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

[Vlad the Imperial]

well... um... i guess why not? yolo

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

Providing access to porn is not a librarys business.

Nor is it a library's business to define what qualifies as pornographic.

Bingo.

Of course, the optimal solution to this entire 'problem' would be for there to public ownership of the Internet backbone and allowing low income families free or reduced access, but that's rather unlikely, given that the Internet has become laissez faire's greatest frontier ever.

...because lack of access to pornography is one of the great injustices facing the poor? I'd be more concerned about, oh I don't know, their kids being able to access sources to write papers for school and stuff.

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.

[© tweed]

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.

And pictures of horses titillate others. I never said 'intent to titillate' was all that most people's definition of pornography takes into account.

necessary, but not sufficient, so what is sufficient?

[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.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

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.

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

[DC Al Fine]

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.

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.  

That's not too far from Opebo's position.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Yes... why can't there be private viewing booths and a separate server? 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Only for research purposes.

You saw what happened to Pete Townsend when he was doing research, right?

[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'.  

[kobidobidog]

Yes, people are as they say pornographic.Let people do0 what tyhey want to do. religious people in mentality restrict restrict and restrict some more thinking it is a good thing. Hold your breath better not breath. Horrors you are breathing,.. Gasp NAKED  AIR quick make a law the children can't breath. They must not be excsposed to anything that is naked.

[Person Man]

As a general rule, no.  You'd have to have an adults only computer room to keep children from viewing what was on the screens of other users.  Plus, what's the point of having porn if you can't fully enjoy it? There's no way that you can legally do that in public.

There are people who actually look at porn and do nothing but show others as they also show people what they want for Christmas if they had a million dollars. It is pretty bizarre. But in terms of things that are just really sexual and nude, yeah. If something isn't "obscene"(have fun with this) , it should be allowed in the library.

[angus]

I actually got to think about this sort of thing last week and discuss it.  My university is opening a new library this fall and I was more or less drafted as the representative of my department on a working committee (which has the unfortunate acronym MILF) to set policy.  Among other things, we discussed the issue of how to deal with customers viewing sites which make other customers feel threatened.  (Yes, the librarians actually refer to them as customers, not patrons, apparently.)  The examples given were terrorist websites, white supremacist websites, and pornographic websites.  The majority felt that such viewings should not be forbidden and no attempt at website blocking should be attempted, but customers sitting nearby using the library's resources should also have the right not to be made uncomfortable. 

In the end, we decided to add a dependent clause in the general rules policy which is posted at the door and available on flyers distributed throughout the library.  It would say something like "...users of library computers must be sensitive to the need of other users to work in a non-distracting environment..."  Each case would be dealt with pro re nata.  For example, if a computer user reported that he or she was offended by what was on the screen in his or her field of vision, the librarian would walk over and take a look at the screen.  If the librarian felt that it was a legitimate complaint, then the librarian would request and require that the offending user move to a more secluded computer, of which there would be several available generally.  If the user complains that his/her rights are being violated, then the librarian would politely inform the user of the rights of others, as described in the usage policy, and would continue to suggest the move.  If things got out of hand at that point, the librarian would then call the police at one of several special phones stationed throughout the library and report a disturbance of the peace.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I understand the reasoning behind that angus, but that puts a big burden on the librarian.  It might make sense to have those computers in the more secluded area without any content blocks but have some not especially restrictive blocks for the others.  It's a tough issue since the blocks might end up censoring legitimate research. Oh for the days when libraries were about books.

[nclib]

Yes, but not if another customer sees it in his/her field of vision and objects. Also, staff or other customers shouldn't go out of their way to check if someone is using porn. I realize this puts the burden on the other customer, but there could (and may be) a way of sending an anonymous message to the staff.

Also, a problem with anti-porn filters is that they may prevent users from accessing info about breast cancer because the word 'breast' is censored.