(Enokson)
There is much discussion in the Seattle area today after a mom claims that while on a visit to her local library with her two young daughters, she spied a man viewing hardcore porn on a computer with a screen that was facing out to the rest of the library. And when she complained about it to the staff, she says her concerns were shrugged off.
From the letter sent to area bloggers by the mom:
I noticed that a man was watching hard core pornography (including anal penetration & other adult content) on a computer where the screen was facing out into the library. I told the librarian and asked for help in having him move to a more discreet location. She could see the screen from the information desk where we were standing and was sympathetic, but said that the library doesn’t censor content and they can’t be in the business of monitoring what their patrons are doing at any given computer. I then asked the man to please move to another computer. He declined. In the process of this interaction, I didn’t notice that my daughters had wandered over looking for me and one of them saw what was playing on the screen.
The mom says she’s all for the man’s right to look at whatever he wants to but feels there should be some consideration to “our right not to be inadvertent viewers.”
A rep for the Seattle Public Libraries confirmed the institution’s stance on the topic.
“We’re a library, so we facilitate access to constitutionally protected information,” the rep explains to SeattlePI.com. “We don’t tell people what they can view and check out … Filters compromise freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. We’re not in the business of censoring information.”
The rep did say the library is working with the mom to figure out a possible solution — like reconfiguring certain sections of the building so that little children would not be inadvertently exposed to depictions of sodomy and other stuff they should learn about from magazines they swipe from their parents.
Seattle library lets man watch porn, despite complaint [SeattlePI.com]
More From Consumerist
-
Man Booted From New York Public Library For Excessive B.O. Wants $5.5 Million
-
Book Returned To New York Public Library Almost 55 Years Overdue
-
San Francisco Library Providing Helpful Privacy Screens For Online Porn-Viewing Comfort
-
Not Done With That ‘Oregon Trail’ CD-ROM? Phoenix Library Could Use The $4.3M In Late Fees
-
That Overdue ‘Twilight’ Book & DVD Could Get You Arrested
She seemed to know a lot about what the guy was watching.
It’s like she has an anus of her own or something.
I think you just won the internet today. I salute you! (No, I’m not being sarcastic. Why do people always ask me that?)
One doesn’t need to own a car to know where the trunk is.
@Dave B.; Well said. It’s basic common sense. Think people, use your head.
With occasional pleasant surprises, like the original Beetle
What, like the back of a volkswagon?
~Mallrats
For a car, if you’re getting into the front seat, nobody’s ever going to mistakenly think you’re getting into the trunk.
Not necessarily the case with women, though… ‘taint always obvious to the observer.
i see what you did there XD
Maybe the camera angle was wrong, and she didn’t like it as it didn’t show her good side.
It isn’t said specifically in the article but I wonder if the guy was looking at pictures or playing videos with sound. I definitely think that videos would be out of line.
How old are the kids? 7 and 10? Pfft…they’ve seen worse.
Seriously, though, don’t be doing that shit where children can see it. That’s just dickish. Also, I understand the library’s policy, but isn’t part of watching hard core pornography touching yourself? I find it hard to believe that someone as inconsiderate as this creep doesn’t have his hand in his pocket. And that should be against library rules.
Really? Your kids have seen anal sex?
Well, to be fair, Honey Badger’s kids had the lights off, so they couldn’t see what they were doing very well.
/s
Exactly…they can’t really define it, but they know it when they hear it.
Honey Badger don’t care.
Fooey. There should be Randall tags around that.
The earlier you expose kids to anal sex ,teen pregnancy rapidly declines. I’d give a source but I’m at work and can’t look at anal sex right now.
Hit up the library and lunch and get back to us.
@IfThenElvis; Exactly what I was thinking. That’s sad if their kids have seen worse (or the same).
I feel like I’ve done something wrong. Chill…it’s not like it was in a library, in front of other people’s kids.
He declined. In the process of this interaction, I didn’t notice that my daughters had wandered over looking for me and one of them saw what was playing on the screen.
So because the mother was adressing the situation so that her children would not see the offending images, her children saw the offending images? Sounds odd.
It’s like a Streisand Effect for porn.
This is a simple case of MYOFB. She failed to do that, and she exposed her children to a bunch of buttsex.
He declined to move right then, didn’t mean he wouldn’t move in a few minutes once things…. calm down…
I am conflicted.
My love of constitutional rights is at odds with my sense of decency and common sense.
That’s my response exactly. You can’t just say “censorship is bad except for when I say it’s good,” I think we’ve seen what that leads to.
Agree. That’s why I voted for the “not openly but in certain sections of the library” option above. In no way do I want library staff (who are extensions of the government) deciding which sites or content are acceptable and which are not.
Would any place that is secluded enough to avoid wandering children’s eyes also be secluded enough that would leave a mess for the librarian to clean up? I certainly wouldn’t want to be touching that mouse/keyboard afterwards.
I certainly don’t have anything against porn but in a public library just seems really odd. Then again going to a public library seems somewhat odd as well.
a carrel desk, angled correctly, could block the screen from side and casual views, and if the monitor was facing a wall then fewer people would be looking directly at it. a carrel desk in this style
http://bayneschool.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/smith_study_carrel.19120349_std.gif
would leave the under desk area open and possibly reduce the number of lewd acts. anyone who’s really going at it in public with no coverage under the desk would have to be determined to get busted for indecent exposure and lewd acts in the presence of a minor
I can’t imagine that child protections laws are written in a way that they would prohibit hard core pornography from being seen in a local magazine shop or gas station but allow it in a public library.
