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

[Columcille]

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

Re:I like their position

[X0563511]

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

I guess? IANAL and all that.

Re:I like their position

[bonch]

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

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

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

Re:I like their position

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[sydneyfong]

Hot chicks may get aroused and rape me.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[cvtan]

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

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

This story...

[NIN1385]

broke slashdot for about ten minutes...

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

[mykos]

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

This is not about porn, specifically

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

I thought this is the reason we had libraries.

[trout007]

So it would give homeless a place to watch porn.

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?

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.

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!

FFS

[GauteL]

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

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

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

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:FFS

[guruevi]

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

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

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

Re:So why couldn't the complainent move?

[bonch]

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

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

Re: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.

Re:The rights of other patrons

[TFAFalcon]

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

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

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

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

[rts008]

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

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

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

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

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.

Total Logical Disconnect

[RobinEggs]

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

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

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

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

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

[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."

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?

[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: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.

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.

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!

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

[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: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.

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.