http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/tablets-and-phones-lead-to-more-pornography-in-public.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all



In San Fransisco public libraries, complaints were coming in about people using the library computers to look at porn sites......instead of using filtering software, the libraries are installing computer monitors with plastic hoods so that only the person using the computer can see what is on the screen.


“It’s for their privacy, and for ours,” said Michelle Jeffers, the library spokeswoman. The library will also soon post warnings on the screens of all its 240 computers to remind people to be sensitive to other patrons — a solution it prefers to filtering or censoring images.



If you are using a tax funded computer system, you don't need to be looking at porn. Use a library computer for research, looking at news, job searches, writing email, etc. This is pathetic that the library considers this censorship.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are using a tax funded computer system, you
> don't need to be looking at porn. Use a library
> computer for research, looking at news, job
> searches, writing email, etc. This is pathetic
> that the library considers this censorship.

The library refreshingly did the right thing; they decided to NOT get into the business of deciding what constitutes "appropriate content".

So you wouldn't mind your tax dollars funding some homeless or indigent person (most people that use library computers) looking at porn all day long?

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are using a tax funded computer system, you
> don't need to be looking at porn. Use a library
> computer for research, looking at news, job
> searches, writing email, etc. This is pathetic
> that the library considers this censorship.

What if they're researching porn (for a college class or something), looking at news about porn, looking for a job in porn, or writing email to porn sites?

Seriously, though, this doesn't bother me at all. Looking at some digital titties before going back to sleep in a cardboard box might be the only good part of a homeless guy's day. Plus, us crusty, stinky, dirty homeless people have to stick together. Solidarity, and all that.

My only real concern about this is people using it for illegal porn. Hopefully, the library at least is keeping track of who's using the computers and what they're doing.

What they should also do is have a "Wall of Shame" where they post the names and pictuers of people caught jerkin' it in the library while looking at porn. That would cut back on offenders, I bet.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

If you are a person who believes in the First Amendment, then no, you wouldn't mind what someone reads or views.

Being homeless doesn't limit your access to free resources at the library. Thankfully there is not, nor has there ever been, criteria for who may or may not use public library information in this country. I would never want that to happen either.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't believe that a library blocking porn sites would infringe on one's (library user's) first amendment rights... just a thought.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2012 10:21PM by friskydingo.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are a person who believes in the First
> Amendment, then no, you wouldn't mind what someone
> reads or views.
>
> Being homeless doesn't limit your access to free
> resources at the library. Thankfully there is not,
> nor has there ever been, criteria for who may or
> may not use public library information in this
> country. I would never want that to happen either.

Yea their right to wack off in public and look at free porn far outweighs public decency laws or the rights of any one else especially under the age of 18 to use the library. Be honest your just scared if the porn is taken away they wont vote for Obama

Wacking off in public would be a crime regardless of whether there is porn available on the computer.

Guess what? There is erotica available on the book shelves behind those computers too.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wacking off in public would be a crime regardless
> of whether there is porn available on the
> computer.
>
> Guess what? There is erotica available on the book
> shelves behind those computers too.

Guess what if its a book you have to read it and no one else can see it if they try. If its a porn mag they shouldnt be there in the first place, and if their are same rules apply you shouldnt be able to look at them in the building. Its a public library not a free porn theater

stupid as shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guess what if its a book you have to read it and
> no one else can see it if they try. If its a porn
> mag they shouldnt be there in the first place, and
> if their are same rules apply you shouldnt be able
> to look at them in the building. Its a public
> library not a free porn theater

I have to say, you picked a good name for yourself.

The purpose of the article was to say that the library is making it so only the computer user can see the screen. Erotica doesn't have to just be a "porn mag" -- there is plenty of other stuff in a library that might be considered "objectionable".

If you had read the linked article, there was a larger discussion about how, because of internet connected devices, people are watching all sorts of shit all over the place. The argument of what is appropriate for people to be watching in public is a larger one than just what is available over computers in a public library.

