Surfing porn sites at library is troubling
Recently, my wife found herself in the periodicals section of the Denver Central Library at about 2:30 p.m. She was looking for a computer to do some schoolwork on, but they were all in use.
As she walked around she noticed three different men surfing pornography sites. She was a little put off, being that she really needed to use a computer, so she went to the librarian to make a complaint. The response she received was that the library is a public space and they won’t do anything about it because of freedom of speech (even though this has nothing to do with speech).
Now, I believe people have the right and freedom to view pornography. On the other hand, I am not so sure viewing pornography should be done at the public library.
If my wife could see what these men were looking at, then what stops a child from seeing the same thing? So, I wonder, how far does our public library take this stance? Do we not have laws against public indecency? Where do we draw the line?
Steven Sharp, Denver
Laws against public indecency? That went out the window when being able to sue anyone for anything became the way of life in america. Freedom of speech only covers hate speech by minorities and pornography. With all of the openess to porn by the ALA, I am surprised that there is not a larger increase in pedaphilia in this country.
Posted by on September 21, 2007 02:12 AM” Recently, my wife found herself in the periodicals section of the Denver Central Library at about 2:30 p.m.”
Okay, I can’t resist.
How long had she been lost, and does she often have to go find herself at about 2:30 p.m.?
” she really needed to use a computer, so she went to the librarian to make a complaint”
To complain that no computers were available, naturally, since this was what bothered her.
Why didn’t she just reserve one like everybody else does?
” So, I wonder, how far does our public library take this stance? Do we not have laws against public indecency? Where do we draw the line?”
They already provide privacy screens and have a net nanny installed so that people like your wife won’t be offended, what else would you like the government to restrict?
So, I wonder, how far do you want the nanny government to go in restricting things in order to avoid your wife being upset? Don’t we have enough laws? Where do you want to draw the line?
Bango- I think you're way off base here. The letter writer has a valid point- if she could see the pornography, what about children in the library? I know of alot of kids that use the library computer's to do research and homework. Personally, I think the library is hiding behind the Freedom of Speech argument; especially when it could be argued against using tax dollars to support pornography! They can do what other agencies do, which is post "Terms of Use" guidelines which users agree to follow in order to use the machines. (Obviously pornography would be prohibited.) Problem solved.
Posted by fiesty on September 21, 2007 06:06 AMso you are admitting that your wife was spying on what these men were reading on line. really nice that she thinks she has the right to monitor what they are doing in the name of her looking for a computer to use. sounds like she was more of a peeping jane than sally student.
where should pron be viewed? what if these PUBLIC computers were the only access they had, would you still want to stop them from their freedom to use them?
buy your wife a laptop and the problem will solve its self.
The public library can block certain sites from public computers & should do so. No name posting says that men who want to watch porn & have no other access should have the freedom to use public computers to do so, & that someone who has legitimate business in the library should buy their own computer. Perhaps we should reverse that - men who have nothing else to do in the middle of the afternoon except use porn sites, something generally frowned upon in public by most people should buy their own computers & indulge in the privacy of their own homes.
Posted by Carol on September 21, 2007 07:34 AMI think most rational people who don't have an ax to grind think that it would be a good idea to keep people from using library computers to view pornography. The problem is how to do it. The question of what is pornography is one to which we don't have a good answer.
Bango says: "Don’t we have enough laws? Where do you want to draw the line?"
Unfortunately, Bango did not have time to provide his own answers. And it is much easier to ask the question than to answer it. Is there a certain maximum number of laws we should have, Bango, after which we should not pass any more regardless of the circumstances? And how in the name of God can you draw a line in this kind of thing. Of course, you can't. Bango, your comments are meaningless palaver.
No idea you could surf for porn at the library. Thanks for the information.!!!
Posted by Hot Diggity Dog on September 21, 2007 07:57 AMAre you sure this didn't happen in Boulder? They could hang their penis art (instead of the USA flag)over the computers designated for pornography use in the childrens section of the library - free speech, right?
Posted by on September 21, 2007 08:25 AMIf we required children to view pornography, then they would get used to it, and not be the least bit surprised by it when they see it in a public place.
Posted by Captain Scarecrow, the Man of Straw on September 21, 2007 08:41 AMNews flash!
You can't view pronogoraphy on the computers at the public library. Net Nanny and other parental control software blocks access to any site that contains pornographic material.
In fact, it works so well that I can't even go to medical sites that talk about breast cancer because, heaven forbid, there might be a picture of a breast there.
My suggestion is to do what I did -- buy an inexpensive computer and subscribe to high-speed Internet service at home. That way, you don't have to sit next to the "pervs" at the public library.
Posted by Zane on September 21, 2007 09:05 AMThree different men surfing: must've been Keith, Un-American and Uno - they were taking a break from posting garbage on this site.
Posted by drew on September 21, 2007 09:09 AMTruth
What axe are you refering to? There are quite a few decent people out there who do not want to be exposed to filth at the Public library.
If they did they would pull it up on their personal PCs go to the porn arcades. Your statement makes no sense just as your other statement of what is pornography. Anybody decent or immoral knows it when they see it as you do when you go searching for it on your PC or you're local porn book and video store. Just because this country has been allowing it to flourish because we have immoral legistlators and l Supreme Court Judges who allow sexual perverts to also pervert and hide behind a so-called 1st Amendment right that never exsisted. Thats why we had indecency laws on the books since the beginning and founding of this nation. The pornographers have been tearing away at those laws since Hugh Hefner came on the scene in the early 1950's.
Sounds to me like Mr. Sharp's wife was upset because she waited until the last minute to do her computer work at the library and found all the computer's to be busy. Most likely she became frustrated and angry and was looking for a reason to complain to the librarian. Too bad, so sad.
