anyone else; I've done all of these. The basic precondition is a desire not to bother anyone else. If they are unwilling to make that effort, I don't see any need for them to be welcomed into the public space.
223
Um, sorry - don't know exactly what caused my deeply time-separated double-post, although there was definitely an internet issue going on for me before. Weird.
224
"Which brings me to my final point: If you find you're on Seattle Blues' side in an argument, reconsider your position."
That's actually one of the 3 reasons I post here, curiously enough.
In some small degree I post here because Savage and his little pet writers here represent a real threat to the continued survival of America as a place any decent person would wish to live. Actually, that's imprecise. They aren't intelligent or coherent or original enough in their (for lack of a better word) thoughts to be a threat. But they are the expression of that threat posed by more intelligent coherent and original thinking men and women whom they copy.
I also test my thinking and perceptions out here. If I disagree with something a Stranger writer or most of those posting here say, I know my disagreement to be well founded. If I agree with it, I need to re-examine the idea. Sometimes, as with Fnarf et al on this occasion differing people can come to the same conclusion. Usually I find a flaw in the thinking that caused the agreement to begin with.
Finally and most importantly for me, you guys are hilarious! Seriously. Discussions of gender in which someone sincerely writes that having male or female genitalia doesn't make one male or female are side splittingly funny. Statements that the biggest crime Romney can commit in your eyes is financial success for himself and his family? Comedy gold! Comparing real civil rights issues with women and minorities to the Gay Special Rights lobby? That one hits closer to home since so many are fooled by your silly rhetoric on it, but still funny at heart. And now a sincerely meant contention that we have some first amendment right to watch anal sex videos in front of kids in public and that asking people not to do so is the rise of the police state, that one is the funniest yet.
Oh, and love the comparison to someone asking for reasonable standards of public behavior to Hitler and Manson at 214! Next to the heartfelt cry to consider the plight of the poor, poor hobos who can't afford an internet connection to watch hardcore anal sex videos that one is my favorite on this thread. Thanks guys for the belly laugh!
You just can't write this kind of comedy intentionally. It almost has to be the result of an already bad political theory carried to reductio ad absurdum, the daily stuff of Slog. Honestly, you folks just crack me up.
More...
That's actually one of the 3 reasons I post here, curiously enough.
In some small degree I post here because Savage and his little pet writers here represent a real threat to the continued survival of America as a place any decent person would wish to live. Actually, that's imprecise. They aren't intelligent or coherent or original enough in their (for lack of a better word) thoughts to be a threat. But they are the expression of that threat posed by more intelligent coherent and original thinking men and women whom they copy.
I also test my thinking and perceptions out here. If I disagree with something a Stranger writer or most of those posting here say, I know my disagreement to be well founded. If I agree with it, I need to re-examine the idea. Sometimes, as with Fnarf et al on this occasion differing people can come to the same conclusion. Usually I find a flaw in the thinking that caused the agreement to begin with.
Finally and most importantly for me, you guys are hilarious! Seriously. Discussions of gender in which someone sincerely writes that having male or female genitalia doesn't make one male or female are side splittingly funny. Statements that the biggest crime Romney can commit in your eyes is financial success for himself and his family? Comedy gold! Comparing real civil rights issues with women and minorities to the Gay Special Rights lobby? That one hits closer to home since so many are fooled by your silly rhetoric on it, but still funny at heart. And now a sincerely meant contention that we have some first amendment right to watch anal sex videos in front of kids in public and that asking people not to do so is the rise of the police state, that one is the funniest yet.
Oh, and love the comparison to someone asking for reasonable standards of public behavior to Hitler and Manson at 214! Next to the heartfelt cry to consider the plight of the poor, poor hobos who can't afford an internet connection to watch hardcore anal sex videos that one is my favorite on this thread. Thanks guys for the belly laugh!
You just can't write this kind of comedy intentionally. It almost has to be the result of an already bad political theory carried to reductio ad absurdum, the daily stuff of Slog. Honestly, you folks just crack me up.
225
He may have a constitutional right to view whatever he likes, but the library does not have a constitutional mandate to present him with the means to do so, in full view of the public. My guess is if they created a private place (even just a cubicle around a computer) the whole exercise would lose its allure. The point does not seem to be to watch porn, but for others to see them doing it. There is no part of the first amendment that says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to watch porn where others can see.
If women and families (and others) are making less use of public libraries because of this behavior, it is time to balance their rights against the rights of the porn viewer. This mother is not saying that they should not have the right to see the material at all, but that it be presented in a private place.
If women and families (and others) are making less use of public libraries because of this behavior, it is time to balance their rights against the rights of the porn viewer. This mother is not saying that they should not have the right to see the material at all, but that it be presented in a private place.
226
@224: I'm going to be charitable here and correct you on the least pants-on-head leotarded error you made in that post. "et al" needs to be written as "et al.", as it is short for "et alii", "et aliae", or "et alia". The rest of the bullshit in that post makes me wonder if a child should be named after you soon.
227
@208, not sure about Seattle, but Portland's computer sections are sometimes quite crowded. Better privacy screens are the answer, I think.
@204, no, I think (at least here in Slog) that three of the most vocal pro-censorship folks have been dudes--Fnarf, ryanayr and kenmeshi.
@197, well, around here, SB is a contrarian--that rhymes with librarian!
Which brings me to my final point: If you find you're on Seattle Blues' side in an argument, reconsider your position.
@204, no, I think (at least here in Slog) that three of the most vocal pro-censorship folks have been dudes--Fnarf, ryanayr and kenmeshi.
@197, well, around here, SB is a contrarian--that rhymes with librarian!
Which brings me to my final point: If you find you're on Seattle Blues' side in an argument, reconsider your position.
228
@ 222, I see only a single post, and an excellent one at that.
There is a line between viewing content and all the possible behaviors that such viewing induces in the viewer, which is lost on a lot of people here.
Monitor behavior, enforce policies about it, and ban repeat offenders.
@ 224, I'd rather live in a country that's free then one where the government mandates "decency." If you prefer decency, you'll be better off somewhere else, like Iran.
There is a line between viewing content and all the possible behaviors that such viewing induces in the viewer, which is lost on a lot of people here.
Monitor behavior, enforce policies about it, and ban repeat offenders.
@ 224, I'd rather live in a country that's free then one where the government mandates "decency." If you prefer decency, you'll be better off somewhere else, like Iran.
229
@ 227, keshemeshi is a woman. She's also been the only anti-porn-in-the-libraries debater here who has made any reasonable arguments.
231
@226 - Honest question: I italicize et al. when used in sentences (at work), but I'm not sure where MLA or Chicago lie on that. Thoughts? Also, is slog an adherent to MLA or Chicago Style?
@227 - To critique: a) ryan is also a girl's name; how dare you. b) I'm arguing to kick out of a library those who lack discretion/decency/are being really creepy, not censorship. But, maybe that's potayto potahto. a la #220, to me this is an issue of conduct restrictions, not content restrictions c) I'm not a frequent reader of seattleblues, but if he said he liked potato chips, I would still like potato chips.
@227 - To critique: a) ryan is also a girl's name; how dare you. b) I'm arguing to kick out of a library those who lack discretion/decency/are being really creepy, not censorship. But, maybe that's potayto potahto. a la #220, to me this is an issue of conduct restrictions, not content restrictions c) I'm not a frequent reader of seattleblues, but if he said he liked potato chips, I would still like potato chips.