If the choice is between censorship and free access to information, I'll pick the latter. If you don't like it, don't look. If you don't want your kids to see it, do some parenting.

Ito Wrote:

> I have to say, you picked a good name for
> yourself.
>
> The purpose of the article was to say that the
> library is making it so only the computer user can
> see the screen. Erotica doesn't have to just be a
> "porn mag" -- there is plenty of other stuff in a
> library that might be considered "objectionable".

Great so now we just have people watching porn under a hood with raging boners probably at least touching it through their pants. The library should be banning it end of story

> If you had read the linked article, there was a
> larger discussion about how, because of internet
> connected devices, people are watching all sorts
> of shit all over the place. The argument of what
> is appropriate for people to be watching in public
> is a larger one than just what is available over
> computers in a public library.

So because others do it its fine. Got it so because women have no rights in the middle east our women should have no rights then. Thats your logic.

If someone is caught in a public place watching it on their own phone or laptop or whatever they either get kicked out or possibly arrested, the library doesnt own those things and cant stop people in other places from doing things on things they own. They do own the computers and can cut off access there. Great argument

> If the choice is between censorship and free
> access to information, I'll pick the latter. If
> you don't like it, don't look. If you don't want
> your kids to see it, do some parenting.

Watching a girl get tag team ending in a double facial is not information.

So if I dont want my kids to see it tell them to stay out of the library then. Got it. You should have quit while you were ahead. Everything you just said made less sense and reflected even less intelligence than the post before.

The point is, censorship when it comes to content is a slippery slope. The library would rather not get in the business of limiting information, but providing access to it.

What you see as indecent or obscene, might not be the same as what the "community standard" is or what I might find indecent. Because this web site has pornographic photos posted by eesh, then it would be blocked by some software. You might argue that this site should be blocked, but what if your research subject is "stupid people who post on Fairfax Underground"?

Just because you have a hangup about guys getting hardons in libraries or images of women getting facials, it doesn't mean that there should be some heavy-handed solution to prevent adults from reading or viewing what they want.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point is, censorship when it comes to content
> is a slippery slope. The library would rather not
> get in the business of limiting information, but
> providing access to it.

The point is not allowing tax payer funded porn in a place that is designed for everyone to use adults, kids, families school field trips is not limiting information. Its limiting porn use and thats it. The fact is the library wants it there or is too spineless and pc not to get rid of it. By that logic is someone wanted to watch videos of people getting rapped or kiddie porn the library should allow it because that would be limiting "information"

> What you see as indecent or obscene, might not be
> the same as what the "community standard" is or
> what I might find indecent. Because this web site
> has pornographic photos posted by eesh, then it
> would be blocked by some software. You might argue
> that this site should be blocked, but what if your
> research subject is "stupid people who post on
> Fairfax Underground"?

Uh no the community standard is porn is illegal to view in public and you have to be 18 or older to buy or sell it. If thats youre research project youre teacher should be fired.

Theres nothing that would be blocked by getting rid of hardcore porn that would hinder a project. If you needed information on male or female parts theyre in anatomy books, or health websites. If a health website is blocked by accident the employees can unblock it. Its just having sense. NIH articles on genital diseases get blocked go ask to have it unblocked or look up the research material available in print, go ask the front desk to unlock brazzers or youporn and you should be shown the door.

> Just because you have a hangup about guys getting
> hardons in libraries or images of women getting
> facials, it doesn't mean that there should be some
> heavy-handed solution to prevent adults from
> reading or viewing what they want.

Uh no, I dont have a hang up about porn or sex at all. I have a hang up about people getting it in public, or in a library around children. The only people that should be getting boners or facials in libraries are porn actors in a library porn. But please make some more straw man arguments.

Feel free to register my names too. Must have hit a sore subject I take it youre posting from a library right now and dont want youre porn cut off

You are talking about porn, but the idea of "filtering" and "censorship" software on a computer with access to the internet might not just limit porn.