Posted by Linda on September 21, 2007 09:20 AMwhy does this offended lady who is going to school, and as his wife I will assume she is in post high school classes, not have a laptop? My kids and all of their friends at college all have laptops so they can do their school work where ever they are.
how is it she knew it was porn and not an assignment for them to work on for their school work? who knows they may come from the republic of boulder where that is a reasonable course of study
God bless the ACLU for fighting to ensure our childrens' right to view pornography at the public library.
/sarcasm
Posted by KW on September 21, 2007 10:07 AMWould it be legal to have a special separate kiosk at the library where people could view porn sites? Maybe put a big sign over it stating "PORN O.K. HERE".
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 21, 2007 10:33 AMIt's the wacking off that bothers me. You'd think you were in a library in Boulder or something. Yuck!
Posted by truthy on September 21, 2007 10:39 AMStan Broyles
Don't you view enough of it at home and self abuse yourself until your brain is fried?
Posted by Grossed Out on September 21, 2007 10:52 AMTruthy; are you trying to paint this as a liberal obsession while the Larry Craigs out there are trolling for who-knows-what? Take off the partisan shades and you'll see perversion has no political affiliation.
Posted by hikingartist on September 21, 2007 10:52 AMWhat was shown in this pornography? Victoria's Secret models? I want to know what her definition of pornography is.
Posted by rick on September 21, 2007 11:06 AMhinkingartist
I thought is was a liberal obession also since it's the left who have re-writen and corrupted the First Amendment with the help of the ACLU that sexual perverts and pornographers hide behind. Sure we get the Larry Craigs hiding out as Consevatives or the Haggertys in the churches. But the Democrats and liberals welcome them with the majority of them with open arms. These two hypocrites would fit in just fine with leftist Democrats.
Posted by Grossed Out on September 21, 2007 11:49 AMhinkingartist
I thought is was a liberal obession also since it's the left who have re-writen and corrupted the First Amendment with the help of the ACLU that sexual perverts and pornographers hide behind. Sure we get the Larry Craigs hiding out as Consevatives or the Haggertys in the churches. But the Democrats and liberals welcome the majority of them with open arms. These two hypocrites would fit in just fine with leftist Democrats.
Posted by Grossed Out on September 21, 2007 11:51 AMhey leav my porn alone, i use the liberry cuz its cheaper tahn having a puter at home. i really like that stuff, specially the guy-guy porn, it gets me ll bot and brothered
Posted by Keith on September 21, 2007 11:51 AMSince we can`t change the nature of men, and we can`t change the library rules, just limit the time on the computers.
I also would like to know her version of porn.
Playboy showed beautiful partly naked ladies, not porn.
How do I know that it wasn`t porn? Because there is no universal definition of porn.
How come women never look at porn. I`ll tell you, there is nothing for us to see.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 21, 2007 12:35 PMGrossed Out wrote,
Don't you view enough of it at home and self abuse yourself until your brain is fried?
The answer is no.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 21, 2007 12:41 PMTalk about the pot calling the kettle black!
"Three different men surfing: must've been Keith, Un-American and Uno - they were taking a break from posting garbage on this site."
Posted by drew on September 21, 2007 09:09 AM
But don't worry, drew, old grouch will defend your tasteless attack of another's thoughts as necessary and righteous in the proud march of the leftist agenda.
Posted by on September 21, 2007 12:49 PMHere's another one for you to defend old grouch. You slam anybody on the right for hinting against your leftist buddies, but defend to the death you childish friends to advance your agenda.
"hey leav my porn alone, i use the liberry cuz its cheaper tahn having a puter at home. i really like that stuff, specially the guy-guy porn, it gets me ll bot and brothered"
Posted by Keith on September 21, 2007 11:51 AM
PS It's nice to know that drew is so mature.
Posted by on September 21, 2007 12:54 PMThis letter is in the Denver Post. It appears Sharp's wife is prying into the lives of others because one does not have to search for a computer; one has only to reserve one, a very simple operation that delivers a computer within minutes. Shame on Sharp's wife. Clearly her voyeurism is in a spirit of inquiry:
Deicide Corner: “I never yet have seen the person who could withstand the doubt and unbelief that enter his mind when reading the Bible in a spirit of inquiry.” -- Etta Semple
Take note: Children at the library are found in the children's section.
Posted by Richard Grimes, deicide r22037@yahoo Free copy of Freethought Today ffrf.org on September 21, 2007 12:56 PMStan Broyles
What took you so long to reply. Had to think "Hard" on that one I guess or you were taking other "Matters in Hand! I figured that would be your answer.
At least your honest you sick pervert!
Maybe Sharon B. can help you with your problem but I have a feeling she's not quite up to parr like those beautiful naked ladies she mentioned. Of course maybe your like Michael Jackson.
Posted by Grossed Out on September 21, 2007 01:25 PMGrossed Out; congratulations...you've earned the distinction of being the most perverted child on this thread -- you even beat drew and his infantile mocking of keith.
And I bet you just thought you were being cute...
Posted by on September 21, 2007 01:33 PMGrossed Out,
I was watching C-Span. I don't sit in front of the computer ALL day.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 21, 2007 02:02 PMPosted 01: 33 PM
No, Personally I thought what I wrote was the truth, not cute and I was calling them as I see them. Are you sure you weren't chuckling at what I posted when you wrote your comments?
Don't get mad at me. Stan's the one who said he didn't get enough of his perversion.
Is this Stan in the shadows?
