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

[ackthpt]

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

How do you know the man in question isn't one?

Seems better than even odds to me...

Re:I like their position

[Squiddie]

There's nothing wrong. As long as the man doesn't whip it out right there and then, everything is fine.

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

[Wain13001]

I agree with your points, but I disagree with your conclusion. I don't see the harm in letting him be naked in the library.

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

[sadness203]

Well, yes and no. It would be inappropriate if there was children around, I mean, just looking, not fapping.

But I always find it disturbing that people can look at that in public space... It's more of a social issue in this case, yet, I'll side with the librarian.

Re:I like their position

[countertrolling]

If they keep the decibel level down, it's none of your damn business.

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

[DurendalMac]

There may be a legal issue, though. Libraries are not restricted by age. Porn is legally restricted by age.

Re:I like their position

[msheekhah]

I whip my thing back and forth...

Re:I like their position

[tlhIngan]

The simple solution would be a curtain behind the corrals. Thus people who want to watch porn can go right ahead with some privacy. (It also keeps shoulder-surfers down).

In general, libraries either have curtains, or they have a set of computers which are in a more secluded area. You don't have to filter it, just point the patron to one of those other PCs which should satisfy everyone involved.

Though, I suspect we're going to see some busybody sue the heck out of the library and that patron for "contributing to the deliquency of children".

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

[forkfail]

I'd note that visual is far less intrusive than audible.

Re:I like their position

[eugene ts wong]

What if he is looking at a goatse photo of himself? If he drops his pants in the library and opens himself up, but doesn't go "to work", as you put it, and literally just stands there, then can he do it? As long as he is revealing himself in the same way as in the photo, then your logic protects him.

If he can't quietly do it in real life, then why would you let the photo reveal the same thing?

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

[cpm99352]

Sorry, I accidentally modded your post redundant - I meant to hit insightful. I wish there was a "confirm" for a down-mod. Killing my existing mods...

Re:I like their position

[TemperedAlchemist]

No, that's indecent exposure (and arguably public exposure) which is enforceable and not protected under the first amendment.

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!

See, I can do argument ad absurdum too.

Re:I like their position

[BasilBrush]

The simple solution would be a curtain behind the corrals. Thus people who want to watch porn can go right ahead with some privacy. (It also keeps shoulder-surfers down).

Right. And will the librarians be the ones to wipe up the mess after the punter has left the curtained cubicle? All in the name of freedom-of-speech you understand.

Re:I like their position

[sexconker]

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.

Inalienable rights are inalienable rights. If you don't like it, don't look.

Re:I like their position

[spire3661]

In our Republic, the law is supposed to apply to evryone, including insensitive, self-absorbed weirdos. I would rather the librarians err on the side of caution in matters like this and not censor. And it must be reiterated again, you have no expectation to be free from distraction in public. Watching humans copulate is seriously not as bad as most would make it seem to be.

Re:I like their position

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever the library's 'position' is, it is nowhere near as radical as Kama Sutra.

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

[Obfuscant]

No, that's indecent exposure (and arguably public exposure) which is enforceable and not protected under the first amendment.

Why isn't it? As someone else pointed out, if displaying a picture of ones genitalia (in action or at "parade rest") is protected speech (as these librarians claim), how can displaying the live thing not be? That's a serious question.

Yes, it's called reductio ad absurdum. Answer why one is protected and the other isn't and it will show that maybe neither really are after all.

Re:I like their position

[Walt Dismal]

So. what if a pedo watches child porn in the library? Free speech? What's the line? This is not political free speech. It is an activity of consumption but not expression. it is not an expression of artwork performance. It is not research for supporting a political cause. He does not have a Constitutional right to use the computer, he is a patron of the library at their discretion. He cannot demand to be allowed to use their computer for piracy, either. In short, there are cases where unrestricted use of the machine is deniable. In a way, this is like someone with unbelievable body odor coming in and demanding he be allowed to use the library. Where can one draw the line?

Re:I like their position

[Anonymous Coward]

"Any material that is age-restricted like that should not be accessible at public facilities unless they are also age-restricted."

If the government can censor in the library, they can censor at your home. What they should do, like other have said, is force him to switch to another computer and/or have a more private section, like monitors facing the wall.

Even my local university allows local public to sign up for free computer access, which includes porn. Anyone who needs to do homework can request you log off though, so it's not like it takes anything away from the students.

If what you're watching is not illegal to watch in private, then it should not be illegal to watch in public.

Re:I like their position

[Trogre]

Thank you.

I see some idiot has already tagged the summary "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense". That tag would be far more appropriate attached to your comment.

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

[Grishnakh]

As noted in the article, librarians shush you if you talk too loudly.

There's still libraries that do that? Here in Arizona, that practice is complete gone. People talk openly and loudly in public libraries here in the Phoenix area, on their cellphones, to their companions, etc. If you find an older librarian and complain, she'll quietly agree with you but won't do anything about it because it just causes a big fight, causing the police to get called.

Re:I like their position

[marnues]

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.

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

[marnues]

It's all about context, not absurdity.

Re:I like their position

[marnues]

It can, but it doesn't have to become a free speech issue. You must first prove that the first step reliably leads to the wrong step, otherwise you have built a Fallacy of Slippery Slopes.

Re:I like their position

[marnues]

Any material that is age-restricted like that should not be accessible at public facilities unless they are also age-restricted..

That is where 1st amendment rights are violated. A library should be able to state that they do not have facilities for age-restricted material, which can then be overcome through funding and hard-work. Codifying this however, prevents such from happening, which is where I take offense.

Re:I like their position

[Chris Burke]

If they keep the decibel level down, it's none of your damn business.

Why do they have keep the decibel level down? You fascist.

Re:I like their position

[DarkOx]

I don't think they need to filter the content but I think librarian should insist patrons respect one another. The request he move to a different machine perhaps one where the display faces away from a wall was entirely reasonable.

Re:I like their position

[Score Whore]

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

Also the AC who said you cannot yell fire in a crowded room is wrong. You can be restricted from falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example. If there is a fire you are certainly allowed to do so.

Re:I like their position

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like it, don't look.

Except that here we are talking about a public library. I'm not arguing that porn should be illegal, but rather that this is a resource which should be common and accessible & useful for all. If someone's computer screen is right next to yours, viewing porn it is disruptive to someone else's library experience. If someone entered the Library and began yelling his beliefs, he would be asked to quiet down. Not because anyone wants to deny him a right, but because the exercise of his right to say whatever he wants is infringing on the right of others to use their public library.

Re:I like their position

[Score Whore]

There's a huge difference between showing your penis and showing pictures of your penis. Public health is one reason.

Re:I like their position

[DarkOx]

Exactly!

I can agree with not filtering content in the library. Its there to make information of all kinds accessible, and that should be protected. This guy was just being a first class jerk though, moving to another machine where the display would be less visible to other patrons probably would have been adequate and really is the least he could do.

Just because you have the 'right' to do something does not mean should or your must. It only means others are not within their rights to stop you. Flagrant thoughtless abuse of 'our rights' like this when viewed by less evenhanded people than myself become reasons people decide we perhaps should not have so many rights. I think that is bad thing.

Free speech is very important, and I do think at time obscenity is required to make a point. I just hope anyone who decides to act in what the majority will consider obscene in public, has a point to make. Otherwise you are just making others uncomfortable for no reasons, which is wrong, and worse you are risking the rights of other one day being curtailed for nothing.

Re:I like their position

[sexconker]

If someone's editorial is right next to the one you're reading, and you don't like it, it's disruptive.

Deal with it.

Re:I like their position

[sexconker]

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.

You can't sequester people who do something you don't like without that being a violation of their right to do something you don't like.
Just as with all the rules about treating people the same with regards to "protected class" status, you have to treat people the same with regards to speech.

You don't get to decide what is objectionable or not.

Re:I like their position

[AlienIntelligence]

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.

As you are walking past a computer screen on your left..., you see
PORN!

You quickly avert your gaze to the right... guess what? No more porn!

WOWEE!

And the guy didn't even have to move. I love the simple solutions.

-AI

Re:I like their position

[Grishnakh]

I disagree; as long as the penis in question isn't releasing any fluids onto the floor or other surfaces, there's no difference at all.

Re:I like their position

[DurendalMac]

You fail at reading comprehension. I was talking about material that was legally age restricted. Show me the books that require you to be 18+ to purchase and I'll say that perhaps they should not be in the library, or at least should require all those checking it out should be 18+ or something to that effect. Do try to keep up.

Re:I like their position

[DurendalMac]

Home is private property, not public property. You can already do a lot more at home than you could in public. That's a non-issue.

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

[networkBoy]

I believe it is a protected thing, mostly because I do not want to have any slippery slope. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it should not be protected. I applaud the library for obviously being staunch supporters of the first amendment.

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

Re:I like their position

[omfgnosis]

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?

Re:I like their position

[hairyfeet]

But if it is anything like the main PCs in my local library frankly there is NO way to walk past without getting an eye full unless they use the one reference system in the corner. this doesn't have a damned thing to do with censorship anymore than telling someone not to scream "fuck off!" in your face over and over would be blocking his free speech. its called common courtesy which obviously nobody bothered to teach them folks on the west coast. Down here in the south someone would have just pulled the guy aside and said 'Hey man kids are walking right past there, just go look at the machine in the corner okay? Or use the free Wifi and pick some place that ain't smack dab in the middle right across from where the kids section is dude" and that would have been the end of that.

Personally I think its kind of sad that I even have to explain this, that we have become such a "me me me!" society that having thoughts about the feelings of those around you are so fucking alien i actually have to even explain this. For all the talk about how "backwards" we here in the south are at least we try not be be assholes and respect those around us. Its called civility and respect, something frankly we should have more of. the person didn't even ask him to stop, just move to one of the machines that wasn't in the middle of a high traffic area. is that REALLY so much to ask? I can't wait to see how that librarian reacts to her 'free speech!" stance when she gets a contributing charge because showing porn to kids is illegal you know.

Re:I like their position

[networkBoy]

Because, like it or not, the photo is protected, but the act is not. (I can already see the counter argument of freedom of expression).
that simple really.

Re:I like their position

[whoever57]

So, your argument is that it is not a free speech issue while it might not lead to a problem?

Or is your argument that it is only a problem if it mostly occurs? It's OK to violate free speech requirements as long as it doesn't happen too often?
Do you realistically think that if people are forced to use a subset of computers to watch or research objectionable material, those computers won't (in some libraries in the USA) become effectively unavailable? If you think that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:I like their position

[X0563511]

He'd still be there, in the flesh, exposed.

Now, if he took a picture of himself, and displayed that... I don't even want to think about how that would play out.

You are lost in a maze of twisty little statutes, all alike. You are likely to be charged by a grue.

Re:I like their position

[X0563511]

That's a case where there might well not be a practical difference, but when it comes to the way the laws are written, there is one.

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

[valkenar]

Well, if someone is reading a bunch of hate speech I might be made uncomfortable by that. A page with images of cross-burnings and hangings and the like could very well make me uncomfortable to be there. Yet that does not justify censorship. There's lots of things in the world that will be upsetting to someone. Pornography happens to be upsetting to a larger number of US citizens than most things, but, as always, unpopular (and politically dangerous) speech is the only kind that really needs protecting to begin with.

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

[thegrassyknowl]

Libraries absolutely need to filter this kind of content.

Is there anything else that offends your delicate sensibilities that the library should censor too? Never mind that. We'll just install this censoring system and you can come and tell us if we need to add anything to it that offends you later.

Proposing censorship is always a slippery slope!

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

[2fuf]

That's exactly what the library will regret: a room full of politicians

Re:I like their position

[MurukeshM]

I can watch videos of riots, arson, etc. (say, from the news). But it wouldn't be legal if I actually tried to burn down the library or riot in it, would it?

Re:I like their position

[Sulphur]

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.

The porn talks to him.

Re:I like their position

[Grishnakh]

Burning down the library causes physical harm. Images don't. But seeing some guy with his schlong hanging out isn't any more harmful than seeing a photograph of the same guy with his schlong hanging out, as long as he isn't trying to touch you with it or squirt his jism all over the keyboard for someone else to clean up.

Re:I like their position

[bmo]

>It is a well known legal principle that you cannot yell fire in a crowded room because you feel like it.

That's because it compromises other people's safety and might cause a loss of life in a stampede, which had happened back when a theater burning down was a lot more probable than it is today with fire codes and whatnot.

Where is the threat to life and limb for someone looking at porn?

I'll wait right here.

--
BMO

Re:I like their position

[Score Whore]

Not really that specific. For example go hold a rally in the rotunda of your state capitol building, no problem. Now go do it at midnight. There are even public parks where you cannot be after hours. Or classrooms in state schools. Even though it's publicly owned, it's not a public forum and you can legally be barred from using it for any purpose.

As far as a precedent, there is the fundamental Millver v. California.

Re:I like their position

[DurendalMac]

And you still fail at reading comprehension as evidenced by your earlier post. I'd also wager that they require proof of ID before checking that out or they'd get their asses busted for providing pornography to minors.

Re:I like their position

[DurendalMac]

Um...considering that the library is providing the material that you read, what need would there be to monitor anything in that regard?

Re:I like their position

[misexistentialist]

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.

Re:I like their position

[MrHanky]

If you're using the library computer for researching internet pornography for your master thesis in art history, that kind of filtering certainly is oppressive censorship. Moving to some other computer, more shielded from view, is just common courtesy. Well, perhaps not so common.

Re:I like their position

[omfgnosis]

For example go hold a rally in the rotunda of your state capitol building, no problem. Now go do it at midnight. There are even public parks where you cannot be after hours.

I don't think this has been tested in court, and if it were I think it's obvious what the decision at the top would be.

Or classrooms in state schools.

This is obviously absurd. The schools are public spaces, and the courts have ruled in favor of children having all of the constitutional rights of adults.

As far as a precedent, there is the fundamental Millver v. California

Which is comically out of sync with the letter or spirit of 1A.

Re:I like their position

[mariasama16]

I agree with you and I'd bring up the example of how adult DVDs are usually (if they're displayed at all), displayed with the covers covered up if not in another room entirely (this includes explicit CD covers) and also how adult stores put their more explicit items in the back of the store with the arrangement of things done in such a way as to prevent someone walking by to see in. If the library wants to continue to let someone watch adult content, set up a room for it or at least put it in a far corner of the library (as far from the kid's section as feasible).

Re:I like their position

[Score Whore]

I don't think this has been tested in court, and if it were I think it's obvious what the decision at the top would be.

Really? http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/judge-restores-access-to-wisconsin-capitol----but-no-staying-overnight.php

Or were you referring to parks?

This is obviously absurd. The schools are public spaces, and the courts have ruled in favor of children having all of the constitutional rights of adults.

Yeah? Go hold a rally there why don't you? I'm talking about the government being able to say "yes this is publicly owned, but you still cannot camp|hold a rally|eat your lunch|read your pornography|sleep here."

And no the courts have not held that children have all the constitutional rights of adults. In fact it's very much otherwise. Hell there are numerous clauses of the constitution that explicitly deny rights to children.

Which is comically out of sync with the letter or spirit of 1A.

Says you. The US Supreme Court Justices (and the vast majority of Americans) say otherwise which means that your opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

Re:I like their position

[Farmer Tim]

The porn talks to him.

Entirely possible.

Re:I like their position

[eugene ts wong]

I'm not going to argue your point, because I'm not up to date of the details, but where do you get your information? Is it written somewhere that pornography can be viewed in all places?

Re:I like their position

[misexistentialist]

Shouldn't all people looking for books who aren't hot girls be asked to leave so they don't distract us while we are watching porn?

Re:I like their position

[martinX]

I don't like the gannet. They wet their nests.

Re:I like their position

[eugene ts wong]

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that live goatse would be allowed according to the rules?

Good punch lines, by the way.

Re:I like their position

[eugene ts wong]

I heard that people in the south are very polite.

I'm from Canada. I met somebody who took a trip to the US. I asked if the Americans were polite. I expected a typical response, but the person surprised me by saying that the Americans in certain parts were more polite. An example is somebody saying, "Is this the end of the line?" instead of just cutting in. Canadians kind of do that, but more often than not, we just cut in.

I think that the majority of people have a lot to learn about courtesy.

Re:I like their position

[hairyfeet]

Ultimately it comes down sadly to two things we seem to be lacking, and that is common courtesy and thoughts for others besides oneself. it wasn't as if anybody was running this guy off, or even making him quit, all that was asked of him was that he switch to a machine in a less highly trafficked area. to me this screams of real life trolling, I can imagine the guy wearing a real life trollface and smirking as the speakers blared 'Suck my fucking cock you filthy fucking whore!"

Maybe there is something to be said for the "baser" way we do things in the south because if someone would have pulled that shit in my local library i can't imagine that guy sitting there more than two minutes before some guy yanked him up out of his seat and said 'WTF is wrong with you? you wanna look at that shit use that machine in the corner, there is fucking kids standing right over there man have some fucking sense!" and that would have been the end of that. if the troll would have called the cops the cops would have told him "Well there are kids just over there and frankly you ought to be thanking the guy that you aren't looking at an indecency to minors charge so i'd suggest you STFU and show some common sense next time".

Sadly we are having to have these kinds of confrontations more often because too many just don't show even the tiniest bit of common sense or common courtesy anymore. Frankly they act little better than animals and for a society to function basic ground rules have to be obeyed in public places. Just as one wouldn't expect to wear a "All niggers must fucking hang" T-Shirt in a public place without starting a confrontation so too should this troll have expected that blasting hardcore porn in the middle of a high traffic area would cause some problems. Honestly i wouldn't be surprised if that was his intention all along, to either take a shot at the lawsuit lotto or to simply be a douchebag. I don't know if its all the GMO food, the plastic in the drinks, or what, but I've noticed lately a hell of a lot more cases of people starting shit in public, even when it gains them nothing or even harms them, just for the sake of starting shit. Its almost like the common sense gene has been bred out of these people.

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]

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.

Slippery slope fallacy.

That's like saying, "You can't disrupt a congressional hearing. If you try to, they remove you by force. Why not just make everyone be silent everywhere and as soon as someone speaks, government jack-boots can shoot them."

The guy was looking at porn in the same place the story lady reads to kids. If you think that is OK, you seriously have problems. I'm all for free speech, but believe it or not, not everything is classified as speech. Pissing on a the water proof microfiche is not speech, even thought it might convey my views.

The sad part of this is, if I were to talk in a library, I would be shushed by a librarian. If I want to view porn, it's OK? So LOOKING at porn is SPEECH, but SPEAKING is not SPEECH. Did I get that right?

Re:I like their position

[ArcherB]

If someone's editorial is right next to the one you're reading, and you don't like it, it's disruptive.

Deal with it.

Sorry, but with your ID, you are not an unbiased topic.

Sorry, but you can deal with looking at porn elsewhere. Free speech does not mean I have to "deal with it". I can't yell N-word in a library. Hell, I can't even TALK in a library. If you are mad because you can't see lemonparty.org, tough shit.

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.

Re:I like their position

[anagama]

The big difference is, one is in real life, and one is a mere depiction.

Is there a difference between looking at news photos of a lynching, and participating in a lynching? Under your logic, you'd say "no" -- which is crazy. One act is merely looking at pictographic evidence of one sort, the other act is murder. In reality, there's a huge difference between things done in media, and things done in real life.

Re:I like their position

[ArcherB]

As you are walking past a computer screen on your left..., you see
A guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen

You quickly avert your gaze to the right... guess what? No more guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen

I won't say, FTFY, but I changed it up a bit. Taking a dump in public is illegal. Mastubating in public or in front of kids is illegal. How is viewing porn free speech and masturbating to that porn NOT free speech. At least by masturbating, you are expressing yourself. You are saying, "I'm really digging this porn!"

Here is an even simpler solution. Rather than making every single patron in the library avert their gaze, how about asking the one asshole to leave. You piss off one person rather than everyone else. You have rights, but your rights do not come at the expense of everyone else's.

Re:I like their position

[ArcherB]

Burning down the library causes physical harm. Images don't. But seeing some guy with his schlong hanging out isn't any more harmful than seeing a photograph of the same guy with his schlong hanging out, as long as he isn't trying to touch you with it or squirt his jism all over the keyboard for someone else to clean up.