The point of the article is that the library doesn't want to get into deciding what is "objectionable" viewing material. They have decided, for adults, to just provide access to the internet -- but make the screens so that they are only visible to the person using the computer.

As you know, the internet is full of stuff that is difficult to filter. Sure there will be idiots who go to the library to watch porn, but the filtering software wouldn't just punish these idiots -- it might filter out images, words, and other stuff.

What about objectionable violent material? Do you want to have people watching violent movies on public computers? Your hang-up is about sex, but some people abhor violence.

Libraries were created so that people who did not have access or the ability to buy books, newspapers or magazines, could come to a place where these items were free and available. We now live in the internet age. The internet has porn, but it also has objectionable political discourse, bad words, blasphemous discussions about religion and political satire. Some countries in the world like China and Iran have decided to protect its citizens from seeing things it does not want. We live in a country that doesn't censor the internet.

The people at this library have decided to allow unfettered access to the internet for adults, but make it so only the adult using the computer can see it. Your suggestion is that all adults need to be subjected to PG or G-rated content because the library receives some public funding. Not all libraries are funded by the government. In fact, many get their funding from endowments.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are talking about porn, but the idea of
> "filtering" and "censorship" software on a
> computer with access to the internet might not
> just limit porn.

It does if you program it to porn which is what this has been about all along.

> The point of the article is that the library
> doesn't want to get into deciding what is
> "objectionable" viewing material. They have
> decided, for adults, to just provide access to the
> internet -- but make the screens so that they are
> only visible to the person using the computer.

There is no point of the article or defense of the library. They want to allow porn and are hiding behind these bs straw man arguments to do it. All you have to say is were blocking porn nothing else end of story.

> As you know, the internet is full of stuff that is
> difficult to filter. Sure there will be idiots who
> go to the library to watch porn, but the filtering
> software wouldn't just punish these idiots -- it
> might filter out images, words, and other stuff.

It would filter what you tell it too. Images of porn should be filtered, its not rocket science

> What about objectionable violent material? Do you
> want to have people watching violent movies on
> public computers? Your hang-up is about sex, but
> some people abhor violence.

Violence happens, you see violence everyday on normal tv. If it can be on broadcast television and the news its fine. You cant see gangbangs on either.

> Libraries were created so that people who did not
> have access or the ability to buy books,
> newspapers or magazines, could come to a place
> where these items were free and available. We now
> live in the internet age. The internet has porn,
> but it also has objectionable political discourse,
> bad words, blasphemous discussions about religion
> and political satire. Some countries in the world
> like China and Iran have decided to protect its
> citizens from seeing things it does not want. We
> live in a country that doesn't censor the
> internet.

Porn arent books, reference material, information, meaningful contributions to education, or in any way productive other than for beating your meat.

There you go with the straw man arguments again, if we block porn from a place paid for by tax payers where kids and families go and schools have field trips were china.

> The people at this library have decided to allow
> unfettered access to the internet for adults, but
> make it so only the adult using the computer can
> see it. Your suggestion is that all adults need to
> be subjected to PG or G-rated content because the
> library receives some public funding. Not all
> libraries are funded by the government. In fact,
> many get their funding from endowments.

No im suggesting adults dont need to be subjected to porn in public. Porn does one thing and one thing only gets you horny and makes you want to have sex or get off. If porn is that important to them maybe itll motivate them to get a job and improve their life so they can watch it at home. It doesnt belong anywhere in public.

If its a private library and they want to have porn fine, public libraries or any library that takes a single penny from tax payers should not. However if said library wants to have porn and a single child sees it well they have to deal with the legal consequences both criminally and financially for allowing that to happen.

The library made a smart decision to make the screens so only the user can see it. My argument is that user should be able to see whatever it is he is looking for and the nanny state shouldn't be telling him what that is.