232
@176- This has been the SPL's policy since the beginning of the internet, and they're great resources for parents and excellent places for kids.
233
@228 - Well, glad you liked it. I think it's possible that we're on "opposing sides" of this issue, but then again maybe I am just squarely in the middle.
234
Obscene material describes or depicts sexual conduct that, taken as a whole by the average person: (1) appeals to the prurient interest in sex (obsessive interest in sex), using community standards; (2) is patently offensive, using community standards; and (3) lacks serious value of literary, artistic, political, or scientific nature, using a national reasonable person standard.
I think that the library banning porn would be allowed due to obscene speech being allowed to be censored in some cases based on the standard above. So ban it and let them sue, good luck with the Supreme Court of ours.
I think that the library banning porn would be allowed due to obscene speech being allowed to be censored in some cases based on the standard above. So ban it and let them sue, good luck with the Supreme Court of ours.
235
Many of the pro-censorship folks in here are operating on the assumption that watching "pornography" is a discrete act, and compare it to a number of things that are illegal or restricted, as in @171 and @207. But in those examples, media content is not the reason for the behavior's restriction. The issue here is about how it is not the public library's place to apply subjective moral standards to content.
It would be defensible if, due to the apparent epidemic of porn viewing at library computer terminals, SPL decided to disable video on all its computers. This would rightly be viewed as an overreaction, but since the supposed danger to [children, the religious, women, prudes] is so great, it would be a justifiable, objective way to preserve the public's vulnerable eyes. But to ban only a specific type of content because some, even a majority of people deem it offensive? Where do you draw the line?
For what it's worth, the Supreme Court seems to agree with Fnarf et al, per @196: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat…
It would be defensible if, due to the apparent epidemic of porn viewing at library computer terminals, SPL decided to disable video on all its computers. This would rightly be viewed as an overreaction, but since the supposed danger to [children, the religious, women, prudes] is so great, it would be a justifiable, objective way to preserve the public's vulnerable eyes. But to ban only a specific type of content because some, even a majority of people deem it offensive? Where do you draw the line?
For what it's worth, the Supreme Court seems to agree with Fnarf et al, per @196: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat…
236
Hey Gang,
We/it made the morning paper:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
Still agree with SeattleBlues, Fnarf, ryanayr et al.
This guy's viewing of porn at SPL should be restricted.
We/it made the morning paper:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
Still agree with SeattleBlues, Fnarf, ryanayr et al.
This guy's viewing of porn at SPL should be restricted.
237
I am not supporting a standard consisting of banning any particular content. Rather I am supporting a standard that if Library Patron A is disrupted by something (other than quietly looking at a book or text on a screen) Library Patron B is doing, Library Patron B ought to be asked to stop; and if Library Patron B does not stop, B may reasonably be required to leave.
Doesn't really matter to me if Library Patron B is looking at porn, playing drum rhythms on a table, reading aloud to a child, snoring, reading prayers aloud, or any other damn thing. I also don't care why Library Patron A is bothered. The point is, coexisting in a public space requires consideration for others. When people violate the social contract (with inappropriate public behavior), they don't get to use a social resource (the library) to continue their inappropriate behavior.
Doesn't really matter to me if Library Patron B is looking at porn, playing drum rhythms on a table, reading aloud to a child, snoring, reading prayers aloud, or any other damn thing. I also don't care why Library Patron A is bothered. The point is, coexisting in a public space requires consideration for others. When people violate the social contract (with inappropriate public behavior), they don't get to use a social resource (the library) to continue their inappropriate behavior.
238
@234 That bogus definition has been amply proven, well, bogus. You have noticed that porn is all over the internet right? Once again, who defines 'artistic merit' and 'community standards'?
It is not a question about whether the library is 'allowed' to ban porn it is a question of whether the library should be in the business of censoring what people are looking at. Get that any of you censorship enthusiasts? I don't see any evidence that any of you are getting it. Kudos to the library for holding its ground.
It is not a question about whether the library is 'allowed' to ban porn it is a question of whether the library should be in the business of censoring what people are looking at. Get that any of you censorship enthusiasts? I don't see any evidence that any of you are getting it. Kudos to the library for holding its ground.
239
@238 - Walk into a library and start yelling at the top of your lungs "IN MY OPINION, CARROTS ARE DELICIOUS AND A GREAT SOURCE OF VITAMIN B" The librarians will tell you to shut up, and if you don't, your ass will be thrown out. You can claim they were censoring you, and violating your rights to free speech. But they wouldn't be kicking you out because of your opinions or rights to free speech, they would be kicking you out because you were being an obnoxious jackass who was making it difficult for other people to enjoy the library. In my opinion, same goes for porn-watchers. Also, I haven't said we should ban porn in the library. I have said that we should kick people out of the library if other people are being made to see their porno. If they keep it to themselves, I don't give a shit what they watch.
240
@238 You don't think the public has the right to dictate what people look at on computers provided at tax payer expense?
241
Also, the ultimate fix to all of this, is the privacy monitor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgN4r1Yuf…
It's a computer screen with the polarizing film removed, and glasses with the polarizing film on the lenses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgN4r1Yuf…
It's a computer screen with the polarizing film removed, and glasses with the polarizing film on the lenses.
242
@196, To reference the only example I know of, the SF public library system explicitly refuses to comply with CIPA, per a city ordinance that bans filtering of web content for teen and adult public access computers within the city. Essentially this means they do not accept any federal subsidies for internet services, to the tune of a couple hundred thousand dollars per year.
http://www.webjunction.org/cipa/articles…
http://www.webjunction.org/cipa/articles…
243
@242 - Actually, if I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong, the original intent of the San Francisco law was to not comply with the PATRIOT Act, which had scary provisions about library records and government surveillance.
http://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000060601
http://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000060601
244
@240 I don't think that the library should be in the business of censoring what people are looking at. You do. You are talking about censoring what people are looking at, let's not beat around the bush. You are also a drug war cheerleader if I remember correctly, so no surprise there.
Also neither you nor anyone else here has come close to adequately explaining how one is supposed to differentiate porn from other content that may well offend some busybody or other.
Also neither you nor anyone else here has come close to adequately explaining how one is supposed to differentiate porn from other content that may well offend some busybody or other.
245
@243, Correct. The SF act that bans filtering actually pre-dates CIPA; the issue is that CIPA is incompatible with city law, hence SFPL does not comply. I suspect that even in the absence of this city ordinance, SFPL would still refuse to comply.