Right! And public exposure is illegal. Opening your trench coat and flashing kids at the bus stop is called sexual assault and will put you on the sexual predator's list. Even if you were simply flashing the stop sign on the corner, you are still responsible for what the kids see. Telling the judge, "They didn't have to look!" won't do you get any good.

Re:I like their position

[Grishnakh]

There's a difference between a lynching and a photo of such, because someone is being harmed.

There is absolutely zero difference between an exposed penis and a photo of one; with sufficient resolution, you can't see the difference. No one and nothing is being harmed either way, it's just a guy's schlong hanging out for all to see. Are you going to try to convince me there's some medical harm to penises when they're exposed to outside air? It's the same with most porn; no one's being harmed (we'll ignore the varieties that do involve harm), so there's no real difference between seeing photos or movies of it or seeing it in real life, except maybe the scent factor, and the lack of 3D (which will be solved in time with 3D technology or even holography). Of course, pictures of naked women by themselves are directly akin to the aforementioned exposed penis scenario, except that in that case, there's no genitalia visible.

Re:I like their position

[I(rispee_I(reme]

The schools are public spaces, and the courts have ruled in favor of children having all of the constitutional rights of adults.

Which courts? I am pretty sure that students in public schools have to right to be secure in their papers and effects, and can be searched for any or no reason.

At least that's the posted policy at every public school I've ever attended.

Re:I like their position

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Clearly, the thing to do is produce a porn movie where the actors recite the Constitution during coitus.

Re:I like their position

[sydneyfong]

Hot chicks may get aroused and rape me.

Re:I like their position

[sydneyfong]

You are free to say whatever you like. You should NOT be allowed to say it over and over and over again.

You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.

You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.

You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.

You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.

You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.

You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.

You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.

Or come arrest me.

Re:I like their position

[Farmer Tim]

That's one way to make people stand up for their rights...

Re:I like their position

[GrayNimic]

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?

When I worked at a library, the policy was that if someone was viewing porn in a central, high-traffic area, and we got a complaint, there were two basic options: ask the patron to move to a less visible computer (nothing special, simply for example use a computer a little further from the isle rather than the one facing the whole room) or ask the patron to have a shroud added to the kiosk (a standard option for anyone to reduce shouldersurfing - I never saw one actually used). The patron absolutely had the right to view the porn regardless of the complain, so our request to the patron was based on politeness and courtesy rather than a requirement or order - they could refuse it.

I was told it was very rare to have a complaint come up, however (I never had to deal with one personally, since I worked mostly in the Young Adult section, next to the Children's section, and our computers generally weren't the ones picked to view porn on anyway).

Re:I like their position

[supersloshy]

The difference between stocking Playboy and viewing porn on library computers is that on the computer, it's visible to everyone around you whether they want it or not. Public sex, last I checked, was illegal in the United States. Censorship-schmensorship, public decency is also a concern that, in this case, trumps it.

Re:I like their position

[sycodon]

Bullshit.

Drive down the Vegas strip. Do you see ads for strip clubs? Are they nude? No. Because a city ordinance prevents it. If you think that hasn't been litigated then you're smoking something.

This stupid, sanctimonious bitch wouldn't let her kids sit next to someone viewing porn, but she's perfectly willing to let someone other person's kid sit there.

Re:I like their position

[_4rp4n3t]

make him go some place in the library where others don't have to see it.

Julie Howe, the lady in question, asked the man to move, and then asked the librarian to intervene. If you read TFA, there is an image of the terminals in Seattle Public Library, and there are a lot of them. So - if she didn't want to be subjected to the porn this guy was watching, why didn't she just move?

Re:I like their position

[Dr Damage I]

Only the hot ones? Better hope it's not a really fugly chick. Or a cougar looking to collect child support.

Re:I like their position

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They are not! He clearly takes his fapping very seriously.

And as for his comment that:

A well-stocked library contains plenty of pornographic books,

I'd really like to know where his library is. I asked my library if they had Backdoor Street Whores #13 and the librarian seemed shocked that I'd even ask her such a question.

Re:I like their position

[nu1x]

Hey, what about books on human procreatory habits ?

What about a classic historically known text called the Kama Sutra ? It is obvious that it is not smut and must be available to children.

What is smut ? Is an artful soft-porn movie smut ? Why would a child be harmed by it ? Why ? I watched many (secretly) as a child and no harm was done to me.

Where do you slip from harmless soft-porn to hc-porn, and what is the difference between the two ? Because you still need to know 2 sides of every coin, right ? The good and the bad ? So why not this case ?

Where do you draw the line ? Did I type enough question marks ?

Children are much more resistant to all kinds of information than you may think.

Re:I like their position

[iamhassi]

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).

Is it free speech?
"A driver in Schenectady, N.Y., was arrested last month after rolling past police with a DVD titled "Chocolate Foam" playing on the passenger-side sun visor in his Mercedes-Benz, authorities said. The movie also was rolling on screens set into the car's headrests."

Apparently New York has different free speech laws than Washington where this library was located.

I'm actually surprised the Washington Supreme Court ruled showing porn in public is covered under free speech. Guess I know where I'm vacationing this year, I hear Mount Rainier is very nice.

Re:I like their position

[adversus]

So if I'm reading the Satanic Bible in a library and a Christian fundie walks past and flips their shit, am I being disruptive?

Re:I like their position

[Columcille]

"The American Library Association actively promotes [ala.org] books that are targeted for censorship."

Which only goes to prove that they are about an agenda rather than facilitating access to information, otherwise they would not be actively promoting one sort of material over another. A display to feature gardening books at the start of summer? Sure. WWII history books around memorial day? I get it. A returning emphasis to banned books? Nothing in that but agenda.

As for the section you quote, particularly the bolded portion, you seem to contradict that quote. The statement defends a parent's right to restrict what their children access in the library, yet you think some pervert has the right to put pornography on display whether or not anyone else wants to see it - or wants their children to see it?

Re:I like their position

[euroq]

You've been misinformed, or are interpreting in a deceptive way. Nudity should not be prohibited by the government because other people don't like it. That doesn't mean crying fire in a crowded theater is protected speech.

In other words, it's all about the context.

Re:I like their position

[NotSanguine]

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.

It is the responsibility of the Library to make whatever (if any) adjustments to its premises to comply with the law. The only exception, IMHO, is if this guy brought a child to the Library with the express purpose of showing pornography to the child.

I see no reason why this guy shouldn't be arrested under sexual predator laws and put "on the list".

And exactly which law has this guy broken? Please state the specific law since you seem so sure that this person should have his life pretty much ruined. If it were me, I'd want to be *damn* sure.

You are free to say whatever you like. You should NOT be allowed to say it over and over and over again.

Why not? How about this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
One more time...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, by your logic, the above is illegal? Please!

This guy was free to say that he likes porn. He is NOT free to show it to everyone.

Again, that is an issue to take up with the library management. This guy is viewing material sanctioned by the library. If someone is offended by it and the issue can't be worked out informally, it is the library that is responsible, not the person viewing material that was made available by the library and is being consumed in the fashion prescribed by the library.

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!

Viewing porn isn't the viewer's speech. It is, however, the speech (according to the Supreme Court -- You know, those folks tasked with deciding what the laws actually mean) of the producers of the porn.

What you are advocating is censorship. You probably don't see it as such, but that's the case. Porn annoys you. Perhaps your favorite political authors annoy other people. What? you say that porn and the political rhetoric of [insert your favorite political philosopher] are two completely different things. Not so, says the Supreme Court and common sense. If you censor one thing, for whatever reason, (in this case, it's the "think of the children" hyperbole), that's the same as censoring anything else ("that one's a terrorist!" "This one is a communist" :"this one wants to destroy America", blah, blah, blah).

That's not to say that perhaps the Library's management shouldn't try to accommodate those who are uncomfortable with that particular form of speech and set aside an area for those who are easily offended where that content isn't available -- as long as that doesn't interfere with the free exercise of others' rights.

That said, I'm

Re:I like their position

[euroq]

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

It's always obvious about how a person's soul ticks when they say things like this. No matter how awful an erect penis may be to someone, it can't kill them - but a gun can. God forbid an erect penis enter a crowded theater. God help us if loaded guns can't.

Re:I like their position

[NotSanguine]

Ultimately it comes down sadly to two things we seem to be lacking, and that is common courtesy and thoughts for others besides oneself. it wasn't as if anybody was running this guy off, or even making him quit, all that was asked of him was that he switch to a machine in a less highly trafficked area. to me this screams of real life trolling, I can imagine the guy wearing a real life trollface and smirking as the speakers blared 'Suck my fucking cock you filthy fucking whore!"

Maybe there is something to be said for the "baser" way we do things in the south because if someone would have pulled that shit in my local library i can't imagine that guy sitting there more than two minutes before some guy yanked him up out of his seat and said 'WTF is wrong with you? you wanna look at that shit use that machine in the corner, there is fucking kids standing right over there man have some fucking sense!" and that would have been the end of that. if the troll would have called the cops the cops would have told him "Well there are kids just over there and frankly you ought to be thanking the guy that you aren't looking at an indecency to minors charge so i'd suggest you STFU and show some common sense next time".

Sadly we are having to have these kinds of confrontations more often because too many just don't show even the tiniest bit of common sense or common courtesy anymore. Frankly they act little better than animals and for a society to function basic ground rules have to be obeyed in public places. Just as one wouldn't expect to wear a "All niggers must fucking hang" T-Shirt in a public place without starting a confrontation so too should this troll have expected that blasting hardcore porn in the middle of a high traffic area would cause some problems. Honestly i wouldn't be surprised if that was his intention all along, to either take a shot at the lawsuit lotto or to simply be a douchebag. I don't know if its all the GMO food, the plastic in the drinks, or what, but I've noticed lately a hell of a lot more cases of people starting shit in public, even when it gains them nothing or even harms them, just for the sake of starting shit. Its almost like the common sense gene has been bred out of these people.

I agree with you. The guy is clearly a jerk. However, he was engaged in activity that was sanctioned by the library in a place sanctioned by the library for that purpose. Since the guy was a huge asshole, he decided to annoy others with his actions. That said, being an asshole isn't a crime. Sad, perhaps, but true.

You might expect that an accommodation could be made between reasonable people. If not, the library must address the issue as they are the ones ultimately responsible. I wasn't there, but I imagine that emotions ran high. If I was the librarian and the folks complaining about the porn were sufficiently obnoxious, I might tell them to stuff it. I would also probably ask porno guy to be considerate of his fellow library patrons. However, given the scenario presented in the article, the guy was perfectly within his rights to do what he was doing, where he was doing it. When that guy turns out to be a selfish jerk, well...life is rough sometimes.

Re:I like their position

[euroq]

Well said, sir or madam.

Re:I like their position

[NotSanguine]

If someone's editorial is right next to the one you're reading, and you don't like it, it's disruptive.

Deal with it.

Sorry, but with your ID, you are not an unbiased topic.

Sorry, but you can deal with looking at porn elsewhere. Free speech does not mean I have to "deal with it". I can't yell N-word in a library. Hell, I can't even TALK in a library. If you are mad because you can't see lemonparty.org, tough shit.

Unfortunately (for you at least -- and fortunately for the rest of us), the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. I suppose I could say STFU, but I won't. Please express yourself in whatever way you find appropriate (without impinging on the rights of others, of course). I may not agree with you, but my agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Get it now?

Re:I like their position

[rtb61]

In this case the real question is a matter of application. Was the individual watching porn or was the individual displaying porn. So is the computer display in question readily viewable by a wide variety of individuals including minors or was the monitor generally only viewable by one person at a time and out of public thoroughfares.

So did the individual not take due care to prevent the displaying of pornographic materials to minors or did the commit what in many countries would be considered a criminal act by negligence.

In reality the act is not to download porn to 'see' it in a public space but to download porn and 'display' it in a public. There is a real legal difference between seeing something and displaying something.

Re:I like their position

[NotSanguine]

As you are walking past a computer screen on your left..., you see A guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen

You quickly avert your gaze to the right... guess what? No more guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen

I won't say, FTFY, but I changed it up a bit. Taking a dump in public is illegal. Mastubating in public or in front of kids is illegal. How is viewing porn free speech and masturbating to that porn NOT free speech. At least by masturbating, you are expressing yourself. You are saying, "I'm really digging this porn!"

Here is an even simpler solution. Rather than making every single patron in the library avert their gaze, how about asking the one asshole to leave. You piss off one person rather than everyone else. You have rights, but your rights do not come at the expense of everyone else's.

I'll preface this by saying IANAL. However, my understanding is that we have (based on the constitution) affirmative rights (that is, rights to do or be or say *stuff*). There are limits to those rights. We do not have negative rights (that is the right to be free from others exercising their rights). Perhaps one of the lawyers around here can clarify the nomenclature and specifics, but AFAIK the upshot is that you don't have the right to limit the rights of others.

Beyond that, TFA made it pretty clear that the material (the porn) was made available (i.e., not blocked) by the library on the computer(s) used by this guy. That makes the administration and disposition of that material the responsibility of the library. Period.

Re:I like their position

[voidphoenix]

+1

Re:I like their position

[Krokus]

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.

Well, let's compare...

case a) Someone in a library is watching a video of Shakespeare and those nearby can see/hear it, versus someone physically present in a library reading Shakespeare loud enough for others nearby to hear.

case b) Someone in a library is watching a video of people having sex and those nearby can see/hear it, versus someone physically present in a library having sex right there on the floor, and people nearby can see/hear it.

In this light, one might think that one's right to watch pornography in public, free speech considerations aside, might perhaps be affected by... other laws. :)

Re:I like their position

[mapkinase]

"I like their position " No doubt about it. And dozen other positions.

Jokes aside, I was prepared to see once again on /. liberalism celebrated over things common, like sense and decency, and the +5 first comment delivers.

Re:I like their position

[mapkinase]

"watching porn is a speech act ". I wanted to skip this bullshit silently as a non-native English speaker, but I was afraid that my silence would be also interpreted as a "speech act".

Re:I like their position

[Alsee]

Which only goes to prove that they are about an agenda rather than facilitating access to information

Their "agenda is exactly to facilitate access to information. Period.
Censorship destroys access to information. Combating censorship is the most important and most fundamental way to facilitate access to information.

otherwise they would not be actively promoting one sort of material over another

They are not choosing preferred books they want to promote. Wannabe censors are selecting the books and obstructing access to them. The library association is merely facilitating access to books where access is impaired.

As for the section you quote, particularly the bolded portion, you seem to contradict that quote. The statement defends a parent's right to restrict what their children access in the library

Try reading the sentence after it:
Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.

It is parent's right and responsibility to raise and supervise their children.
If a parent doesn't want their child drinking sugary sodas, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce that. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement.
If a parent doesn't want their child viewing Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or some other religious materials, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce it. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement.
If a parent doesn't want their child viewing Communist, Libertarian, Republican, or Democratic political materials, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce it. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement.
If a parent doesn't want their child viewing the uncensored internet, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce it. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement.

If you don't want your child drinking soda, tell them to stay away from the vending machine. If you don't want them reading religious materials then tell them to stay out of the religious section. If you don't want them reading politics then tell them to stay out of the political section. If you don't want them viewing the internet then tell them to stay away from the computers.

If you either don't trust them to obey your parenting, or if you wish to select acceptable from some area, then supervise your children.

The Library is not going to hassle some other library patron for having an image of Jesus being crucified up on the screen. If you want to protect your children against religious image then either tell them to stay away from the computers or supervise their computer use.

The library is not going to guess what random stuff you want to censor from your child. The library is not going to guess that you have some anti-blueberry fetish and take on some parenting role protecting your children against images of blueberries.

-

Re:I like their position

[sydneyfong]

There is a difference between a right to stupidly repeat your stance and lines a million times, and a right to force others to listen to you.

We have the former, not the latter. If you think it's justified for police to come arrest you because you said the same thing yesterday and the day before, that's a very very scary place.

But then, it might be great. Maybe just start here on slashdot and arrest the BSD is dying people, the Apple is Evil people, the goatse trolls and all. No need for -1 redundant!

Re:I like their position

[Oligonicella]

"... the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you."

So you say. Now, if you would so kindly provide a cite to the relevant decision(s)?

Re:I like their position

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Where is the threat to life and limb for someone looking at porn?

When I masturbate it's dangerous for anyone in a 10ft radius...

Re:I like their position

[j00r0m4nc3r]

I've been pushing Beowulf's Law for a decade now. No success yet...

Re:I like their position

[joppeknol]

So if I'm reading the Satanic Bible in a library and a Christian fundie walks past and flips their shit, am I being disruptive?

If you're doing it in such a way that blasphemous pictures can be seen everyone and you don't take any measures to prevent the fundie's distress although it would be easy to do, I think you're being disruptive in a public library. If the fundie want to check your book before you start reading, I think the fundie should be removed.

It's not a matter of having an absolute right to do something. It's more a compromise between your right to live your life and his. People, including extremists, should think more about their duty to allow other people to live instead of their right to a certain 'something'.

Re:I like their position

[Hentes]

Freedom of speech is not an unalienable right which means that the library could in theory censor the internet if they wanted to. But it IS a right, which also means that they don't have to censor if they don't want, and noone can force them to do so. And although I'm not very familiar with American laws, I seriously doubt that " right to use the Library in peace" is a right detailed in your constitution.

That's for the legal part. From a moral (or "common sense") point of view, the woman was not forced to look at the screen of the man. The fact that he did indicates that she violated the privacy of him, which while not illegal (libraries are public places) is still considered impolite.

Re:I like their position

[Alsee]

sets forth reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions

That is content neutral. Of course you can only use the computers during library hours, regardless of what website your viewing.

expressly prohibit any use of library equipment to access material that is obscene, child pornography, or 'harmful to minors' (consistent with any applicable state or local law);

Knowing what materials are actually obscenity or child pornography is difficult, as is knowing, when minors are involved, and what materials are actually "harmful to minors." The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides. Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally.

Well duh, the library should have a policy stating "don't use these computers to commit a crime". However the library isn't in a position to judge content. And further note that pornography is not obscenity.

-

Re:I like their position

[j00r0m4nc3r]

I'm not sure why that proposition is so absurd. I've grown up, I've paid my dues, I pay my taxes (which pays for the library), etc.. Why should the child who has contributed nothing to society yet get the most freedom? I think I've earned the right to look at porn in the comfortable part of the library.

Re:I like their position

[Columcille]

"If you don't want them viewing the internet then tell them to stay away from the computers."

You must not know much about computer display technology? These monitors are fascinating gizmos that display images visible to a fairly wide region. While it is quite easy to completely ignore a random book on a shelf, it is a bit more difficult to ignore a publicly facing computer screen - and by ignore I don't mean just "pay it no attention" but "keep from seeing the images being produced on the screen." If I go into a library, I can easily ignore books that don't interest me, but computer monitors draw a lot more attention, whether or not one wants to pay attention. Add children into the mix and it becomes much easier: I can tell my kids they aren't allowed to read the hot and heavy romance novels, and I can easily ensure they do not do so. But how easy is it to ensure they do not look at the publicly facing computer monitor in the middle of the library?

Re:I like their position

[misexistentialist]

Really it's the only way to protect them. Sometimes kids don't have just their eyes molested at the library. In the adult world people have to deal with shit worse than a guy quietly watching porn, but the guy is probably going to have to deal with some shit himself (and older kids are actually the meanest!).

Re:I like their position

[misexistentialist]

Some people in the library...have fallen pretty low. Probably some kind of disability and poverty brings them there for the amenities, and it's hard for outcasts from society to feel any respect for common courtesy, if they were ever mentally capable of self-consciousness to begin with.

Re:I like their position

[Qwertie]

Man, who are the porn lovers modding this stuff up? I'm surprised how much traction is being granted to this hardline position of "porn equals speech, so it's okay to publicly display it, period."

Now, I actually believe non-sexual public nudity should be legal, but I still believe in basic courtesy, and surely minors should be protected from seeing porn as they walk by? I'm a nudist, but I wouldn't generally walk around on the street without clothes even if it were legal, except for special publicized events like the World Naked Bike Ride. Why? Because some people might be offended. If people look through a hole in the fence and see me sunbathing, fine: they don't have to keep looking, they can look away if they don't like it. I think a little nudity is good, to get people used to the human body, but out of courtesy we should avoid forcing it on people. When you're rude enough, you end up in the news, like this weirdo and the librarian.