Your arguments are about children seeing it and people beating off in the library.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't user library computers. However, I can see the argument from librarians that they don't want to be in the business of censoring what its patrons want to see on the public internet.

The main person objecting here is not understanding (or paying attention to) what you are typing, Ito.

"porn" is what he/she is objecting to. No definition, no filter criteria, nothing.

Just "porn".

Way up there in this thread I said:

> The library refreshingly did the right thing; they decided to NOT
> get into the business of deciding what constitutes "appropriate content".

which perhaps was too generic (purposefully because of that "slippery slope" that's ALSO being avoided). So let's make that a little more specific:

> The library refreshingly did the right thing; they decided to NOT
> get into the business of deciding what constitutes "porn".

So the objections have to define "porn" - necessarily - they cannot avoid it.

But they MUST avoid defining "porn" that catches what everyone would call "nonporn" at the same time.

The library understands this; the objectors here do not.

Reality: the vast majority of people viewing porn at the library are doing so for sexual gratification. Even if they are not masturbating, they have the intent of becoming aroused. I suspect that what follows is the user runs to the library's restroom to rub one out...at least on occasion. So, like it or not, tax expenditures facilitate the behavior.

Moreover, the people attracted to public venues to engage in these otherwise private acts are more likely to act out on their sexual urges and put people at risk. Many of these potential vitims in libraries are children. And, private viewing hoods or not, you can't tell me that some curious kid won't be able to position himself just right to look over some perv's shoulder so that he can get an eyeful of some chick eating another chick's muff. No, it's not about censorship at all. It's about applying a bit of logic. You can't yell "Fire!" in a movie theater (situations like that of Aurora, Colorado being the exception), and you can' t plunk down at a desk in the library and read Hustler magazine. So, why is it acceptable to view it via the Internet?

is a picture of a woman's breast porn? Is any depiction of a penis porn? There is history of sex that can't be denied. There is also psychology of sex and psychology of why humans still cant seem to deal with seeing another human body naked or in a sexual situation, even though it happens to us almost everyday.

If you filter out words like Fuck, piss, tits, pussy, etc... you immediately wipe out parts of some great old and modern literature and other media.

If there were all these people hanging out in libraries jerking off to porn, Im sure they would do something more extreme, but it probably happens once a blue moon. If they're that worried about it, just locate the computers along the wall, so no one can stand behind them. Also, you would actually have to look at or peek at someones screen to notice it, and theres no need to. Mind you're own business and everything will be fine.

Bud Hoal... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...porn...

Again, the use of the word without a definition for it.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If you are using a tax funded computer system, you
> don't need to be looking at porn. Use a library
> computer for research, looking at news, job
> searches, writing email, etc. This is pathetic
> that the library considers this censorship.


How else are you supposed to masturbate in a public library without porn?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

The problem is who decides what is acceptable. In a liberal city like SF they would prohibit anyone from looking at a conservative website if they could.
If you have to go to a public library for internet access you must be a real loser.

The dude in WTL's video is mildly (or more) retarded and I imagine anyone that does what he did is also retarded.

The Fairfax city library, at least whenever I've been in there, has always had at least one or two retards and/or bums hanging around. It's just the nature of any public location.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point is, censorship when it comes to content
> is a slippery slope. The library would rather not
> get in the business of limiting information, but
> providing access to it.


I was at a party and was talking to a librarian. I asked out of curiosity, "how does one go about banning books". She did not hesitate to say "you don't".

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

obobo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have to go to a public library for internet
> access you must be a real loser.

That is the reason why we have libraries -- for "losers". Its not just for students and researchers and the landed classes. Public libraries exist for all people, high and low, to have access to public knowledge.

As others have said, your definition of "porn" is different from mine and different from the little old lady down the street. The reason why defining "porn" is a slippery slope is that you can almost always find someone who will object to something. What you end up with are G rated Disney films -- and even THOSE have their critics!

