Seattle Library Lets Man Watch Porn On Computers Despite Complaints

The Lake City library is making news for their staunch position on the First Amendment, censorship, and the right to watch porn in the library. The problem started when library patron Julie Howe found a man watching some questionable material and asked him to move to another computer. The man refused and the librarian also refused to intervene when asked saying that the library doesn't censor content. "We're a library, so we facilitate access to constitutionally protected information. We don't tell people what they can view and check out," Seattle Public Library spokeswoman Andra Addison told Seattle PI. "Filters compromise freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. We're not in the business of censoring information."

Comments

I like their position

[HBI]

Unfortunately, some politician is going to smell opportunity and make them regret it.

Re:I like their position

[Columcille]

Why? If it's already on display via the computer, what difference does it make if it's on display from his actions? Why not let him whip it out, since he's already allowed to put those images in front of everyone? The whole thing is crazy and the censorship arguments are ludicrous. Libraries absolutely need to filter this kind of content.

Re:I like their position

[X0563511]

Because allowing him to watch it is an exercise in free speech or something, that can be argued to be protected (what the whole story is about). Whipping it out and going "to work" would run afoul of indecent exposure or other such statutes.

I guess? IANAL and all that.

Re:I like their position

[bonch]

They should regret it. The position is stupid. As noted in the article, librarians shush you if you talk too loudly. When obsession with unrealistic libertarian free speech ideas go so far as to reward insensitive, self-absorbed weirdos and punish normal people who are genuinely being distracted in a setting that's supposed to be quiet and conducive to research, it becomes a stupidly idealistic position with no practical applicability.

If anything goes because OMG-MY-FREE-SPEECH-RIGHTS, then I can just stroll into the library screaming "Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!" for three hours straight, and those prudes shouldn't be able to stop me. And as a real-world troll, I'll successfully drive away library visitors and ruin the whole purpose of the damn place. All in the name of some head-in-the-cloud ideal of freedom.

If you don't have any enforcement of civility, the jerks in society will ruin all good things. Please let's not allow weirdos to watch scat porn in the library just because you read Ayn Rand last week.

Re:I like their position

[DurendalMac]

Actually, there is. Porn is age-restricted by law. A public library is not. Do you not see the disconnect here? The government can't (well, shouldn't) legislate what happens at home in regard to filtering, child access to computers, etc, but they sure as hell can control it at a public library. There ARE restrictions on use of public facilities, you know, and I think porn at the library counts. Any material that is age-restricted like that should not be accessible at public facilities unless they are also age-restricted. I like porn as much as the next guy, but really, digging it up at a public library? Come on.

Re:I like their position

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the complaint is less about his right to view pornography and more about his lack of a right to subject others to it. If the library doesn't washer to stop him, OK but make him go some place in the library where others don't have to see it. There is plenty of precedent and common sense that makes it clear that our first amendment rights have limitations when they infringe on the rights of others. I would say it's a fair argument to say this infringes on this woman's right to use the Library in peace.

Re:I like their position

[kenh]

The write up (above) says he asked the patron to change computers, not stop exercising his first amendment rights... The librarian took the request to change computers to be the same as censorship, which it is not.

If the patron was watching porn in the kids section (only computer he could find), can we all agree that asking the patron to change computers doesn't infringe his constitutional rights?

Asking the patron to move to a (presumably) more remote location is more about manners, not censorship.

Wonder what this Constitutional Crusader Librarian feels about a patron's ability to exercise their second amendment rights?

If it's OK to watch a video of a man masturbating on a library computer, is it also OK for a man to masturbate while sitting at the computer?

Re:I like their position

[omfgnosis]

There isn't any sound precedent I'm aware of that establishes any kind of freedom from speech. There are certainly limits on what circumstances you are entitled to subject others to your speech (you are not entitled to hold an audience hostage), but there are no "free from speech zones" in public. If a person is in a public space voluntarily, they do not have the right to operate in a bubble and be shielded from speech.

That's the principle of the law. Whether watching porn is a speech act is another question, but if it is, it is absolutely protected.

Re:I like their position

[CharlyFoxtrot]

But never-mind that. It's for the children right? -- Oh yes, where is the line? Is studying anatomy on a library computer require censorship? How about blood or vulgar terms? Those should be censored too. We should just make the whole internet PG. Or else we'll have people whipping out their junk in the middle of a library and fornicating!

It's a common sense and common courtesy kind of thing. A public space is there to be used by everybody and that means that you practice discretion even when technically being within your rights. If you're going to studying graphic images of any kind (eg. medical surgery type images) then those images could be upsetting to someone else, so when possible try to choose your position with that in mind. The guy in question is a jerk. When did having manners go out of fashion ?

