Libraries for Studying?

[Forest]

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/03/20/are...news/news05.txt (http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/03/20/area_news/news05.txt)

Library porn bill clears Senate (Washington State)

By M.L. Madison
The state Senate on Tuesday passed a bill that would require public libraries to block sexually explicit material on the Internet, a proposal the American Civil Liberties Union called "clearly un-Constitutional."

"Libraries should be used for research, not for personal sexual gratification," Zarelli said.

WTF is this guy talking about

for YEARS thats where i took my girlfriends to fool around

Nice and Quiet

:lol:

[RawAlex]

I don't have a problem with libraries blocking stuff - it isn't like people are going to whip out a credit card and pay for something there... these are people in the 399 non buyers... not the 1 in 400 that do buy.

Alex

[Rox]

"Filters are far from perfect," said the librarian, Karl Marcuson. "I'm not completely opposed to filters, but my position is that they should be voluntary. For example, a parent could come in and say, 'I want a filter for the computer my child is using.' That is what larger systems, like Multnomah County and Fort Vancouver, are doing."

I wouldn't be opposed to voluntary filtering on a case-by-case basis like that. But governmentally-mandated filtering? No way. And I'd feel the same even in the highly unlikely event that a filtering software came into existence that was FAR more accurate than what's on the market today.

[Forest]

yeah but you guys are missing the bigger isssue here

"clearly un-Constitutional."


i agree that we dont need porn in the libraries, especially with the amount of free crap and the ease at which kids can access it

[Rox]

I'm sorry, but I agree with that assessment. Do you not understand that filtering doesn't just keep out porn?

[Vick]

Originally posted by Forest@Mar 22 2003, 08:24 AM
"Libraries should be used for research, not for personal sexual gratification," Zarelli said.

What if you're doing research on personal sexual gratification?

[RawAlex]

Rox, the question isn't WHAT is filtered, but more this:

Let's say there is a row of computers all side by side in an open area. Say, 10 per side, 2 rows...

guy in the middle is surfing hardcore porn movies, clips, and watersports sites.

there is a 5 year old kid on one side visiting disney, and an 11 year old on the other side reading the latest news on their favorite boy band.

The viewing of hardcore pornography in this situation is inappropriate, and it is likely (about 100%) that the children would be exposed to the material in question.

Filtering in this situation is a GOOD thing... good for the kids, good for our business...

Forest, it isn't any more unconstitutional than putting coverings on porn mags or requiring ID to buy cigarettes. You don't want to make the computer areas in a public library into a red light district, now do you?

Alex

[Rox]

I see your point, Alex. And for that reason, I fully support separating those computers that kids use from those for adult use, or alternatively, utilizing those high-priced monitor screen-filter thingies that serve to obscure whatever's displayed unless you're sitting directly in front of it.

I'm not sure there's such a large number of people surfing hardcore porn in full view of everyone anyway...

[Forest]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 22 2003, 09:21 AM
Rox, the question isn't WHAT is filtered, but more this:

Let's say there is a row of computers all side by side in an open area. Say, 10 per side, 2 rows...

guy in the middle is surfing hardcore porn movies, clips, and watersports sites.

there is a 5 year old kid on one side visiting disney, and an 11 year old on the other side reading the latest news on their favorite boy band.

The viewing of hardcore pornography in this situation is inappropriate, and it is likely (about 100%) that the children would be exposed to the material in question.

Filtering in this situation is a GOOD thing... good for the kids, good for our business...

Forest, it isn't any more unconstitutional than putting coverings on porn mags or requiring ID to buy cigarettes. You don't want to make the computer areas in a public library into a red light district, now do you?

Alex
alex

go reread my post

I said and I quote " I Agree that we dont need porn in the libraries, especially with the amount of free crap and the ease at which kids can access it "

and the "quote " that is there is from the article that the ACLU calls it

"clearly un-Constitutional."

so please refrain from miss quoteing me in the future

Have A nice day

:)

[Buff]

This is just another example of the problems you get when the government funds a program, in this case public libraries: some people's values get imposed on everyone else, but everyone still has to pay up.

[Rox]

All they need to do is come up with a workable plan that doesn't violate the First Amendment, and the problem's solved. Filtering software is clearly not the right plan -- so they need to find something that IS.

That's the beauty of living in a Constitutional Republic; law prevails over opinions and "morality" that are, by nature, bound to differ in a society as diverse as that of America.

[Vick]

How about a common sense approach
You don't surf porn in public where children can view or access the material
Is that too much to ask for?

Problem Solved ...
Next Please

[RawAlex]

Vick, one thing that I have learned is that there are alot of people who just are not able to be responsible for their own actions. They blame the layout, the setup, the situation. Some people want to use their constitutional rights right up to the edge at all times. This sadly means that the people on the other side of the discussion push just as hard to not have their rights infringed.

I just don't see the issue that says "no surfing porn here" - and a filter that blocks obvious porn sites from all computers in public areas of libraries.

Rox, those screen filter things don't work worth a damn when people are standing behind you... they can see what you are doing. Most of the time when I see computers in libraries, they are against a wall or in a block of 4 or 8 back to back, and the traffic circulates behind them. Nothing stops a curious child from being exposed to whatever it is you are looking at.

Put it another way: Do you think it would be acceptable for an adult to go into a library and start reading a hustler or penthouse magazine, holding up the centerfold area to look at in full view of everyone in the library? I am sure parents would not be happy, would probably stop their children from visiting the library, and then the point of the library is lost. Don't think about technology - think about the reality of the situation. In this situation, I am sure you would agree that tossing the perv out of the library would be warranted.

Your rights stop when you start to limit those of others.

Alex

[Vick]

Who the hell is going to a public library to look at porn besides kids?

The other thing being currently filters don't work, either they filter out too much (can't look up info on breast cancer) or not enough or can be worked around

Being a fan of taking care of things on a local level as opposed to national legislation I've got a simple solution,
if you wish to use the library's computers for on line access you have to sign up with your library card and you are assigned a computer and you have to sign in and out with times. Cache can be checked and if you've accessed porn your use of the library's resources is forfeited

oh yeah and a big sign goes up in the front of the library
"Joe Smith is banned from on line access resources here because he violated our policy on accessing adult material"

[Rox]

I don't disagree with your suggestions Alex, they represent a more common sense/common courtesy approach. My argument is that the law, as it's written, is in fact unconstitutional and the last thing we need is more bad federal legislation. Since it really IS an issue of community standards, I agree with Vick in having it decided on a local level.

There are things that no one would bat an eye over here in Los Angeles that might send someone in Bumfuck, Arkansas into apoplexy -- federal legislation would mandate the most restrictive standards across the board; and that's unacceptable.

One other factor to consider is that pressure from a few people in one's own community is quite likely a MUCH more effective way to get people to behave in an acceptable manner in public than a federal law. If Joe Perv has the balls to be surfing porn in the library, in a place where children are likely to be exposed, there's not much that'll stop the librarians from pulling the plug on him or tossing his ass out. And there might not be much that'd keep Little Johnny's Daddy from putting Joe Perv's lights out for him to get the point across.

Again, I just don't see that there are a sufficent number of people surfing hardcore porn in public libraries to justify sweeping federal legislation. This is just more of the same bullshit from the Fed Gov trying to control the purse strings and legislate morality. It's bad law, period.

As for them damned kids, they're going to see porn -- and indeed will seek it out, usually at least a few years before they're even 18 -- one way or another no matter what kind of legislation's in place. It's human nature.