Aclu Vs Libraries On Porn Blocking

[DeliciousW]

So there's a fight between a library and the ACLU on whether or not porn should be allowed to be watched on library computers.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/now/aclu-sues-library-for-rest ricting-online-porn

Now, I like porn as much as the next guy, but isn't this more of a private thing? I mean, I've heard the point that it could be a potential resource for art students, but there are children around, as well as older folks. Couldn't you do this all important research at home, in your dorm, or on a friends computer? What's the point of an "18 and older" policy if any old wanker can get on and watch two bitches getting it on while two kids are on the computer next to him? Discuss.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

no, just NO. librarians aren't paid enough to clean up others happy stains.

[AKACCMIOF]

Just seems like a question of allowing artistic adult material (such as naked paintings and quasi erotic artwork) or not. It shouldn't be so all-or-nothing, certainly.

[Camarohusky]

This seems like a failed challenge to me.

First off, regular porn is obscenity and thus not covered by the first amendment.

As it applies to nude art (not the actual rennaisance painted art kind, the psuedo porn "I like titties. So naked chicks is art" kind) the library has a rational basis and a sufficiently compelling interest in keeping that material out of a public library frequnted by kiddos. I'd have a hard time thinking of a less restrictive way to shield the kidlets from the knockers, even when the pictures are tasteful.

Say if there were isolated rooms where stray kiddos wouldn't get a peek, then maybe, just maybe, the ACLU would have a claim here.

[injexen]

I really don't understand the point of sexual censorship. Every woman has tits, every guy has a dick. I apologize if that seems harsh, but it's the damn truth.
My point is it's all human nature. You might think you're protecting your child by keeping them ignorant of sex, but the fact is it's gonna happen at some point in their lives (unless, of course, your child happens to be a complete loser that would prefer ball taping his best friend as opposed respecting woman). Christ look at the rest of the world. Nude beaches are widely accepted. That's only naming one instance.

TL;DR it's a waste of our time.

[Iron-Hampster]

I don't think this is a matter of libraries wanting people to be watching porn or not, I think its just a matter of people being able to control what goes on in their business on their own terms or not.

If I ran a business I wouldn't want the government passing stupid laws that force me to enforce their blue laws either. It is the same as bars, they are never allowed to have smoking inside them, why can't that be up to the owner of the bar instead? Just like we should have both smoking and non smoking bars, maybe there should be both fapping and no fapping libraries?

[Camarohusky]

At 1 hour ago, lapis wrote: I think these are public libraries.

The nature of these being public means anything they do is considered a "state action" and thus subject to the rules under the bill of rights.

I don't see why they can't just officially disallow watching porn or other obscene material, but not block the relevant websites. Who cares if someone watches porn discreetly enough to not get noticed? But if he does it in such a fashion that other people can see him doing it, then the library can kick him out without legitimate complaints. I mean, if it's not that busy in the library then all he has to do is switch browser tabs if someone passes him on the back.

The problem with this is the reason for why the library wants to block porn is served by this. The library really doesn't care if any perve watches porn, they don't want porn accessed in their server or, most importantly, seen by other library patrons, especially minors. Punishing retroactively means that the websites were accessed and the material was put within view of the other patrons and minors. Why have that when you can just block the material altogether and stop these two things from happening?

[Camarohusky]

At 1 hour ago, lapis wrote: Hmm, but are they state-funded or not? It may not matter for judicial arguments, but I understood 'public library' to mean something like 'public school'.

When I hear public liubrary I think municipal libraries. These are run by cities, which are an arm of state government, which are controlled byt the 1st Amendment through the 14th Amendment.

Why have that when you can just block the material altogether and stop these two things from happening?

Because it's unnecessarily restrictive?

What is being restricted that the library doesn't have a compelling interest in prohibiting?

[morefngdbs]

IF Libraries are considered public places, & in our society we don't allow sex acts, nudity in public... then I don't see what the problem is in Libraries blocking porn.

I've read all the replies, perhaps there's something in the posts I missed, I would appreciate clarification if i am mistaken.

[RydiaLockheart]

I was a librarian. We did block terrorism/child pornography sites, but beyond that, nothing else. That's because filters can be accidentally over-restrictive. I remember one case where "method" kept getting censored because it contains "meth," or "pocketwatch" because of "twat." If you're looking for dirty words that closely, this falls into the nitpicking category.

Anyway...other than the sites that were blocked nothing else was, and we left it up to patrons to use their best judgment. However, looking at porn in the library still was not allowed. If we caught anyone, we kicked them out on that visit and blocked their Internet access for three months. Then they'd have to ask for it back after and there'd be a big note on their file about porn. Second strike, their access was blocked for good. People can argue "free speech" all they want, but not only does that sort of thing make some people uncomfortable, there were often minors in the library. In the director's eyes, protecting minors was more important than someone's right to watch some chick getting railed.

I don't know if this did happen but apparently they wanted to block file-sharing sites due to bandwidth/computer hog issues. Would have been awesome had they done it while I was there.

[camobch0]

Regardless of whether or not you ban it, anyone who is perverted enough to watch porn in a library will find a way around the ban.

[Camarohusky]

At 3 hours ago, bgraybr wrote: I absolutely hate that rule. Obscenity is completely subjective.

True. I never said the rule was perfect, just that it was well established.

I remember walking into a WW2 art gallery once. Of course, some of the planes from the war had naked ladies painted on the side. Apparently, some adults there were pissed that my parents let me come in. Of course, I just saw it as art and never considered it arousing.

Who's right in this case?

This is where we get into very difficult issues. Where does the line between art and obscenity exist? (it's acually pretty easy under the law; see SLAPS) Morally it isn't so easy. When the library is seeking to shield children, it is both prudent, and a very compelling interest to err on the side of obscenity.

A painting is a painting. Does it take any less skill to paint "pseudo-porn"?

I wasn't referring to paintings. I was referring to the art trend of taking pictures of naked woman and calling it 'art'. At the Oregon State Fair, every year in their photography exhibit there is at least one or two pictures of naked women that aside from their use of black and white could have been pulled straight out of a Penthouse photoshoot. However, even when dealing with art, there are some age restrictions that I have seen put forth. There was a penis exhibit at the Henry Art Gallery that was only open to 18+. They were only paintings, but all of penises. At a place where not only are all ages welcome, children are encouraged to come everything should be seen as if it were being placed in direct view of children. In that case, it should be up to the parents, and not the library to make that decision. As the library cannot speak for even just 1 parent, it should side on blocking.