I don't feel like looking it up, but one famous person defined porn as "I know it when I see it."

If you think you have a definition in your mind what porn is, you will be surprised what others think it is. People jack off to the weirdest shit -- latex porn, foot fetishism, etc. Some of the weird shit people are into is practically indefinable. Gossip sites routinely publish photos of starlets like Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears getting out of some car and flashing their snatch -- is this porn? How about a recorded performance of the theatre show "Oh! Calcutta" where a bunch of naked people are up on stage? To someone walking by a computer screen, who is to say image might objectionable?

The problem that the library finds itself in is that it used to be in the business of providing books, but these days books are disappearing from public use. Our information comes on screens now and is not just the written word, but images and other forms of multimedia.

Libraries used to struggle with people being upset that "Lady Chatterly's Lover" was on the book shelf or if Playboy was considered "porn". The internet is a practically limitless source of information when you consider social media and web mail. What someone has on their screen might not be from a banned web URL, it could just be from a tweet or a video link from an email.

The library and its librarians have come up with a solution. Make it so the user is responsible for viewing his or her own content. They make it so he or she is the only person who sees it. They don't necessarily want to be the purveyors of porn, but they also don't want to be the ones to define it or police other's use of the computers.

Libraries are there to give access to information to people who otherwise wouldn't have it. Their business is to provide information not censor it. You can say that you don't want homeless people using libraries for entertainment or shelter, but where do you draw the line to say who can use libraries then and what they use it for?

I can't believe you're using first amendment logic to give the green light to something that even eesh finds objectionable.

You don't have to block specific words, just specific sites - namely porn sites. And as Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart said "I know it when I see it" (hard core porn). We all know it when we see it.

The last thing I want to see or have kids exposed to is some pervert with a hard on at the next screen. And what if he likes kiddie porn - is that OK too? And what if the kids and women in the library start looking pretty tasty. Libraries are sanctuaries, not your bedroom.

BTW, I bet all of the "pro liberty" posters here are men. If you're a woman you are always aware that you are vulnerable. And you certainly know that your kids are.

> You don't have to block specific words, just specific sites - namely porn sites.

Librarians would have to maintain this list of specific sites or purchase software to do so. Do you know how many porn sites there are? How do you stop people from looking at photos or videos with sex acts in it? This stuff is available from more than just your list of URLs.

Cover the screen and kids aren't seeing it.

> The last thing I want to see or have kids exposed to is some pervert with a hard
> on at the next screen. And what if the kids and women in the library start
> looking pretty tasty. Libraries are sanctuaries, not your bedroom.

Guess what? Those perverts are out there regardless of whether there are computers with access to porn on the internet.

If someone acts inappropriately in a library that is a different thing altogether. If a guy starts whacking it in public, he is committing a crime. If he's stalking children or women, that is a problem for the authorities to handle.

I'm sticking with my simple answer - The use of a library is not a right. Therefore library may sensor all they want. Allowing porn on public library computers is absurd. Don't get me wrong, I love porn as much as the next guy... But allowing lewd material on a public library computer is too much, hoods or not. And once again, I'd like to point out that a library has no responsibility to show you whatever material you demand.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2012 12:36PM by friskydingo.

Being a devil's advocate here, censoring software sucks. It inhibits the search of non-offensive terms. It also doesn't block 100% of offensive content.

Given that the library really has no way to prevent offensive images from showing up on public computers, it is probably wise of them to shield kids and other innocent bystanders from these images when they are walking by the computers.

Not an ideal solution, but there is an argument for what they did. Not that I agree with it, but there it is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being a devil's advocate here, censoring software
> sucks. It inhibits the search of non-offensive
> terms. It also doesn't block 100% of offensive
> content.
>
> Given that the library really has no way to
> prevent offensive images from showing up on public
> computers, it is probably wise of them to shield
> kids and other innocent bystanders from these
> images when they are walking by the computers.
>
> Not an ideal solution, but there is an argument
> for what they did. Not that I agree with it, but
> there it is.