That’s because it’s not a child protection issue, it’s a free speech issue.
It’s a child protection issue, with free speech being thrown in as a red herring. You are free to watch whatever you want on the internet, but that doesn’t mean you can watch lewd material in front of children. Why would it be OK to show a stranger’s children videos of buttsecks in a library, but it wouldn’t be OK to expose yourself to children on the playground? Privacy screens and strategically facing monitors would fix the issue.
Exactly, show children porn anywhere other than this library apparently and watch how fast the kids are removed by child services and you are in jail and/or registering as a sex offender.
Bingo. It is illegal for an adult to show porn to children. If the guy is looking at porn where children can see it, he’s breaking the law. If the library is allowing it…can you say “accessory,” boys and girls?
Stop trying to be an internet lawyer, you are terrible at it.
You all are missing some major points. Also free speech is never a red herring.
1. This individual did not actively try to find children to show this material to.
2. This is a public library where information of EVERY form is accessed. Just because you disagree with it, does not mean that it is not a valid form of information/expression.
3. In the absence of someone actively attempting to “corrupt a minor” or however the jurisdiction defines it, it becomes the parents responsibility to prevent their children from exposure to these types of media. This is not opinion, this is basic interpretation of law.
I think it’s a classless, gross, and creepy move to look at porn where kids could see it BUT I am willing to fight for peoples right to information in any form freedom of censorship from the government. “Censorship being wrong, unless I think it is okay” is not an american ideal whatsoever.
The library’s stance is absurd.
If the library believes it is okay for someone to be looking at hardcore porngraphy in the presence of children, they need to subscribe to hardcore print magazines – and allow children to check them out.
My solution: there should be separate rooms for people who want to looks at porn or violent imagary (think: war & genocide related stuff), so that people aren’t inadvertently exposed to it.
I guess I don’t understand wanting to view porn in a library.
Some strange form of exhibitionism?
His wife monitors his internet usage at home.
My wife monitors my porn viewing, too. She’s always afraid she’ll miss something.
So she takes notes and say, “ooh, we should try that one sometime!”
I’ve heard it mentioned that porn poses are not “fun” poses, they’re entirely to look good on camera.
Very true. If you want pleasurable poses, find a legit book on sex.
#kamasutra
Different strokes for different folks!
You get all that spyware and shit on your home PC when you pipe your jackoff material there. You don’t want to at work either, although my boss seems to not view that as an impediment. I have to run malware bytes on it once a day.
That’s why I have the profession that I am in.
But really, does just viewing it satisfy that, um, urge?
That’s why I have the profession that I am in.
But really, does just viewing it satisfy that, um, urge?
That’s why I use my PSP for d/l porn & use the av cables to watch on tv or computer screen, that’s not strange or anything write?
He doesn’t have the internet? It’s scary, but not everyone does.
Buy a magazine? Rent a DVD?
I mean, it’s not like you can whack off in the middle of the library computer zone, anyway. If fantasy alone doesn’t do it for you and you really need those visuals, how does porn-in-public even solve the problem?
That’s what I’m sayin!
That’s what I’m sayin!
it’s not like you can whack off in the middle of the library computer zone
YOU CAN’T?!?!?! I mean… oh yea… of course.
They have restrooms don’t they? Not suggesting this as appropriate (nothing in this article is appropriate behavior), but there’s a good chance this guy is homeless, or is some state of transience. And by god, if the Constitution stands for anything, its the freedom to fap.
My boss and I both go to strip clubs–you can’t stuff your hands down your pants there either, but those establishments don’t seem to be hurting for revenue.
IT Princess, you don’t understand because you are a normal person. A normal person would never want to view porn at a library or any other public place…
Now a crazy person, that is perfectly fine with them…
I am with you – I just do not understand anyone wanting to do this. It is just, just, eeewww.
Because it’s funny when the Church Lady gets her panties in a knot, and then has to explain “anal penetration and other adult content” to her children because she was a busybody who is shoulder-surfing other patrons.
I can give a real-life example on why someone would be watching hard-core porn in a library. I was doing a rather lengthy research paper on the adoption of Japanese culture and entertainment by Americans, and this included information on how the cultural differences affected the interpretation of characters and their actions in movies and anime. One of the big differences was that there was (it’s been a couple of years, so I can’t say if there still is) a pretty big stigma against miscegenation that comes out really blatantly in some of the more hardcore entertainment. Because I’m using the library’s online journal databases for research, and trying to coordinate what I’m reading with actual material, by the end of that paper I ended up watching a good portion of “Legend of the Overfiend” (an infamous tentacle anime) at the public library.
In my own defense, I was discreet enough to make sure that the computer I was using was not facing out into the general populace.
FYI, the term “miscegenation” is considered offensive unless you’re using it in historical contexts. It’s because the concept of miscegenation is considered racist, and the word is still used by racists as an offensive word. You’d be better off using “interracial”, it’s far more neutral.
Also, “miscegenation” isn’t strictly definitive of sex, it includes marriage and genetic admixture so you’d be better off using the words “interracial sex” in that context.