And porn is a different story than simple nudity, since it can be quite addictive, especially to minors. I remember being a teenager, before I was a nudist. If I saw someone watching porn in public in the library, I would have been thinking about it for days afterward. I would have been itching to see some porn for myself. And my parents, thinking of me, would have rightly freaked out if they saw it in the library. We don't even have to bring the law into this; since it's sensational enough for a news story, I think that in the future, social norms will make this guy move to the computer in the corner.

You're asking "what if the porn computer in the corner is in constant use"? But it wasn't. The guy could have moved. When porn watching in the library becomes epidemic, let's talk about it then.

FTA: " 'And they can't be in the business of monitoring what their patrons are doing at any given computer.' However, in 2010 the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that libraries can do exactly that. The ruling came after the ACLU sued a rural library district that had attempted to filter porn from its computers. "

Re:I like their position

[damiangerous]

That's an interesting end run around the First Amendment. If you can't make it illegal to write something, make it illegal to read. Brilliant!

Re:I like their position

[Rob Kaper]

Bad idea. There would be no Slashdot left with all the editors posting dupes.

Re:I like their position

[X0563511]

No, the other way around. I'm saying it might be OK if it was all on the screen, but if the guy in the library was doing it himself, then THAT would cause trouble.

Re:I like their position

[NotSanguine]

"... the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you." So you say. Now, if you would so kindly provide a cite to the relevant decision(s)?

Since you asked so nicely:
Miller v. California.

BTW, we have *afirmative* rights based on the constitution. That is, the right to do, say or be "stuff". We do not have rights to be free *from* that same "stuff" As Justice Holmes famously said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I'm sorry that reality doesn't match up with your preconceived notions. That's a shame. Have a lovely day!

Re:I like their position

[b4dc0d3r]

Their position is mostly based on rejecting filtering. And it specifically targets children, for which most filtering technologies are proposed.

If someone had said this guy's porn watching prevents me from exercising my right to determine my child's access to library materials, none of what you posted would have mattered. A good argument should not fall apart so easily. According to the article, that has happened in other instances, meaning the library just invalidated your entire post.

It would have been perfectly consistent for a librarian to simply ask him to relocate himself. He would have had access to the information, no censorship, and everyone's happy. That's what we do in polite society. As long as no one is any worse off, small accommodations are not unreasonable. If the man had refused, the librarian would have had to make a stand. I'm not saying establish a separate porn viewing area, simply making a reasonable judgement call in a specific situation.

Re:I like their position

[N0Man74]

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.

Really!?

Are you aware that many public libraries already employ filters to prevent "porn", that end up also filtering out things like artistic nudity, discussions and legitimate information regarding sexuality, sexual identity, and sexual health.

EVERY TIME something is banned to protect the children, the oversensitive, religious zealots, etc, the net is cast increasingly wider to make sure that nothing slips by accidentally and incurs some type of liability or punitive response.

And can you not honestly imagine that if sexual content became banned in libraries, that somewhere down the road, someone might be offended by violent content? I'm surprised it hasn't come up already, in fact (though apparently we Americans are more offended by body parts when they are shown still on the body, rather when they are dismembered from the body).

I can easily see this going on to violence, and then maybe sites with extreme views or that support hate groups, or have some connection (real or imaginary) to terrorism.

Hell, yesterday there was a post showing an example of the FBI apparently casting the net wider in order to catch terrorists, by internet cafes and such to start viewing people who like encryption, privacy, VPN, etc, as possible terrorists.

Re:I like their position

[ArcherB]

I'm not sure why that proposition is so absurd. I've grown up, I've paid my dues, I pay my taxes (which pays for the library), etc.. Why should the child who has contributed nothing to society yet get the most freedom? I think I've earned the right to look at porn in the comfortable part of the library.

This is not a "think of the children" issue. This is a "I will think of MY children" issue.

I've grown up too. I also pay taxes, as does my wife and my kids will as well. Your rights are no more important than my own. If you want to look at porn, fine. You are free to do that in your own home, or a peep show or a XXX bookstore or wherever else is appropriate for that kind of behavior. I promise you that you will not have to worry about my kids being there. But if you want to show porn to my kid, or view it knowingly where she will see it, I will kill you as slowly as possible. That's no threat. Do not underestimate how far a parent will go to protect his or her children, even if I'm just protecting their innocence. Any respectable parent will gladly kill or die for their kids. I'd prefer you just leave, though, as it is easier on all of us. So, you can pick your ass up and leave, or be bludgeoned until the police drag me off you dead body. I'm sure I might go to jail. It's worth it to protect my children.

So, if it's your tax dollars you are worried about, it's cheaper to look at your old man porn at home or at least with more discretion than to look at it where the story lady reads to preschoolers. If you don't have that level of discretion or class, you will have it shortly after your dead body soils itself on the library floor.

And yes, it's easier for my wife to explain to my daughter than daddy was protecting her honor than it is to try to explain what a rusty trombone is and why that dead guy was looking at it performed in the library.

Re:I like their position

[cdrguru]

Plenty of people would like to make it a crime to adhere to conservative beliefs and/or "Republicanism" under the idea that they believe it to be hateful and against their morality.

I actually think it would be fun to see Mr. Obama declare war on the Republican party and all people that vote Republican. Toss them all in jail until they sign a Democratic loyalty oath and promise to never vote anything other than Democratic for the rest of their lives.

Sure would make a lot of people happy over at DailyKos.

Re:I like their position

[DinDaddy]

I applaud the library as well. I wonder what the city in question's ordinances would say about reading printed pornography in a public place. If there are laws allowing someone to be cited for that by calling the police, that is the action that should have been taken.

If not, then tell the local paper to write and article about the guy. Find some legitimate means of discouraging the behavior. Censoring the library internet should not even be on the table.

Re:I like their position

[ynp7]

Wrong again, Bob. Peeking at a computer screen in use by another patron is against the Seattle Public Library's posted computer use policy. If children are looking at the porn on his screen they should be bounced from the premises.

As long as he's got the sound turned off or is using headphones he's entirely within his rights. While this may seem counter intuitive to even the most open minded in our prudish society it shouldn't take that much thought to realize that this is the way things should be in a modern, ostensibly free country.

Re:I like their position

[_KiTA_]

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.

I agree!

At the same time, we should also make sure they don't allow anything else that's morally questionable. We can start with these works of literature. Hell, there's Lolita, by Vladmir Nabokov on that list, and that's basically child pornography, so we had better get on that.

We could also probably do without letting terrorists research things like bomb making and the like -- so how to guides and books teaching chemical or mechanical engineering, they have to go, since they could be abused. Works on the details of how our government and legal system should probably go too -- no upstanding American would need access to those, and they just run the risk of letting terrorists find evil loopholes in our systems designed to keep them suppressed.

We could also get rid of books detailing any of these oddball heathen religions, like Buddhism or god forbid, Islam. Since the United States is a Christian Nation (the books saying otherwise were morally questionable) we shouldn't be allowing the risk of youngsters seeing this kind of material. We don't need to know these things, we only need to know their vague direction ("overseas") and if they have any resources we could use before (or after) we bomb them. ... Or.

Perhaps we could instead recognize that as a nation, our right to free speech (and, I would go so far as to say, "free information") is one of the most important, vital rights we have, one 100 generations of Americans have been willing to kill and die for. Just because you don't like the idea of someone looking at erotica doesn't mean his right to look at erotica is any less important than say, looking up how to program PHP or using the computers to make his resume. We don't -- we can't -- differentiate between the two, because the second you do, you open up wide the gates of objective censorship.

Putting it another way, would you like barely functional wingnuts like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, or god forbid, Sarah Palin to decide what you could or couldn't read?

Re:I like their position

[_KiTA_]

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.

Actually, fairly recently (starting with the Bush Regime) the Government has taken to the idea of "Free Speech Zones" -- basically, putting anyone who may expose the GOP to alternating viewpoints in cages, far, FAR away from any media.

You also saw this with the illegal Occupy Wallstreet crackdowns -- reporters were rounded up, their credentials illegally confiscated, and they were either locked up, beat down, or placed in caged in areas.

This will, of course, come to bite us on the ass in the future, but for now the horrific consequences are ignored by most (and those who do notice are off in Free Speech Zones, 5 miles away from any press coverage).

Re:I like their position

[lsatenstein]

I suppose the individual who complained about the computer location and asking the person to move had a reason. Was the porn watcher in the children's section of the library, or the under 14 areas, where most students congregate to do homework assignments.

The person watching the porn is in his rights, but he should not be doing it in plain view where the norms of society find porn offensive

Re:I like their position

[hairyfeet]

But do we allow them to destroy it for the rest of us? It won't take very many total douchebag moments for the public to decide that having public libraries is no more desirable than having public bathhouses and then its good bye funding and hello private libraries where you have to show you've paid your access membership fee to get in.

Again maybe its a southern thing, as I've been poor before, lived on the wrong side of the tracks, but ya know what? We policed our own and the douchebags got their asses stomped a few times they learned to quit that shit or hitch a ride the fuck out of there. If nobody enforces basic decency then there simply won't be any, assholes will keep right on pushing until nobody uses the place but the assholes. All it will take is a couple of times of scumbags whipping it out right in front of kids and everybody to whack off to some gangbang porn, and you KNOW this will happen, that library has practically sent out a welcome mat for the douchebags, then the place will be cut off of funding if not plain shut down and EVERYONE loses. I hope that librarian has another job lined up, because she is gonna need one. Because if she think screaming "free speech!" is gonna make real life trolls give a flying fuck about her and her job boy is she in for a wakeup call!

Re:I like their position

[hairyfeet]

Well we try to be civil and be respectful of others, that's probably why many celebs like it when they visit here. I ran into Malcom McDowell in the river market, I said "Hey liked you in Time after Time and Clockwork orange, great work" and that was that. nobody hit him up for autographs, everybody just left him alone. Hell I had lunch with Clinton back when he was the gov and at the time I was a big hairy biker type. It was over a Xmas holiday and i spotted the gov coming out of a shop and said "Merry Xmas Gov!" and he said "How am I doing?" and I said "great except for the roads up north, you can bury a cow in the potholes up there" and he said "hey i'm gonna grab a burger, why don't i buy you lunch and you tell me which roads are in bad shape, i don't get a chance to head up that way often" so I sat down and had a burger with the gov. Sure enough not two weeks later he has a little ceremony for some massive road construction connecting north to south and its still going onto this very day. By the time its all finished we should have an excellent 4 lane with plenty of exits connecting north and south so you can stay on the freeway and get anywhere in the state.

So I'd say it all comes down to being respectful of others personal space and treating folks like folks. You give folks basic respect here you get it back and I don't care if you are the king of Siam as long as you don't act like a dick you can shop and hang out like anybody else and nobody will bother you. Over the years i've met a ton of celebs back when i worked in the capitol, musicians and actors, even got to play the 12 string bass owned by the bass player for Cinderella who showed me how to play Shake Me on a 12 string. Of course I don't have any pictures because we all take each other's words, it would have been rude to get in their faces like that and that kind of stuff just isn't done. I just wish i could find a copy of the 1986 MTV music awards because they have a great shot of me besides David Lee Roth as he gave out a video award, Dave points at me, I give a little "Whazzup" wave, its cute.

Re:I like their position

[kenh]

The write-up I commented on said 'ask' so that's what I said, and what I meant.

I never said force, and neither did the write-up.

Re:I like their position

[kenh]

The librarian said she would not infringe on the patron's constitutional right to access pirn in the library - does she also get to decide which constitutional rights are allowed?

There are many states that allow people to openly carry firearms, would this librarian, we're her library in one of those states object to this constitutional right?

I learned a long time ago, watching 'Full Metal Jacket' the difference between a gun and a penis (one is for fighting one is for fun)...

Re:I like their position

[ghettoimp]

Your plan sounds pretty good, daddy-o.

But once you're all done murdering a guy in front of your daughter---to... uh... protect her from seeing naked people----and you're sitting in jail, content that defending her honor was worth it... Well, then you'll be locked up!

So who will be with her to kill the hobo in the park to protect her from seeing alcohol being consumed?
And who will be with her to kill the video store clerk to protect her from the inappropriate lyrics on his hip-hop cd?
And who will be with her to kill the oil-change guy to protect her from his sailor-like swearing after he burns his hand?

And who will give her love and guidance and, well, you know... keep her safe from actually harmful things?

Oh well, at least you got to sound pretty fierce on Slashdot.

Re:I like their position

[unrtst]

Just as one wouldn't expect to wear a "All niggers must fucking hang" T-Shirt in a public place without starting a confrontation so too should this troll have expected that blasting hardcore porn in the middle of a high traffic area would cause some problems.

Just as one wouldn't expect to wear a "All slave owners should rot in prison" T-Shirt in a public place in the 1900's without starting a confrontation.

Sorry, but starting a confrontation has nothing to do with what is actually decent nor with free speech. You may consider porn to be indecent, but there were plenty of things considered indecent not many years ago that pass for the norm now.

Whether not not watching porn in a public place constitutes "free speech", per se, I'm not sure... but I don't think that was the spirit of what was being said. What was being said is that we should not censor information based on one or another persons belief system. That seems like an obvious slippery slope to go down. Please re-read the summary.

That being said, the integration of computers into libraries has not always been done in the most ideal way. There are often tables for book reading with 3 small walls to add some privacy. One would only be subjected to what someone else is reading if they were looking over that persons shoulder or they were reading aloud. A similar solution for the PC's wouldn't be a bad idea - maybe even put the monitor on an angled surface so it's not even facing directly out and slap some cheap privacy filter on top of the screen?

Anyway, it doesn't matter... the guy should be allowed to view any constitutionally protected information he likes. Whether or not he draws the ire and hatred of others is another issue altogether.

Re:I like their position

[unrtst]

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.

What?!? Why not coral kids into a limited area? They're not allowed in bars. They're not allowed to go to war. They're forced to go to school. They're not allowed to work before a certain age (with few exceptions). They're not allowed to sell/distribute images of their naked selves (with few exceptions). They can't run for public office. They can't vote. They're simply not completely free... they're children. Don't let them into the "grown up area" until they're grown up.

Re:I like their position

[unrtst]

Here is an even simpler solution. Rather than making every single rider on the bus avert their gaze, how about asking the one black lady in front to leave. You piss off one person rather than everyone else. You have rights, but your rights do not come at the expense of everyone else's.

I won't say FTFY either, but it's pretty easy to swap in some words to make someones statement seem quite different than they intended.

Your rights do come at the expense of everyone putting up with whatever odd thing it is you do that isn't directly harming anyone but pisses them off nonetheless.

Re:I like their position

[euroq]

You are presuming that she wouldn't allow it with no evidence that she wouldn't - and then passing judgement against her on top of such an imaginary claim by implying she is being a hypocrite!

Re:I like their position

[ArcherB]

So who will be with her to kill the hobo in the park to protect her from seeing alcohol being consumed?
And who will be with her to kill the video store clerk to protect her from the inappropriate lyrics on his hip-hop cd?
And who will be with her to kill the oil-change guy to protect her from his sailor-like swearing after he burns his hand?

You are so right. I should just hand my son over to NAMBLA now. I mean, he's gonna have sex some day so there is no point in trying to protect him from the inevitable. Besides, a five year old getting rammed in the ass by a balding, grown fat man is the exact same thing as hearing the word "fuck". I'm sure my daughter is going to stub her toe at some point, so there is no sense in making her wear a helmet when she rides her bike or try to stop her climbing bookshelves. Hell, for that matter, they will both die someday. Why should I keep them from playing on the freeway?

None of these things you mentioned is as vile as committing a sexual crime against a child. Showing porn to a child, or even making it available, is a sexual crime. Grown men that commit sexual crimes against children need to die. And don't even play that, "she didn't have to look at it" bullshit either because you can't stop children from looking. Displaying it where children are is a sexual crime, period.

As for being in jail, it's worth it. I thought I made that clear. Family comes before freedom, which comes before life and even country. I'm a veteran. I'm willing to die for country. Imagine what I'd be willing to do for my family. In all honesty, however, I don't think I'd even go to jail. The trick is to make sure that at least one red-neck dad is on the jury and/or a new, first time mother and I'll be all set. (Red-neck is not a negative term in this case, but simply saying "honorable" is not specific enough.)

As for me "sounding fierce" on Slashdot, that was not my intent. I'm actually a fairly gentle guy. My point was that no matter how docile or submissive a parent is, that changes when children are involved. May I refer you to the video of water buffalo taking on a lions and alligators to protect a young that was about to be eaten. Imagine how much more dangerous a grown man can be when someone violates his children for their own selfish whims.

The main point here is that the library is not an adult book store. You can't go to your tax accessors' office and use their computers to update your Facebook status. You can't go to the White House and move into the Lincoln Bedroom. You may not go board an aircraft carrier and say, "take me to Hawaii" Why not? Your tax dollars paid for all of them. They are effectively your property, right? Wrong. See, that was not the purpose of these items. The tax accessors' computer are meant for state business. The White House is meant to the place where the president lives. You may not screw over all the other tax payers and use the items for purposes they were not intended for. A library is a place for people to check out books and do research. It is NOT a peepshow or adult book store. That's not why the tax payers voted to fund it. If the tax payers want a public porn shop, they can vote to fund one. But never has the public in any city in America approved funding for a library so pervs could view porn in front of children.

Re:I like their position

[j00r0m4nc3r]

If you want to look at porn, fine. You are free to do that in your own home, or a peep show or a XXX bookstore or wherever else is appropriate for that kind of behavior.

I can just as easily say, "If you want to be a fascist, you are free to do that in your own home, or wherever else is appropriate for that kind of behavior."
or
"If you're going to try to censor the world, I'd prefer you just leave, though, as it is easier on all of us."

Re:I like their position

[j00r0m4nc3r]

A library is a place for people to check out books and do research. It is NOT a peepshow or adult book store.

I'm glad that's YOUR opinion of what a library should be, but you don't speak for everyone. I don't tell you what you can or can't look at in the library. Who's selfish? The guy who supports freedom of speech in all its forms, or the guy who wants to tell everyone else how they should live and kill whoever doesn't agree? Have whatever beliefs you want, but I'm not going to live in fear of pictures or ideas like you do, and neither will my kids.

Re:I like their position

[networkBoy]

I was responding to the specific difference of whipping it out Vs. viewing a photo. The photo is a first amendment issue, while there is plenty of case law to support indecency charges. I do not *know* that the photos would be protected, but I reasonably believe they are, and would refuse to censor them as it is the first step to censoring undesirable speech.
First they came for the porn viewers and I said nothing because I wasn't a porn viewer, then they came for the occupy folks, and I did not say anything because I was not an occupy person, then they came for the political dissenters, but I said nothing because I did not dissent, then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak for me. type issue.
-nB

Re:I like their position

[Alsee]

The library's job is to make information available. It's not the librarian's responsibility to keep you (or your children) from seeing any random thing you might object to. It's not the librarian's job to guess that you have so religious or moral objection to blueberries, and it's not the librarian's job to protect you from seeing blueberries, and it's not the library's job to ensure your children or other people's children don't see blueberries just because you object to them. And I just realized some people might read "blueberries" as some sort of euphemism. No, it's just a random silly thing someone could object to.

Most libraries with computer terminals specifically do *not* point them into the room, but you have the reason for it backwards. It is not to protect people from random content that somebody might dislike. No, computers should be located with relatively private screens for the benefit of the library patron using the computer. It is so that people can research medical, sexual, religious, political, or other materials without undue fear of embarrassment or social pressure.

If your library has screens pointing into the middle of the room the perhaps you should raise *that* confidential research consideration with the librarians. I expect you will find librarians infinitely more responsive when the subject is patron confidentiality than when the subject is your desire to "protect" people from content you dislike.

I can tell my kids they aren't allowed to read the hot and heavy romance novels, and I can easily ensure they do not do so. But how easy is it to ensure they do not look at the publicly facing computer monitor in the middle of the library?

You can tell your kids not to look at Witches or anything occult related. And your neighbor can put a giant Witchcraft themed display on their front lawn for Halloween, complete with flashing lights.