Posted by Grossed Out on September 21, 2007 02:12 PMAn excellent point! Viewing pornography in the public library does not even suggest "free speech." Such illicit activity also prevent patrons such as your wife to use the computer for her own personal needs. We hope the library will review this policy and restrict computer usage to more legitimate needs.
Posted by Brian Stuckey on September 21, 2007 02:19 PMGrossed Out: Naw, I'm not mad nor chuckling...just acknowledging a childish pervert, that's all.
Posted by on September 21, 2007 02:44 PMGrossed Out,
I wish you would go back and read my posts and tell me what I said that would cause you to make false accusations about me or my statements. My suggestion for the sign was facetious in that anyone sitting under it would become immediately suspect of browsing porn sites. I hope that clarifies my opinion.
And no one has answered the question of legality.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 21, 2007 03:32 PMThis victory for the ACLU is why libraries are not allowed to filter porn on their computers.
Posted by KW on September 21, 2007 03:41 PMGrossed out, you are wrong but it will cost you $19.99 just like everyone else to see my pictures on line.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 21, 2007 04:06 PMThe ACLU's victorys is America's loss and also leading to it's decline and eventual demise if real Americans don't wake up and start taking this country back and fight this Communist founded organization.
Everything Un-American and immoral and crimminal that comes down that slimy pike they support and fight for.
Look up Roger Baldwin/ACLU and see what he had planned for this country when he founded this organization.
Posted by History in the Making on September 21, 2007 04:13 PMKW - there you go making stuff up again...
This victory for the ACLU [ http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/29138prs20070322.html ] is why libraries are not allowed to filter porn on their computers.
That's got nothing to do with libraries and web filters - in fact the article you cited says:
Judge Lowell A. Reed Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held today that the government’s “own study shows that all but the worst performing filters are far more effective than COPA would be at protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Web.” He continued that “[t]he fact that Web publishers are faced with criminal prosecution for an alleged violation of COPA only serves to exacerbate the chilling effect resultant from the vagueness of the terms employed in COPA.”Posted by CL on September 21, 2007 04:16 PM
Just An Observation: "Truth, *** there are quite a few decent people out there who do not want to be exposed to filth at the Public library."
Right. That is what I said, except that instead of "quite a few" I said I thought that was true of any rational person.
"What axe are you referring to?" People who simply say that we don't need any more government regulations without even discussing the question of whether libraries should allow porn to be viewed on library computers.
Posted by Truth on September 21, 2007 05:00 PMSusan B,
I only have $19.95! Can I get a discount? Grossed Out; help me out here.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 21, 2007 07:23 PMFiesty said ” I think the library is hiding behind the Freedom of Speech argument; especially when it could be argued against using tax dollars to support pornography! They can do what other agencies do, which is post "Terms of Use" guidelines which users agree to follow in order to use the machines.”
Truth said ”Unfortunately, Bango did not have time to provide his own answers. And it is much easier to ask the question than to answer it. Is there a certain maximum number of laws we should have, Bango, after which we should not pass any more regardless of the circumstances? And how in the name of God can you draw a line in this kind of thing. Of course, you can't. Bango, your comments are meaningless palaver. “
Okay, Okay, you want substance.
The library is in a completely no-win situation as far as trying to set moral guidelines. They do post “terms of use” but no matter what they do, somebody is always offended, and worse, the library winds up to blame. Every year there are hundreds and hundreds of challenges to material that some individual or group finds offensive from porn to evolution and back to Tom Sawyer.
A while back the ALA reviewed their own historical behaviour and concluded that they had been shockingly complicit in restricting public access to beneficial and emancipatory information, simply to satisfy the government in charge at the time and well-organized lobbies of various kinds. Since then the ALA has positioned itself to be the champion of freedom of information and to never again be suckered into playing patsy to somebody trying to restrict public access to information.
Libraries are sensitive to what their local patrons want, but err on the side of provision rather than restriction. They are already burdened with net-nanny software and hundreds of guidelines, but will open a PC if requested and may ask the patron to use a privacy screen and/or a secluded workstation. However, that doesn’t solve anything either. Only once did I request an unlock and screen because I had some pretty gory anatomy images to look through. The rubbernecking became too much of a distraction as people craned and stretched to see what I was up to. I gave up and brought my laptop next time and then sat in a room with the reference books and online material.
The case in point is a load of bollocks, since the complaint was actually that no machine was available when she wanted one, and she figured that nobody had any business taking up a machine for less important uses than hers. The last time I looked, the machines were timed, and there was a workstation set up to book time. So she could simply have booked and then gone back to browsing until one was available. Instead she and her husband decided to make a public show out of it. The Library will try to appease her, and they will try to make nice, but I think Mr.Sharp is a troublemaker and this stinks of a puritanical political agenda.
If he is unhappy with the resolution the librararian offered at the time, he should go and damn well discuss it with the library manager and then only go to press if the district management still takes a position that he disagrees with. I say he is a sniveler of the worst stripe.
Where do I draw the line?
I draw it on the other side of the right to have access. If people are concerned that their kids could be harmed by information contained in the materials or being accessed online by other patrons, then keep them in the children’s section and keep an eye on where they are – and teach the little blighters to mind their own business when walking past the workstations.
Bango,as a proud card carrying NAMBLA member, I applaud you for speaking truth to power.
Dont Tase Me Bro
Posted by on September 21, 2007 08:53 PMStan. For you darlin`, anything, even a discount.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 21, 2007 10:43 PMC'mon. The homeless that live there need their porn, too. This should have been a good educational experience. A (supposedly solvent) woman that has no computer or Internet access at home, a public computer and men looking at porn. WOW! What a surprise.
Posted by clyde on September 21, 2007 11:10 PMDrew, you don’t even know what a library looks like inside.