It doesn’t seem that different from men who deliberately expose themselves in public. There’s the ones who open their coats in front of women; others who “accidentally” allow their private parts to hang out of their clothes. If a man is watching pornography out in front of other library patrons, it’s on purpose — in a way, it’s a kind of assault.
That should absolutely not be allowed. The people around have no choice, and children should not be exposed to it, especially in the context of the viewer watching it ON PURPOSE, to force those around to notice it.
I should add that I’m not against consenting adults watching this stuff. What adults do in their own bedrooms is their own business. I’m not typically a “think of the children!!!” overreacting person. The problem here is people wandering by don’t get to consent. Kids walking by cannot, by law, consent. Pornographic websites themselves require visitors to be over a certain age, but this is all bypassed. This man is deliberately exposing children to pornography, and that is unacceptable.
The library in my old town had the same problem and the same response. However, they ended up moving their computers to another floor and replaced the glass panels that allowed other patrons to watch the porn watchers’ “reactions.”
If I was in charge of that library and they gave me grief about it, I would just get rid of the computers. No more argument.
Isn’t showing kids porn a crime? Would this count – and not against the library, but the patron?
Good question. I do think that showing kids porn is a crime, yes, but this is not the man actually doing anything specific to show children pornography – technically there could be a case, it might be that anything you are doing with knowledge that kids could be in the area would be seen as showing them pornography. Depends on the lawyers i guess.
IANAL, but while showing porn to children is very probably a crime, watching porn in a place that children may be is very probably not a crime. It’s not like he said “hey, kids, look at this!”
Then why are gas stations and magazine shops required to keep adult magazines either covered, behind a counter or in a restricted section of the store?
Just because something was made illegal/legal doesn’t mean it should have been, it just means that someone was able to work the system in a way to make the item illegal/legal. Using examples of “certified wrongs” in society is a bad way to make your point.
No it’s not – it’s actually a good way to show (in)consistency – whether you agree or disagree with the law is not the point.
A lot of times it’s not a legal requirement. It may be company policy, though.
That I can answer – because the sale and/or distribution of pornography to a minor is illegal. So, the best way to insure that these mags aren’t being sold to minors is to keep them separate. I’m not sure about whether keeping the covers, um, covered is legally required. But from a lot of personal experience with comics (which can straddle and sometimes cross that line), I can say that would be a normal reason for keeping the adult mags apart from the rest of the periodicals.
Yeah, I don’t see how his first amendment rights weren’t immediately displaced by the illegal sexual harassment that any other patron could reasonably be expected to complain about.
All kidding aside, aren’t there law against showing children pornography?
Eliminating the library setting for a moment: If an adult showed to a child, or through negligence allowed a child to see, pornographic materials, I have to imagine there are state or federal laws on the books deeming that, at the very least, he/she is aiding in the deliquency of a minor. There’s more likely a law deeming it some form of sexual crime against a child.
So back in the library, wouldn’t either the patron, the library, or both, be quilty of said crime? The patron didn’t hide the pornography while children were present, and the library allowed a setting that promulgated viewing of pornography by children.
After the library told her they would not intervene, Mom should have done everything she could to mitigate the situation.
Like, move herself to a different computer.
She wasn’t at a computer. She was browsing in the DVD section. Read the F-ing article.
I think you make a leap between “showing” and “allowing it to be seen”. Snooping over a guys shoulder, and that IS what she was doing, it hardly negligent.
Fair enough. But if a child is there, and you do nothing to hide it…
Not choosing sides here, but…
“I told the librarian and asked for help in having him move to a more discreet location. She could see the screen from the information desk where we were standing and was sympathetic…”
Does not appear to be shoulder-snooping if it can be seen from the information desk. (Although, distance is not given, the desk could be right next to the computer.)
So, you’re saying the Library is the negligent party?
As I said, I didn’t want to choose sides. But since you’re asking…
You’re asking for the negligent party, looking to put blame on one person. But there may not be just one person at fault. Let’s look at all parties…
Patron viewing said subject matter. It is (currently) his right to view such material, as long as the material is not illegal in its own way, on the library computer. Where we start having problems with that is when, while viewing such matter, he does not restrict from view of passing children. Could be contributing to delinquency of minor, yada yada yada.
Library. They are not censoring the material (nor should they, unless, said material itself is illegal.) However, by not doing something, like placing viewing obstructions, or requesting the viewing patron move to a different computer, they could be said to be contributing to delinquency yada yada, through inaction. In many areas, if you see a crime in progress, and do nothing to help the situation, or even report it to authorities, you could be charged. Might something like that apply here? By asking him to change computers, they are not censoring him from watching, just changing the venue slightly to prevent little eyes from spying.
Finally, the mother. Upon noticing what the patron was viewing, why did she not just continue herding her little ones on their way. If they had not yet noticed it, chances are they wouldn’t have anyways, as they are escorted into the children’s section. By bringing this subject up, and making a deal out of it, of course her children are going to focus on it and pay attention more.
So, I think all three have some part in this, But I hate assigning blame; I’m more for looking for solutions to prevent this in the future.
I’m having visions of that “very offended guy” from Clerks.
Wow, I’m conflicted. I totally agree with the library’s statement. I oppose censorship- but… hardcore porn in the library where everyone else can see it? I’m not sure what the solution is, but there should be some safeguards so people under the legal viewing age aren’t exposed to it. They do have that “are you 18 or older?” checkbox, because kids aren’t supposed to have access to it. This indirectly gives kids access.