And I'll certainly agree it's extremely not easy for you to ensure that they never see it. However it is not my job, or your neighbor's job, or a librarian's job, to guess what parts of the world you want to conceal from your children. And it is not my job, or your neighbor's job, or a librarian's job to enforce that rule for you. And it is not my job, or your neighbor's job, or a librarian's job to ensure it is "easy" for you to enforce a "no seeing Witches" rule upon your children.

-

Re:I like their position

[ghettoimp]

First off, many libraries surely *are* adult book stores, if you go to the right aisle.

But your response is more thoughtful than I expected, so I too will tone it down a notch.

AFAICT the guy in the article was watching porn in a library but was not in fact trying to "ram a five year old in the ass." You seem to believe that the two are essentially equivalent. I don't agree, but for the sake of argument assume you are right.

You propose to kill him, on the spot, in front of your daughter, even. You point out that animals will do extraordinary things to protect their young. But we aren't animals. We have cell phones to call for help, police who respond quickly, and a justice system to protect our values.

Your proposed approach is obviously (1) not within the bounds of justice, and (2) leaves your daughter traumatized and without a father for the rest of her childhood. My pithy reply was meant to highlight these observations. The proper response is obviously to instead call 911 and have the police come arrest him; if he tries to flee, then by all means make a citizen's arrest until the police arrive. You "protect" your daughter to an equal degree, and at worst expose yourself to a truly minor civil lawsuit compared to a criminal murder trial.

If children were being illegally exposed to porn, the responsible people who noticed this should have went to the police instead of the librarians; this is a matter of law, not of library policy. Otherwise, he committed no crime and did nothing wrong; telling him what he can and cannot view is cut and dry censorship, and the library is right to fight it.

Re:I like their position

[Zeroedout]

For many people here a fugly cougar is a dream just out of reach.

Re:I like their position

[Zeroedout]

That's a really good point, if only you weren't AC :(

Oh won't someone think of the children!

[Urban Nightmare]

Oh won't someone think of the children!

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

[Cosgrach]

Bugger the children!!!

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

[metacell]

No! No! Don't think of the children!

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.
   

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

[BasilBrush]

You can always palm them off with Mr Happy in the children's area.

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

[hairyfeet]

yes because i'm sure that "Airtight 26, choke the bitch" will give those children a good lesson on how babies are made and how women should be treated. I'm sure the part where they jam the shit covered dick down her throat while holding her nose until she pukes will be MOST enlightening. Seriously you haven't seen what passes for mainstream porn since Ginger Lynn was starring in the movies as the teen babe have you? I bet my last buck that any douchebag that frankly cares so little about his fellow library patrons is watching the nastiest shit he can find, just sitting there with a real live trollface enjoying the looks on patrons faces when they hear shit like "Choke on my cock you fucking whore!" blaring out the speakers.

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

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> libraries can filter content

Sounds like a slippery slope to me. Slippery with KY, bodily fluids, and lime Jello, but slippery nonetheless.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[jd]

Agreed to both points. Having an additional room with computers in cubes rather than open-plan would help anyone wishing to use a computer with some measure of privacy, but that would create problems because people would feel they were being ostracized rather than having privacy respected, so that's not a good solution.

In the end, I don't know if there is a good answer -- in part because society has created so many "extra" meanings for things and has been hostile to anyone that it can label as "outsiders" that all of the technically good answers have become bad answers.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

But the noise rule is content-neutral. That is, it doesn't matter what you're talking about, just that you're talking too loudly. Likewise, their approach to using the computer is content-neutral. The quote is a false comparison. The rule against noise would be analogous to the rule against using the computer for more than 30 minutes. The library is being totally consistent and fair.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[mlts]

Best thing is a compromise. Austin's libraries have some unfiltered machines where the monitor is located in the desk. This provides privacy, and keeps someone's hunt for pr0n from annoying the nearby patrons. There are machines with standard monitors, but those are filtered.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[TFAFalcon]

It's easier to ignore porn (just don't look at the screen), then it is to ignore a person yelling 1m away from you.

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

[metacell]

It's a lot easier to choose to ignore someone sitting next to you watching porn, than to choose to ignore someone who's screaming, though.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[frank_adrian314159]

... so I'd probably prohibit jerkin' it to the pr0n.

You don't need to. There are already many, many, many laws on the books that would be applicable if anyone watching porn brought "Little Willie" out into public, many of which would probably put the idiot who did so behind bars for quite a while, while leaving him with a sex offender rap.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[X0563511]

Mod up. This is an excellent compromise!

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[PCM2]

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

So why not just let people fuck on the tables at the library? I mean, whatever consenting adults want to do -- right?

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

[ArundelCastle]

It's a lot easier to choose to ignore someone sitting next to you watching porn, than to choose to ignore someone who's screaming, though.

One often leads to the other.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[CanHasDIY]

Do you really think some woman wants to look over and see some anal sex video on the screen?

Let that be a lesson to the bitch for not minding her own damn business.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[PCM2]

In my local branch library, there really is nowhere where they could put computers that would have this degree of privacy. It's a very open floorplan and there are children all over the place, all the time. (In fact, if I have any complaint about my library, it's that it could actually use a little more old-fashioned shushing and return the focus back to study materials -- it seems to have devolved into a combination video store and daycare.)

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Phernost]

I can censor what I say, I choose not to, the library is in the same position. I see no problem with a library providing pornographic material, as what is considered pornographic is subjective. Whether it is written or visual should not be a deciding factor.

It is not the library's job to shelter children from reality, it is their parents responsibility, if they wish to raise such sheltered individuals. A library is a repository of human knowledge and experience, or at least it strives to be. Censoring any part of that experience for all, just for the twisted logic of those too irresponsible to raise their children, in the way they demand, is shameful.

You could make the argument that pornography is harmful to all, but the category itself and the amount of harm are both subjective. Should we censor any and all art featuring genitals, because some people believe that is the only requirement for pornography? Shall we censor works about communism, socialism, and other forms of discourse, because to could be argued to lead to such things?

I do have no problem if a library wishes to create family friendly areas, or reorganize their layouts to avoid such clashes. I only ask that all things legal be available and uncensored. I may question the illegality of certain information, but that is a different argument for a different time.

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

[hey!]

People get emotional about this stuff, then lose sight the obvious middle ground. They should just contrive the computer installation so people can't see what other people are looking at. Nobody sees anything he doesn't want to, and nobody has to worry about busybodies looking over their shoulder.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[mr1911]

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

Well, sort of. Your rights are not absolute -- they end where the rights of others begin. You know, the old "First Amendment doesn't allow shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" bit.

If you would like to stand by your theory as absolute, I will help you by demonstrating my right to move my punch does not stop where your face begins. I'm sure a few repetitions will cause one of us to change our mind. And don't try to claim some "no Constitutional right to punch" bullshit -- I'll yell "you're an asshole" the entire time so it will clearly be a freedom of speech issue.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[jd]

It will also cut down on legal, entirely reasonable uses of the computers that are a bit more sensitive. There simply isn't any way to divide up the uses in a way that avoids harming someone, the best you can ever achieve is a compromise - harm only a restricted group of legitimate users in order to prevent the greatest number of non-legitimate or embarrassing users. But the greater you make the latter group, the greater you make the former group. That's unavoidable. The challenge is how to randomize the harm to legitimate users so that the harm is diffused rather than concentrated in specific minority areas.

Requiring ID fails on the randomization test. It concentrates the harm in specific areas. True, those areas are small but they still exist.

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

[randy of the redwood]

So why not just let people fuck on the tables at the library?

Because that is illegal. (indecent exposure).

Now, if you can keep yourselves covered up and quiet while you do it...
Nah, I'll save that debate for someone with a lot more legal experience than I to decide if that would be legal.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Dredd13]

Show me where your "right to not be offended" is enumerated in the Constitution please, because I just can't seem to find it in my copy.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[wisnoskij]

But that is still a moral judgement.
You cannot accommodative everyone, and choosing who you do is a moral judgement.

For example,
It is accommodating some groups of people to not allow access to Lesbian and Gay material.
And it is accommodating to other to not allow access to material on evolution.
There are even groups that would not want pictures of dogs, let alone live ones, be in there vicinity.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[DurendalMac]

What is "acceptable" content has a goddamned LEGAL status! Porn is age-restricted, you know. Yes, teenagers jerk it to porno all the time, but legally, you must be 18 or older to view. If that isn't a good cutoff point as to what is "acceptable" in a public facility like a library, then what the hell is? There's no age restriction at the library.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Dredd13]

The prior-restraints on First Amendment speech are very narrowly crafted, and have to meet a HUGE Constitutional test in terms of legitimate "needs of the State" and there is no "need of the State" when it comes to whether or not you happen to accidentally see some perfectly legal legs-in-the-air artistic-expression.

But of course you knew this already and were happily crafting a Straw Man to tear down. Well done.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Killall -9 Bash]

I have never seen a family in a library, and of the hundreds (possibly thousands) of times I have visited a library, I was never there with family members.

Furthermore, the Library is an important place for sex ed. I read "Everything you ever wanted to know about sex (but were afraid to ask)" from cover to cover in the library, as I was afraid to try checking it out and taking it home. That book was in the children's section, by the way, and GOD BLESS the librarian who put it there.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[TFAFalcon]

It probably wouldn't generate as much controversy as porn. You see, people can quite easily turn away from something they DON'T want too see. It becomes much harder to ignore something they want to see, but are still trying to convince themselves is 'wrong'.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Dredd13]

If he's displaying the porn in a manner where there are ACTUAL MINORS able to see it (not just theoretical ones who could someday be there, but weren't there that day) then you can absolutely go after him for the providing pornography to a minor charge, and nobody (including the Free-Speech-Librarian) is likely to stand in your way.

But until you show that one of those minors is ACTUALLY being harmed? It's perfectly legal for everyone who was able to see it, and so "no harm, no foul".

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[realityimpaired]

If that computer screen is sitting on top of a desk, and is a reasonably large size, and facing an open public space, what makes you think there's any expectation of privacy there? It's not a question of minding your own business, it's a question of public display of pornographic material.

The Washington State Human Rights Commission says, quite plainly that such a display of pornographic material is sexual harassment. The US First Amendment guarantees free speech, yes, but there are numerous cases where it is trumped by another statute. You are not, for example, allowed to walk into a crowded theatre and yell "fire!" Similarly, you can't walk into a public school and start shouting obscenities over the PA system. Human Rights, and specifically to this case Sexual Harassment, are one of these cases. The First Amendment is *not* a carte blanche.

In other words, the library is wrong in this case. They are creating a hostile environment by allowing sexual harassment to continue, and they had better hope they have a *really* good lawyer if this woman decides to take it further.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[similar_name]

And normal, rational people shouldn't have to witness graphic sex acts

I think the point is who decides what's graphic? Someone studying medicine could easily offend other patrons. At the same time I understand there are things that other people don't want to see. Seems instead of censoring content and instead of offending other patrons a simple solution might be privacy screens.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[eugene ts wong]

So, a citizen can go on to city property and set up a nativity scene? Right.

Also, as someone else said, what is seen cannot be unseen. Stop thinking of pink elephants. Any luck? I didn't think so. If you can't stop thinking of pink elephants, then how are they supposed to avoid seeing any porn in plain view?

Turning away from it is helpful, but it won't stop it from being seen.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[CanHasDIY]

If that computer screen is sitting on top of a desk, and is a reasonably large size, and facing an open public space, what makes you think there's any expectation of privacy there? It's not a question of minding your own business, it's a question of public display of pornographic material.

Yea, having actually RTFA after making that comment, I see the issue: he was at a very public terminal, was asked to relocate to somewhere less public, and refused. What an asshat.

The Washington State Human Rights Commission says, quite plainly that such a display of pornographic material is sexual harassment.

Lol, reminds me of that old joke, "What's the difference between art and pornography? A government grant!"

The US First Amendment guarantees free speech, yes, but there are numerous cases where it is trumped by another statute.

Just so we're clear on how Constitutional law is *supposed* to work: Nothing can legally 'trump' the Constitution or any of the Amendments, save an Amendment itself. All federal legislation that contradicts the Constitution and existing Amendments is, technically, not law. /rant

In other words, the library is wrong in this case. They are creating a hostile environment by allowing sexual harassment to continue, and they had better hope they have a *really* good lawyer if this woman decides to take it further.

Agreed; they definitely screwed the pooch (no pun intended) when the woman requested the librarians ask the man to move to a more private terminal and they refused. Changing to a less public terminal would not constitute a violation of his rights.

I just pray the inevitable court case doesn't end up setting a precedent for government censorship of library materials; those places, as necessary as they are to a free and educated society, have enough trouble staying open as it is.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[gknoy]

You can only be offended if you let someone else offend you. Other people might not find it offensive.

It's your choice whether to be offended by people calling you (or others) mean words, or to be offended by scatological humor, or by posters of "Praise Jesus for everything good in your life". Most of us reflexively DO feel offended, and are making an unconscious choice to do so.

There are people who feel offended when they hear adults say "damn", or "fuck". There are people who feel offended when they hear children say "damn", or "fuck". There are people who feel offended when they see people painting graffiti, or naked people, or taking naked photos, or anything else involving naked people. There are people who are offended that you'd teach your child to say "penis" rather than "thingy", or that you would read (or suggest that others read) things by controversial authors. There are people who feel offended because people with ${skin_color} live on their street.

Back to your original comment. If Bob is watching porn in the library, you can choose to look the other way, you can ask that they move, you can not go near that part of the library, and you can avoid going altogether. It seems like it's more of a business decision on the part of the library whether to have dedicated "privacy" areas for porn (or job searching, or blogging about controversial subjects) or not. Perhaps they're watching a documentary, or an instructional video that happens to also be porn.

Perhaps one would be better served developing a stronger sense of self, a thicker skin, and work on not being offended by others actions that are not malicious in nature.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[twotailakitsune]

The guy looking at porn should be the one upset. If you did your banking there, would you want random people looking at your screen? No. That is what the people are doing. They are look at his screen. That is the only way (without audio) they know he is looking at porn. Are their bio books there? Should the library force people who are doing their bio homework to hide somewhere encase a little kid sees it?

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[cvtan]

Where on earth is your library? I see families in my local libraries all the time!

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[jahudabudy]

B/c it's unsanitary, i.e. damaging to the public health. You can't piss, shit or spit on public property, either.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[mr1911]

And you seem to believe the restraints will not be broadened in the foreseeable future based on a case that looks similar to this one?

As I have stated elsewhere on this topic, your "rights" in this scenario are based on an interpretation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled time after time every "right" is subject to "reasonable regulation". This happens to explicitly stated rights, as well as "I am free to watch porn in the library" rights.

Watching porn in the library and refusing to move to a more discrete station by demand your rights be viewed as absolute is going to be the exact vehicle used to bring about more regulation and restraint of your rights.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[spire3661]

Libraries CATER TO THE PUBLIC ONLY. Their duty is to the PUBLIC, not just families.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[TFAFalcon]

Set up a nativity scene? Who said anything about setting anything up? I don't support people having public sex in the library.

And as you said, things seen can't be unseen. Won't someone think of the children, making them watch statues of a man being tortured to death?

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[SuricouRaven]

Actually? You underestimate the sensitivity of some parts of the US to anything involving sex and minors. There is no need for harm to be proven: Many people wouldn't think to question the claim that it is.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[CharlyFoxtrot]

It's easier to ignore porn (just don't look at the screen), then it is to ignore a person yelling 1m away from you.

Do the PC's have sound ? And sometimes all it takes is a glimpse, some things cannot be unseen.

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.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[twotailakitsune]

Public schools and crowded theaters are not for the public. School = jail for kids (most people are not allowed in there). Theater = private property (they make the rules).

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[bsane]

It probably wouldn't generate as much controversy as porn. You see, people can quite easily turn away from something they DON'T want too see. It becomes much harder to ignore something they want to see, but are still trying to convince themselves is 'wrong'.

I hate to 'me too'... but I think this is exactly the issue.

I find the slashdot response to this issue pretty sad- apparently just like everyone else they think censorship is bad, unless its something _they_ want censored...

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[iluvcapra]

Just throwing it out there:

1. A county library is not bound to respect your maximal Constitutional rights.

2. Obscenity does have a legal meaning in the United States, and states have a broad latitude to prosecute it when it's in a situation where a minor might view or hear it.

3. Sex acts in a public place, either solo, group, live or depicted, suggested or actual, are prosecuted as lewd or disorderly conduct every day.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Dredd13]

Well, those parts of the US can remove the sticks from their asses.

When an actual minor is shown actual porn, then we can officially raise a stink. Until then? People need to STFU. :-)

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[PCM2]

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.

I totally agree. I disagree that watching hardcore porn videos in a public place can reasonably be defended as "looking at information," however.

There are laws that say the corner store can only shelve porn magazines in areas where they can't be accessed/seen by children. Why, when patrons suggest the public library should follow the same standard, are people suddenly waving the Constitution around?

The right not to be offended is not enumerated in the Constitution.

So I don't have a right to expect that my children can visit the public library and not be exposed to hardcore pornography. But people do have a right to behave like inhuman, drooling beasts, engaging in whatever whim suits their fancy, anywhere they choose, in public, in front of children, or anywhere else, because there's nothing in the Constitution that says they can't? That's a strange sort of society you envision, my friend.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[spire3661]

Wait, you went too far. For it to be a crime, you should have to prove that he INTENTIONALLY intended to cause children harm by purposefully showing them images. If you cannot prove that he intentionally was attempting to direct children to his screen, then you would not have a logical case. Just viewing porn in the presence of minors in and of itself should not be a crime unless you are intentionally providing the material to them. (i.e. I shouldnt be have to put away my porn solely because a child walks into my proximity.)

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[PCM2]

B/c it's unsanitary, i.e. damaging to the public health. You can't piss, shit or spit on public property, either.

If you own the movie theater at the mall you can't screen porn movies there, either, and that's a rule governing your own, private business. Why should the government be allowed to tell private businesses what they can do but it can't set standards for the institutions that it operates itself?

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[realityimpaired]

Just so we're clear on how Constitutional law is *supposed* to work: Nothing can legally 'trump' the Constitution or any of the Amendments, save an Amendment itself. All federal legislation that contradicts the Constitution and existing Amendments is, technically, not law. /rant

Yup. And the Ninth Amendment deals with unenumerated rights. The right to be free from harassment would be one of those unenumerated rights, and when combined with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment serves as the basis for why a human rights commission can overrule the First Amendment in human rights cases. And as I said previously, the WA Human Rights Commission holds that unwanted display of pornography is sexual harassment, and falls under the jurisdiction of human rights law.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[eugene ts wong]

Nobody, other than me, said anything about a nativity scene. I was trying to use that as an example of what could happen if we allow people to do things. Never mind, though. I'm having a tough time explaining it.

Regarding live sex and live goatse in the library, why not? As long as they are doing it quietly, and as long as they don't obstruct the use of the entire library, as long as they don't leave a mess behind, then why can't they do those things in the library? If you're going to allow images of porn, then certainly visible live versions can't be any worse.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[PCM2]

It's your choice whether to be offended by people calling you (or others) mean words, or to be offended by scatological humor, or by posters of "Praise Jesus for everything good in your life". Most of us reflexively DO feel offended, and are making an unconscious choice to do so.

So when I pick my six-year-old daughter up at the library and she tells me what she saw when she was there, I should give her the old "it was wrong of you to be offended" lecture? Or maybe I should explain to her how fortunate she is to live in a society where the Constitution gives that man the right to watch those movies at the library.

Back to your original comment. If Bob is watching porn in the library, you can choose to look the other way, you can ask that they move

But apparently you can't -- that's the gist of the story here. It's hard to look the other way when someone is watching porn movies a few feet away from you, and the librarian refused to ask him to move.