Re:I like their position

[Grishnakh]

What's the difference between the guy whipping it out and indecently exposing himself, and the images on the large-screen monitor in front of him, right out there for every passerby to see, showing other people indecently exposing themselves? You can't allow one and not allow the other. Just because one is real and the other is an image is irrelevant; unless you reach out and touch the man yourself, he's nothing more than an image to your eyes, the same as what you see on the monitor.

I also really wonder about if there's any laws about pornography being within view of minors in a public setting like this. Libraries usually have kids in them. What we have here is a conflict between these laws, and the anti-censorship principle. The only real solution I can see to this problem is that the library either needs to remove internet-connected computers altogether, or they have to put each one into a private room, or perhaps some kind of cubicle arrangement, so that passersby cannot see what's on the screens. Unfortunately, for some odd reason, in this day and age, it appears to be much cheaper to buy computer equipment with semiconductors made in multi-billion-dollar fabs and features accurate to microscopic detail, than to install some simple walls or partitions, even though people have building walled structures for thousands of years now.

Re:I like their position

[whoever57]

The write up (above) says he asked the patron to change computers, not stop exercising his first amendment rights... The librarian took the request to change computers to be the same as censorship, which it is not.

And when there is only one computer available for watching objectional meterial and it is in constant use? Hey, I know, why don't we set up "Free Speech Zones"?

Seriously, though, once you accept the principle of requiring the library patron to move to another computer, it can easily become a free speech issue. As other have pointed out, it might start with porn, but what about academic books on human anatomy? Who gets to decide what is objectionable?

Re:I like their position

[omfgnosis]

The legal restriction on "fire in a crowded room" is not due to a "clear negative effect", it's due to a "clear and present danger", which certainly hasn't been proven in the case of viewing pornography in public, and I think we can agree it'd be laughable to try.

Re:I like their position

[hairyfeet]

And showing kids porn is also quite illegal, which if the librarian has already been warned about that guy watching porn in a high traffic area and some kids end up being shown porn not only will she go to jail but the parents will be able to sue their asses off. your freedom ends when it infringes others rights and we have plenty of legal precedent that you can't show porn to minors, no matter how much you claim free speech. if that city has a brain they'll fire that librarian and tell the next one that next time somebody wants to do that put them in a corner or tell them to use the free wifi in a non high traffic area.

Re:I like their position

[omfgnosis]

I believe it is a protected thing, mostly because I do not want to have any slippery slope.

I don't want one either, but is that a convincing argument? It's not for me.

I applaud the library for obviously being staunch supporters of the first amendment.

It's not clear to me that 1A is even relevant. Is it a speech act to consume pornography? The closest I can reason to that is the implicit (but not explicit) right to hear speech being integral to a thorough right to speech, but I have no idea if that would stand up.

All of that said, I think the guy is quite an asshole.
Talking about no taste in public behavior.

Very probably true.

Re:I like their position

[Alsee]

censorship arguments are ludicrous

Fuck you.

Libraries absolutely need to filter this kind of content

Fuck no.

Librarians tend to have extremely strong views on the subject of censorship. The American Library Association actively promotes books that are targeted for censorship. Most librarians would happily stock Playboy magazine if it didn't cut into their budget for buying other materials.

How about I quote the American Library Association:

Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.

Article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." The "right to use a library" includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V.
[]
Libraries should not limit the selection and development of library resources simply because minors will have access to them. Institutional self-censorship diminishes the credibility of the library in the community, and restricts access for all library users.

Children and young adults unquestionably possess First Amendment rights, including the right to receive information through the library in print, nonprint, or digital format. Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images a legislative body believes to be unsuitable for them. Librarians and library governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections, because only a court of law can determine whether material is not constitutionally protected.

The mission, goals, and objectives of libraries cannot authorize librarians or library governing bodies to assume, abrogate, or overrule the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians. As Libraries: An American Value states, "We affirm the responsibility and the right of all parents and guardians to guide their own children's use of the library and its resources and services." Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's - and only their children's - access to library resources. Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.

Lack of access to information can be harmful to minors.

-

Re:I like their position

[alzoron]

No where is an inalienable right denied by moving someone elsewhere to watch their material. That this is a tax-funded organization does not change that.

That's a nice position. While we're at it let's just set up a bunch of new zones for all of our rights. Zone A is for religion. Zone B is for speech. Zone C is for the press. Zone D is for petition. Oh, and by the way you're going to have submit to an intrusive and degrading search before entering these zones because your right against unreasonable searches and seizures is handled in Zone E and doesn't apply anywhere else.