The definition of censorship has gotten too broad. You have a right to see anything you want. I have a right not to see it or pay for it. You have a right to say anything you want. I have a right not to hear it. In other words, your rights stop at my face and I don’t have to pay for your reading or viewing material. I just can’t stop you from reading, viewing or saying what you want. That would be censorship.
Something’s wrong if he’s just ‘looking’ at porn. If he’s rubbing himself then his behavior should get him kicked out.
I’d embarrass him into leaving.
He broke the shameless barrier two seconds before he fired up the search engine.
No. Unless it’s some kind of research on a nudist colony or extreme art… outside of that, if you’re blatantly looking at porn for the purposes of getting off…. and you’re doing it in public – that’s just messed up. We had a guy at my last job who watched porn DAILY until someone busted him.
I’m all for Constitutional rights, but allowing an adult to view porn in a setting where children are known to be present is disgusting. It’s a public library, kids are going to be there. If you’re going to let adults view porn, at least move the computers to an area where others (adults and children alike) cannot see what is being viewed.
Are there kids around? Then FU*K no!
Let them steal it from their friend’s dad or find it in the woods amongst blankets and beer bottles — like I had to do when I was 7.
Yeah, getting a hard-earned glimpse of “erotic materials” now and again was a treasured part of childhood! Mom & dad gone? Let’s ransack their room for contraband, the treasure hunt is on!
Good times…
Or likwe how they do it now, stealing net time late at night.
I would have expected the library to have prohibited access to those sites thru filtering by their servers, so I can’t vote for any of those choices. In my office, my notebook is placed so that anyone walking by can only see the back of it since I sometimes get emails that I don’t wanted viewed or read by others. I don’t care what I’m sent nor do I care about the vulgar language patients may use. To me it is just another way of communication.
They state they don’t filter because it’s not their place, as a library, to censor. That goes for web sites as well as for reading materials. They don’t card someone who tries to check out a romance novel.
My library system dealt with this by having the screens put into special desks, where you look down, and there are partitions on either side. To see what someone is doing (whether banking or porn) you’d have to stand right over their head, in which case, you’re too close, and what you see is your own risk.
Filtering is a terrible idea. They do that at some of the libraries here. I figured, what the hell, let’s get today’s lottery numbers. So I head on over to the lottery’s website…
CONTENT ACCESS FILTER BLOCKED. Reason: GAMBLING.
Yeah, I could bug someone to fix it. But forget it. Not worth my time.
You know what costs 1% of the cost of the PC itself, and about 5% of the cost of keeping one of those crap filters running? A privacy screen on every single PC. If you go shoulder surfing, that’s your own problem. Unless we choose to remove romance novels from the library…
Take a video of the perp watching porn and post it on YouTube.
This is a tricky issue. Libraries can use blocking software, but we all know that’s never 100% effective and there are always ways around it. The other side of the issue is how far does this go to violate First Amendment rights? Some taxpayers may want no restrictions on publicly-funded computers in librarieis, while others want to block objectionable content.
There is likely no good answer, except common sense (which we all know ain’t all that common). Seems there was a similar issue awhile back with someone playing an X-rated DVD on their vehicles video players, where the screens were clearly visible from passing cars (screens on the back of headrests and in the headliner). The police got involved and arrested the driver but I never heard if the charges were filed, overturned, or if there was actually a conviction.
Maybe the Seattle Library needs a Champagne VIP room?
i see people looking at porn on library computers all the time; i just find a new place to sit.
the computers are not very big (so it’s not like you can see the porn from miles away) and there is no sound (so you can ignore it if you really wanted to.)
it is gross, but not life changing.
But, you’re an adult, right?
I’m going to call shenanigans without more to the story.
In the first place, she’s so concerned her kids might see it that she doesn’t pay attention to where her kids are, so we should be glad I guess they didn’t wander into traffic.
In the second place, I find it hard to believe he was just looking at hardcore porn and not touching himself (which would obviously not be kosher), unless it was something else that the woman simply assumed was hardcore porn. Like a movie with a sex scene, or a how-to video on self-breast-exam or something.
In the third place, the kids only saw it after they “had wandered over looking for [her]” seems to imply that it wasn’t as visible as she’s saying in any event.
In the fourth place, I’m curious why she felt the need to go to the press; this doesn’t sound like something they’d have heard about on their own.
In the fifth place, I am saddened at the (presently) 37.5% of you that want to take my money at gunpoint and put it to use it to pay for speech, then use more of it to filter out the speech you don’t approve of. I am all in favor of “adults only” unfiltered rooms and all, but if it’s constitutionally protected, I don’t want my library censoring it altogether. It’s far different than the old “well only buy the uncontroversial ones, we can’t buy em all anyway” concept, considering once you get the internet, you get it all, and you have to pay extra for less.
Actually, at my local library, you can can see the tables for the internet computers right when you walk inside. In fact you can see part of the screens of the computers while waiting in line to check out materials.
I suspect the library did this partially to gently discourage folks from using those machines for their private peep shows.
I wasn’t calling shenanigans at the concept of libraries with visible monitors, I was calling shenanigans on the idea that the monitors were visible to all but the kids didn’t see them until they “wandered over” to where the mother was.