Sharon, “Grossed out, you are wrong but it will cost you $19.99 just like everyone else to see my pictures on line.” – is that a month, or a lifetime gold membership?
FYI..
Lakewood has at least twenty computers in their library.. and there are children in between men looking at girlie stuff. Children
are playing games on the Internet. They're not
in a children's section. I know..I had to wait my
turn before I got a computer. And it's 1 hr.
My teenage son and class used to go to another library in North Denver. One day I stopped by thinking they would be there.
The Librarian said no..they're not coming back ..because all the boys 'disrupted the library with their .'.whoop laws.'.watching the girly stuff, so the teachers now sends an assistant.
Either STEVEN SHARP IS LYING or HIS WIFE is LYING --!!!
I hate to say that so dang blatantly, but there is absolutely NO TRUTH THE HIS WIFE'S CLAIM THAT SHE SAW THREE MEN LOOKING AT PORN AT THE LIBRARY.
It is A FACT that filters are in place and WORKING properly.
By the way, here is what i found regarding the subject:
Internet Filtering FAQ
Internet Filtering at the Denver Public Library: Questions and Answers
The Denver Public Library values free and equal access to information, even when that information may be controversial, unorthodox or unacceptable to others. With its implementation of filtering software, the Denver Public Library continues to uphold its commitments to carefully selected children’s materials and to customers' First Amendment rights while complying with the spirit of the new laws.
Why do Denver Public Library computers have filtering software?
In 2000, Congress passed The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires libraries receiving certain types of federal funding to install a technology protection measure that blocks images ("visual depictions") that are obscene, contain child pornography, or are harmful to minors. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld CIPA in 2003.
In addition, the Colorado legislature passed the Internet Protection in Public Libraries law in 2004, which mandates similar protective measures for computers in public libraries.
How does Denver Public Library’s filtering software work?
The filtering software blocks only visual materials that meet legal definitions of obscenity, child pornography or materials that are harmful to minors.
The filtering software does not block text or audio materials.
Who decides which images should be blocked?
In conjunction with Library staff, the filtering software vendor uses a process combining technological and human review to make decisions about which images are blocked by the software.
Do all Denver Public Library computers have filters?
Yes. In compliance with the law, both customer and staff computers utilize filtering software. The Library has developed procedures to provide filtered Internet access for staff and volunteers under 17.
Is filtering software reliable?
No filtering software is 100 percent accurate. Filters may falsely block constitutionally protected speech, or they may fail to block access to illegal or objectionable material.
Posted by Sheila on September 22, 2007 08:50 AM"Where do I draw the line?
I draw it on the other side of the right to have access. If people are concerned that their kids could be harmed by information contained in the materials or being accessed online by other patrons, then keep them in the children’s section and keep an eye on where they are – and teach the little blighters to mind their own business when walking past the workstations.
Posted by Bango Skank on September 21, 2007 08:15 PM"
Bango apparently thinks that people should be allowed to view pornography at the library wherever they want, though he seems to make an exception for the children's computers.
It would be interesting to know if he thinks that children should be allowed to view pornography on their computers, and, if not, why. Would it be only to appease the parents, or does he think that there is something inappropriate about making pornography available to children?
Good Lord, Bango thinks that parents should tell their children to look straight ahead and not look side to side when walking past computer stations. Surely he doesn't have any children, or if he does he doesn't know much about children. How do you answer the inevitable "why?" question? None of your business? Teach the kids to curb one of the wonders of childhood, their inevitable and beautiful curiosity? Ridiculous. The natural and very desirable curiosity of children is one reason for the need to regulate the viewing of pornography at the library.
Bango seems to say that even adults are too inquisitive about what patrons are viewing on computers. I presume he thinks that not only children but adults too should look straight ahead and not turn their heads to either side when walking past computer stations. And it is quite facetious to claim that a person has to do some kind of “rubbernecking” to see what is on the computers the person passes by. If adults can't be counted on to keep their eyes straight ahead and not view anything on either side of them, how real is it to expect children to do that?
The basic problem is that while Bango apparently doesn't see anything wrong with children seeing the pornography which adults might be watching, I think that the vast majority of people do. It's largely a question of whether to accommodate those who want to view pornography at the library and those who want to keep pornographers from sharing their viewing habits with children.
The real and difficult question is determining what is pornography. Some libraries have badly overreacted by banning the viewing of perfectly legitimate medical sites and other legitimate sites in which nudity is shown. While larger libraries could usually have secluded areas, that is not possible for many small libraries. Privacy screens can be of considerable help.
While we may not be able to fully accomplish the goal of shielding pornographic sites from children, I support the principle that we should try. I think that non-regulatory means, such as signs warning patrons that what they view can also be seen by passing children, would be helpful.
The crux of this whole matter lies in the question: "What is pornography"?
One answer - given above - is that which so glibly avoides answering at all: "We can't define it; but we know it when we see it."
This makes free speech, and free expression, totally subject to the whimsies of the viewer. Or, more accurately in today's society, to the prejudices, bigotry, ignorance, and general stupidity of whatever religious group - can muster enough loud, yapping, and clamoring followers to scare Legislators into defining, and penalizing, such speech or expression as the religious claque wants shut off.
So, when one goes to the public library - supposedly a source of INFORMATION - one cannot access such basic texts as, for instance, "Gray's Anatomy", or information concerning certain types of cancer. Becuause the ignorant fools who hate and despise the human body have forced the installation of filters on the computers; which filters are designed to prohibit access to anything that might happen to deal with - directly or even peripherally - any aspect of nudity, human breasts, or something else that might be considered "harmful to children".