It seems like it's more of a business decision on the part of the library

But the library isn't a "business," it's a public institution run for the benefit of the public. It has a mission and a purpose, and IMO neither of those include providing a free porno theater for patrons.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[SuricouRaven]

Not to someone who considers it their duty to be the moral compass of a community. To them, nothing can be ignored.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[SuricouRaven]

You offer a rational solution to an irrational problem. Do that, and the local self-appointed guardians of public morals would just get outraged that the library is deliberatly acting to encourage pornography viewing.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Grishnakh]

Try yelling "fire!!" in a public library and see if you don't get arrested. Or how about in a courtroom. The fact that most theaters are privately-owned is irrelevant to the issue.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Grishnakh]

Yep, this is a really good idea. The problem, however, is that it costs more, and people seem to have no problem spending money on electronics, but ask them to spend any money at all on decent furniture and they get pissed. Just look at how many companies don't want to spend a dime for decent furniture for their computer-using employees.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[dr2chase]

Statistically, it's not that unsanitary. Messy, yes, but most people don't have STDs, and coughing and sneezing can loft nasties into the air where you can breathe them.

This is just one of those rules that we have because we like it. The "reasons" that we concoct to justify it don't hold up too well against a "compared to what" test.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[eugene ts wong]

Regarding your slippery slope, you write as if only our ideas are abusive and have slippery slopes.

Right wing agenda? I'm sure that all liberals were always at the forefront of anticensorship movements. As soon as pro-life people want to show images of abortions, then you don't censor, you "prevent harassment".

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

A civilized society has rules that members of that society follow. In some cultures, it's perfectly fine to watch anal sex videos in public. In others it's not.

It is not a censorship issue for someone to say "If you're going to watch that, please watch it over there and not here on the main walkway" - when the community standard holds that the material is inappropriate.

If this were not true, there could be no crime such as "indecent exposure" - we all know that there's nothing indecent about the human body. Unfortunately the rules of society follow a logic of their own.

On an intellectual level I applaud the library's decision. They're correct in that they don't have the legal right to censor. And you're correct in (if I'm reading it correctly) saying it's ridiculous that people are offended by this type of thing.

  However: as a functioning member of a moderately civilized society, I recognize that there are mores and rules associated with being a part of that society - mores that are not necessarily written down as laws, but which that society agrees upon nonetheless. If I want to function and prosper in that society, I need to follow those same unwritten rules.

He doesn't have a constitutional right not to be offended - but neither do you have a constitutional right to flaunt the values of the society you're a part of and expect there to be no consequences.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[rrohbeck]

I am a normal, rational person and I have no problems witnessing graphic sex acts in the library.
Not shooting for Funny here, what's the problem unless children are around?
Nobody forces you to watch that screen. Now if the volume is turned up I could see the problem.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[thegrassyknowl]

I have never seen a family in a library, and of the hundreds (possibly thousands) of times I have visited a library, I was never there with family members.

I take my family to the library all the time. It is important to show them that libraries are places where knowledge and information, as well as culture can be found. Also, our local library is cool.. They have a cafe attached, and a selection of kids games/activities available in the library. You really can make an afternoon of it.

Now, if someone was openly watching porn in our library I would simply keep my kids out of view of the screen - simply because I don't want to expose them to it at such a young age.

I applaud the library's decision to not ask that the man stop viewing pornography, and I applaud their decision to not censor anything. Censorship is such a slippery slope. If we start censoring to protect the sensibilities of one minority why shouldn't we protect every minority?

The guy really was a complete jerk though (pun intended). If you are going to watch pornography then pick an area where it won't be openly visible to everyone using the facilities. Not because porn is bad, but because some people are easily offended and you should do them the basic courtesy of trying not to offend them. I'm sure you would ask that others would afford you the same courtesy whenever possible.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Score Whore]

There is zero need for your elaborate 9th + 14th + human rights commission theory. No part of the US Constitution obligates the government to provide anyone with a platform to speak or the means to listen.

Additionally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Obscenity

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[eugene ts wong]

So, liberal Hollywood doesn't go around telling people that they can't print pictures of Mickey Mouse of cakes for their own use? Really?

Abortion information is routinely censored by liberals in the name of free speech.

Pick what evidence you want, and hand wave the rest.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Imrik]

If I was doing my banking there I'd be using the less public computer in the first place just like he was asked to do.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Imrik]

Such a change wouldn't help if the person in question didn't desire privacy while looking at porn like the person in the article.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Imrik]

Just set up the computers to face the wall, it requires only a small amount more space and affords a reasonable degree of privacy. You don't need to keep people from being able to see the screens, you just need to make it so they only see them if they want to.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[wvmarle]

So all little children go there alone, or not at all? I regularly visit my local library (OK it's not in the US but it's a real library) and most of the times go with wife and kid. My kid is too young to go out alone anyway. But he loves browsing the books there, especially the picture books section.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[guitardood]

Interesting to bring up Wikipedia. Would it be right if I wanted to view the Wikipedia pages of Adolf Eichmann & Josef Mengele at the Library of Skokie and was asked to view those pages on a separate more non-conspicuous computer? How about viewing the pages about Martin Luther King Jr at the library of Birmingham, AL? What if I went to the library in Harlem and started viewing the Wikipedia pages about the KKK and David Duke while wearing a "David Duke for President" T-Shirt?

All of this information is available from Wikipedia

As is the Peter North (pornographer) page which contains a link to http://www.vippeternorth.com/pages/biography.html which contains? That's right, porn.

While the guy may have been a jerk-off (pun-intended), he was well within his constitutionally protected rights.

Someone else said, "your rights end when it infringes on mine". That is correct. If I showed up at your house and sat on your porch watching porn on my laptop, I'm infringing on your rights. When I'm in public and you choose to enter that public area, you choose to abide by the rules that all of us have chosen to live under which includes listening to and seeing things that you find objectionable. Or you have the option to step back into your protected home, close your eyes, or watch Sesame Street at the secluded corner cubicle.

As for the slipper slope argument all I can say is TSA. I mean did anyone seriously believe that we would have to be x-rayed and take off our shoes to travel back in 1999? Recently a friends wife who has a green card went to the airport to pick up a friend arriving with valid legal documents. When she went to TSA to find out why the friend was being detained, they then asked for her "papers" and detained her as well as questioned her about all of the residents of her home. But No, there is no slippery-slope.

What is really scary to me is how many people actually feel it's a good idea to censor anything given the current climate in this country regarding personal liberties.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Corbets]

By that logic, you're defining porn as information. Really, it can be entertaining, but informative? What, was he watching a how-to video (cuz I don't think Debbie Does Dallas qualifies)?

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[NotSanguine]

So when I pick my six-year-old daughter up at the library and she tells me what she saw when she was there, I should give her the old "it was wrong of you to be offended" lecture? Or maybe I should explain to her how fortunate she is to live in a society where the Constitution gives that man the right to watch those movies at the library.

As the parent of a six year-old (or any minor child), it is *your* responsibility to control what she can or can't see. If you don't like some of the content that is provided in the library and you're concerned that she might be exposed to that content, then you need to stay with her in the library to make sure she doesn't see that content.

It's the old saw, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

You have the right to police what your minor daughter sees and hears, but your right to do so ends when you abridge the rights of others. Stop demanding that others take on *your* responsibilities. That's just as selfish as the jerk who watches porn in the middle of the library and refuses to move when asked to be considerate.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[NotSanguine]

He doesn't have a constitutional right not to be offended - but neither do you have a constitutional right to flaunt the values of the society you're a part of and expect there to be no consequences.

You're absolutely right. We should have hung those rabble-rousing terrorists when they first starting flouting the values of 18th century British society. Death to Washington! Death To Jefferson! Burn Franklin at the stake!

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[loufoque]

Do you mean to say normal, rational people are uncomfortable with sex?

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[TFAFalcon]

So you see nothing wrong with people going to an action movie and shooting people? Since in your world there is no difference between a movie and 'live action'.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[TFAFalcon]

If it's a library then they probably don't have any speakers. Perhaps headphones.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[mapkinase]

You are either a troll, or a stinking piece of human waste.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[jahudabudy]

You might be right that the prohibition of public sex originates out of prurience, but the sanitation concerns are legitimate. I think you are underestimating the prevalence of STDs, at least in America. Look at HPV statistics. The odds of catching it from non-sexual fluid contact is probably very small, but not zero. Even without STDs, it's just nasty to let people rub their bare asses on public furniture.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[eugene ts wong]

Some actions are awesome, no matter what [e.g. choosing to eat healthy and then following through]. Some are legitimately subjective [e.g. killing a theatre full of Nazis who have experimented on Jews, and who have plans to dominate the world, as opposed to killing innocent theatre customers]. Some are legitimately wrong [e.g. kidnapping a child and forcing her to be a prostitute].

In a movie, I have no qualms with actors who portray evil villains, as long as they are just acting, and not trying to glamourize and portray it as good. With killing, people can say that actors don't really kill. With porn, people actually do have sex, or actually do remove their clothes.

I think that you are being deliberately incoherent, because you approve of porn in public, since it's not physically hurting anybody, but not actual sex or goatse when it also doesn't physically hurt anybody.

Whether or not porn and sex are physically there or not is irrelevant to me in this discussion, because I don't want people to see porn or sex in the library, whether the specific pornographic or sexual act is morally acceptable to me or not.

Somehow, the physical act is relevant to you. To imply that there is something wrong with the physical act, and then compare it to killing a theatre full of innocents, means that you are being a bit deceptive or argumentative. You are more liberal than me, and are supposed to have looser standards.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[TFAFalcon]

I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I am fundementaly opposed to the idea of sex in public. It's just that most people in this topic equated someone watching porn and people having sex in public.

There is a difference between something happening in the room versus something happening on the screen. I doubt anyone can say that there isn't. Most people (well at least me) would be uncomfortable sitting next to a couple having sex, feeling that they are somehow intruding on their privacy (even if the couple seemed to be OK with it).

On the other hand there is also a difference between two people making love and the actions of porn actors. Sure they might look similar, but behind the scenes there is about as much difference between them as there is between a real war and an action movie set.

Now let's turn to your feelings that people shouldn't see porn in the library. Why not? What makes porn so much different from other topics? Why is porn 'bad' while simulated murder and torture is ok?

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[kaatochacha]

If you think both sides of the political spectrum don't go around telling everyone what they should or shouldn't do, you're pathetically naive.

Oh, wait, i read the rest of your response. I didn't even need to say this. It's painfully obvious. Nevermind.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[eugene ts wong]

Thanks for clarifying. I think that I understand what you are saying now.

I also see a difference between the movie and the action. I also would be uncomfortable being next to a live couple.

Simulated murder is just pretending, and it isn't a real goal in the story. It's just a part of the story that leads to a better ending. The hero wants freedom, so he kills. The villain wants to conquer the world or just lash out, so he kills. The idea is that the story needs to portray the villain as evil, and the hero needs to get rid of the villain, in order to get freedom.

Movie violence tends to get sketchy when there is abuse, and it is portrayed as justified. Women might beat up men, to belittle them, and get away with it. After all, women are allowed to do that, right? Men can't hit back, right? It's the same with violence in the real world or movies. Wouldn't you and I both feel the same discomfort if Hitler were portrayed as an innocent victim?

Regarding porn, the actual act is bad to me, because I consider sex a private thing, within the context of marriage, as you probably assumed. Porn glamourizes sex out of wed lock. Liberals wouldn't tolerate it, if conservatives made sex look painful, right? Porn portrays it nicely. Also, most conservatives, and I assume liberals, want to pick the right time to teach children things. You probably want kids to learn about sex and religion at time that seems appropriate. I realize that we disagree on when, and on what is the right view, but it should be self evident that letting kids see porn at the library, but not video store is a little contradictory. Also, letting kids see porn in the library undermines the parents' ability to pick the right time while letting the kids have free access to the story books and other computers.

Also, sex actually happens in porn, even though people might not have the feelings associated with it, unlike movie murder, movie divorce, and movie marriage. In the latter 3 types of actions, actors don't really get murdered, divorced, or married, so it's okay.

Although I want to prevent people from seeing any porn in the library, I think that it is a reasonable compromise to at least require that all people view it in the corner or some such place. It keeps everybody independent. Conservatives can't complain about what they can't see, right?

Disclaimer: I recall seeing, that in Europe, porn is very out and in the open at the ordinary stores; I still don't think that it's wise.

Here is a slightly unrelated thought. Can we show images of aborted fetuses on university campuses? Sort of not. Most liberals won't tolerate it. It's considered harassment. It's just an image. Can't conservatives just enjoy showing and looking at it? It's really the message that bothers liberals. I understand that. I don't want to undermine the liberal ability to make a conclusion. There is a natural animosity between us, and that is healthy. The problem is what can be seen at what time.

Here's another thought, that's even more off topic. How would you like it, if kids trick-or-treated at my door, and I gave out Jack Trick tracts as treats? Would you let young children [e.g. perhaps ages 7 and under] view them unsupervised? I remember liberals complaining condescendingly about an incident. A kid told an adult that he [or was it she?] got comics from the nice person. The liberal woman felt skeptical right away, and insisted on seeing them. The woman reached in the bag, and found Jack Trick tracts about sin. You could image how her blood boiled. She confiscated them right away.

I respect any adult's desire to time the message. It's the message and the specific timing that I quarrel about.

Thanks again for clarifying.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[TFAFalcon]

My problem with the whole thing is that porn is singled out as the only thing that should be blocked from library computers.

We both agree that children should be exposed to things gradually. So why is it considered harmful for a child to see pornography, while at the same time it's OK to let him see a movie proclaiming that he's going to suffer eternally because of his 'wrong' faith?
If some topics are 'bad' for young children, they (the children) should either be prevented from visiting the library without parental guidance, or ALL such topics should be banned from library computers visible to children and sections of the library open to unescorted children.
So no porn, no religion, no politics, no violence, no massacres (lets just expand this to 99% of human history),.....
All I'm asking for is some consistency.

As for your thoughts about 'unwanted' images. I have no problem with people looking at things in public, be it in books, magazines or on a computer screen. If they want to see what a fetus with a coat hanger stuck through it looks like, they should be free to do it. And if people want to look over their shoulders, they shouldn't be prevented from doing it.
What I do have problem is people sticking pictures and texts into other people's hands or in front of their face. I don't care if they are about abortion, religion, politics, evolution,global warming, local rock events or the big big sale the local clothing store is about to have. Forcing people to pay attention to you is wrong. You can set up a stall to spread your message if you feel it needs to be spread. Just don't force me to stop and listen to you.

As for handing things to children, my thoughts are the same as for things available in libraries. Don't discriminate. If it's prohibited to give them pornography, it should also be prohibited to give them religious texts (at least I presume that's what a Jack Trick tract is?), or atheist texts for that matter. The rules should be the same for anything the parents might not want their child to learn about too soon.

Yes in Europe it's quite easy too see some porn, as news stands will often have a few adult magazines displayed.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[quenda]

> people shouldn't have to witness graphic sex acts

Who said that? Not TFA. Maybe it was just calendar girls, and the graphic sex acts are a product of the readers depraved imagination?

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[Vairon]

Of course it's information. Just because some information is entertaining or informative or even useless to you personally doesn't change the fact it's information.

It does not matter if speech is entertaining vs informative. The U.S. Constitution makes no exception to the freedom of speech. It quite clearly says that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It is the courts and Congress since the Constitution was signed that have both succeeded and failed to abridge our freedom of speech. Unfortunately the US Supreme Court has upheld that states' legislation concerning some obscenity is legal.

Re:First Amendment isn't relevant here

[jd]

That is where the challenge comes in. How to make things fair to everyone. I would argue that privacy should be as optional as possible but no more so. In the case of porn, I would say that privacy should not be optional, that it should be in a space where it does not cause any problems for anyone else, that this is not a "good answer" but that it's a compromise that respects both sides and that it's a start.

However, I freely admit that in a rational, coherent discussion where all sides get heard, where all evidence is weighed according to merit and not volume, and where a rational, coherent decision is made at the end, that a different dividing line might be drawn. It might be that they conclude that porn should NOT be in a public library, in any form, under any conditions. Or they might conclude that the boundary has become so fuzzy that you cannot isolate a specific subject, only specific forms. They might conclude anything.

My point is that you've got to start somewhere, so you might as well start with the choice that shows the greatest respect to everyone -- even if it offends them. You should THEN go on to have aforementioned discussion, bearing in mind that if nobody has managed to have said discussion in the past 2000+ years (Ovid narrowly avoided execution for his poetry) that it might take a little time and effort to get people round a table without killing each other. If you don't start with the first step, you'll have both sides feeling persecuted and that never helps. If you do not move onto the second step, the first step has never lasted more than a decade when its been tried before.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

My sister was a public librarian. Mild mannered, serious, studious, introverted, and a quiet, but ardent radical when it came to access to information. It is a libraries duty to provide information, of all kinds, to anyone.* She was not atypical. Her libraries position on patrons viewing pr0n was to require them to use a privacy screen so the content was not viewable without some effort on the part of other patrons, and perhaps have them move to a more private location.

Whacking it in the library, however, was subject to arrest for indecency.

*okay, when the eight year old kid came in looking for information on leukemia, they usually would try to get a sense of why they were asking, and provide them with suggestions as to someone who could put it in context. But the high school kids looking for advice on cultivating cannabis, or bomb making? No problem. When the Patriot Act came out and said that library circulation records would be subject to search without warrant, many libraries destroyed their circulation records.

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

[Obfuscant]

Because choking the chicken isn't speech.

Just because you cannot imagine what someone is "saying" by whacking off in front of you doesn't mean he isn't trying to express some constitutionally protected concept, just as I cannot imagine any significant statement being made by someone who pisses on a flag doesn't seem to mean they aren't trying to make one.

Further, how can you call a video of someone "choking the chicken" being viewed on a library computer "speech" and then say that a live performance isn't? If the performer on the computer screen is exercising his constitutional rights, then the library patron is, too.

I know that speech has been stretched to the point of breaking by the Citizens United case,

It sounds like you've never actually read the Citizen's United case and are relying on Air America and the like to tell you what it said. Try reading it. All it reaffirmed is that corporations are associations of people and that those people do not lose their rights to speak because they join the corporation. Specifically, it said that a corporation FOUNDED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF POLITICAL SPEECH had the right to spend money ON POLITICAL SPEECH, even if it was less than some arbitrary amount of time prior to an election. Part of the abomination called McCain-Feingold that stomps on the first amendment.

What I'd love to hear is your reasoning behind your apparent support of a ban on political ads within 60 days of an election. If you denonce the CU result, that's what you are supporting, you know. Or maybe you didn't.

Re:Provocative, but the right thing

[bolthole]

Just because you cannot imagine what someone is "saying" by whacking off in front of you doesn't mean he isn't trying to express some constitutionally protected concept

That is idiotic. "art as (political/'free') speech" is as disgustingly twisted a concept as "a corporation is a person". Both have been legally accepted, but in any sane world, both are bunk. People who resort to invoking "art as speech" for their so-called art, are either just clamoring for attention, or are trying to make a buck out of it.

If you want to communicate an actual idea, there's a radical concept that might be considered. It's called "words". Rumor has it, it works quite well.

The irony in your post is that it emphasizes "POLITICAL SPEECH". As such, you imply that you recognize that the first amendment was crafted to only protect political speech, not "art".

Re:Provocative, but the right thing

[Trogre]

Why? Can you please explain to the rest of us the difference between watching someone commit a sexual act on or off the screen, so far as other library patrons are concerned?

Re:Provocative, but the right thing

[NeutronCowboy]

Just because you cannot imagine what someone is "saying" by whacking off in front of you doesn't mean he isn't trying to express some constitutionally protected concept, just as I cannot imagine any significant statement being made by someone who pisses on a flag doesn't seem to mean they aren't trying to make one.

Personally, I find whacking off in public more of a sanitary problem. I'm also willing to trade not being able to watch hot chicks masturbate in public with not having to watch fat guys masturbate in public. There isn't much lost there in terms of speech, and the compromise is adequate. If enough people disagree, I'm willing to just shrug and move on. Is it a moral or aesthetic problem? Sure is. Fortunately, it's a pretty obvious line that doesn't include much in terms of actual speech being made.

However, determining what people can watch on a screen has no sanitary component to it, and, if the screen is adequately private, has absolutely no bearing on others. As a result, the problem of determining what is morally just and aesthetically pleasing to watch on a screen comes at great cost and no benefit to the rest of society.

Lots of insinuations about my understanding of the Citizens United case, my political leanings and my mother's pedigree

What you're missing is that people who join a corporation are ALREADY able to speak, and CONTINUE being able to do so while part of a corporation - no matter what kind of restrictions are applied to the corporation itself. This argument that somehow putting restrictions on corporations is tantamount to putting restrictions on people is ludicrous.