Well, at our library the way the layout is the children’s section (which is more for younger kids) is separate from the adults section and the computers are facing the adults section – but since the adult section is where you would go to do research it is often used by kids that are like middle school aged. So if the mom is in the adult (but used by kids too) section and her kids came over from the kids section to find her in the adult section then the scenario as presented is totally possible – my guess is that their library has a similar set up.
“In the second place, I find it hard to believe he was just looking at hardcore porn and not touching himself”
City libraries are fairly disgusting on an average week night. My guess is we’re looking a case of a homeless guy with 10 layers of clothing… he’ll have his right hand on the mouse and as far you know doesn’t have a left arm at all…
A fair enough possibility. Like I said, I’m calling shenanigans pending further info.
This patron needs to do three things to get along in the real world:
1) Teach her kids not to look at what other people are looking at on their computers. For this reason and for general politeness, it’s like reading over someone’s shoulder.
2) Watch her kids. Know where they are and what they’re doing unless she’s in the kid’s area.
3) Teach them that that behavior is expected to be done in private, regardless of whether or not it matches her values.
I agree with you.
And the person watching the porn in public should have been moved to a more isolated place. The library is there for everyone however there are still public decency and child protection laws.
Child protection? It’s not like the guy was going “Hey kid, come over here and watch this!” – the kid was looking over his shoulder (if even that – mom saw it first, right).
No blocking software (thats censorship). Likely the person watching porn isn’t there because he likes watching porn in public, (although possible) but because he doesn’t have a computer at home. Ask the librarian to suspend computer privileges for porn users on a by- complaint basis.
This question has been around for as long as libraries have offered public internet access, and it does lead to some very interesting questions. Censorship is a valid concern, but so is the question of corruption of minors. When I worked for a public library, they did apply filters, but had a policy of overriding those filters on request for sites that were not overtly pornographic. That is to say, legitimate research was encouraged, and written words were permitted, but the goal was to keep the library a family-friendly place. At the same time, when it came to circulating materials, the library’s policy was clearly that it was on the parents to monitor their children’s borrowing habits.
I was one of the people who was left to deal with some of these issues. Someone would find porn, and it would be on me to clean up. And some of the stuff was…. yeah. Ew.
Public librarian here – this is a tough one. As long as the porn isn’t illegal then it is constitutionally protected. If they are unable to reposition the computer area so the screens aren’t quite so visible then they should really install privacy screens, at least on the computers facing out into the public areas. While the screens aren’t perfect you need to get pretty close to accurately see what’s being displayed. It’s also on the librarians (or whoever’s monitoring the area) to make sure the person isn’t doing anything physically inappropriate and to call the police if they are. I just don’t get people – I would think the embarrassment of being called out for viewing something like this would be enough to make them do it elsewhere or at least request a computer that isn’t so in the open.
Does the public have a constitutional obligation to pay for someone’s internet access to view porn?
What is the purpose of a library?
Here we go again with another story of incompetence. “We’re a library, so we facilitate access to constitutionally protected information,” the rep explains to SeattlePI.com.
Yeah,, so what. Move the damn computers to an area in which children are not subjected to porn. Wow,,,that must be hard for them to reason this process. Constitutionally protected information is not required to be shown openly. It’s a win-win. Besides, this explanation of the rep clearly shows that they do not care about what children are subjected to and if this is the case, they should be fired. Children’s needs should always be number one, period. Allowing children to view such a perverse type of entertainment is sick.
I assume your comment was filled with sarcasm. In the event that it wasn’t, you should keep in mind that sex is natural, along with the naked human body. That being said, I certainly don’t know why people wouldn’t prefer the privacy of their own house over the library. Even more-so, why that somebody wouldn’t at least try to find a private area to view their material rather than subjecting everyone else to it as well (embarassing much?).
All kinds of acts are ‘natural’, but that doesn’t give someone the right to make others involuntary public participants in them. Taking a crap is perfectly natural but I’d prefer library patrons refrain from doing that in front of everyone, too.
Oh, Spock, I realize that Vulcan is your first language, not English, but learn how to use those commas!
Also, by your own logic, the woman who is complaining is the “sick” one, since her kids didn’t even see anything until, by her own negligence, they followed her to the offending computer.
Yes, that would be a nice option. However if there is no room then there’s nothing to be done. The library I work at has no available space to move computers. If we could we would to avoid these issues. And as to firing the representatives of Seattle Public Library, these people do care about children but not at the price of censoring the rights of patrons, freedom of speech & freedom of expression.
Why should my tax dollars support free hardcore p0rn? Really, I want to know why?
Why do libraries exist? To assemble, house, and protect information and literature. The founding principle of the library system was never, ever, to be a place to go to watch hardcore porn.
I can see it now, all those earnest librarians of yore…”Our fervent hope for the institution of libraries is these hallowed halls shall forever be a place of respite, research, study, intellect…and lots and lots of buttsex.”
You do have a constitutional right to view pornography. You can view it at home. You probably can’t view it at work. There are many places you CAN view it.
However, what makes you think you have a right to view it at the public library?
I consider myself a highly tolerant person, and I don’t have a problem with porn, but I don’t think that bystanders of any age should be subjected to someone else’s porn in a library. A library is intended to be a safe place for all ages.
The library should make an effort to restrict content or have computers that can’t be seen by bystanders. (The porn corner?)