246
@ mike -
ahh geez. so i didn't answer your question. i set out to, but you're right, i didn't. of course i don't think having sexual thoughts or getting boners in public is wrong or harmful to others. c'mon, you know me better than that. and i know that most people aren't masturbating at the computers in the library. but publicly viewing porn is a far cry from just enjoying a pleasant sexual thought. i get that you're just pressing me to articulate my argument, which i acknowledge i haven't done very well here, but don't be insulting.
publicly viewing porn vs. violence - i can't tell you why i feel it's different, but in my opinion, it is. i'm factoring in a whole lot of things in forming my opinion, and that's really all i've done here - just adding my opinion to the discussion. i agree that reading my comment back, trying to make sense of my reasoning is a challenge. shorter is: i would not object to rules against viewing porn in plain view in the library. i wouldn't demand it, but i wouldn't object. i'm not trying to set the rules - sometimes you just have to decide how you feel about a thing.
as for the effects of porn on children, i'd have to say that it depends on the nature of it, but that is topic for another conversation.
ahh geez. so i didn't answer your question. i set out to, but you're right, i didn't. of course i don't think having sexual thoughts or getting boners in public is wrong or harmful to others. c'mon, you know me better than that. and i know that most people aren't masturbating at the computers in the library. but publicly viewing porn is a far cry from just enjoying a pleasant sexual thought. i get that you're just pressing me to articulate my argument, which i acknowledge i haven't done very well here, but don't be insulting.
publicly viewing porn vs. violence - i can't tell you why i feel it's different, but in my opinion, it is. i'm factoring in a whole lot of things in forming my opinion, and that's really all i've done here - just adding my opinion to the discussion. i agree that reading my comment back, trying to make sense of my reasoning is a challenge. shorter is: i would not object to rules against viewing porn in plain view in the library. i wouldn't demand it, but i wouldn't object. i'm not trying to set the rules - sometimes you just have to decide how you feel about a thing.
as for the effects of porn on children, i'd have to say that it depends on the nature of it, but that is topic for another conversation.
247
I just read every single comment here. And really, the only word of sage advice I can think of to offer is this : you will all die one day. Some hopefully a little sooner than others.
248
@244 I think a rule forbidding people from viewing sexually explicit pictures or videos at the library is reasonable. In this context I don't think we need to resolve the lacking artistic value issue. Lawyers are good at writing extremely specific sets of rules governing this sort of thing, so disagreements about what is considered 'porn' can be resolved by consulting the rule book.
BTW I'm not a drug war cheerleader, I'm a drug war realist.
BTW I'm not a drug war cheerleader, I'm a drug war realist.
249
@239 How are "other people are being made to see their porno?" If pornography is something that you know when you see it, how long are you forced to watch, two seconds?
251
@250 -- I think 249 is saying that nobody can be forced to watch something. The act of watching is voluntary. If you see something on someone else's computer screen that's distasteful to you, just stop looking over that person's shoulder.
I can understand parents not wanting their kids to be inadvertantly exposed to porn, but again, those parents need to be supervising their kids. If the kid's old enough to be hanging out by himself on the computers at the public library, he's probably old enough to have seen porn on his own anyway.
I can understand parents not wanting their kids to be inadvertantly exposed to porn, but again, those parents need to be supervising their kids. If the kid's old enough to be hanging out by himself on the computers at the public library, he's probably old enough to have seen porn on his own anyway.
252
@251 - In that case, walking by the creeps next to the stacks and aisles in the stacks with their computers running porn, you see it, you can't help to. Also, the creeps that the above librarian(s) mentioned who actively show people the porn or print it out. Again, the only experiences I have with the creeps are in the stacks.
also this
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QuvUIBX1JSM/Tr…
also this
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QuvUIBX1JSM/Tr…
253
Walked into the goddamn bathroom at the library last week and found a pervert jacking off. Thankfully my wife was with me and took our 4 year old daughter into the womens' restroom.
254
Right. It's hard to imagine a library patron's behavior that is so intrusive (but not to the point of harassment) that a ban on a specific type of content is warranted.
255
I realize I've neglected to say this: I go to a SPL branch (either Lake City, Downtown, Green Lake, or North East) about twice a week. I have never noticed anyone looking at porn.
256
@252 If an image on a computer can offend you to such a significant degree, maybe choosing to avert your gaze from others' screens could be a more reasonable alternative to outright censorship.
258
I think someone should do a study of people who view porn in easy view of other patrons in libraries. Go around to each person who is clearly watching graphic sexual content and ask them about their motivations. I'd be fascinated to see the results! Also, I'd love to see some demographic information collected, like age, gender, race and so on.
I'd also like to know what percentage of computer using library patrons are watching graphic sexual content and what percentage of computer time-use is spent showing graphic sexual content.
I haven't made up my mind on the issue, and results like above wouldn't turn me one way or the other, but it would lend some evidence and information to a discussion that is otherwise very anecdotal.
I'd also like to know what percentage of computer using library patrons are watching graphic sexual content and what percentage of computer time-use is spent showing graphic sexual content.
I haven't made up my mind on the issue, and results like above wouldn't turn me one way or the other, but it would lend some evidence and information to a discussion that is otherwise very anecdotal.
259
Holy crap - I can't believe I agree with Seattleblues. This loser’s behavior was intentional. He is an angry predatory asshole who wants to impose on others and is probably registered somewhere. What’s next; do we let him whip it out and jerk off so long as he calls it performance art? Sad losers like this can check out their porn and go to a corner somewhere where no one else needs to see it. The tax payer is not obligated to accommodate some sex-offender’s desire to impose their behavior on others and our free speech rights will not go down the tube if we don’t. Seriously folks, you are not sophisticated enough to get these things? Not imposing ones sexual problems on others goes both ways. Ken Hutcherson has no more business doing it than perverts in the library.
260
And for the people whining about parents “not watching their kids”, a library is a place where well behaved older children should be able to roam around freely and safely. This has been going on in libraries across the country for years. Many of you probably did this when you were children. That should not change just so we can accommodate creepy bitter assholes who want other people to view their porn preferences. Holy shit crybabies! Figure out your damned priorities!
261
@260- I go to the SPL with my daughter (age 8) all the time and have no trouble leaving her unsupervised. This discussion makes it seem like there is porn everywhere you look, but like I've said (in 6 years of going at least twice a week) I haven't seen it once.
263
@261 -- I'm in the same boat as you. Several other regular library patrons have also posted saying that they've never noticed anyone watching porn. Then there are people like @252 who claim to be having run-ins with porn-wielding perverts every time they try to check out a book. I think people are blowing this way out of proportion.
@252 -- That link did make me laugh though. Point well taken.
@252 -- That link did make me laugh though. Point well taken.
264
I work at a university that has a similar policy about porn viewing on the computers. I have managed to NEVER see someone else's porn, even on the prominent public-use computers. Something about not looking, especially when I think it might be someone who's viewing porn. The few times that I've been sure someone was and checked to see, they weren't.
I used to work in an adult education lab, where one of the GED students, who came from a restrictive ultra-Christian home, got in the habit of viewing his porn in the lab. We rearranged the computers so they were all visible from everywhere in the room, and it stopped. (I realize that wouldn't stop someone who wanted to be seen.) We had an SB-type working in the lab, who, in addition to demanding that the Rosie posters promoting reading be taken down ("This should be a family-friendly place to study!"), tried unsuccessfully to unilaterally kick the poor kid out of the program, which is illegal. My suggestion at a staff meeting that we get the kid a subscription to a beaver-mag was not well-met. The SB-type also was passionately against ESL students reading any material in Spanish.
Fun side fact: The SB-type had, some time ago, before finding Jeebus, lowered his naked, aging manflesh into a public swimming pool full of grade-school children.
Anyway, bigger problem in the library is all the damn kids hogging the computers playing MMORPGs.
SB: if you think people are polite and quiet in the country, then you are utterly ignorant on the subject. Country folks are, per capita, way louder and more obnoxious than city folks. And you'd know that if you knew anything about it. You fucking liar.