I dig that... Privacy screens would probably be nice to have in general anyways... Even for the patrons not googling offensive material. No one likes being looked over the shoulder while surfing the interwebs.

 

friskydingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dig that... Privacy screens would probably be
> nice to have in general anyways... Even for the
> patrons not googling offensive material. No one
> likes being looked over the shoulder while surfing
> the interwebs.

And that, what you just wrote, is the premise of the article. It is not that libraries are in the business of providing porn, it is that they are trying to find a solution to a problem that is plaguing society in general with the proliferation of the internet and publicly view-able screens.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > You don't have to block specific words, just
> specific sites - namely porn sites.
>
> Librarians would have to maintain this list of
> specific sites or purchase software to do so. Do
> you know how many porn sites there are? How do you
> stop people from looking at photos or videos with
> sex acts in it? This stuff is available from more
> than just your list of URLs.

If I can buy software to block porn sites, I'm sure libraries can buy (probably more sophisticated) software as well. Also, I believe you can configure your computer to use OpenDNS, which apparently does a very good job of blocking porn. If some questionable but not pornographic sites are blocked, so be it. That's the price you (may) pay.

> Cover the screen and kids aren't seeing it.

Maybe, maybe not. But I shouldn't have to proactively make sure that they don't.

> > The last thing I want to see or have kids
> exposed to is some pervert with a hard
> > on at the next screen. And what if the kids and
> women in the library start
> > looking pretty tasty. Libraries are sanctuaries,
> not your bedroom.
>
> Guess what? Those perverts are out there
> regardless of whether there are computers with
> access to porn on the internet.

Of course, they are out there. But if you effectively advertise "We've got free porn!" you are going to attract them, not keep them away.

> If someone acts inappropriately in a library that
> is a different thing altogether. If a guy starts
> whacking it in public, he is committing a crime.
> If he's stalking children or women, that is a
> problem for the authorities to handle.

I don't want to wait until he starts whacking it in the bathroom with some kid in the next stall. And librarians should not be put in the position of having to confront perverts.

Sorry...but our need for protection outweighs their access to porn.

Your right. There should only be ONE book we should all be reading anyway.

Does anyone reading this thread ever go to the library to look at porn?

Does anyone here know anyone that goes to the library to look at porn?

No, because only retards and homeless people would ever do that. Why? Because we have PCs, iPhones, iPads, etc... at home and at work to do that with. Lets be honest here, the only people these days without their own computers are too poor or too lazy or too stupid to even know where the fucking library is, much less have a way to get there.

This can't be happening that much, and if it is, there's a much larger problem.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your right. There should only be ONE book we
> should all be reading anyway.

There you go again. I am NOT a Bible thumper. I am a liberal, especially on social issues. You can't discredit someone's viewpoint by incorrectly implying that they are a right wing nut. Bad form.

In any case, interesting discussion.

Of course we don't go to libraries - for the most part, we don't have to. But someone is going, or they wouldn't stay in business. Best guess: really poor students, students looking to get away from their aggravating roommates or parents, kids whose parents want to expose them to libraries and actual books, people doing esoteric research in unusual areas, really poor people, guys who don't want their wives looking over their shoulder.

"This can't be happening that much, and if it is, there's a much larger problem."

That's what I thought about sex offenders, until I checked the sex offender registry. Scary. I have to wonder if easy access to porn played a role in their deciding to act on their impulses.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your right. There should only be ONE book we
> should all be reading anyway.

Thats such a great comeback. Youre an idiot. You have no argument, and have just said complete bullshit the entire time with straw man arguments.

But when you cant actually make any valid points why not just try and twist the subject to something else.

I understand it can be hard to try and argue something on your own when the dnc talking points dont currently deal with the issue.