If you can’t drop your own pants in public, should you be able to watch other people without pants in a public?
oops that should read public library
You’re right; outlaw anatomy textbooks!
“Should libraries let people look at porn in the open?” is really the wrong question. While a library is a public space, the library experience is going to be better for everyone if library patrons can read or view whatever they wish, without their choice of material being subject to the gaze or scrutiny of every other patron in the vicinity. If I’m sitting there reading a book, it’s really nobody’s business what I’m reading — and typically another library visitor would have to go out of their way to discern my tastes in literature. As the computer (or IPAD, Kindle, etc.) inevitably replaces the printed page, I still don’t want somebody looking over my shoulder — no matter what I’m reading or viewing. It shouldn’t be that hard to set up libraries so that everybody has a reasonable amount of privacy, particularly as technology advances. This would help protect kids from material that may not be appropriate, while avoiding making librarians play the role of censor.
In a public place, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. If this man were walking around on a college campus with his iPad streaming porn with his headphones on, would the situation be any different? What about on public transportation?
When headed back to where I park, on the bus, I often glance at other people’s phones and iPods, mostly to what what games are being played. When I text while I’m on the bus, I always assume that anyone close enough can read it and I censor appropriately.
Books often have the book’s title on the top of the left-hand page. It only takes a moment to read this and not much effort, if you know what you’re looking for.
You’re clearly correct that in a public place, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. That means that if you or anybody else wants to photograph or video me (reading a book or whatever I happen to be doing) in most cases you have every right to do so. But I’m making a different argument here: that the best way to serve the needs of most library patrons is to provide — insofar as is possible — a comfortable environment in which patrons don’t feel that somebody else is “looking over their shoulder” (even if they have the right to do so). That’s probably difficult to do on public transportation — on a crowded bus where seats are close together and even your thighs may be in unavoidable contact with some stranger. But in a public library with tables and chairs, it may be more achievable to provide an environment in which patrons don’t feel they need to censor every word from inquisitive eyes. And it’s simply a good idea. (As to your other point: I, for one, don’t often glance at other people’s phones or IPODs when I have the opportunity — I consider it rude, whatever their expectation of privacy.)
I know a girl who worked at public library branches in Cambridge MA… she said that there were lots of homeless people and general crazies who would sit there in front of a PC for hours on end looking at porn and all other manner of lewd and disgusting things.
They basically said there is nothing they can do to stop these people because where do you draw the line? Some art might be considered pornographic by others, so who is to say that what many of us would consider pornography is not “art” in the eyes of someone else…
There is a children’s section of most libraries, so if you have truly young children that’s a place to go… for the age 12 and up crowd, yes, I think it’s a tough call…
If it were up to me, if something is deemed X rated, viewing only those over 18, then it should not be view-able at the library period. If we have a problem where that becomes twisted into a way to censor things other than pornography or fictional violence, then cross that bridge…
Perhaps the library could place some computers so that the screen is facing toward a wall (in other words, no one in front of the screen, other than the user, can see it). Then put signs on these computers and other saying “If viewing adult content, please use those computers.” No actual filters, so probably no constitutional problems.
I definitely wouldn’t want my kids watching something like that, but this mom just grates on my nerves. She got the police involved, and mentioned the “right not to be inadvertent viewers”. What constitutional amendment is that again? As long as it’s legal, she has no case. Besides, her kids wouldn’t have been “inadvertent viewers” if she had done a better job keeping up with them instead of running off to report this guy.
While the courts ruled that it’s legal for a public library to use censorship filters (which I don’t agree with), there is nothing saying that they have to use them. It scares me how many users here seem to think that filtering is the best solution.
So does a constitutionally protected right to free speech permit me to shout obscenities and scream at people in a public library, or would that be considered disruptive, and would I be asked to leave if I didn’t stop?
Hardcore pornography is no different. This perv is an exhibitionist. Throw him out.
There is nothing in the evidence given showing the dude was disruptive in any way. Only the woman made a scene, and only the woman’s negligence allowed her children to see the material.
Ridiculous analogy. To shout and scream at people in a library (or in most other places) certainly would be disruptive — whether you’re shouting and screaming obscenities, or the Ten Commandments. There would be no way for someone to avoid your shouting and screaming (unless, perhaps, they knew you were planning to show up that day, and came prepared with the kind of protective headgear typically worn by operators of loud equipment). But I can easily avoid another library patron who is reading or viewing something I might not like, by focusing my gaze in another direction, or sitting at another table. In other words, by minding my own business. The other problem with your assertion that “hardcore pornography is no different,” is that it is — in part because you and I may well have different ideas about what is truly obscene. As long as the activity is consensual, I don’t happen to consider a penis entering a vagina nearly as pornographic as a stray bullet entering the brain of a ten-year-old child, who’s been shot on her doorstep because she’s unlucky enough to live across the street from a crack house. Or as offensive as chemicals entering our drinking water courtesy of a Fortune 500 company, and causing cancer decades later. Yet some of us remain focused on sex and behaviors you would call perverted, while continuing to tolerate other extreme forms of behavior that are much more serious, harder to escape, and do far more to degrade our humanity. That’s a shame.
Damn, but you do not succeed at good analogies.
I remember reading something about that happening around here a few years ago and the library having a similar reaction but I honestly don’t remember what finally came of it. I know the parents were all mad and wanted somthing done and the library was going to look into it, but I am not sure what the looking into it lead to.