I used to work in an adult education lab, where one of the GED students, who came from a restrictive ultra-Christian home, got in the habit of viewing his porn in the lab. We rearranged the computers so they were all visible from everywhere in the room, and it stopped. (I realize that wouldn't stop someone who wanted to be seen.) We had an SB-type working in the lab, who, in addition to demanding that the Rosie posters promoting reading be taken down ("This should be a family-friendly place to study!"), tried unsuccessfully to unilaterally kick the poor kid out of the program, which is illegal. My suggestion at a staff meeting that we get the kid a subscription to a beaver-mag was not well-met. The SB-type also was passionately against ESL students reading any material in Spanish.
Fun side fact: The SB-type had, some time ago, before finding Jeebus, lowered his naked, aging manflesh into a public swimming pool full of grade-school children.
Anyway, bigger problem in the library is all the damn kids hogging the computers playing MMORPGs.
SB: if you think people are polite and quiet in the country, then you are utterly ignorant on the subject. Country folks are, per capita, way louder and more obnoxious than city folks. And you'd know that if you knew anything about it. You fucking liar.
265
@264: "I have managed to NEVER see someone else's porn, ..."
Just noticed the implication of that, heheh.
It's late. I'm tired. And sick.
Just noticed the implication of that, heheh.
It's late. I'm tired. And sick.
266
I didn't read all the comments, so forgive me if someone else has said this.
I'm concerned that poor children are going to be disproportionately effected by library porn viewing. Whether or not seeing porn is bad for kids (or, say, worse than the other violent stuff on TV), it is objectionable to most parents. Wealthy parents can take their kids to other activities, but poorer parents can't. When I was growing up, we had very little money for things like summer camp or swim lessons, but my mom made sure we went to all the free events at the public library. I'm sure that contributed to me getting to college and grad school. It would have sucked if my mom had stopped taking us to the library because of a couple of creeps.
I'm concerned that poor children are going to be disproportionately effected by library porn viewing. Whether or not seeing porn is bad for kids (or, say, worse than the other violent stuff on TV), it is objectionable to most parents. Wealthy parents can take their kids to other activities, but poorer parents can't. When I was growing up, we had very little money for things like summer camp or swim lessons, but my mom made sure we went to all the free events at the public library. I'm sure that contributed to me getting to college and grad school. It would have sucked if my mom had stopped taking us to the library because of a couple of creeps.
267
I have a question (I apologize if this has already been asked before).
Let's say there is a guy in the library. He is watching a video of himself masturbating on a computer that is visible to the public. Many people would say this is fine, yes? Now, let's say that rather watching a video of himself masturbating, he is making a video of himself masturbating in a manner that is visible to to the public. Should this also be allowed? Why or why not? In both instances, he is masturbating in a manner that is visible to the public.
I'm not asking this sarcastically. I am aware of some differences (for example, the librarians might not want to clean up after him if he was actually masturbating in the library) but one would assume these issues could be overcome and do not pose any more of threat than any other bodily fluid issue (for example, of blood).
Let's say there is a guy in the library. He is watching a video of himself masturbating on a computer that is visible to the public. Many people would say this is fine, yes? Now, let's say that rather watching a video of himself masturbating, he is making a video of himself masturbating in a manner that is visible to to the public. Should this also be allowed? Why or why not? In both instances, he is masturbating in a manner that is visible to the public.
I'm not asking this sarcastically. I am aware of some differences (for example, the librarians might not want to clean up after him if he was actually masturbating in the library) but one would assume these issues could be overcome and do not pose any more of threat than any other bodily fluid issue (for example, of blood).
268
I'm sure this has been pointed out before, but it wasn't in the 100 or so comments that I trudged through.
Watching porn in public in the way described isn't an inconvenient necessity, it's a deliberate act.
How is that different from indecent exposure, as alluded to in #267 above?
I am NOT in favor of censoring material at the library, but deliberately exposing others to your nasty porn choices? Totally actionable.
Have an 'unrestricted section', make all the screens face the wall, disallow laptop porn viewing outside the 'unrestricted section', whatever.
Ignoring the problem will only make the solution more drastic and repressive when it finally comes.
Watching porn in public in the way described isn't an inconvenient necessity, it's a deliberate act.
How is that different from indecent exposure, as alluded to in #267 above?
I am NOT in favor of censoring material at the library, but deliberately exposing others to your nasty porn choices? Totally actionable.
Have an 'unrestricted section', make all the screens face the wall, disallow laptop porn viewing outside the 'unrestricted section', whatever.
Ignoring the problem will only make the solution more drastic and repressive when it finally comes.
269
For chrissakes, its the fucking LIBRARY. Come ON. I'm all for civil liberties, but how is this even a question? People should not be watching porn at the library. Full stop.
270
I think, like a lot of others here, that you can't decide to ban something without having a clear definition of what it is. That means that you have to have a clear definition of the threshold ... the extremes are easy (creepy old guy flashing porn at kids), and they allow folks to get up on their hind legs and claim that this is a black and white issue. But at what point does an educational video about condom use become "actionable" porn?
In my rambling above, I stumbled across an example of what happens when you leave it up to the librarian's (or instructor's) discretion: the rule ends up being whatever that person finds offensive. My coworker found Rosie O'Donnell offensive and would have probably objected to any It Gets Better videos because they are offensive to him. He definitely would have vetoed anything regarding birth control.
This is less important in a large urban setting, where people have options. In small-town U.S.A., where there often are no options, and where repressive opinions and practices thrive, the librarian who is offended by birth control information or sex education could effectively end access to that information for everyone who doesn't have access at home, which includes a lot of kids.
For the record, I'm skeeved-out by public-library porn viewing, but where is the line? Serious question: Where is the line? And don't give me that "We all know it when we see it" bullshit. Is a video of correct condom use, including rolling it on, porn? A majority of the U.S., especially outside the urban centers, would probably say yes.
In my rambling above, I stumbled across an example of what happens when you leave it up to the librarian's (or instructor's) discretion: the rule ends up being whatever that person finds offensive. My coworker found Rosie O'Donnell offensive and would have probably objected to any It Gets Better videos because they are offensive to him. He definitely would have vetoed anything regarding birth control.
This is less important in a large urban setting, where people have options. In small-town U.S.A., where there often are no options, and where repressive opinions and practices thrive, the librarian who is offended by birth control information or sex education could effectively end access to that information for everyone who doesn't have access at home, which includes a lot of kids.
For the record, I'm skeeved-out by public-library porn viewing, but where is the line? Serious question: Where is the line? And don't give me that "We all know it when we see it" bullshit. Is a video of correct condom use, including rolling it on, porn? A majority of the U.S., especially outside the urban centers, would probably say yes.
271
239, Your analogy doesn't work. Asking someone to keep their voice down in the library isn't the same as banning reading material, and media some might find offensive. Why should you get to control what another adult gets to see?
272
I think a good rule is "don't inflict your viewing on others". Remembering the golden rule is the best way to make things work for everyone. Porn viewers should not be obnoxious about it. Porn viewers - don't choose a screen that is widely viewable to a large portion of the library. It's the "don't be a dick" rule everyone should abide by.
Someone doing research into porn at a library would likely take steps not to be obnoxious - just like that person wouldn't pee at the computer desk or leave food wrappers (or even eat) at the computer desk.
It is not too much to ask someone to be respectful of those around them. That way, porn doesn't have to be banned - it's the obnoxious conduct of the viewer that would get them kicked out.