Don't mind the guard towers and barb wire fences, they're there to protect your rights, provided you're in the right zone.

Re:I like their position

[Darinbob]

Since when is it an inalienable right to watch porn in public? You are told to be quiet in a library and this is not considered a heavy handed repression of free speech, so why shouldn't being told to behave fit the same pattern? Shouting in a library disrupts others, and watching porn in a library disrupts others.

Re:I like their position

[ArcherB]

Time, place, and manner. Long established restrictions on speech in public forums.

There are very, very specific restrictions, the most famous being the presentation of a "clear and present danger". Is there a specific precedent you can cite which would apply soundly to consuming pornography in public but wouldn't be comically out of sync with the letter or spirit of 1A?

Yes! It is illegal to show children naked pictures. If he is in the public library viewing porn (nake pictures), then he is certainly exposing children to naked pictures. I see no reason why this guy shouldn't be arrested under sexual predator laws and put "on the list".

Sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. You are free to say whatever you like. You should NOT be allowed to say it over and over and over again. This guy was free to say that he likes porn. He is NOT free to show it to everyone.

Also, consumption is NOT speech. He was not stating a viewpoint or petitioning grievences to his government. He was looking at porn.

VIEWING PORN IS NOT SPEECH!

Re:I like their position

[ArcherB]

A well-stocked library contains plenty of pornographic books, so it's kind of a slippery slope for the library. And unless you yell "gather round children" while using the computer you aren't really "showing" porn to minors. I agree that the library could encourage people to be discreet, but really kids should be in segregated areas anyway.

Wait a minute here. Are you saying the kids should be in segregated areas but the guy looking at porn should be allowed to view it wherever he wants?

Damn! Your priorities are fucked up.

First Amendment isn't relevant here

[bonch]

The commitment to information access is admirable, but the article says that the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that libraries can filter content. Besides, I would want to make as many of my library patrons as comfortable as possible, as well as make it as family-friendly as possible, so I'd probably prohibit jerkin' it to the pr0n. Making people, potentially children, inadvertent viewers of pornography isn't something most governments are keen on supporting, and I suspect the library's policies will change after this media coverage.

This part made me laugh:

The dilemma was summed up by another library patron, Jessica Christensen, who told Seattle PI, "What I find ironic is that you can't talk too loudly at the Seattle Public Libraries or you'll be asked to keep it down so as not to distract the other patrons. You know, the patrons viewing pornography."

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Dredd13]

They CAN choose to filter content, but they've taken the stance of NOT being the morality police to decide what content is "acceptable" and what content isn't. Which is admirable.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[bonch]

It's not a "moral judgement" any more then telling someone to be quiet is a moral judgement. It's just creating an accommodating environment for the other library patrons. Do you really think some woman wants to look over and see some anal sex video on the screen? There is a point where a little consideration of others contributes to a better society. What kind of creepy asshole goes to the public library to watch porn?

By your logic, someone can come into a library loudly cussing up a storm for an hour, and nobody is supposed to tell him to shut up because OMG HIS FREE SPEECH.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Dredd13]

The library isn't choosing what content to PROVIDE when they say someone has to be quiet and orderly.

By saying "you can view this but not that", or whatever, they're making a judgement call on the actual material they provide (albeit virtually) to their patrons, and to many librarians, that's the third-rail. You DON'T censor the material you provide to the patrons. You might have to prioritize some content over others when it comes time to buy them (what books are most in demand, etc., etc.), but if there's no cost difference involved to "serve porn versus not serve porn" to the patrons, then almost every librarian I know will choose to allow access to it, rather than be the censor.

And, to be honest, I don't care "what someone wants to see". You don't have some Constitutional right to not be offended.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[meerling]

Exactly. Many Librarians have stood up and spoken out against censorship in all it's forms. It's just they work in libraries and must not be used to yelling to be heard.

You don't like what they are watching, then don't stare at their screen. Same way with what book or magazine they are reading, stop looking over their shoulder and reading it. If you really want to see it, get your own copy or wait until that one is available.

Do you dislike porn? If so, then don't view it. There, that's simple enough.

As to bonch whining about librarians shushing someone who's being loud, that's not censorship, they didn't prevent him from communicating, just from being a rude impolite noisy pest that's disturbing the other patrons. Kind of like not allowing someone to knock other people down by ride skateboard inside a crowded mall isn't a violation of the skateboarders right. You have to have respect for other people.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[NeutronCowboy]

Holy shit, is it "I refuse to understand the point being made and will continue to whip out completely irrelevant analogies" day?