This kind of censorship is almost always based upon the fictitious premise that the material censored has direct "harmful effect(s) on children", an example of the inherent and fundamental desire to establish ignorance and stupidity - as well as childish obedience and deference to authority - as the norm for religious and moral living.
The would be censors fear any and all aspects of education, enlightenment, human growth and development - as well as departure from their own position of religious and moral standards - because they fear that their "god" might, somehow, retaliate against them; since their "god" is, itself, nothing more than a highly stylized anthropomorphic projection of their own inadequacies, and inabilities to come to grips with the constant changes in human existence.
Our Legislatures and Courts are, themselves, all too well populated with followers and true believers in the whole concept of idiotic and stupid stagnation as being both moral and normative. And these in turn, exert pressure to enshrine their fellow religionists' fears and projections as the Law for all others; they, too, using the specious argument of "harm to children" as their foundation for legislation and decisions that fly in the face of the Constitution, and the First Amendment.
Where it says, "Congress shall pass no law, it means, NO LAW!"
Posted by Old Grouch on September 22, 2007 10:24 AMOld Grouch, how come you make a religious issue out of this? Since when does morality equals religion? May be there are some of us without religion who still don’t want to see you and your friends in the library jerking off either in person or on screen, did you think about that? And if you quote the constitution, please finish up the whole sentence. Like something about established religion (which does not apply here anyway) and the free exercise thereof. Funny how a cross or the American flag hanging in the library offends you, but sextoys on display don’t.
Posted by Uno on September 22, 2007 11:26 AMOld Grouch,I would hope you could make an obvious point of distinction between the content of medical information or legitimate art sites, and hardcore S&M, bestiality, rape, and pedophilia porno sites.
Your taking the pro public porno side with seemingly canned slippery slope rhetoric suggests you have personal experience in this area.
Did you fight this fight in your days in academia when the evil govt tried to block porn from the schools computers,including the one in your "office"?
z
Posted by on September 22, 2007 12:05 PMI know I have written this before, about children, but please, when you have little ones, point out the grasshoppers mating in the yard. This is a fine example for the kids and they will see it no matter what you do. This gets you into the "sex" discussion easy.
Do not point out Box Elder bugs, as they mate end to end with the male walking forward and the attached female walking backward, kind of like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers dancing.
Leave books around the house that show all human body parts and have statues of naked people. Discuss, talk, laugh, whatever fits the moment.
Talk about porn with your kids, and tell them why it exists.
Don`t let y;our kids be shocked by normal mating and bodies. Take away the ability of some to scare the kids by slowly introducing them to real life. This is your job as a parent. Not telling the kids to look straight ahead in the library.
There is a world your kids have to live in, prepare them for it.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 22, 2007 12:44 PMSharon: Life a little slow out there in God's country? You have time to study the sexual habits of the local insects....
Posted by on September 22, 2007 01:21 PMSharon, do you regularly gather up neighborhood kids to have sex in front of, so they not “shocked by normal mating”, or you just advocating that parents skip desert at dinner and get on with it on the kitchen table?
“Leave books around the house that show all human body parts” – yeah, I’ll run down to the library to get some books like “Autopsy for Dummies”, Jeffery Dahmler’s illustrated romance novels; “Eat your hart out” and “Don’t fall apart on me now”, may be even Dr Kevorkian’s “ Your last gasp is my daily bread” while I’m there.
I know where you getting with all this, just having a little fun ;)
Uno,
The issue shapes itself. From the days of the Comstock Law - which still allows your First Class - or whatever be the equivalent in use today - Mail to be opened to determine if there be "pornography" therein - as well as allowing for you to be tried, for the crime of "possession", NOT WHERE YOU LIVE, but in any place where the Prosecution can get a guilty verdict on the basis of "community standards" - right down to today, it is the religious zealots who are first and formemost in every attempt to extend censorchip beyond current limits, and/or to institute censorship where none has been legislated so far.
Insofar as the matter of public sex acts be concerned, I might ask why you are so fixated on the assertion that these are necessarily always to be found in conjunction with something YOU might consider "pornographic" wherever such could be viewed?
The quotation was from Mr. Justice Hugo Black in a case. I happen to think that it is a quotation that should lead off the first page of every civics textbook. But then, as I have so often said, I view the Guarantees of the First Amendment in a much different way than does the current Administration and its disciples.
Z,
An intelligent person can make that distinction for him, or her, self. The all-inclusive approach is what I dispute; and what needs to be disputed, until such time as there be sufficiently well designed materials to make the distinction real on the computer. If there be nothing better than that which is available currently, then its way past time to start developing something. And, of course, it is not beyond intelligent proposal to set aside - by walls, or whatever - an "Adults Only" section for computer use. The local library has a section for "Children Only" - with presumably thoroughly blocked and "sanitized" machines. They have a "Catalog Only" set of machines, that are not even connected to the Internet. So . . . .
As to my own experiences. I've fought censorship in Court, sir. My teaching days came before computers were a tool generally available. But my position on the subject of "pornography" in general is on record all the way from Federal District Court on through local Courts, both as an expert witness; and as a Defendant in a case arising from an illegal search and seizure of professionally privileged files - itself the result of a dispute with a religious organization over contents concerning a client of the particular Mental Health Service where I was employed before hanging out my own shingle in private practice.
Just to avoid misunderstanding, that case was thrown out of Court - Dismissed with Prejudice - on the Judge's own preliminary voire dire at the Motions Hearing concerning the legitimacy of the warrant. But, it does form a - somewhat expensive at the time - part of my experience in the matter; and makes its own contribution to my position concerning the principal source for censorship agitation and problems.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 22, 2007 02:28 PMSteven Sharp said:
"Now, I believe people have the right and freedom to view pornography. On the other hand, I am not so sure viewing pornography should be done at the public library.