Someone doing research into porn at a library would likely take steps not to be obnoxious - just like that person wouldn't pee at the computer desk or leave food wrappers (or even eat) at the computer desk.
It is not too much to ask someone to be respectful of those around them. That way, porn doesn't have to be banned - it's the obnoxious conduct of the viewer that would get them kicked out.
273
You can't pull your cock out and beat it in the library.
You can, however, film yourself beating your cock and play it in full view of everyone at the library.
I would say that something is seriously wrong with that. Instead I'll just say God bless the United States of America.
You can, however, film yourself beating your cock and play it in full view of everyone at the library.
I would say that something is seriously wrong with that. Instead I'll just say God bless the United States of America.
274
It feels like both sides are talking past each other here. It seems to me that there's little difference, really, between a video of anal penetration and, say, a book of Beardsley art that contains his illustrations for Lysistrata, or a book of Nobuyoshi Araki photographs (for the sake of comparing apples to apples, I'll focus on images, rather than confuse the issue with references to, say, Bataille, de Sade, or Lautreamont). It seems to me that if someone is looking at any of these discreetly enough, there is no wrongdoing. If they are doing so indiscreetly, they are guilty not of looking at pornography (for which no one need, in my opinion, feel the least bit of remorse), but of treating other patrons disrespectfully. And any institution has the right to mandate respectful treatment of its patrons . . . right?
So I support a policy that allows one to look at porn, for the same reason that I support the library's right (indeed, insist on the library's duty) to stock work by Araki or Beardsley (or de Sade, Bataille, Lautreamont, et al); I would even go so far as to say that there are certain "canonical" works of pornography that a library system of any integrity would keep in its DVD section. I also support the right of librarians to "police" (if only by way of responding to complaints) the engagement with such work as regards its effect on patrons who are offended by such material. Asking someone to be more discreet doesn't amount to censoring content.
So I support a policy that allows one to look at porn, for the same reason that I support the library's right (indeed, insist on the library's duty) to stock work by Araki or Beardsley (or de Sade, Bataille, Lautreamont, et al); I would even go so far as to say that there are certain "canonical" works of pornography that a library system of any integrity would keep in its DVD section. I also support the right of librarians to "police" (if only by way of responding to complaints) the engagement with such work as regards its effect on patrons who are offended by such material. Asking someone to be more discreet doesn't amount to censoring content.
275
I think the SPL does censor. I was browsing the magazines and noticed the black Muslim hate group Nation of Islam newspaper. The headline was "Farrakhan reveals how Jews are respoinsible for Black Suffering". NOI is responsible for more hate crimes in the last 20 years then the KKK and Aryan Nation combined. I noticed none of their publications were available. Why not? They are no worse. Looked at their book catolog and saw many books authored by Farrakhan but not by David Duke. Why does the library in one of the whitest cities in America have plenty of material by black racist hate groups, but none by white? Absolutely censorship and racist too.
276
@202- Why are people bothered by porn but not violent movies? Well people don't tend to watch violent movies in order to get off. I think violence in movies is more harmful then porn. But if I am sitting next to a stranger I would rather they be watching a violent movie then porn. For reasons explained above.
277
@276 - Doesn't that kind of depend on what you mean by "getting off"? I actually can't think of any reason one would enjoy cinematic violence other than because it gets one off...even if one doesn't actually experience physical orgasm while watching it. The grunts elicited by Ryan stomping the guy's head in an elevator in Drive or by Gina Carano's chokehold (with her thighs!) in Haywire certainly seem erotic in nature.
Still, if we can make reasonable distinctions between "getting off" (shrug) and "getting off" (shake head sternly), it seems that one can as easily avoid the latter while watching porn as while watching violent cinema.
Still, if we can make reasonable distinctions between "getting off" (shrug) and "getting off" (shake head sternly), it seems that one can as easily avoid the latter while watching porn as while watching violent cinema.
278
@275 It is unreasonable to expect the Seattle Public Library to carry every book and magazine ever published. If there were great demand for David Duke books, would the library really continue not to carry them? I assume whoever is in charge of selecting which titles to carry approaches the job seriously and takes a wide number of factors into account, including demand.
I admit I don't really know a lot about the groups you mentioned. Do you have a citation for "NOI is responsible for more hate crimes in the last 20 years then the KKK and Aryan Nation combined"?
I admit I don't really know a lot about the groups you mentioned. Do you have a citation for "NOI is responsible for more hate crimes in the last 20 years then the KKK and Aryan Nation combined"?
279
@270, Okay, the argument that things might be different in a small town where people's options are limited does make sense to me. I'm also pretty much working under the (urban, liberal) assumption that librarians wouldn't boot anyone out for looking at sex ed material or Aubrey Beardsley drawings, or whatever. I mean, my local library has books on the shelves, like this one, that are pretty sexually explicit, and they seem to be okay with lending them out....So I can't actually imagine them invoking the no-porn rule unless it was a very clear-cut case like the one we're discussing. I guess I should keep in mind that things aren't the same everywhere.
Nonetheless, I still think that being able to access porn does not fall under the definition of "rights." It's a sticky issue (er, no pun intended), since people have different ideas about what constitutes porn, but I'm a bit of a curmudgeon about it because I think we should probably start maturing a bit more as a society, to the point where access to vital information like how to put on a condom is considered a "right," and access to porn is a privilege.
I also think that, if we're going to start talking about rights, we should keep in mind that sometimes we let some rights override others. For instance, children have the right to be protected from certain things until they're old enough to understand them, and I think in a shared, public space, that right overrides whatever rights I might have to look at sexually explicit material.
I also think that computers in the library are a very different issue from books. Book banning is particularly offensive, because a book is just information that's sitting there for anyone who cares to look. If you're not interested, don't look. A computer screen in a public space is very different because of its potential to be intrusive. When I walk into the room where the computers are, I see what's on other people's screens whether I want to or not.
More...
Nonetheless, I still think that being able to access porn does not fall under the definition of "rights." It's a sticky issue (er, no pun intended), since people have different ideas about what constitutes porn, but I'm a bit of a curmudgeon about it because I think we should probably start maturing a bit more as a society, to the point where access to vital information like how to put on a condom is considered a "right," and access to porn is a privilege.
I also think that, if we're going to start talking about rights, we should keep in mind that sometimes we let some rights override others. For instance, children have the right to be protected from certain things until they're old enough to understand them, and I think in a shared, public space, that right overrides whatever rights I might have to look at sexually explicit material.
I also think that computers in the library are a very different issue from books. Book banning is particularly offensive, because a book is just information that's sitting there for anyone who cares to look. If you're not interested, don't look. A computer screen in a public space is very different because of its potential to be intrusive. When I walk into the room where the computers are, I see what's on other people's screens whether I want to or not.
280
@273- "I would say that something is seriously wrong with that. Instead I'll just say God bless the United States of America."
I could say go fuck yourself... Go fuck yourself.
Heh, look, I said what I meant and nothing bad happened.
I could say go fuck yourself... Go fuck yourself.
Heh, look, I said what I meant and nothing bad happened.
281
@275- As far as I can tell with a quick bit of googling, neither the KKK nor the Aryan Nation have a newspaper or magazine in current publication. It's really hard for a library to subscribe to papers that don't exist, or only exist sporadically. As others have pointed out, not stocking something (even if it exists) is not in-and-of itself censorship. And while Seattle might be lily-white, maybe the white people of Seattle aren't racists.