No one is fucking on the tables. This is about what people are allowed to look at on the computer. That's it. Now, if someone wants to file indecency complaints against the patron in question for showing them or a child some people doing dirty deeds, then fine. But that's not what anyone is complaining about - they're all complaining that the library isn't playing morality cop, and for that, they can all go DIAF.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[PCM2]

No one is fucking on the tables. This is about what people are allowed to look at on the computer. That's it.

And normal, rational people shouldn't have to witness graphic sex acts when they go to the library. It's you who doesn't seem to understand the point being made.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Vairon]

Your suggestion is absurd. A library's purpose is to make informational available to the public. Its purpose is NOT to provide a place to have sex. It's also NOT a place to eat 5 course meal. It's NOT a place to sleep for the winter. There are plenty of activities NOT suitable in a library. Looking at information however IS an activity that a library is intended to facilitate. The fact that you might be offended at this particular type of informational is inconsequential. Just like it should not matter if a vegetarian took offense at someone viewing pictures of pork chops at the library.The right not to be offended is not enumerated in the Constitution. The right to freedom of speech is a part of the Constitution.

Provocative, but the right thing

[bobdinkel]

Librarians are really unsung heroes. Well, maybe not unsung, but they should be sung more. They're doing the right thing even if it seems creepy. Of course the second he starts tugging it, they need to haul him off.

Re:Provocative, but the right thing

[NeutronCowboy]

Because choking the chicken isn't speech. I know that speech has been stretched to the point of breaking by the Citizens United case, but that doesn't mean it was right.

Re:Provocative, but the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Word. The Seattle Public Library stopped keeping tabs on what you had previously checked out after the Patriot Act became law. Now you can opt-in to keep a list of your previously-read books.

I remember when the Patriot Act passed, the librarians would hand out pamphlets on the Patriot Act when people asked why they didn't have their previously checked-out list.

Librarians are bad ass.

Voters Filter Library Funding

[ackthpt]

Librarian best think about this very carefully. Public libraries usually have boards, too. There's censorship and there's abuse of the 1st Amendment.

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[pscottdv]

There are other things to think about as well. Often, having visible pornography in the workplace falls afoul federal sexual harrasment rules. What is the library going to do when they get sued by their own staff?

Best way not to see porn: don't look at it

[mykos]

If people don't want to look at porn, why don't they just not look at porn? Why do they have to tell someone else that they can't look at porn either?

This is not about porn, specifically

[Anonymous Coward]

If porn is filtered for being objectionable today, tomorrow it will be sexual education sites, LGBT rights websites, Erowid, a violent kickboxing site, fringe political sites, conspiracy theorists, supposedly "racist" material, gun sites, men's mags, Fark, or who knows what else.

The problem with trying to block "offensive" content is determining who gets to set the standard for offense and who gets to interpret it. This discretion will always be abused.

Content creators will almost always be unaware of these blocks and will certainly have little financial incentive to challenge them. Patrons will evade the blocks by going somewhere else. The result is a cabal of petty tyrants whose discretion goes unchallenged because nobody has sufficient motive for doing so.

FFS

[GauteL]

If the library had a little adult section where people could go borrow their first amendment supported material, fine.

But watching porn in public with non-interested people around you is inconsiderate, off-putting and a really creepy thing to do.

I'm all for free speech, but that doesn't mean the public have to help you being an asshole. If you want to shout insults to people on the streets, then perhaps that has to be allowed, but that doesn't mean you have to buy them a box to stand on and a megaphone.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but if the First Amendment only protected speech that most of us approved of, would we need constitutional protection of it?

Re:FFS

[guruevi]

It maybe inconsiderate, off-putting and creepy to you but that doesn't mean it's unlawful or wrong. What is creepy to you today may be accepted tomorrow or elsewhere in the world.

Yes, people are allowed to be assholes. You're allowed to use a megaphone and a stand and the government does provide those as well (they're called public parks).

I think churches and preachers are inconsiderate, off-putting and creepy and the government does provide them with money by not having them pay taxes.

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[bonch]

So apparently all the weekend libertarians are going to come out and defend the library. By your logic, if someone is talking too loudly in the library and is disturbing you, you should leave. In fact, if anyone is being obnoxious, annoying, or offensive, it's somehow everyone else's fault. And the self-absorbed jerks get to rule the world.

Are people here seriously going to defend some creepy fuck watching porn at the public library? Really? Can I bring a stereo into the library playing loud gangsta rap? Free speech, mothafucka!

Re:The rights of other patrons

[TFAFalcon]

What makes porn so much different from other subjects? You can find people that 'don't wish too see' material about just about anything.

evolution - check
global warming - check
any religion they don't follow - check
other sexual orientations - check
other races - check
history - check
other political parties - check ,.....