And yes, I'm perfectly aware what the ban actually was for. And yes, that's perfectly fine by me. Corporations are not people, and have no right to free speech. That's a right reserved to individuals, who can continue to do so on their own time.

Now, if you want to argue that there's an unresolved problem about how much an individual can spend on engaging in their right to free speech - yes, that is correct. Technically, taking the bus to hold up a banner at a rally or at the town square constitutes money spent for advertising. Do we want to ban that? Probably not. But to pretend that somehow Citizens United was rectifying an undue restrictions on corporate speech is... well, you can blame yourself for the current mess that is political spending. Everyone knew that was coming. And it's not going to stop.

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.

Re:Provocative, but the right thing

[Imrik]

"I'm sorry, we don't have any books on that subject."

Re:Provocative, but the right thing

[Imrik]

Public health for one, also a wider range of view and the potential for physical interaction with others present.

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?

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[Hatta]

Wait, censorship is abuse of the First Amendment. What's the difference?

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[icebike]

Voters seldom get to vote on budgets in most cities, and certainly not at the line item level. Bond issues would certainly come under closer scrutiny especially in this economy. Federal funding of libraries is under close scrutiny over the last year.

On the other side, a Gates foundation study found that people who find libraries "transformational" rather than simply "informational" are more likely to vote for more funding. (What transformational means is unclear).

Still there is a great layer of insulation between the library board and the tax payer.

  It may take years, but funding support will wane when local tax payers figure out they are funding something other than a quiet place to read where they feel comfortable sending their kids. I suspect it would not take much, perhaps only a rows computers filled by unwashed geezers in sweatpants with only one hand on the keyboard, before the library board will choose to sequester the material to specific parts of the library, if merely to preserve the library itself.

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[robi2106]

that was my second train of thought was harassment charges

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[guruevi]

Sexual harassment in the workplace usually involves either communicating or touching someone inappropriately with whom you work and those laws are there to protect you from someone in authority.

Sexual harassment outside the workplace is called assault and cannot be done verbally (you can insult someone even using sexual pejoratives under the first amendment).

IANAL but that's what real life has learned me so far.

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[ackthpt]

Sexual harassment in the workplace usually involves either communicating or touching someone inappropriately with whom you work and those laws are there to protect you from someone in authority.

Sexual harassment outside the workplace is called assault and cannot be done verbally (you can insult someone even using sexual pejoratives under the first amendment).

IANAL but that's what real life has learned me so far.

California had a the first landmark ruling upon workplace safety regarding Second Hand Smoke - employers are required to provide an environment which is free of substances which may be harmful to those working there. It has since become federal law, with OSHA as one of the bodies responsible for providing information and enforcement. It's not much of a stretch to extend that to cover reading or viewing materials in a library. Further, the possibility that minors may be exposed to the content undoubtably has been covered by state or federal law.

Use of the library for research is one thing, where often a special reading room may be made available (a luxury for smaller libraries, however.) Use of the library, in this context for personal enjoyment is sure to raise some hackles in the public. There's Censorship and there's abuse of the Facilties and Constitutional protection under the 1st amendment, in the eyes of those who pay for the library - which, however you feel about things, may produce a fait accompli -- removing the defending librarian or changing library rules.

Tough break for the library here -- placed in a difficult light by an inconsiderate patron.

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[evil_aaronm]

I would be surprised if a majority of people in the Seattle area didn't already support this library's stance. When I lived out there - over a decade ago, admittedly, and unfortunately, since I loved the place - I was surprised by some things that were considered "normal" - letting young kids walk home from school unsupervised, for example - that would almost certainly not happen in parts east. Seattle just seemed more casual about things.

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[bolthole]

Your workplace has not inflicted sufficient anti-harrassment training on you.

Allowing people to view pornography in the workplace, IS grounds for a sexual harrassment lawsuit by the other people.

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[thegrassyknowl]

Allowing people to view pornography in the workplace, IS grounds for a sexual harrassment lawsuit by the other people.

Most workplaces expressly forbid the use of their computer, Internet connection, etc for the viewing of non-work-related material. This means that unless you work for in the pornography (or closely related) industry you're S.O.L when it comes to violating the computer use rules. If one of your co-workers took umbrage to your watching of porn on company equipment you would probably be terminated for violation of the computer use rules rather than for sexual harassment ones.

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[misexistentialist]

What if you work in a sex shop or strip club?

Re:Voters Filter Library Funding

[wvmarle]

The boards is where limits to information provided, if any, should be decided.

The task of the librarian is to help people find any and all information available in the library. If there is unfiltered Internet available, then that's included too. It's not up to them to decide what is acceptable or not - that's up to the board, or the government, or whatever higher body.

This story...

[NIN1385]

broke slashdot for about ten minutes...

So why couldn't the complainent move?

[Rene S. Hollan]

Why couldn't the prudish Ms. Howe move to another computer?

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:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[frank_adrian314159]

There may not have been another available. Here in Portland, for example, general purpose computers (as opposed to those who are used for specific purposes such as catalog access) are so in demand that a person has to sign up on a waiting list for using one for a half hour at a time.

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[Rene S. Hollan]

There is a differnce between restricting behavior and restricting content.

And, before you go arguing that viewing certain content is restrictable behavior, I'll ask you to check your sophistry at the door.

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[countertrolling]

You are trolling beyond your normal silliness. Sight and sound are two different things.

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[Kenja]

So explain your mathematical formula for porn detection. You cant? So then they block everything containing the word breast and the student cant do research. And the bigger question is where do you stop? Do you filter out anything that anyone finds offensive? Because that's a rather all encompassing list.

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[TFAFalcon]

Unlike a picture, sound can bounce around quite well. So turning away from the source won't suddenly make you unable to hear it.

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[realityimpaired]

Because the guy watching the porn is in the wrong, as what he's doing is considered sexual harassment in WA?

There are circumstances that trump the first amendment, and human rights law is one of them. The library's wrong here, as is the guy watching the porn. It has nothing to do with whether he decides to whip it out and start pleasuring himself.

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[Obfuscant]

You are trolling beyond your normal silliness. Sight and sound are two different things.

Ok, so SIGHT is a constitutionally protected means of speech but SOUND is not? Upon which planet doth thou livest, that "speech" occurs through visual and not aural methods? I're read science fiction that has such beings (most of whom cannot fathom that the random noises the human protaganist made were actually conveying information) but never run across one posting to /..

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[Kenja]

And if parents dont want their child exposed to the Koran, or Catcher in the Rye, should those also be banned from the library?

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[Rene S. Hollan]

I would expect young children to either go to a children's library or the children's section of a general library.

You can make the argument that certain material is best viewed out of the sight of children, but that is not an argument for it not to be viewed by adults.

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[Rene S. Hollan]

No, fool. In libraries people use their eyes which does not disturb others, or their ears with headphones.

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[Rene S. Hollan]

He's not displaying pornographic material. He's viewing it. No one is forced into the library, and once there, tradition holds that all sorts of material is available for selection, not all of it appealing to everyone.

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[reub2000]

What if this child comes across a copy of 120 Days Of Sodom or a book of Mapplethorpe photos in the library?

The mummy returns..

[stanlyb]

I wonder what she would do in this case....

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?

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

[icebike]

Public funds maybe?

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

[Goat of Death]

You mean the same public funds the individual watching the porn paid for in the form of taxes.

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

[supersloshy]

The problem is that AdBlock doesn't work for the eyes. This is somebody displaying pornography to anybody who happens to look in his general direction. That's something you do in private, not where everybody's looking.

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.

Re:This is not about porn, specifically

[TFAFalcon]

I've always found religion to be offensive. Can we ban all religion from public buildings?

Re:This is not about porn, specifically

[PCM2]

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.

Or not. The problem with slippery slope arguments is that an objection that seems rational can quickly turn into a ridiculous overexaggeration that distorts the actual issues and derails the whole debate. (See what I did there?)

Re:This is not about porn, specifically

[gknoy]

History has shown us that people are adept at trying to classify things in ever-more-restrictive or oppressive ways, to show some small percent improvement in some public official's record (on safety, on drunk driving busts, on revenu) or to suit some special group's agenda.

Re:This is not about porn, specifically

[CharlyFoxtrot]

No one wants to ban porn, they just wanted to move the guy to another computer where presumably less people had a clear view of his screen. He refused. What a fucking hero.

Re:This is not about porn, specifically

[reub2000]

With all this violence, sex, whores, what have you in the bible, I don't see why not if we're trying to protect the children.

Re:This is not about porn, specifically

[Darinbob]

It's not about banning porn, it's about banning someone publicly viewing it where anyone walking by will see it. There is no inalienable right to that behavior and no constitutional protection for it. If there is, then all the other patrons also have the right to shout and scream abuse at the perv and the police have the right to look the other way while it happens.

Re:This is not about porn, specifically

[mapkinase]

What part of reading religious material involves moving images of body parts attracting attention by mere fact of such movement from a distance?

It's not about content it's about behavior that affects others.

I miss the time, when library was derived from "libre", not from "porn".

Re:This is not about porn, specifically

[TFAFalcon]

Reading religious material could be compared to reading erotic stories.

And watching porn can be compared to watching The passion of the Christ.

Re:This is not about porn, specifically

[mapkinase]

Nobody watches The passion of the Christ in the library and nobody complained about somebody reading erotic stories in the library, because (a) why (b) you can't tell from the distance of politeness what the other person is reading.

I thought this is the reason we had libraries.

[trout007]

So it would give homeless a place to watch porn.

Re:I thought this is the reason we had libraries.

[deathguppie]

Sadly that might just be the last great use for the public libraries :( makes me want to read a book this weekend.

Common sense

[subreality]

Yes, it's your constitutional right to watch porn, but it's a perfectly reasonable request to go to a computer where the screen isn't facing the whole room. Please just do it before people start citing you as a reason why we need more laws and less rights.

Re:Common sense

[mr1911]

Yes, it's your constitutional right to watch porn

Really? Where is that stated? Oh, it is an interpretation of the First Amendment. Have you seen what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen to other, explicitly stated rights? Pretty much every "right" has been rules as subject to "reasonable regulation".

To your point though, it is the folks that demand their rights be viewed as absolute that usually bring about more regulation.

Re:Common sense

[donaggie03]

To your point though, it is the folks that demand their rights be viewed as absolute that usually bring about more regulation.

bullshit. It's the folks that want to limit, or regulate, other people's rights, despite the obviously absolute phrasing used in the constitution and the bill of rights, that brings about more regulation.

Why does the library need to be "family-friendly"

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand why any place adults go must be "family friendly". Go to the park if you want a family picnic. To make a library "family-friendly" would mean to remove anything anyone finds objectionable*, which includes a lot of philosophy, war books, medical books, sex education, yes erotica too. You want to turn a library into the Disney channel.

*) because let's be honest, people use the "think of the children" argument a lot when they want stuff removed they personally object to. Children don't give a shit about a nipple or breasts on TV, until such time that their hormones tell them to pay attention. Young adults *want* to see naked people and aren't in the least "damaged" by it. Before you jerk your knee, not every nude image is of goatse you know.

I agree that viewing porn in a library isn't the best use of the facilities, but we have gone too far with the "let's not offend anybody" and protecting the children. We should just lock the children up in special buildings until they're 18 (or whatever age we deem them adults) and be done with it, instead of turning the entire world in a children-safe playground.

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

[ArundelCastle]

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

As a kid growing up before the Web, nothing would have delighted me more than swingin' saloon doors at the back of my local library.
Got kicked out of magazine stores more than once, but librarians wouldn't do that.

Re:FFS

[dittbub]

its bad behaviour and i'm sick and tired of people using the first to excuse bad behaviour!

Re:FFS

[Kenja]

If the protesters where off in their own little "free speech" zone then fine. But protesting outside my office when I'm trying to relax at work is off putting and the drum circles are really creepy.

See the problem with free speech is that its often about stuff you dont agree with. The whole point is that its all allowed, or none of it is, because everything is going to annoy/insult/disgust someone. This is no different then books people dont like being banned from the library.

That being said to hell with the guy watching porn in the library. I just cant think of a valid reason to get rid of him.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

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

They would have to change the carpet in that room monthly

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:FFS

[Darinbob]

This has nothing to do with protecting free speech, but about the right of a perv to offend others. There is no speech here! The perv is not giving out any political viewpoints, holding no discussions, etc. The perv is watching porn, which can be done anyway in any location and can be done with a privacy screen.

After all, can I come to the library and start watching some political rally on video and crank up the volume so that everyone else in the library has to hear it? If the librarian tells me to turn down the volume can I shout back that I'm only exercising my right to shout? That's no more an absurd argument than the one about slippery slopes.

Re:FFS

[ampathee]

Try using a megaphone in a library and see how long you're allowed to stay there.

Re:FFS

[wvmarle]

Personally I have no problem looking at human bodies without clothes, or them having fun together and so.

What I have more problem with is for example the glorification of all kinds of weaponry, think of Discovery Channel shows like "futureweapons". Which is basically all about death and destruction - showing how to kill as many other people, and how to do as much damage as possible, and how great it is that we can do this so much better with this new developed high-tech weaponry.

Still makes me wonder why so many people are offended with the first (people enjoying themselves), why they love to watch the second (death and destruction). The first is not allowed on mainstream TV, the second is no problem. Typical example: when the Mythbusters were doing "peeing on the third rail" they gave Buster a urination tube, to simulate a man relieving himself, but when broadcast on TV that part was covered up with the image of a leave! But showing the results of a high-powered ceiling fan chopping off a head (with an actual pig's spine), that's no problem...

There is quite some material out there that is best consumed in private - as some materials are known to offend other people, and some consideration would be nice. I'm not that interested to watch people killing other people, for example. Lacking a fully private access, at least they should find an as private place as possible, like going for the terminal at the end of the row near the wall or so.

Re:FFS

[Tom]

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

I agree.

And I also wonder why that is so. Watching an action movie in public would not be considered creepy, even though people die. And I doubt the difference is in one being simulated and the other real.

So why does our society have this ridiculous obsession with people fucking?

Re:FFS

[GauteL]

You are missing my point. People have a right to free speech, but the public has no obligation to help them financially to do so.

Re:Porn is useless

[vipvop]

/. readers have been filling up on it, and they definitely don't look like they've been starving

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

[Anonymous Coward]

When I lived in Switzerland I observed people, for lack of a better term, fucking at the bus stop in the middle of the day (hands down the pants, moaning, fucking). I saw lesbians fucking (the naked kind) on the public beach that was filled with everyone, including families, having their weekend fun in the sun. People just don't care. 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).

Libraries exist to provide information privately and equally to all people. What they are doing is pretty admirable, imo, just as admirable as refusing to remove books because of some uptight jackasses 2 decades ago.

Yes, I have kids.

The Bible has to go then

[Anonymous Coward]

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, ...

That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've read here in a long time.

Fine start censoring things that YOU think are "dangerous" to the children and it'll help me ban that pornographic, lying, superstitious filth - the Bible.

go ahead. Keep going. I'm gonna riiiiiiiddddde the slipery slope!

Re:The Bible has to go then

[DurendalMac]

There's a pretty clear line here: Material that has a legal age restriction should not be openly provided by the library. Pornography makes that cut. If you don't like it, move to have that restriction lifted.

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

[Hatta]

Because good reading habits start young. If you don't teach people that libraries are awesome when they're young, they won't use libraries as an adult.

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

[Wain13001]

I wish I hadn't already commented so I could mod you up.

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

[PCM2]

I really don't understand why any place adults go must be "family friendly". Go to the park if you want a family picnic. To make a library "family-friendly" would mean to remove anything anyone finds objectionable*, which includes a lot of philosophy, war books, medical books, sex education, yes erotica too. You want to turn a library into the Disney channel.

Personally, I don't think a library should be any kind of TV channel. It should be a library. When more people visit the library to check out DVDs than books and it's so noisy that it's impossible to study, the library has already veered way off track, IMO.

As for "objectionable material," I think teens peeking between the covers of Tropic of Cancer is a far, far cry from young children seeing videos of women being violently anally penetrated and ejaculated upon when they weren't at the library looking for such material to begin with.

Nudity in Public?

[wisnoskij]

Would this not fall into indecent acts/nudity in public laws?
I am all for individual freedoms and anti-censorship, and I even see the slippery slope of other similar topics, but it seems to me there has to be a better compromise then forcing everyone who wants to use the library to be confronted with that.

Re:Nudity in Public?

[sacdelta]

Whether or not it could actually be enforced, I would make a point of mentioning to the gentleman that if there were anyone under the age of 16 in the library that he might find himself arrested for lewd acts involving children, something that gets you put on that wonderful Megan's Law forever list. The threat alone should be sufficient to stop the activity. If not, start dialing the local police and see what happens.

who is responsible

[robi2106]

But then if children watch porn on library computers, is the library liable for allowing access to age restricted content on their systems? If the man was viewing porn on a computer in a public place, then he could be thought of the same as showign porn mag to kids.... and that is pretty much a endangerment or Lude & Lascivious crime right there.

Uh oH!

[Iniamyen]

We are entering into a dystopian society of ACTIVIST LIBRARIANS! Despair!

Re:The rights of other patrons

[CanHasDIY]

"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."

This.

While the library should be commended for refusing to prevent this person from viewing the material he wished to view, other patrons in the library should have the right not to see it. Asking him to move to a different computer in a less publicly visible location doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

This this.

We all have the right to free expression, but that doesn't mean we've got to be dicks to each other about it.

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

[mr1911]

I really don't understand why any place adults go must be "family friendly".

Maybe one day you will have a family and will understand. Not every place must be family friendly, but on the other hand not every place must be adult oriented. The public library is a place for everyone, including children.

First Ammendment shouldn't be toyed with.

[gubers33]

As socially unacceptable, as well as creepy as this guy is it is his right to watch it. If he were beating it, it would be another story. I think this fits into the First Amendment even if it wrong. I think back to when I was a kid and the library had plenty of National Geographic magazine, anatomy and sexuality books all of which displayed nudity, will these be banned next in libraries. Granted nudity is different than pornography, but someone could just as easily be offended if someone is reading one of the books right next to someone else. Will these be the next to be banned? I could care less about whether or not you can watch porn in a library, but taking away part of the First Amendment because people might be offended is opening a can of worms.

Re:First Ammendment shouldn't be toyed with.

[Darinbob]

The first amendment mentions freedom of speech. I don't recall anything about freedom to watch anywhere you please. This is not a first amendment issue. It is not even a censorship issue since no one asked that the porn be censored.

Yes, it's simple for others to just look away, but it's even simpler and more logical if the perv just used a different computer or a privacy screen. The porn viewer is clearly engaged in harassment.

Let's say an attractive lady walks into the library. I pick up a book and start reading it. I read that book while standing right behind her. When she moves I follow and continue with my reading. Eventually she freaks out and leaves. Was I within my rights? I don't think so.

Re:First Ammendment shouldn't be toyed with.

[gubers33]

Difference there is that you are following her around and the porn viewer is staying put. I find it hard to correlate sitting and watching porn as harassment. The woman didn't want to see it, couldn't she just as easily move to a different computer?

Extremely common, actually

[TriezGamer]

Friend of mine is a librarian. The stance of the Seattle Public Library system is that of the entire American Library Association. This is NOT an uncommon stance for a library. The ALA Code of Ethics is found here:

II and VII are of particular note here.

II. We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.

VII. We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources.

Re:Extremely common, actually

[TriezGamer]

Somehow managed to not add the URL, because I'm a dunce.

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics

many local libraries allow this

[iggymanz]

in the chicago area, many suburban libraries have "privacy shields" around the computer so others can't see the porn-o-philes watching getting their fix. wonder if any of those losers spank it.....

in case anyone is wondering, I watch my porn at home when my wife isn't around, like god intended.

Re:many local libraries allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

in case anyone is wondering, I watch my porn at home when my wife isn't around, like god intended.

I watch MY porn from a remote location, over CCTV, when my wife is at home, doing the postman.

Re:many local libraries allow this

[bolthole]

I've seen some places with these, and they are a pathetic joke. it's just a political ploy to justify continuing what they were oding.