282
@279: " ... people have different ideas about what constitutes porn ..."
I understand what you're saying. I sympathize. But you can't just gloss over that issue. It's not a minor detail; it's the crux of the matter. There are parts of the country where Cosmo is considered porn.
And you need to imagine every possible abuse of whatever restriction you're proposing and decide whether it's worth it.
I guarantee that whatever rule you impose on internet access will, somewhere some day, find its nefarious way into the stacks. So you'd better think very carefully about that rule would say.
My vote is for improving the privacy of the screens, so no one else can see what you're looking at.
With all of you damn snoops out there who can't keep yourselves from staring at other people's screens, I think I'd rather you can't see my email or Facebook page, too. :-)
I understand what you're saying. I sympathize. But you can't just gloss over that issue. It's not a minor detail; it's the crux of the matter. There are parts of the country where Cosmo is considered porn.
And you need to imagine every possible abuse of whatever restriction you're proposing and decide whether it's worth it.
I guarantee that whatever rule you impose on internet access will, somewhere some day, find its nefarious way into the stacks. So you'd better think very carefully about that rule would say.
My vote is for improving the privacy of the screens, so no one else can see what you're looking at.
With all of you damn snoops out there who can't keep yourselves from staring at other people's screens, I think I'd rather you can't see my email or Facebook page, too. :-)
283
@279- "When I walk into the room where the computers are, I see what's on other people's screens whether I want to or not."
The SPL does everything it can to make sure you don't, and I have never seen anything explicit displayed on a screen in the SPL.
The raciest thing I've seen at the SPL are probably the romance covers in the New Books area. Explaining to my daughter what "Tamed by a Highlander" meant was awkward.
The SPL does everything it can to make sure you don't, and I have never seen anything explicit displayed on a screen in the SPL.
The raciest thing I've seen at the SPL are probably the romance covers in the New Books area. Explaining to my daughter what "Tamed by a Highlander" meant was awkward.
285
Well presented, Sea Otter, so take my challenges with a grain of salt, a good shake of pepper, and a touch of cumin (for that earthy flavor).
What falls under the definition of "rights" is always a sticky issue (pun not unwelcome); after all, "rights" do not occur in nature, and only theists, resting all argument on a speculative presupposition, can make a logically consistent argument that they do. A lion does not recognize a gazelle's inalienable right to life; that it does not illustrates that rights are contractually realized, and generally between organisms that have some hope of finding a common mode of communication. So I would submit that we have no natural right to look at porn, or, indeed, to look at art or literature, to do research, etc. Even the enumerated right of free speech doesn't grant us access to that speech; that is, if all information were to be packaged by those with easiest access to it and sold to all others for a fixed price like any other commodity, such an arrangement would not run afoul of any legal mandate. Thus, even treating access to books as a privilege is well within bounds.
Given that, I guess the question is why we have libraries at all. The trouble with distinguishing between books and computers is that while they invade the lives of involuntary participants in differing degrees, the essential function is the same: they exist to store information. What's more, a greater and greater percentage of information is being stored online, even as less is stored on paper. Now I have my own misgivings about this (as a theater person, I'm engaged in means of communication even more imminently endangered than books), but there it is.
Now, on one level, it seems to me that the primary function of libraries historically is not the offering of information to us plebes so much as the preservation of all information for future generations of academics. In this regard, it seems that we know enough about the inherent subjectivity of the line between art and pornography (if there is, in fact, any line at all; I'm skeptical, personally) to all but mandate that this function must necessarily include the ostensibly pornographic. Whether this information, particularly in video or digital form, should also be subject to the more modern, egalitarian notion of offering that preserved information at no cost to us unwashed masses is worth debating, I suppose; what I object to is the assumption that the terms of the debate are simple.
More...
What falls under the definition of "rights" is always a sticky issue (pun not unwelcome); after all, "rights" do not occur in nature, and only theists, resting all argument on a speculative presupposition, can make a logically consistent argument that they do. A lion does not recognize a gazelle's inalienable right to life; that it does not illustrates that rights are contractually realized, and generally between organisms that have some hope of finding a common mode of communication. So I would submit that we have no natural right to look at porn, or, indeed, to look at art or literature, to do research, etc. Even the enumerated right of free speech doesn't grant us access to that speech; that is, if all information were to be packaged by those with easiest access to it and sold to all others for a fixed price like any other commodity, such an arrangement would not run afoul of any legal mandate. Thus, even treating access to books as a privilege is well within bounds.
Given that, I guess the question is why we have libraries at all. The trouble with distinguishing between books and computers is that while they invade the lives of involuntary participants in differing degrees, the essential function is the same: they exist to store information. What's more, a greater and greater percentage of information is being stored online, even as less is stored on paper. Now I have my own misgivings about this (as a theater person, I'm engaged in means of communication even more imminently endangered than books), but there it is.
Now, on one level, it seems to me that the primary function of libraries historically is not the offering of information to us plebes so much as the preservation of all information for future generations of academics. In this regard, it seems that we know enough about the inherent subjectivity of the line between art and pornography (if there is, in fact, any line at all; I'm skeptical, personally) to all but mandate that this function must necessarily include the ostensibly pornographic. Whether this information, particularly in video or digital form, should also be subject to the more modern, egalitarian notion of offering that preserved information at no cost to us unwashed masses is worth debating, I suppose; what I object to is the assumption that the terms of the debate are simple.
286
@285-"...it seems to me that the primary function of libraries historically is not the offering of information to us plebes so much as the preservation of all information for future generations of academics."
"Historically" there weren't public libraries. But in the history of public libraries, educating the plebes is exactly what they're there for. Like the side of the Boston Public Library says ""THE COMMONWEALTH REQUIRES THE EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE AS THE SAFEGUARD OF ORDER AND LIBERTY". Whatever your take on rights (and "natural rights" is a terrible place to start) it has great utility for a democracy to provide the public with access to any and all information.
"Historically" there weren't public libraries. But in the history of public libraries, educating the plebes is exactly what they're there for. Like the side of the Boston Public Library says ""THE COMMONWEALTH REQUIRES THE EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE AS THE SAFEGUARD OF ORDER AND LIBERTY". Whatever your take on rights (and "natural rights" is a terrible place to start) it has great utility for a democracy to provide the public with access to any and all information.
287
I'm not sure anything you say amounts to a refutation of my statement, dwightmoodyforgetsthings. I could also point out that the purpose of institutions of learning hasn't historically been to education us plebes, and you could point out that in the history of public schools, educating the plebes has been the purpose, and we'd both be right. It's one of the reasons I didn't use the word public to begin with.
"Natural Rights" is a terrible place to start in the sense that I don't believe they exist (and that Natural Rights, like Natural Law, amount to theism with the anthropomorphism removed, but not satisfactorily replaced). That said, it seems that you need to establish the absence of natural rights to assert, as I do, that rights only exist so far as they are agreed upon, enumerated, enforced. When we throw words like "rights" around, caution is in order.
As I like to tell Seattleblues--if you think you've thought of something that I haven't, you're likely missing some part of my argument. :)
That said, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that ANY society will be well served by providing the public with access to any and all information . . . including pornography, within reasonable parameters (that is, to adults, and in a forum where accessing that information does not infringe on the rights of others to remain sheltered therefrom).