If my wife could see what these men were looking at, then what stops a child from seeing the same thing? So, I wonder, how far does our public library take this stance? Do we not have laws against public indecency? Where do we draw the line?"
That is a perfectly legitimate comment and concern, whether or not you agree with it. In fact, I cannot imagine a mature person not having that concern, whatever his eventual conclusion.
There are extremists on both sides. There are people who want their own religious beliefs to be imposed on all. There are those who want their own rejection of most people's view of pornography imposed on all.
I presume that, except for the extremists on the one side, people in general would agree that we should make an effort to avoid the prospect of children in the library having to see, for example, one person performing oral sex on another. I presume that, except for the extremists on the other side, people in general would agree that material which is not explicitly pornographic should be viewable at the library.
Again, the problem is: what is explicitly pornographic? There can be books and tapes which are of a medical or social studies nature that might show the scene above, one person performing oral sex on another.
I like the idea of segregating the viewing of material which shows sexual acts being performed, whether in a pornographic sense or in an educational sense, even though there would be some understandable objections to that. But I assume that a lot of small libraries would find this difficult to do.
The problem with any proposed solution is the devil, for he will be there hiding in the details. If only this were a baby which we could just cut in half.
Uno, that was a good one. Should have thought twice before I wrote body parts. Got me. Anon. Bugs all over the yard again. Box Elders reproduce many generations each summer. They are worse then roaches. But my animals eat them. Free food.
I`m off to the library now to be offended by something.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 22, 2007 05:01 PMog,yeah,problems like making it harder for you to beat the bishop in public.
Posted by on September 22, 2007 09:55 PMOkay, i made the whole thing up. See, I was so surprised when you told me you had come to the library to, ya know, surprise me.
My study partner (you know the one I told you about -- the lady whose house I had to go to get my homework assignment completed) anyway... I was with her the entire time. I was so worried about how to tell you that she and I are together now that the story of the porn was the first thing I could come up with. I am sorry.
To all the posters.. please. Stop worrying. There were no evil men/boys looking at nekkid women and horses. I apologize for the inconvenience this may have casued you. Please move on to more important and real issues.
Thank you. And, as a friend of mine says:
KISSES!!!
Posted by STEVEN IT'S ME, YOUR WIFE on September 22, 2007 11:28 PMOld Grouch, a sex act is pornographic, and I’m only “fixated” on it when you or your ilk doesn’t have the decency to keep it in private. It’s common sense (to me, and looks like not to you) that certain things we do should be done in private. I don’t know why you have such a hard time understanding this concept.
Posted by Uno on September 23, 2007 09:40 AMAt the library I saw the same thing. The picture was of a woman sticking a baseball bat up her wazoo! I would call that pornography - no grey area there.
sickos and people wonder why we have pedophiles and rapists
At the library I saw the same thing. The picture was of a woman sticking a baseball bat up her wazoo! I would call that pornography - no gret area there.
sickos and people wonder why we have pedophiles and rapists
I wonder if chimps like porn, you know the mating stuff. Has anyone done a study on this?
Jayne, now that I agree with, but I don`t care what they call it. Some sites pop up when you mistype.
Many sites go from sex to abuse and fetishes.
Maybe we could assign a library pal to sit with the men (it is never the women) and teach them some public manners.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 23, 2007 11:57 AMUno,
The basic idea of personal privacy - or a preference for privacy - is not at issue. You didn't answer why you always insist that sex acts will necessarily be found accompanyning the media wherever someone might find something you deem "pornographic".
I think I have made it sufficiently clear that even you might be able to understand my position. The current all-inclusive approach, which allows INFORMATION to be censored, because someone - or some group- considers the idea, or the presentation, "pornographic", needs a thorough overhaul. And, there are ways to establish "Adult Only" areas for use of the computers as well, which should be put to use where necessary.
Or are you one of those who feels that someone is taking you by the scruff of the neck and deliberately dragging you into a library carrel, for instance, where a student is working on a paper concerning something such as breast cancer?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 23, 2007 03:03 PMSharon asked "I wonder if chimps like porn, you know the mating stuff. Has anyone done a study on this?"
The short answer is, yes. -They do, and it has been studied.
Of course that may explain the origins, but doesn't excuse it.
Jayne, I doubt that you could resolve an image like that in passing. I think you would have had to have paused and scrutinized the picture to identify it in that detail. A simple tap on the shoulder and suggestion that the person seek a more private environment or request a privacy screen would probably suffice, don’t you think?
Uno, one of the problems is that Conservatives are likely to restrict far more than Liberals would, and call something porn and a depiction of a “sex act” far sooner than Liberals would. Conservatives are also seemingly far more ready to sacrifice freedom for safety in this case, so if a small number of people were trying to research porn, the Conservative is happy to deny them that access if it means that a larger number of thrill-seekers would be denied access too.
You and I will have some agreements on what constitutes porn and who should have access to it and how, but we are going to have a big area of disagreement.
Since both groups fund the libraries, what would you change in the current library procedures to satisfy your fears that wouldn’t impinge on what other patrons consider their freedoms?
Let me sketch a problem that sprouts from this topic.
Child porn and sexual abuse of children is possibly the biggest taboo in our culture, and it impacts a number of children. Everybody gets very hot under the collar about it, and severe penalties both legal and social are enforced over it. Yet the subject itself cannot be researched, and cannot be studied since any examination of the material will itself be automatically tagged as abhorrent. Since no researcher can get to grips with what it is, how it works, who is involved, and why, we continue to operate in the dark and are inefficient in doing anything about it.