The "shields" approach doesnt work unless they extend from the monitor practically all the way to the person's face.

Now, polarized view screens, on the other hand, are much more effective. THey restrict the viewing angle so that you have to be pretty much right in front of the computer.
That being said, a true good-faith effort to doing this, would require that the library also have to restrict people walking behind the computer, in case they might accidentally see some objectionable content as they walk past.

It's a mess. simpler and better to just not allow porn in libraries. leave it to the "art houses" and what not.
To the librarian's creed of allowing access to "all forms of information" or whatever... It's not "information", it's "art", after all.

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:Total Logical Disconnect

[misexistentialist]

Do parents in your world have any rights at all in determining what their children should be easily exposed to?

Yes, it's called home-schooling.

Re:Total Logical Disconnect

[Nihilomnis]

Shit, wasn't logged in.

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

[Dredd13]

Well, here's the thing. It's always important to remember that the United States was founded by a bunch of Puritans who had sticks shoved up their asses SO FAR that the rest of mainstream Europe was like "Seriously? Get the fuck out, go over there to that New World far-far-away from us. Yeah here's a boat, here's some food. Go. We'll be right behind you. Swear."

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

[Dredd13]

Nearly every library I've ever visited, across five different US states, in rural and urban areas, has had a separate "Children's Area", with the "Young Adult" area right next to it.

You can have those as your "family-friendly zones".

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

[Anonymous Coward]

People in the US still have some psychological problems with procreation, various anatomical parts and excretion. Not sure if this is developmental failure of a certain age (I forget what age sex and excretion are at) Until the majority of the people overcome these issues there will be strong urges for the more "proper" individuals to complain about what they consider to be (im)-propriety ... when people can look at anything at all and be happy then everyone will finally be on solid psychological footing and nobody will complain about anything at all anymore. Just remember when someone has a problem with something, it's the person having the problem who is having the problem.

Children's section?

[denzacar]

Don't most libraries already enforce age restriction and segregation, as it is deemed that some books are not suited to a younger audience, either due to their racy and violent content or due to being "too damn boring" to the kids?

In other words - what children? There are no children around in the adult section of the library.
You know... that section of the library that holds the Marquis de Sade books.

Re:Children's section?

[Alsee]

Don't most libraries already enforce age restriction and segregation

Hell no, not any library I've ever seen.

Sure most libraries have a children's section and an "adult" section, but when I was in elementary school the children's section got too damn boring after about a half hour. I spent all my time in the very same section of the library that holds the Marquis de Sade books. Several times I went to the librarian requesting assistance finding stuff from the adult section. I took out lots of books, and probably every single one came from the adult section.

Never once did any any librarian tell me I wasn't supposed to be there. They were all extremely helpful.

As long as a kid isn't running and screaming, any good librarian is pleased to see a young person with the interest and ability to utilize the adult section. I dunno, maybe your community library was different. Did you grow up in some repressive fundie backwater?

-

Re:Children's section?

[Rennt]

Every library I've been to just put the kids books in their own section, they don't install barriers. You often see curious children browsing the "adult" section. *I* certainly did when I was a child.

Re:Children's section?

[Idarubicin]

Don't most libraries already enforce age restriction and segregation...

The presence of a "children's books" section doesn't mean that the library is enforcing segregation by age. It means that the library is making it easier for interested readers to locate books at a certain reading level. Many public libraries similarly shelve speculative fiction (sci fi and fantasy), mysteries, and romance novels separately from the rest of their fiction holdings, for the benefit of the readers of those genres.

Granted, there's a certain amount of guesswork and judgement involved in sub-categorizing these works, and I certainly won't say that questionable calls and outright mistakes don't occur. (My local library had trouble with the works of Harry Turtledove, for instance, putting books 1 and 4 of his alternate history Settling Accounts tetralogy in general fiction, and sorting books 2 and 3 into science fiction. It took me a couple of trips back to the catalog before I figured out why I couldn't find the sequels on the shelf.)

From a philosophical standpoint, it's easier to engage younger readers with their library if the books they want to read aren't spread far and wide (and oh-so-thinly) among the thick and dull 'adult' tomes. From a practical standpoint, it's easier to equip one area with shelves, tables, chairs, and computers that are sized for child-sized library patrons. From a cynical standpoint, children in libraries - even good children, trying their best - tend to be a bit louder than adults, and it's more comfortable for everyone to encourage them to stay in one area.

In my experience, I've never been in a library that has barred 'children' of whatever age from entering and using the resources in the 'adult' section, as long as their behavior doesn't interfere with the library's other users. (And this isn't a child-specific restriction; an adult holding a shouted conversation should also expect to get shushed.)

You know... that section of the library that holds the Marquis de Sade books.

Which section is that? The libraries I've used have always had their 'erotic' materials shelved in the regular stacks, wherever the catalog would normally sort them.

Re:Children's section?

[denzacar]

Which section is that? The libraries I've used have always had their 'erotic' materials shelved in the regular stacks, wherever the catalog would normally sort them.

Do they also put The Decameron there? Or Steppenwolf (drugs)? Or Werther (suicide)?

I agree with your philosophical and cynical standpoints, but I DO contest the idea that libraries are working under complete and equal openness to all their members.
I'm guessing that there MUST be some mechanism at play which ensures that kids don't go home with "erotic materials" one day, coming back with an angry loud parent in tow the next day.

And following your cynical standpoints, segregation according to age just seems... neater.

Re:Children's section?

[denzacar]

As long as a kid isn't running and screaming, any good librarian is pleased to see a young person with the interest and ability to utilize the adult section. I dunno, maybe your community library was different. Did you grow up in some repressive fundie backwater?

Actually, no. It was not fundie even at the time when being fundie was really popular.
As for being a backwater, that's debatable. It WAS a lagoon couple of million years ago.

Like I said to the other poster, segregation according to age simply seems neater.
Particularly seeing the sorry state of books in the children's section. AND the noise levels there.

when I was in elementary school the children's section got too damn boring after about a half hour.

I too was raiding the adult section (which basically meant everything besides the stuff for the elementary school kids) pretty early, but I had to use my mother's card for a while.
But I assume that I would at least raise an eyebrow or two had I started picking up Marquis de Sade, Nabokov and whatnot.

Re:Children's section?

[Idarubicin]

I'm guessing that there MUST be some mechanism at play which ensures that kids don't go home with "erotic materials" one day, coming back with an angry loud parent in tow the next day.

Those would be the parents who didn't bother to supervise their children, and who were misusing the library as a daycare center. I'd be quite gratified to see librarians not knuckle under to that particular brand of bad, responsibility-abdicating parent.

That said, taking the first major U.S. library system that came to mind (the New York Public Library), it appears that their policy is that anyone from age 12 up can get their own library card as long as they have suitable identification. Under-12 kids need the in-person approval of a parent or guardian to obtain a card, and the parent can choose whether their borrowing is open to the full collection or restricted to the 'juvenile' stacks.

Even considering that type of restriction, however, I've never been to a public library that checked identification or age before allowing access to the stacks; even a kid with borrowing restrictions - or no card at all - could still pull books off the shelf and read them in the library.

Re:Children's section?

[NotSanguine]

As long as a kid isn't running and screaming, any good librarian is pleased to see a young person with the interest and ability to utilize the adult section. I dunno, maybe your community library was different. Did you grow up in some repressive fundie backwater?

Actually, no. It was not fundie even at the time when being fundie was really popular. As for being a backwater, that's debatable. It WAS a lagoon couple of million years ago.

Like I said to the other poster, segregation according to age simply seems neater. Particularly seeing the sorry state of books in the children's section. AND the noise levels there.

when I was in elementary school the children's section got too damn boring after about a half hour.

I too was raiding the adult section (which basically meant everything besides the stuff for the elementary school kids) pretty early, but I had to use my mother's card for a while. But I assume that I would at least raise an eyebrow or two had I started picking up Marquis de Sade, Nabokov and whatnot.

Your points are interesting and informative. In the United States however, the government is (or at least is supposed to be) forbidden to restrict the free exercise of speech or expression. This has been interpreted as a ban on censorship (that has been ignored in many places at many times in the US however). As many people have pointed out, this is more an issue of consideration and being empathetic to others. That said, regardless of where, it is always the responsibility of parents to decide what is appropriate for their minor children. When folks make the statement that their children need to be kept from this, therefore the content (whatever it may be) needs to be censored, those parents are trying to make others take on their responsibilities. As a parent, you need to care for and protect your child. You are responsible. By demanding that others curtail their rights because you are unable or unwilling to discharge that responsibility, you're doing it wrong.

In any case, the guy watching porn in the library and refusing to be considerate of others is a jerk and, from a community standpoint, probably needs a good talking to. But it's not a crime to be a jerk, as much as that main pain some of us.

Re:Children's section?

[Alsee]

Tuzla

Sorry, I had a reflex reaction about repressive fundie American backwater wannabe censors. We actually had one our Vice President ticket 4 years ago. Fortunately she lost.

I assume that I would at least raise an eyebrow or two had I started picking up Marquis de Sade, Nabokov and whatnot.

While it might raise some eyebrows, the American Library Association has an official policy supporting your right to do so.

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.
[]
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, âoeWe 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.â 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'sâ"and only their childrenâ(TM)sâ"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.

Most Librarians, at least in the US, tend to have strong views against censorship. And that view includes opposing attempts to "protect" children from information some people consider objectionable. If a parent has an anti-blueberry fetish, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their child not to read books about blueberries. And it is the parent's right and responsibility to enforce that rule regarding their child. The library will not attempt to guess about such parental choices, and librarians will not attempt to enforce such rules upon other people's children.

Do you have any actual knowledge of typical librarian policies in your country? I'd be curious to know whether this was a globally typical attitude of librarians, or whether American librarians were exceptional in their anti-censorship zeal.

-

Re:Children's section?

[denzacar]

Well... despite the ALA policy above there IS quite a bit of restriction built-in.
It's probably just the case of them not considering something as basic as a "library card" an actual restriction.
Note the language used and the ages in question.
And the burden of "thinking about the children" being placed squarely on their parents' shoulders.

As for "actual knowledge of typical librarian policies" - I could ask my friend who is a librarian. Let me know exactly what you want to know and I'll relay it to her.

But bear in mind that "typical" and "official" policies may be two VERY different things here.
Actually, considering that each canton has its own ministry of education, plus the Federal one, plus the one for Republika Srpska...
That's like... what? Twenty four different things?
And, while Tuzla may not be very fundie, situation in other places CAN and DOES differ.

I mean, every couple of years some idiot comes out against Santa Claus - cause that's Christian propaganda aimed at Muslim children.
And naturally, those are not the most serious cases.

And don't think it's just the Muslims.
It is generally understood that Croat means Catholic, Serb an East Orthodox Christian and Bosnian or Bosniak a Muslim Such logic is even imposed on the constitution through the fact that only member of those three nationalities can and may be elected as presidents. Of which we have three at the same time.
And couple of years ago when a Croat from a socialist-democratic party (as opposed to several Croat nationalist parties) was elected into the presidency as the representative of the Bosnian Croats - those from the Croat nationalist parties called for his resignation because he was not "a real Croat" in their mind and because they claimed that he was elected by Muslims.
Remember that "Obama can't be the presidn't cause he ain't 'merican" nonsense?
Well... Imagine if it was republican party that demanded his resignation cause a) he is not a U.S. citizen and b) cause only blacks voted for him.

Re:Children's section?

[denzacar]

In any case, the guy watching porn in the library and refusing to be considerate of others is a jerk and, from a community standpoint, probably needs a good talking to. But it's not a crime to be a jerk, as much as that main pain some of us.

Oh, I agree. Completely.

I'm just saying that crying out "think of the children" may be (in any case it SHOULD be) a tad bit misplaced this time.

Re:Children's section?

[denzacar]

Thanks for the link above, spared me some time.

Even considering that type of restriction, however, I've never been to a public library that checked identification or age before allowing access to the stacks; even a kid with borrowing restrictions - or no card at all - could still pull books off the shelf and read them in the library.

Well, that's a different ballgame.
Libraries clearly DO have age restrictions, only they don't follow them to the letter as it is not say... a swimming pool but a library.

On the other hand, minors being allowed access to adult-only material BECAUSE they didn't follow their own restrictions... well...
Their restrictions - their responsibility.

Re:Children's section?

[Idarubicin]

Libraries clearly DO have age restrictions, only they don't follow them to the letter as it is not say... a swimming pool but a library.

Well, no. The library in question doesn't have age restrictions for stack access, just for borrowing. (And the restrictions on borrowing don't apply to anyone over the age of 11.) You can't criticise their failure to follow a policy that only exists in your imagination.

Re:Children's section?

[Alsee]

It's probably just the case of them not considering something as basic as a "library card" an actual restriction.

It's not any meaningful restriction. Libraries are open to the public, even without a library card. Children can just walk in, sit down at a table, and read books from the 'adult' section all day long.

You only need a library card if you want to take books or other materials out on loan. For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.

-

Re:Children's section?

[denzacar]

It's not any meaningful restriction.

Because it is unenforced. But just like all those laws it is still valid.

For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.

Financial and LEGAL reasons.
That is why kids 11 and younger must bring their parents to sign the papers, and not a cash deposit.

Re:Children's section?

[Alsee]

It's not any meaningful restriction.

Because it is unenforced. But just like all those laws it is still valid.

You lost mere there. What are you suggesting is unenforced? What are you suggesting is still valid?

If you mean some "unenforced" rule about library cards, no. Public libraries are deliberately open to the public. There is no requirement to have a library card to enter the library and access any and all materials. A library card is only required if you wish to remove books from the building.

If you mean some "unenforced" rule about children in the adult section, no. It is Official Policy of the American Library Association that children have full and equal access to all materials. In fact they state it would be a violation of the Library Bill of Rights if any librarian attempted to deny a minor full access.

For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.

Financial and LEGAL reasons.

I don't know what legal reasons you are suggesting, other than the financial-legal issue of collecting fines. But again, the library is open to the public. Any library card limitations are merely a restriction on removing materials from the library, it is not any restriction on access.

Try reading the American Library Association's policy on Free Access to Libraries for Minors.

In particular note the line "Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children ". In other words don't bother the librarian with any such demands. The library doesn't restrict your child's access, and the library is not going to take responsibility for enforcing any such rules upon your child for you. If you want to limit your child's access then you should tell your child that is your rule. It is your personal right and your personal responsibility to raise your children and enforce your rules for them. You either have to trust your child to obey your rules, or you must supervise your children, and you may punish them if they break your parental rules. The library's mission is to make as much information as possible available to everyone, and the library isn't going to get involved in parenting your child for you.

If you read the Library Bill of Rights, items 1 and 2 are anti-censorship, and items 3 and 4 actually direct libraries to actively oppose attempts at censorship. In practice this means libraries actively fighting individuals, parents, organizations, and politicians, who attempt to restrict library content or who restrict access to library materials. Item 5 says libraries should not restrict access to library materials, specifically including any age-based restrictions.

And here it explicitly states that it is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights to remove content anyone claims is "harmful to minors", and that librarians should actively oppose those who attempt to do so.

American Librarians have a reputation for being mild-mannered, helpful, and neutral to the point of bland boringness... except for their intense opposition to censorship. Opposition with includes actively including and promoting anything that anyone attempts to restrict. Activists rarely get in fights with librarians because it almost always backfires. It almost always results in increased awareness and availability of the very materials they opposed.

-

porn is okay

[nimbius]

but we'll have you in irons the minute you want to read a wikileaks cable.

Re:The rights of other patrons

[realityimpaired]

Ever heard of sexual harassment? The guy watching porn was doing it.

that's because youve never worked in a library

[decora]

people who have actually worked in a library do not believe in this bullshit. you are NOT protecting freedom of speech - you are destroying the freedom of kids to come into the library. the only people who believe in this idiotic idea of 'freedom' are pedophiles and ignorant, narrowminded douchebags who cannot manage to place themselves into another persons shoes.

public libraries are, as they are, already a magnet for streakers, public masturbators, etc. its the unspoken secret of library work. assholes like to come into libraries and do awful stuff. i dont know what it is about libraries, but they do it.

you cannot allow some guy to come in and watch porn while kids are around. there is nothing at all about 'free speech' involved in that concept. who decides what porn is? the librarians and the users of the library.

you dont need a filter to enforce this rule, its just a tool that makes it easier and less labor intensive. because, the same fucktards who scream about 'free speech' would never in a million years attend a city council meeting to try to get more funds for the libraries, or to raise library salaries, or to help out with a library fundraiser. no, but hey, you want to kick out the convicted sex offender who jacks off in front of 5 year old kids, all of a sudden you are 'big brother' restricting freedom. its bullshit. the whole argument is bullshit.

Re:that's because youve never worked in a library

[Golddess]

who decides what porn is?

And there-in lies the problem. Your definition of porn is not my definition of porn is not the library's definition of porn. Much better to allow the "porn" than let someone proclaim that I am disallowed from researching, say, the history of bras.

That said.. I'd prolly be ok with, say, a three-tier approach to filtering in libraries.
1) One set of computers with absolutely no filtering.
2) One set of computers with light filtering and/or a black-list.
3) One set of computers with heavy filtering and/or a white-list.

Someone smarter than I can figure out where it'd make sense to place each set of computers. And feel free to rip my idea to shreds and tell me why it's stupid. :)

Re:that's because youve never worked in a library

[majortom1981]

I am an IT admin of a library and i agree with you 100 percent. 80 percent of all people here at my library that i work at who view porn on the adult machines is child porn. we have had many people reported to the police because of child porn. We have drug users smoking in the bathroom also. Drunks openly drinking in the library. For everybody else if you want federal money the library HAS to filter all computers. its a requirement. So either this library has denied this funding or will lose their funding for not filtering the adult machines.

There are separate issues here...

[Genda]

#1 Should the library censor, filter, or prevent a person from looking at anything? No. That's not free speech, that's freedom of information. Two completely different issues.

#2 Should the man have the right to subject people including children to his porn addiction? Also, NO! He should be made to go into one of the music listening booths where he can satisfy his person viewing fetish however he pleases.

If he refuses to take his behavior to a more responsibly location, the young lady has every right to video him in a public place, doing an indecent thing and send it to the evening news for public dissemination. That would in fact be free speech, which is protected and the wayward gentleman would have to deal with the social repercussions of being an inconsiderate ass in public. Not to mention how this might impact his job and his marriage. It would take but a couple such incidents to forever make the practice an obvious no pass for anyone not attempting social suicide.

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

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Because good reading habits start young. If you don't teach people that libraries are awesome when they're young, they won't use libraries as an adult.

OTOH if they can be used to freely watch pron, they're going to really popular among teenagers.

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.

Sex XOR violence

[HungWeiLo]

I bet if the guy was watching Stallone rip somebody's throat out a la Rambo 4, nobody would have batted an eye.

If you go to the Seattle local news forums, it's funny to see all the hardcore Ron Paul supporters call for immediate censorship of all "objectionable content" in public libraries.

Re:Sue the Library

[evil_aaronm]

I could then say, "I'd sue the library over being forcefully exposed to religious material in a government building."

Should we take out religious references, too?

Here's What's Going To Happen...

[Zamphatta]

Same man comes back some other day to watch more porn. A kid stands off to the side to get a peek. Maybe the kid tells his friends and they all giggle and look from a short distance. Then the cops come 'cause somebody's mother or father decided this dude on the computer is breaking the law by "corrupting a minor" or something along that line. Who else gets in trouble? The public library... 'cause they enabled the kid to be exposed to it. Now, I'm not arguing for or against free speech here, I'm just saying that this scenerio is bound to play out. If I understand the law, free speech is limited by things like "corrupting a minor" or other actions the law deems harmful. I'm just saying this is a very thin line they're walking, I hope they're prepared to face any possible consequences of being considered aiding in that behavior. It's not as simple a situation as some of you commenters think it is.

Hold Up, Please

[The Wild Norseman]

We don't know what the material was that the guy was watching. The term 'pornography' usually means explicit sexual activity, though it's also used by the general public and usually uninformed or misinformed reporters as to mean simple nudity.

Simple nudity is different than explicit sexual acts based on various court rulings and laws, so there needs to be some specificity with this case; I hope before people get their panties in a bunch over it.