On balance, I think we're on the same side of this matter (so far as I can be bothered to ally myself with any side). I would rather err on the side of liberty, and suspect that the kind of flagrant abuse of the "privilege" of looking at porn in the library is so rare that it borders on absurd that we're discussing it at all, let alone to the tune of 287-or-so posts.
"Natural Rights" is a terrible place to start in the sense that I don't believe they exist (and that Natural Rights, like Natural Law, amount to theism with the anthropomorphism removed, but not satisfactorily replaced). That said, it seems that you need to establish the absence of natural rights to assert, as I do, that rights only exist so far as they are agreed upon, enumerated, enforced. When we throw words like "rights" around, caution is in order.
As I like to tell Seattleblues--if you think you've thought of something that I haven't, you're likely missing some part of my argument. :)
That said, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that ANY society will be well served by providing the public with access to any and all information . . . including pornography, within reasonable parameters (that is, to adults, and in a forum where accessing that information does not infringe on the rights of others to remain sheltered therefrom).
On balance, I think we're on the same side of this matter (so far as I can be bothered to ally myself with any side). I would rather err on the side of liberty, and suspect that the kind of flagrant abuse of the "privilege" of looking at porn in the library is so rare that it borders on absurd that we're discussing it at all, let alone to the tune of 287-or-so posts.
288
Wow, 287 comments already. I wish I'd seen this earlier.
I wholeheartedly support this woman's concerns and appeal for some solution. I have experienced exactly the same situation she describes at a Seattle library (Ballard).
As this woman makes clear, the problem is not that this person is privately viewing pornography in a library.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PERSON IS **EXHIBITING** PORNOGRAPHY TO A NONCONSENTING PUBLIC.
It is equivalent to opening the centerfold of a hardcore magazine and holding it up in front of everyone in the room. Or how about putting an enormous picture of hardcore (ass) fucking up on a full size billboard over a public street. Would that be OK?
Please understand that the so-called "privacy screens" are joke. They hardly limit the viewing angle, are easily removed, and often are not present at all. Anyone who has the perverse intent to display pornography to people around him will simply remove the "privacy screen". This is what I have observed.
The person I observed doing this made his intent clear by calling porn up on his monitor, backing away from it, and looking around for people to see the images and then watching their reactions. He wore a grotesque smile on his face. I saw him single out a teenage female library employee, pushing a cart around reshelving books. He locked eyes on her and waited for her to notice the porn on his monitor, and when she did, he grinned at her in the most disgusting, malicious way imaginable.
People should also realize that the height of a computer monitor is exactly the same height of the eyes of the children wandering around any given library.
I also reported the problem to library staff, and then wrote an email to Seattle police. I was rebuffed by both in the same way this woman describes.
Censorship of information being expressed or accessed is absolutely oppressive and insidious and must be fought.
But please do not conflate the private viewing of controversial material with the PUBLIC EXHIBITION of controversial material.
THESE ARE WHOLLY DISTINCT ISSUES.
More...
I wholeheartedly support this woman's concerns and appeal for some solution. I have experienced exactly the same situation she describes at a Seattle library (Ballard).
As this woman makes clear, the problem is not that this person is privately viewing pornography in a library.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PERSON IS **EXHIBITING** PORNOGRAPHY TO A NONCONSENTING PUBLIC.
It is equivalent to opening the centerfold of a hardcore magazine and holding it up in front of everyone in the room. Or how about putting an enormous picture of hardcore (ass) fucking up on a full size billboard over a public street. Would that be OK?
Please understand that the so-called "privacy screens" are joke. They hardly limit the viewing angle, are easily removed, and often are not present at all. Anyone who has the perverse intent to display pornography to people around him will simply remove the "privacy screen". This is what I have observed.
The person I observed doing this made his intent clear by calling porn up on his monitor, backing away from it, and looking around for people to see the images and then watching their reactions. He wore a grotesque smile on his face. I saw him single out a teenage female library employee, pushing a cart around reshelving books. He locked eyes on her and waited for her to notice the porn on his monitor, and when she did, he grinned at her in the most disgusting, malicious way imaginable.
People should also realize that the height of a computer monitor is exactly the same height of the eyes of the children wandering around any given library.
I also reported the problem to library staff, and then wrote an email to Seattle police. I was rebuffed by both in the same way this woman describes.
Censorship of information being expressed or accessed is absolutely oppressive and insidious and must be fought.
But please do not conflate the private viewing of controversial material with the PUBLIC EXHIBITION of controversial material.
THESE ARE WHOLLY DISTINCT ISSUES.
289
the only argument that makes any sense, and where the desired outcome would be achieved, is photographing, public shaming, and spreading the photo far and wide. All legal, and morally solid. Just make sure to have good running shoes on, as said perv would likely be violent.
290
I'm pro-porn but anti-porn-where-kids-are. I've had a problem with the libraries about this for YEARS (it is one of the few things Dr. Laura and I agree on). I was in a Shoreline library gosh, must have been 10 years ago now and saw children of about 10 years old looking at porn on the computers. I told the librarian who handed me a pamphlet telling me that the kids had the "right" to look at porn and told me she couldn't intervene. I was LIVID. I went over to the kids and asked them if their parents knew what they did at the library and told them that they could either turn it off or I'd follow them home and let their folks know.
I know kids are curious about this stuff but I don't think kids should be learning about sex from porn. Don't we all have enough fucked up perceptions as is?
I know kids are curious about this stuff but I don't think kids should be learning about sex from porn. Don't we all have enough fucked up perceptions as is?
291
@124 My problem with your argument is that parents don't have to accompany children to the library or give them permission to use the computers, etc. so saying it is the paren't responsibility to make those choices is ridiculous since you've taken the power out of our hands. Sure, we have to sign the form for them to actually check material OUT but we are pressured to do that by the schools who take the kids on regular trips to the library and we don't get to specify what matierial they are allowed to check out and what they aren't. Would you want to be the kid who had to stay behind on field trips because his mom wouldn't let him check out books? Would you want to be the parent who does that to your kid?
Oh, and I'm sure you never went anywhere without your parents knowing when you were a kid.
Just one more point on this and I'll shut up (because I have to get to an appointment), if I provided my children with hardcore porn, I'd be looking at trouble with CPS. If a strip club or adult theater admitted minors into the clubs, they'd be looking at fines or worse. It hardly seems fair that the library would not be held to that same standards to protect children that the rest of us are.
Oh, and I'm sure you never went anywhere without your parents knowing when you were a kid.
Just one more point on this and I'll shut up (because I have to get to an appointment), if I provided my children with hardcore porn, I'd be looking at trouble with CPS. If a strip club or adult theater admitted minors into the clubs, they'd be looking at fines or worse. It hardly seems fair that the library would not be held to that same standards to protect children that the rest of us are.
292
To all those people who say "if you don't want your kids seeing porn, then supervise them in the library", I think a LOT of parents think there is absolutely nothing to worry about if they tell their 5th or 6th grade aged child that it's okay to go to the library after school so they can do their research paper, or check out a novel, or whatever. I will also point out that a kid that age can quite easily be at an intellectual level to enjoy books in the general section of the library, but I would put it to you that they are awfully young to be seeing hardcore porn in the library. I also know that if I had seen something like that in the library at that age, I would NEVER had told my mother because I'd have been too embarrassed to do so, so the whole conversation about porn that you all think parents should be having with their kids who've accidentally been exposed in the library would never have happened. There's a period in a kid's life in which they're definitely old enough to not be supervised by adults every single minute of the day, but also in which they're very impressionable and exposure to intense material (like porn or intense violence) is inadvisable.