The library used to have special covers on the PC screens so one couldn’t see another screen if just walking by. I don’t understand why they took them away.
And of course, no censorship. The library was probably the only place that poor guy could view some porn.
Also add another screen at lap level. Thank you.
Actually, I was thinking of the reverse – glass desks.
I’m all for the right for people to look at whatever they want on the internet. So let them look without it disturbing anyone else.
But public masturbation? Ick. And I really don’t want to sit somewhere to use a computer and find a previous occupant has left it sticky because it was private enough to do so.
Seemingly off topic, but related:
NBC yanks ‘Fear Factor’ episode where contestants drink donkey semen
(May not be safe for work
http://www.tmz.com/2012/01/29/fear-factor-donkey-semen-episode-pulled-off-nbc/#.TyhRo85Umg4
Would it be okay to watch THIS in a library?
I guess I can understand the library’s position of not wanting to censor material, however, prior to the Internet, did the library subscribe to Playboy & Hustler magazines and allow patrons to read them in the library? If they didn’t then would that not be considered a similar form of censorship? Does the library filter against the viewing of child pornography which is illegal?
Actually, I’m pretty sure the one here did subscribe to a couple adult magazines– you just had to be an adult to have them brought out from the back room. And I would assume they had to read them in the library, since periodicals weren’t allowed to leave the library.
You miss the point that, unlike with print media, where each item costs money, it actually costs more money to filter the internet than it does to let it be the internet.
opendns.com is free and quite effective at filtering unwanted material.
Who bill themselves primarily as a security solution. Ahem: “The easiest way to prevent malware, botnets and phishing attacks, and make your Internet faster and more reliable.”
More to the point, it requires man-hours (or woman-hours, as the case may be) to set up any system; even a negligible amount of effort has a correlation based on money. Particularly if you want any hope of any kind of useful search results to people doing the regular kinds of research.
My thoughts: She did the right thing by going to the info desk. Once she got her answer is where she screwed up. Rather than take the matter into her own hands, thus drawing even more attention to what was happening, she should have just gone with her kids to the kid section and made sure to keep them away from the guy. Unfortunately, society isn’t always clean and happy and child-friendly, even in areas where kids are.
If the kids had seen the screen, it would be a great opportunity to have a sit down and explain some things, including what they saw and what they thought of it. Parents can be so focused on never letting their kids know about the world that they forget part of raising kids is preparing them for reality and providing context for the things they experience in the world. Just getting mad that they found out this material exists doesn’t do anyone any good.
My favorite post yet. Thank you, good lady or sir.
There’s a difference, albeit a subtle one, between “censorship” and “enforcing appropriate decorum in a public place”.
That said, I really wonder how much porn is consumed in the countries that aren’t so sex-obsessed as the USA. Seems like public nudity and nudity in the mass media, whether billboards that everyone (including children) can see or on TV, is not terribly uncommon in much of Europe. If we dropped the Puritanical obsession with sex, maybe we could also tone down the extreme violence in the media– maybe what people want to see is sex, and since they generally can’t see it, they want what’s second-best, but it’s hard to get enough.
I wouldn’t take children to any public libraries, anyway. They’re little more than day shelters for vagrants. I can see the pub library as being a valuable resource for someone who’s homeless and searching for work, but it sort of is a problem when bums are just loafing around, doing inappropriate things, and getting into fights.
When I was young, I was standing in line behind a guy checking out the book “Show Me”. (I’m not going to link to it, you can decide whether you want to google it yourself. ) This was a published book that, by most standards, contained child porn. I’m pretty sure it’s not available any more legally, not that I’ve checked. One librarian made some remarks about “that disgusting book” and refused to check it out to the guy; another librarian near her admonished her to not judge the patron, as any book that they carried were meant to be checked out.
My point is that this has been a problem in public libraries since long before the internet.
By whose standards? American or European? The Los Angeles Times’ standard, or the New York Times’ standard?
Also, it is sad what happened to this book – though it was ruled non-obscene in several courts, the publishers could no longer pay to fight the legal battles, and so had to stop distributing it in the US (though in Europe, it won many awards, and there was even a second edition that came out to discuss AIDS.) In the end, it effectively was censored.
Disgusting abuse of the legal system – keep them in court until they can’t afford to defend their freedom any longer.
I don’t care about the politics. I was making a point about libraries.
You said that it contained child pornography. A book that was given positive reviews by several prominent American newspapers, received awards from religious organizations in Europe, and was ruled non-obscene by four courts. That doesn’t sound like child pornography to me.
I did not say that. I’ll invite you to review my original statement. Look closely at the words between “This was a published book that” and “contained child porn”. I don’t need to debate the validity of those standards because they’re not pertinent to the issue at hand, how libraries handle controversial content (like porn on computers, or before the internet, books with nude pictures.)
Most standards. And so, I asked, what standards? If you don’t think the validity and accuracy of your statements is important, and they are not relevant to the point, why do you make them?
Whatever. Scratch the sentence. Too busy being a language Nazi to get the point.
That’s one of the ways some destroy what they don’t like.
If you can’t get it banned outright, make it too expensive to defend.
OMG, I looked it up, it’s going for $225-$450
Maybe the guy was just looking for information on political candidates and decided to google “Santorum”.