*reads comments*

Too late, I guess.

Well, anyway, I'm guessing that the librarian saw what was simple nudity and not explicit sex, so therefore she sided with the patron viewing the nudity. I'm thinking that if it was explicit sexual activity, then she probably would have asked the man to go to another terminal. Maybe someone else has some clearer statements of what, exactly, was being viewed?

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.

Re:Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment

[Xyrus]

An Ode To The Library

I was perusing the shelves at my local library,
When I saw something out of the ordinary,
For in front of keyboard with eyes in a squint,
Was a man watching porn and pitching a tent,
And I said to myself as I was watching the scene,
That someone might find that obscene,
But where else should the poor in this city,
Go to get their free ass and titty?

And why should we stop this manly fapper,
with his mighty hand hitting the desk like a clapper,
When fit on the shelves all nice in a row,
Are books on how ladies to fuck like a ho.

There's books on porn, and books on sex,
Books on how to do it on deck,
How to fuck in pool, or fuck on plane,
Or how to have orgasm that make you insane.

And if it's all too vague or perhaps too much,
Or you don't know what you're doing as such,
There are anatomy books that make it all clear,
That you don't stick it in there, you stick it in here.

But what if instead of banging his knob,
Our heroric spanker were watching some mob,
Beheading some guy for some whatever reason,
Or someone getting shot for the high crime of treason?

Or animals mating? That's always a kick,
Did you know wild hogs have an 18 inch dick?
Or how about a butcher, or some senseless slaughter?
Or how many ways you can torture with water?

Oh, these things are just peachy kine fine,
But no nipples or vulvae or women supine,
Heaven forbid you see such muck,
Better to see murder and slaughter than two people fuck.

So hear me great library, truthful and fair
As my hand slides into my underwear,
My cock is stiff and my eyes are bright,
Thank you for defending my rights!

Re:Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment

[Goat of Death]

The State is not supplying the pornography, it is supplying the internet access. Were the State to prevent access to certain sites it would then be interfering with or preventing speech.

Re:Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment

[misexistentialist]

IANAL but I think libraries are supposed to be fairly comprehensive, and that failure to supply books because of objectionable content has in fact been ruled to be illegal.

Re:Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment

[MSTCrow5429]

The State is supplying the pornography by supplying the internet service and computer equipment. It is no different that if the State paid for the publication of a pornographic picture book and mailed it to your address. There is only a 1st Amendment violation if the State prevents the speech from being uttered, e.g. taking down the pornographic website or issuing a prior restraint to the publisher of the book. There is no violation if the State merely refrains from supplying the speech itself.

Re:Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment

[KhabaLox]

But if the state is going to subsidize speech or expression by providing Internet terminals, then b the First Ammendment it shouldn't decide which speech is permissible (with certain exceptions, none which apply here). You wouldn't want th government to filter Green Party websites, or Al Jazeera, or art blogs featuring nudes, would you?

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

[SuricouRaven]

But this is a debate that cannot be had in the US, because of the paralysing fear of pedophiles. To so much as suggest that children wouldn't be traumatised by the sight of a penis is dangerous. It exposes the one making the claim to accusations.

from a librarian: SPL is right

[ffflala]

I am a librarian, and years ago I worked at SPL. I wasn't at that particular branch, but the other branches I worked at all took steps to limit the ability of others to view what was on the patron computer screen, via privacy screens, kiosks w/ side walls, location, or all of the above. If this branch hasn't done so already, it's probably because they simply can't afford the extra space & furniture needed.

As for content, I don't care if someone else thinks that another patron's content is *only* indecent, inappropriate for your nearby children, or creepy. Disruptive behavior from patrons is one thing, and we'll put a stop to that. But this sounds like the only disruptive element here was the content itself.

You don't have a right to make a public library G-rated only, for the sake of the innocence your kids. I will do what I can to accommodate patrons' wishes, but I'm working with a very limited budget. I empathize with the parent's discomfort, but sex and porn are indeed a part of the adult world.

If you think it's inappropriate for your children to see that sort of thing, you need to block that from your kids. I'm not your kid's morality babysitter, I'm not here to police what kind of information goes into their precious little heads.

I am certainly not going to ask someone to stop reading/watching/listening *only* because the content is offensive to others, even if the content is offensive to me personally. I am and will remain far too busy ensuring that the public can freely access as much information and media as possible. As far as I'm concerned, that includes porn.

Re:from a librarian: SPL is right

[dbreeze]

My first thought on the subject, "information >entertainment media", recurred to me in your last paragraph. Perhaps "information" needs separation from "media". That should be easy................ ;)
I'd prefer that libraries just re-purpose all resources currently providing non-written "entertainment" to "information" myself. I am a fledgling old fart but it just depresses me to think of what could be.............

Re:from a librarian: SPL is right

[Score Whore]

You don't have a right to make a public library G-rated only...

Me personally? No, I don't, But the residents of Seattle? They most certainly do. There is no right to a public library at all. If the people of a community decide to create a library they have absolute freedom to fill that library with the types of materials that they feel will best serve the community. If videos of anal sex and other pornography are making people uncomfortable enough to not use the library then don't be surprised if the budget for the library shrinks to zero. Whatever your personal feelings and concerns, it's not about you any more than it's about me.

I'm fond enough of porn that I actually pay for it. But this is not a free speech issue, it's a use of public funds issue. I have no more obligation to provide porn to the poor than I am required to buy them beer and cigarettes.

Re:from a librarian: SPL is right

[pseudofrog]

But there has to be a line somewhere.

What if someone brought a small projector and was displaying 2-girls-one-cup on a wall?

Re:from a librarian: SPL is right

[ffflala]

There is no right to a public library at all.

There isn't? I guess if you mean in the sense that "right to library" doesn't appear in the text of the US constitution, you're correct. But then if you read that particular constitution closely, you'll notice that you don't actually have any right to freedom of speech either. It reads "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." That's it, there's no positive right to freedom of speech either, only a restriction on Congress. If that's what you mean by "no right to a public library," then I'd agree as readily as I would that we have no right to free speech.

Private libraries can go nuts with their restrictions and threats of defunding, but there are constitutional restrictions to community standards when it comes to public libraries. For example even if every last person in a town follows a particular religious ideology, the collection cannot be restricted to material approved by that ideology. Public libraries are used to operating on shoestring budgets, see these kinds of complaints often, and still somehow continue to exist.

Re:from a librarian: SPL is right

[Score Whore]

You almost get it. If a community decides not to fund a library then there is no library and no amount of litigation can force that community to pay for the creation (or continued existence) of a library. If a library doesn't serve the needs of the majority then the library can be closed, the library staff fired, the collection recycled into toilet paper and paper towels and the building sold to property developers. At the other less extreme end, even a public library has no obligation to provide space and care for any particular book. Shelf space is limited.

Re:from a librarian: SPL is right

[ffflala]

Public libraries are not exclusively funded by local tax revenue, but you seem to believe that they are. For example, about ten years ago SPL (the library in TFA) generated ~$300 million through fundraising. This was enough to pay for a big new downtown main branch, along with a bunch of major branch upgrades. (Apparently the Lake City branch didn't get much of a cut, if they're running into space problems like this.) Their budget, like that of other public libraries, continues to be a mix of both private and public local, state, and federal funds.

Library budgets are often one of the first items on an eager local candidate's chopping block; this has happened to SPL, repeatedly. Libraries have developed alternative resources for funds; they have had to as a matter of survival.

This isn't the first time a library's collection policy has been controversial enough for a story with legs enough to generate the kind of moralistic outrage that inevitably sells ads. But if you have one, I'd certainly be interested to hear an actual, real example of any large city completely defunding its library system, closing it, firing all staff, and disposing of the entire collection.

Re:The rights of other patrons

[bolthole]

The issue is not "dont wish to see". that's just euphemistic phrasing. The issue is "morally harmful", in conjunction with "children".

If there were an entire part of the library that was restricted to only adult patrons, then in theory, there would be no need for any restrictions in that area.
Trouble is, most libraries arent carved up that way, nor does their internal architecture and available space support reconfiguring the library in that way.

and personally, I think it would be a waste of space and effort to do so. Library resources could be put to better use in other ways.

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

[Grishnakh]

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.

To be fair, there's not many animals that would do such things, especially not to members of their own species. In fact, I can't think of any animals that do anything needlessly cruel to members of their own species (there are some that do to members of much smaller prey species); the only time animals hurt each other is when fighting over food, territory, or mates, not just to be cruel.

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

[Grishnakh]

I think you guys are saying some really bad things about animals that just aren't true. While I've seen videos of animals fighting each other over mates, I've never seen a bunch of their buddies standing around cheering them on. It's only humans that do that. I've never heard of animals needlessly killing some prey and then just leaving it there to rot; they eat everything they can before moving on and letting the birds pick the smaller pieces of meat from the bones; it takes too much energy for them to bring down a big kill, so they only do it when they need to. And I could be wrong, but I thought animals generally avoided incest out of instinct.

could have been worse

[ffflala]

At least it wasn't Twilight.

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

[rrohbeck]

+1. That's exactly the problem and this puritanism is still embedded everywhere. It's the root cause of many issues, for example the stupid war on drugs, aka Prohibition v2.

Purpose of a Library

[neonv]

The purpose of a library is to make information available to the public, not be a place to go to to do anything you want. There's not much information in porn, hence there's no reason to make it available in a library. This isn't a censoring issue. People can watch porn all they want in their own home.

Re:The rights of other patrons

[Alsee]

realityimpaired (1668397), a rather appropriate name. Try reading your own link.

Q. What is considered sexual harassment?

Sexual harassment is unwelcome or unwanted sexual advances or requests for sexual favors. It can also be some kind of sexual action that is aimed at someone because of the person's sex.

It does list "Displays of pornographic materials" as one form that harassment can take, however it is clearly listed in the context of a deliberate display aimed at someone that you are harassing. It is not harassment when you merely view porn and some random person incidentally sees it.

-

Tacking "internet" on all issues...

[GiMP]

This isn't an internet-only issue, although we don't hear much about the other variants of this... Why don't we hear about people complaining about men reading medical textbooks in public places where nudity is visible? How about National Geographic? What about women (or men) reading pregnancy books depicting the graphic birthing process?

These are just as appropriate or inappropriate as internet pornography in a library.

This is why society fails

[SmallFurryCreature]

We have to use laws which never catch all the exceptions because we can't behave. I don't care if you have the right or not, if you want to watch porn in a public area, try not to be so fucking obvious about it. And if you are in a public area, you don't have to stare at what everyone else is doing.

There are now laws about which side of the sidewalk you got to walk on but it is just so much easier if basic left/right rules are followed. But I am a free individual, yes and so are the thousands around you and if everyone wanted to do their own thing their own way regardless of anyone else it would be a gigantic fucking mess.

The sad thing is that this asshole who can't just select a quiet area where there is no traffic to watch his porn is providing the fuel needed to put filters in place, he is showing that unfiltered access is to much for some to handle.

A lot of the laws that guide our lives were introduced because of assholes like this. Why do you think there are anti-smoking laws? Because for decades SOME smokers were unable to curb their own behavior. Not all smokers, I have worked with smokers who long before any of the laws were even discussed did NOT smoke if they gave ME a lift in THEIR car. But a percentage could simply not function as a member of society, smoked where ever they wanted regardless of other people and BAM, anti-smoking laws.

Positive discrimination laws are the same, you might not see the need but there are enough employers who really would filter on race/sex/etc if they could get away with it AND did it when there were no laws about it.

The best way to loose freedom is to totally abuse it at the cost of everyone else. But my freedom! Is not a battle cry that works when you pissed off the majority. Democracy is just the dictatorship of the masses, real freedom... well that is this guy watching porn in the kiddy book area whacking off. Someone somewhere will see his freedom as overriding everyone elses and be the cause of restricted freedoms.

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

[NotSanguine]

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.

Then be responsible for your kids. Don't try to force others to be responsible for them too. When you do that, you're no better than the jackass who's watching porn in the middle of the library and refuses to move someplace else when asked. Both are extremely selfish acts.

Re:The rights of other patrons

[TFAFalcon]

Aren't politics morally harmful? They teach children that it's not just OK to lie, It's mandatory if you want to do well in life. And what about religions? Just about every religion teaches that the followers of all OTHER religions will be sent to some form of hell, often with pictures to illustrate what they can look forward too. How is that somehow OK for children too see while sex is not?

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

[mapkinase]

"People just don't care. " That wins the argument, doesn't it?

One sunny day I hope to see all the lamp posts decorated with demagogues on my way to work.

The morals ARE universal and unrelativistic and if some country of idiots doesn't care anymore, it does not mean that that's *good*. It just mean what you exactly said: "people just don't care". So didn't care the people of the town of Lot, so didn't care Germans in 1939.

You think the consumerist propaganda in the form of advertisement is better than communist propaganda or "creationist" propaganda, then you are blithering idiot.

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

[mapkinase]

I wish people on the bus stop slowly kill you and nobody around cared.

I like their position too, but most wont

[Zero__Kelvin]

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

You are assuming that wasn't the intent. If someone wants to advocate a censorship (or similar) law, they often look for an edge case and publicize it to polarize the majority. This is a great way to accomplish that goal. All that is needed now is to sprinkle on a healthy dose of OMFG, will somebody think of the children and it won't even occur to most people that a law is not necessary or called for in this case, and the law will pass like molasses through a goat.

My 2 cents

[JasoninKS]

I see two things here. 1. The library will be surprised when no kids start showing up for story hour, but they won't know why. 2. The library will be confused why it's being held liable for providing pornographic material to kids. If kids can see it as he's viewing it, the library is liable and likely to be sued.

Answer: lazy employees.

[kaatochacha]

Everyone's leaving out the obvious:
The employees of the library are lazy. Rather than do anything, they can claim "1st Amendment", ignore everyone's complaints, and go back to reading a book in the corner.
Never underestimate laziness as a motivation.

hmm..

[SuperDre]

The fact they won't filter the content is good, but all the woman asked according to the article is for the man to move to another computer (where the monitor wasn't as visible as the one he was using I guess), so therefore I think the man should have relocated..

Libraries and schools must not be free for all

[rojash]

I have always been of the belief that libraries can be free as long as you read the books within, or have an EZ1040 income return. Others, who can afford it, MUST PAY, either monthly or per book checked out. Recently, my wife wanted a book from another location, and they ship it to her local lib for free !! This is a ridiculous waste of taxpayers money. In spite of schools and libraries being free in our country, we still have low education levels. Those who do use them are already very literate and from good families. We don't really see any advantage of it being free. For kids, yes, but for adults who rush to read romantic novels Oprah might recommend, make 'em pay !! As for the porn watcher, of course it should be free ! This is the land of the free right, where amendments make it easy to do filthy stuff, like prey on children. Most of the time, don't blame the criminal, its the system that needs to be rectified. And your corrupt congressman isn't going to do anything about it unless you force them.

FED funds require filters.

[majortom1981]

I hope this library is not receiving federal funds. a requirement for getting the funds is that all public machines are filtered. A lot fo private grants for libraries require this also. So if this library is receiving the funds they can lose them by doing this.

Why not just...

[cyn1c77]

add monitor privacy screens to solve the problem?

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

[dfenstrate]

So, insisting on some decorum in a library is the same as watching porno in a library?

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

[bar-agent]

Oh, trust me. Animals are not pure and noble. They do the same shit we do, but they do it with only the gifts God gave them. Dolphins rape, baboons terrorize their underlings, birds get into pissing matches, they all ostracize the different, and they do these things both with and without good cause. Just like us.

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

[Dredd13]

Who said founding-fathers, dipshit?

Here, this should help.

Perhaps it's time we just gave up

[approachingZero]

Stop fighting. The monkey has already been spanked. As a society it is perhaps time to take a deep breath of the cold water and sink peacefully down until the darkness is all that is left. If this is the level of conversation we are reduced to then haven't we reached the end?

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

[NotSanguine]

So, insisting on some decorum in a library is the same as watching porno in a library?

Not at all. Decorum is an important lubricant to our society. But that doesn't make it mandatory. I'll agree with you 100% that the rude jackass who insists on viewing porn in full view of everyone is sorely lacking in decorum (I have been informed by area residents that Seattle Public Library computers all have privacy screens which make the images on screens only visible if you're looking over the user's shoulder). However, keeping *your* kid from seeing something *you* don't want them to see is *your* responsibility, not some guy who

needs to rub his crank through his pants at the library

.

That said, consideration and empathy are key components of a civil society. Unfortunately, Some folks are jerks. All the same, the responsibility is all on you when it comes to your child(ren). If you expect that others will bend to your will just because it makes your job as a parent easier, that's selfish, IMHO.

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

[dfenstrate]

All the same, the responsibility is all on you when it comes to your child(ren). If you expect that others will bend to your will just because it makes your job as a parent easier, that's selfish, IMHO.

So, if all I want to make my job as a parent easier is some basic decorum in the public library, a standard that you agree too, I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not bringing my kids to a nudie beach and asking folks to cover up. I'm not bringing them to a strip club and asking the girls to skip the ping pong ball trick.

We're talking about a library here. Part of the way I do my job as a parent and control what they're exposed to is by choosing where I bring them. Given that we both agree that a public showing of 'two girls, one cup' shouldn't occur at a public library, I think we're really on the same page here.

I mean, I don't want to see 'TGOC' at the library, and you don't, and I don't want my kids to see it either. Does saying it that make you feel better?

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

[NotSanguine]

All the same, the responsibility is all on you when it comes to your child(ren). If you expect that others will bend to your will just because it makes your job as a parent easier, that's selfish, IMHO.

So, if all I want to make my job as a parent easier is some basic decorum in the public library, a standard that you agree too, I'm not sure what your point is.

While we both agree that decorum at the library is desirable, others, apparently, do not. Those folks, who are, in our estimation, obnoxious jerks are still entitled to view "protected expression." that may annoy us, but it is what it is. When I say "selfish," I mean that said obnoxious jerks are demanding that we put their desires above that of others in a rigid and uncompromising way. If (note the *if* here) you do the same by demanding that others put your desires (in this case, not having your children put in the position of seeing something that you deem inappropriate for them) ahead of their own in a similar rigid and uncompromising way (i.e., not allowing them to view materials *provided by the library in the way prescribed by the library*), that can also be construed as selfish, no?

I hope that gives you a better understanding of where I'm coming from. My apologies if I wasn't clear enough in previous posts.

We're talking about a library here. Part of the way I do my job as a parent and control what they're exposed to is by choosing where I bring them. Given that we both agree that a public showing of 'two girls, one cup' shouldn't occur at a public library, I think we're really on the same page here.

I mean, I don't want to see 'TGOC' at the library, and you don't, and I don't want my kids to see it either. Does saying it that make you feel better?

I hear you. But whether you and I agree is immaterial. That library makes these materials available and prescribes how those materials are to be consumed. If we don't like those policies, we can address them with the library. The library apparently views this as a free speech issue. You view it as a decorum issue and use the "think of the children!" trope as your primary argument (mostly, it appears, because that's what's important to you.). I'm a pretty hardcore free speech guy, so I do understand and support the librarian's point of view, even if I find the material objectionable in those circumstances. That said, I dislike obnoxious jerks too, so while I do support free speech and the librarian's call WRT this issue, I think someone needs to smack that asshole upside the head.

Nope...

[denzacar]

From your own link:

Your library card is your key to the resources the Library has to offer. Learn how to get one here.

Your library card is your key to the resources and services of all New York Public Library locations in the Bronx, Manhattan, and Staten Island. In addition to borrowing library materials, your card will let you reserve a computer, download digital media, search hundreds of electronic databases, and more.

It's a case of non enforcement of existing rules and regulations.

Rules say that you don't get to use the library without a card. Stacks or borrowing or ANYTHING that the library provides.
To get a library card, you either provide identification which shows your age, OR your parents do that for you if you are under 12.

As for the age restriction, they are treating everyone above 12 years of age as a "young adult".
And the burden of "thinking about the children", i.e. kids who are of 11 years old or younger, is simply being left to their parents.

I'm not saying that's bad or anything.
In fact, I think that should be the way it's done generally - not treating teenagers as if they are babies, when most of them are clearly closer to adults than children.

I'm just saying that there ARE rules in place already - it's just that their enforcement is rather lax.