Also, when I think of public spaces, I think of "public" as meaning that everyone should feel comfortable and able to use it. Why do we want people to feel comfortable watching porn in a library? We don't feel comfortable with people being loud in a library, because that's a nuisance. We aren't okay with people talking on their cell phones in a library, because again, it's a nuisance. I think that people watching porn in the library definitely counts as a nuisance, not just because of kids, but because I'm sure it makes many patrons uncomfortable. I think the part of the public that wants to view porn in the library is a much smaller portion of it than the part that feels uncomfortable if they know someone is watching porn next to them.
In conclusion, I don't think it's appropriate to watch porn in the library, and I think that it's perfectly acceptable to have a policy saying that one can't. I don't think web filters are a good idea, since they're both bad at filtering and ineffective, but the librarians should be able to tell porn-viewers to either stop viewing the porn or stop using the computer.
More...
Also, when I think of public spaces, I think of "public" as meaning that everyone should feel comfortable and able to use it. Why do we want people to feel comfortable watching porn in a library? We don't feel comfortable with people being loud in a library, because that's a nuisance. We aren't okay with people talking on their cell phones in a library, because again, it's a nuisance. I think that people watching porn in the library definitely counts as a nuisance, not just because of kids, but because I'm sure it makes many patrons uncomfortable. I think the part of the public that wants to view porn in the library is a much smaller portion of it than the part that feels uncomfortable if they know someone is watching porn next to them.
In conclusion, I don't think it's appropriate to watch porn in the library, and I think that it's perfectly acceptable to have a policy saying that one can't. I don't think web filters are a good idea, since they're both bad at filtering and ineffective, but the librarians should be able to tell porn-viewers to either stop viewing the porn or stop using the computer.
293
What's wrong with people crying free speech violation in this case?! This is weird... Let's see, I'm a female in my late 20s, I don't have/ want kids and spend very little time thinking about them, and I watch a lot of hard core/ BDSM porn. At home. Libraries, being paid by the *public*, should strive to make everyone welcome to pursue the main goal: research and reading. I would not feel comfortable writing my research papers beside a perv watching any of the videos that I may watch at home, and libraries, in their mandate, should have rules against that.
*Nobody* is talking about making watching porn illegal, but yet the pro-creepy dude are all ripping their shirts about how it shouldn't be illegal. Have you guys heard of policies? Rules? Like the fact that you can't shout in the library. *No one* is suggesting shouting should be against the law. Have people completely lost their common sense in America? "How about if the porn is research for school?" Easy: you tell the librarian it is research and show him your work. How complex is that? Rules exist for society to function well together. But using judgement is *permitted*. And the "Where do you draw the line?" argument, where do you draw the line anywhere? We may not have a clear line between erotica and soft core porn, but we all know that 'Teen Cum Dumpsters 4' is porn. Is there a clear line between what is whispering and what is talking in the library? Do they count the exact decibels before telling someone to keep it down?And the rest, because it's not a law, but a library policy, you can use your communication skills to present your case if you feel it's unfair.
*Nobody* is talking about making watching porn illegal, but yet the pro-creepy dude are all ripping their shirts about how it shouldn't be illegal. Have you guys heard of policies? Rules? Like the fact that you can't shout in the library. *No one* is suggesting shouting should be against the law. Have people completely lost their common sense in America? "How about if the porn is research for school?" Easy: you tell the librarian it is research and show him your work. How complex is that? Rules exist for society to function well together. But using judgement is *permitted*. And the "Where do you draw the line?" argument, where do you draw the line anywhere? We may not have a clear line between erotica and soft core porn, but we all know that 'Teen Cum Dumpsters 4' is porn. Is there a clear line between what is whispering and what is talking in the library? Do they count the exact decibels before telling someone to keep it down?And the rest, because it's not a law, but a library policy, you can use your communication skills to present your case if you feel it's unfair.
294
"The minute you start going down the the slippery slope of censoring this or that, some don’t like kids looking at video games and or some people don’t like this political view," (Andra) Addison says."
Who in their right mind compares kids looking at porn with video games!!! Come on. This is child abuse and I think CPS ought to be called in to investigate this being openly displayed towards children. What about the rights of children??? And yes Andra, you're right; porn is not illegal. But showing it to kids is. It's considered sexual abuse when shown to children (ever heard of an "X" rating? It's not legal for the kiddos to watch, or in this case, be forced to watch.). If a parent let their child view porn, or if it was shown in other public places, let's say the schools or at a community center, you can bet your resource collection the authorities would be right on it. Why not the libraries? You're just active (and cowardly) participants.
The privacy screens are a joke.
Who in their right mind compares kids looking at porn with video games!!! Come on. This is child abuse and I think CPS ought to be called in to investigate this being openly displayed towards children. What about the rights of children??? And yes Andra, you're right; porn is not illegal. But showing it to kids is. It's considered sexual abuse when shown to children (ever heard of an "X" rating? It's not legal for the kiddos to watch, or in this case, be forced to watch.). If a parent let their child view porn, or if it was shown in other public places, let's say the schools or at a community center, you can bet your resource collection the authorities would be right on it. Why not the libraries? You're just active (and cowardly) participants.
The privacy screens are a joke.
295
"The minute you start going down the the slippery slope of censoring this or that, some don’t like kids looking at video games and or some people don’t like this political view," (Andra) Addison says."
Who in their right mind compares kids looking at porn with video games!!! Come on. This is child abuse and I think CPS ought to be called in to investigate this being openly displayed towards children. What about the rights of children??? And yes Andra, you're right; porn is not illegal. But showing it to kids is. It's considered sexual abuse when shown to children (ever heard of an "X" rating? It's not legal for the kiddos to watch, or in this case, be forced to watch.). If parents let their child view porn, or if it was shown in other public places, let's say the schools or at a community center, you can bet your resource collection the authorities would be right on it. Why not the libraries? You're just active (and cowardly) participants.
Who in their right mind compares kids looking at porn with video games!!! Come on. This is child abuse and I think CPS ought to be called in to investigate this being openly displayed towards children. What about the rights of children??? And yes Andra, you're right; porn is not illegal. But showing it to kids is. It's considered sexual abuse when shown to children (ever heard of an "X" rating? It's not legal for the kiddos to watch, or in this case, be forced to watch.). If parents let their child view porn, or if it was shown in other public places, let's say the schools or at a community center, you can bet your resource collection the authorities would be right on it. Why not the libraries? You're just active (and cowardly) participants.
296
I do find it interesting that the pro-censorship people in here do not think that a library patron has the right to look at whatever they want, but do think that it is a right to look at whatever anyone else is looking at, and to not be offended by it.
Also, anyone who wants to restrict what type of content citizens are allowed to consume in the library should, at the very least, provide clear, unambiguous guidelines for what they consider unacceptable. "Pornography" is a subjective term.
Also, anyone who wants to restrict what type of content citizens are allowed to consume in the library should, at the very least, provide clear, unambiguous guidelines for what they consider unacceptable. "Pornography" is a subjective term.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (297) RSS