If people don't wish to see something, there is nothing keeping them from turning away. They shouldn't demand that the library ban something just because they lack the willpower to ignore something they are clearly interested in.

Re:Oh won't someone think of the children!

[rts008]

I suspect sarcasm, but I can't be sure...does not change my reply.

They are thinking of the children!
1. This is an example of the 1st Amendment in real life. It reinforces some of what they are being taught in civics class.
2. Helps disabuse the notion that procreation is taboo, instead of natural and even necessary for the survival of our species.

See, it's all for the good of the children and their education...civics lesson and biology lesson, all rolled into one!

This seems to be perfect for a library role...education, easy access to knowledge, and preservation of knowledge.
   

Total Logical Disconnect

[RobinEggs]

This story couldn't be more idiotic, nor could all of these responses about the bill of rights, 'thinking of the children', etc.

When the library spokeswoman says "We don't tell people what they can view and check out", you'd think someone demanded they revoke the man's library card. No one asked that the man be censured in any way; they didn't even ask that he stop watching porn. All they ever asked was that he do it at another computer.

This woman's objection is polite and respectful to a fault. She doesn't want him to stop watching porn; she doesn't pass moral judgment on it in any way whatsoever. She just doesn't want to see it herself. Does that really make her some kind of First Amendment stomping jackboot? Sheesh...

And as for your tired 'think of the children' responses, sometimes 'think of the children' is a valid concern. Not everything that can be a slippery slope fallacy or pillar of convervative moral imperialism is always such. Not every request that people show some respect for your morals amounts to demanding that the entire world bend over backwards for them. With children and libraries, it would be one thing to demand that content depicting sex, drugs, etc. not even exist in the library because you don't want your precious snookums to visit in a place containing those things, but it's quite another to simply request that people show discretion with such content, especially in publicly owned places explicitly warranted as fit for children. Is it really censorship to ask that people watching porn simply do it at a terminal which isn't in full view of the information desk? Do parents in your world have any rights at all in determining what their children should be easily exposed to?

Re:Why does the library need to be "family-friendl

[bolthole]

The issue is not that "we're not animals". It is that humans are supposed to be BETTER than your average animals.

Contrariwise, if you want to say 'but we are animals, so anything derived from animal behavior is fine", then it should be similarly fine for that guy standing behind you to rip your neck open and take all your stuff. Or, if you prefer, grab your arms, sodomize you, and THEN take your stuff, while you're busy looking for a rectal band-aid.

So which would you prefer? "we're just animals", or "we're better than mere animals"?

To make this post a more slashdot/techie post.. you'll probably whine about "harm to an individual" somehow being different.. to which I will counter with Asimov's humanistic "zeroth law", which it is postulated that "harm to humanity" is of even greater concern, than "harm to an individual".

The collective members of a particular society, get to deem what is "harmful to humanity".
If you dont like the definitions of the society you live in.. then perhaps you should go move to Sweden.

Re:Why does the library need to be "family-friendl

[dfenstrate]

If you avoid the crazy mindfuck of creationism and the idea that we somehow aren't animals, you'll simply realize that human children have been subjected to sex and reproduction from early ages for 10,000s of years at the very least (800,000 or so, depending on what you consider human).

Yeah, we're just animals, man. We should just drop our trousers and relieve ourselves where ever, because we're just animals. Instead of laughing at the guidos circling each other in domination rituals and getting into fistfights over some girl, we should cheer it on as representing our animal nature.

Good stuff man, good stuff. What else can we do as animals? Oh yeah, we could have whole cows shipped to us, and then kill them in our front yard. Then we could go out there and pick off some raw meat whenever we're hungry, and leave it there for the scavengers to clean up. We could reproduce with our siblings too, cause hey, we're just animals. That's what they do.

Have you picked up on the sarcasm yet? We've only gotten as far as we have, as humans, by rising above the animals purposefully. This means that certain daily activities have their time and place, and it's not always in public.

Hey, I'm with you on not being uptight about sex, but I want to discuss it in a manner that I think matches what I decide my children are capable of grasping. I don't want to go from 'zero' to 'two girls one cup' because some guy needs to rub his crank through his pants at the library, and my kid saw it.

Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment

[MSTCrow5429]

The 1st Amendment recognizes the State, absent several unrelated restrictions, cannot prevent one from producing, owning, or viewing literary etc. works. It does not say the State must supply those works, only that it cannot prevent speech. The State must not interfere with the viewing or other observation of pornography, but it is under no obligation to supply pornography. The 1st Amendment allows for a free-market in speech; it does not require or speak to a subsidized one.