should library patrons be allowed to view pornographic materials on library cpu?

[opebo]

Providing access to porn is not a librarys business.

But what is 'porn'?  Simply provide private internet viewing booths.

[opebo]

Only for research purposes.

Is that a euphemism?

[opebo]

Of course not.

So, what's porn then?  Perhaps information about transvestitism is considered by most people to be pornographic.  What about all the little transvestites?

[opebo]

Of course not.

So, what's porn then?  Perhaps information about transvestitism is considered by most people to be pornographic.  What about all the little transvestites?

Leaving aside the fact that I am not technically a transvestite, most of the people who set policies like this define pornography in a way that takes intent to titillate into account, opebo.

Pictures of bedposts titillate some people, Nathan.

[opebo]

The poor should have equal access to the Internet regardless of how they use it.

This is absolutely ridiculous.  The public shouldn't have to pay for a poor person to further a destructive habit in the presence of children in a public forum.  Poor people face many problems.....lack of access to porn is not one of them.

Spoken like both a prude and a privileged - the poor definitely do have a problem about lack of access to pornography.

[opebo]

1. It can be disturbing to children to allow this material on public computers.

What do you mean by 'disturbing'?  Arousing or distracting, yes.. disturbing, I don't think so.

2. Using your logic, the poor shouldn't just be able to access a driving license - they all should have access to a Bugatti without paying.

Dude, they already paid for ALL the Bugatti's for all their oppressors.  You have no understanding of our economic system.

3. How are poor people suffering due to this not being allowed in libraries?  We already have subsidized, unrestricted Internet access for people on food stamps.

I just want to make sure the poor can masturbate with a titillation equal to that of the rich.

4. Pornography is in no way a right and has been shown in studies to have destructive qualities.  I don't support banning it, but something that morally decadent should not be found in the public square with our most impressionable having to see it because of someone's selfish desires. .

What utter, subjective rot!  'Harmful'?  Only a terrible ballbuster would object to some poor unemployed man getting his rocks off - they need it most, as no woman would truck with the unemployed.

Who knows what prudes imagine is 'harmful'.