If Uno & Co had their lights, all kinds of other topics would join the list of unresearchable topics, and our vulnerability would actually grow and the risk and damage would be worse. If not restrained or balanced with Liberalism, Conservatism eventually leads to paralysis and extreme vulnerability.
Naturally I am stating this in it's most extreme form, but I am sure that the message is clear.
Posted by Bangalore Skank on September 23, 2007 06:01 PMBangalore Skank,
Am I correct in thinking you are otherwise known as, "Bango Skank"? Or are you a new - and very welcome - addition to the group of those who present matters from the standpoint of reason, judgment, and discussion?
Either way, you are certainly right on the mark here.
Case in Point: About 30 years, or so, ago, there was a book published called, "Show Me". The purpose of this work was to serve as an illustrated text for both professionals and parents to use when it came time to deal with the matter of "the birds and the bees" in the lives of their children. The authors were Clinical Psychologists; and the text was an excellently worded, and illustrated, guide to eliminating the fears and fairy tales that so often are all that both adults and children have in the way of sound sex education.
The religious freaks and fanatics burst several blood vessels; tried to prevent both printing and distribution; and finally got a Federal D.A. - a Conservative "christian" Republican, of course - to bring a case - out in the equivalent of Lost Hind Mule Shoe, Mississippi, where "community standards" still kept "Playboy" off the stands in the county.
The publishers went to the expense of filing for hearing in Appeals Court; and the brannigan finally moved over into that arena, where the Court found that there was "sufficiently redeeming social value" in the work to quash prosecution, or other action against it.
Time passes, and a good many parents and professionals find the work to indeed have enough "redeeming social value" to have run the work into a couple of additional printings.
However, the self-righteous, holier than all, Right wingers managed to convince both Congress and a large number of State Legislatures that ANY nudity photographed, or in any other way portrayed, of a child - anyone under the age of 18 - was not only "pornography", but also a form of "child abuse", (That includes, by the way, those old time prints of baby on the rug in front of the fireplace, etc., etc., that are often family heirlooms.) And, the bans on "kiddie porn" are now such that practicing professionals who own the book from years past can be imprisoned for its possession.
Bangalore Skank, you haven't even come close to stating the extreme form of regressive, fearful, slavish ignorance and stupidity to which the "fundamentalist christians" would reduce this nation; and are working their hardest to accomplish.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 23, 2007 10:12 PMOG,
All the Bingos, Bangos, Bongos, Skinks, Skanks, and even Skunks seem to be me.
I mutated it to "Bangalore" since I am in Asia for a bit, attending talks, holding forth, and being a pest. A lot of it boils down to bringing revenue into the US. Mostly for Conservatives I have no doubt ;)
Apropos to what you were saying, these hypersensitivity foibles make people feel temporarily more secure and smug about their moral superiority, but in truth it makes them increasingly more and more frightened, and also increasingly more blind to real dangers and risks. They will be so focused on a bewildering array of perceived "dangers", that real ones creep up and do real harm.
”… you haven't even come close to stating the extreme form of regressive, fearful, slavish ignorance and stupidity to which the "fundamentalist christians" would reduce this nation; and are working their hardest to accomplish.”
I would love to hear them describe what the country would look like if they were unopposed and got everything they wanted. Do they demand stuff now that they wouldn’t really want but demand because it gets them at least something, or is it to just rail against the “Left” and express how vile they think they are?
Or would they turn the US into a Theocracy in short order and ultimately bring back trial by ordeal, mandatory “purity”, and strictly enforced biblical laws?
Bangalore Skank,
The late Robert Heinlein wrote a rather remarkable work on the subject; science-fiction, but almost a form of "prophecy". It is called, "Revolt in 2100".
He wrote it somewhat before he, himself, sort of wandered off into his own form of "eliteism" - basing voting rights on military service and math proficiency somewhere up on the level of differential calculus - but, the book did give a rather frightening picture of some of today's religious personalities, and the use of TV in getting control.
In there, there is a short saying: "Beware of hairy eared prophets in a dirty shirt." Which, considering the country's history of the Tent Revival - and the likes of Billy Sunday et.al., - hit the mark. Today's charlatans wear Armani, and Gucci, and are barbered to the nines; but the principle remains the same.
The late preacher from Falwell's "moral majority" wickiup - the one Jones got his panties all knotted up over, when the guy was compared to Pavarotti unfavorably on another line of postings here - gave a fairly clear and comprehensive view of just what they do want. And it's horrifying to anyone who really holds to the idea of a Constitutional, and secular, America.
Almost as if Heinlein had written the script - or the guy had plagiarized it directly from the book.
Well worth a read, when you get some spare time. Have fun over there in the 3rd World.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 24, 2007 07:25 AMI'm a writer working on a story about this topic. I'd like to speak with Steven Sharp.
Mr. Sharp, if you get this message, please reply to 303-995-7269. Also, I'd like to speak with anyone who has sent in a comment.
Please drop me a call or send me your email address. Mine is nickeyh1@msn.com.
Thanks
bb
I'm a writer working on a story about this topic. I'd like to speak with Steven Sharp.
Mr. Sharp, if you get this message, please reply to 303-995-7269. Also, I'd like to speak with anyone who has sent in a comment.
Please drop me a call or send me your email address. Mine is nickeyh1@msn.com.
Thanks
bb
I'd like to speak with Steven Sharp.
Mr. Sharp, if you get this message, please reply to 303-995-7269. Also, I'd like to speak with anyone who has sent in a comment.
Please drop me a call or send me your email address. Mine is nickeyh1@msn.com.
Thanks
bb
Bangalor, now if I ask about chimp behavior, I am not using is to excuse something. Male chimps also kill babies to get the mothers attention.
some times a light touch falls flat on these threads.