I’m all for keeping government out of our business, but come on. A public library where kids can watch porn is not OK. Let ‘em read back issues of National Geographic. Protecting children from exposure to adult material is not censorship. Do we let children into strip clubs? X-rated movies?
Best solution would be for the library to create a special “adult room” that requires you to verify you are over 18 to be allowed admittance. They could hang red velvet curtains on the wall and dim the lights. Because this would be a separate room it would probably get pretty dry so hand lotion at each workstation would be a nice service. /s
Can we opt for the swinging saloon doors instead of a red curtain? That’s the one thing I miss from the VHS rental store days – the back room with the swinging doors.
To all the “conflicted” people, your conflict is over the fact that suddenly someone is doing something that you find abhorrent. When you do something you believe is rational that someone else find abhorrent, you don’t want them infringing on your rights. Same holds true here.
Sorry, but free speech trumps individual concerns. I’m not saying the guys isn’t a jerk; I’m not saying the library can’t/shouldn’t make it more difficult for people to view others’ Internet habits. I am saying that the library is correct: they should not censor legal media of any kind.
I just really dislike people who claim to be all about free speech, or rights, or the constitution, or anything like that *up and to the point* that someone does something they don’t like. The Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind. They’re maggots, but they have every right to do what they do.
To the folks who liken it to being naked in public, or any of the other silly (and irrelevant) analogies: “art” shows nudity (what is art?), public restrooms often have variable amounts of exposure (especially men’s), as do changing rooms (women’s) and especially locker rooms. If you want to claim that it’s OK because it’s segregated by gender, I can make adult film analogies that would coincide with the gender of the observers… and so on….
Dingdingding, we have a winner! Well put.
I understand the library saying they are allowing uncensored access, but give me a break with that “constitutionally protected information” bullshit. It is no one’s constitutional right to view porn in a public library. Jesus tap dancing Christ.
If you’re too broke ass to get yourself a Hustler subscription or access to cable or the internet in your own house well guess what, you don’t get to see porn. It’s really just that simple.
Reading comprehension fail.
“”We’re a library, so we facilitate access to constitutionally protected information,” the rep explains to SeattlePI.com. “We don’t tell people what they can view and check out … Filters compromise freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. We’re not in the business of censoring information.”
You can’t say you “understand the library saying they are allowing uncensored access,” but then say “give me a break with that “constitutionally protected information” bullshit.”
Here’s how speech works: either it’s constitutionally protected, or it’s illegal. So, there’s really no way to understand a position allowing unfiltered access while saying that calling porn “constitutionally protected information” bullshit. And while it may not be a constitutional right to view porn in a library, neither is it a constitutional right not to be offended.
I probably just would have said in my naturally loud, carries across a room voice “Really sir? You simply must view your pornography on a computer where all can see? I’ve not asked you to stop watching your anal porn, I simply asked that you move to a more private computer such as that one over there. But if watching hard core porn out here where we can all stand over your shoulder and join you is so vitally important, I guess I can’t stop you.”
I love the part where having gained no satisfaction from the library staff, she takes it upon herself to go over and demand that this guy (who is committing no illegal act in of itself, and not violating any posted rules) cease his activities and/or go do them somewhere else… just in case her children *might* see.
Then her children wandered over to see what mommy was making a fuss about and saw it. Did they even comprehend what they were seeing? Probably not, until they saw mommy making a deal out of it.
Guy in the library? yeah, that’s pretty obnoxious.
But self righteous soccer mommies are even worse. Sorry, I’d rather have freedom of speech than the current mommy crowd we have that is hell bent on eliminating anything that they deem offensive from the internet just in case their precious little snowflakes should see it. It’s because of people like that we have constant complaints to the FCC about half the stuff on TV.
It’s your kid. Guide them elsewhere.
I don’t even have kids and I’d have told that creep to cut it out too.
I’m the tech librarian for a public library. I can say we do not let people look at porn on our computers. We don’t have filters, but if we see you, you will be kicked out. Our policy is written to say that and everyone has to agree to the policy to use the computers.
It’s understandable that for a large library it’s hard to monitor, but when you get complaints you should do something about it. You’d kick someone out if they were standing there with their pants down. Other than the fact it’s on the internet, it’s still the same parts.
Easy solution: my public library has physical filters over all the public internet computers. You can see through them only from your chair–anyone standing up or walking behind you can’t see through the filter. That way they don’t have to worry about censorship issues at all, and everyone is happy.
This guy is really lucky. I would never use a computer in a public place displaying pornography. f it had been me, I’m sure the lady would have screamed, police would have been called and my name would be printed in the local newspaper.
Dude – at least find a corner spot with your laptop facing the wall and be discreet.
Oh – you must have your own laptop because as a taxpayer I’m not going to support public computers for you to watch porn. It may be free speech in a political sense, but taxpayers don’t have to pay for your equipment.
As a current library employee, I voted for yes, but you should be considerate of those around you. Libraries are meant to be a place for information and knowledge and any type of censorship from our part goes against what we are supposed to stand for. But I wish people would use common sense and decency when deciding to view porn on public computers, yes, it’s your right but please think.
I bet if the guy was playing a game that involved running around and killing people, she would have never complained.
One of my friends is a college librarian and was talking about a similar issue a few months ago. Apparently they feel very strongly about not limiting access to patrons.