The obvious solution to this perceived problem is to not let boys or men in the library. (joke).
I grew up in this country when the Christians made the laws and customs. It is better now and getting better all the time.
Back then businesses had to close on Sunday but they couldn`t`t make us go to church.
They made abortion illegal, pregnant women had to go to their "aunts" state for awhile, but we knew they were giving up their baby. it was not socially acceptable to be an unwed single mother. Shotgun weddings were common and often deadly, for the women.
Men had a very difficult time getting a vasectomy if they were too young or did not already have a lot of children.
Catholic hospitals routinely refused to sedate children, in spite of the doctors orders, that happened to me.
Birth control devices were covered by law, mine was illegal. The doctor smuggled them into the state.
Divorce was as tough to get as possible. Laws governed how long you had to wait before you could get one, and one party had to be definitely at fault.
sodomy laws outlawing oral and anal sex, between anyone, men or women were in place and interracial marriage was illegal.
In order to adopt a child a couple had to be church going Christians.
Many of my friends did join church long enough to adopt and never went back. My cousin did this and despised religion the whole of her life.
This is just a sample of how it was. The Christians want all that back and more.
I have tried to personalise this so you know I speak from experience and not empty rhetoric.
Be safe over there in earthquake and tsunami land.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 24, 2007 12:28 PM"Catholic hospitals routinely refused to sedate children, in spite of the doctors orders"
Can you expand on that?
Are you talking sedation in terms of pain management and anasthesia, or do you mean it in a behavioural sense?
Lets gain some clarity folks.
- I am a graduate student that prefers to do academic research in a LIBRARY, therefore, I find myself researching there. I am not surfing the internet to do such research.
- Being new to Denver, and the library system in this town, I wasn't aware I needed to reserve a computer. I especially wasn't aware I could reserve a computer to view pornography. If I was, I wouldn't have been walking around looking for a computer to use.
- It didn't take long to notice pornography on a screen, being that the first incident was on one of the immediate computers as I walked into the entrance of the periodicals section.
- Obviously, I continued onward to look for a vacant computer and behold someone else was looking at pornography. Not easy to miss.
- I will disagree; the screening technique was not working or wasn't installed on the computers. I wasn't peering, I was walking by.
- Of coarse it caught my attention. In my years of research in city and college libraries, I have never dealt with such a situation.
- More amazingly, I never would have imagined the librarian's lack of concern, especially with it being in her field of vision. She thought it had something to do with freedom of speech...I wonder what she would have done if he loudly expressed his experience of getting off..."freedom of speech."
-Assumption of an individual's political slant doesn't have any signigicance here...so get over trying to prove to yourself that it is okay that you like porn. There was never a "conservative" statement against porn.
-What was my issue? If they are going to allow for porn in the library, make sure that children (Yes, I feel it is unfortunate that many readers are keeping their children in the children's section. The library has various areas that will provide all ages, including young adults, with great insight.) and the public don't have to be a part of the experience. The area I was in lacked computers with screens...maybe I should have done my research in the children's section.
-The point is that it is a library. If there is going to be free range with the computers then create the space for it. I don't think everyone else needs to see it as they walk through the library.
Lets gain some clarity folks.
- I am a graduate student that prefers to do academic research in a LIBRARY, therefore, I find myself researching there. I am not surfing the internet to do such research.
- Being new to Denver, and the library system in this town, I wasn't aware I needed to reserve a computer. I especially wasn't aware I could reserve a computer to view pornography. If I was, I wouldn't have been walking around looking for a computer to use.
- It didn't take long to notice pornography on a screen, being that the first incident was on one of the immediate computers as I walked into the entrance of the periodicals section.
- Obviously, I continued onward to look for a vacant computer and behold someone else was looking at pornography. Not easy to miss.
- I will disagree; the screening technique was not working or wasn't installed on the computers. I wasn't peering, I was walking by.
- Of coarse it caught my attention. In my years of research in city and college libraries, I have never dealt with such a situation.
- More amazingly, I never would have imagined the librarian's lack of concern, especially with it being in her field of vision. She thought it had something to do with freedom of speech...I wonder what she would have done if he loudly expressed his experience of getting off..."freedom of speech."
-Assumption of an individual's political slant doesn't have any signigicance here...so get over trying to prove to yourself that it is okay that you like porn. There was never a "conservative" statement against porn.
-What was my issue? If they are going to allow for porn in the library, make sure that children (Yes, I feel it is unfortunate that many readers are keeping their children in the children's section. The library has various areas that will provide all ages, including young adults, with great insight.) and the public don't have to be a part of the experience. The area I was in lacked computers with screens...maybe I should have done my research in the children's section.
-The point is that it is a library. If there is going to be free range with the computers then create the space for it. I don't think everyone else needs to see it as they walk through the library.
I couldn't help laugh at the bulk of the responses. It's too bad they are so drearily predictable. Maybe it would help those that so readily jump on the left/right or conservative/liberal bandwagon if I could add something to my letter. If porn is going to be allowed at the public library then it should be screened so that any passerby can't view it as well. Maybe they need porno cubicles.
And Sheila, if you don't believe me or my wife then maybe you should go see for your self.
Posted by Steven Sharp on September 26, 2007 12:56 PMI couldn't help but laugh at the bulk of the responses. It's too bad they are so drearily predictable. Maybe it would help those that so readily jump on the left/right or conservative/liberal bandwagon if I could add something to my letter. If porn is going to be allowed at the public library then it should be screened so that any passerby can't view it as well. Maybe they need porno cubicles.
And Sheila, if you don't believe me or my wife then maybe you should go see for your self.
Posted by Steven Sharp on September 26, 2007 12:57 PM