The only people who want porn in librarys are people with values at all, homeless people, and jerry sandusky. Which one are you?

@Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course we don't go to libraries - for the most
> part, we don't have to. But someone is going, or
> they wouldn't stay in business. Best guess: really
> poor students, students looking to get away from
> their aggravating roommates or parents, kids whose
> parents want to expose them to libraries and
> actual books, people doing esoteric research in
> unusual areas, really poor people, guys who don't
> want their wives looking over their shoulder.


I go the the Fairfax library on occasion, but I actually borrow books. It never even crossed my mind to use their computers and if I did, it would be to look up an old database. I think this is what the majority of folks do at the library.

When I go past the computer section, it's 90% teenagers and the rest is a mix of people from other countries, probably downloading immigration forms or something.

The creepy people hang out in the parking garage and once I thought I was going to have to brutalize one of them for fucking with my girlfriend.


> "This can't be happening that much, and if it is,
> there's a much larger problem."
>
> That's what I thought about sex offenders, until I
> checked the sex offender registry. Scary. I have
> to wonder if easy access to porn played a role in
> their deciding to act on their impulses.


Or because is it because of their lack of access to porn?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No, because only retards and homeless people would
> ever do that.

Thats entire point all along. Youre admitting the people most likely to be predators or act on their boners theyre giving them selves watching porn in a library are the only ones who would do it.

This isnt rocket science. You give homeless people free porn and get them honry all day and theyre going to either start wacking in the library or victimizing someone later.

Can someone show me where the homeless have a right to free internet porn in public places around children?

I go to the library frequently. Sadly the place does have its share of bums lounging about and weird people. But there isnt a thing the library can do without some group complaining that bums have a right to smell up the place. The library cannot impose hygeine rules because that discriminates against people that hate to bathe.

One smelly old bum can and does stink up the whole place. Its too bad because the county tries to do a good job of running a place open to all but the freaks and bums abuse the hell out of the place. Not to mention the day laborers who verbally molest the women and little girls trying to go into the library in Centreville.

But we must celebrate the diversity.

Has anyone ever been into a DC public library? They have their own police force which checks every person entering the library, and the whole place resembles a homeless shelter.

My point is that the screens are a good solution to the whole issue of "inappropriate" material. I am not advocating that the computers be used for porn.

Unless you have super-strong filters, you will not remove the ability of users to view material from the internet that might be objectionable to others.

Libraries know that they need to provide access to the internet because it is a resource that has way much more information than can be contained within the physical walls of the building. They also know that there is no perfect way to censor the internet.

The "you're stupid as shit" guy who keeps replying wants to have adult supervision of adults in the library to prevent the possible viewing of porn. I'm saying that this is a slippery slope in that you will either have a severely locked down machine or you put the librarians in a position that they are the porn monitor.

If you have problems with homeless people overusing your resources or abusing them, then that is another problem -- and I'm sure that libraries have been struggling with this issue for a long time already.

no kidding Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The main person objecting here is not
> understanding (or paying attention to) what you
> are typing, Ito.
>
> "porn" is what he/she is objecting to. No
> definition, no filter criteria, nothing.
>
> Just "porn".
>
> Way up there in this thread I said:
>
> > The library refreshingly did the right thing;
> they decided to NOT
> > get into the business of deciding what
> constitutes "appropriate content".
>
> which perhaps was too generic (purposefully
> because of that "slippery slope" that's ALSO being
> avoided). So let's make that a little more
> specific:
>
> > The library refreshingly did the right thing;
> they decided to NOT
> > get into the business of deciding what
> constitutes "porn".
>
> So the objections have to define "porn" -
> necessarily - they cannot avoid it.
>
> But they MUST avoid defining "porn" that catches
> what everyone would call "nonporn" at the same
> time.
>
> The library understands this; the objectors here
> do not.

This is one of the dumbest incoherent rants to date on this thread much like billy madisons response in his final challenge.

Porn is sex or nudity. Do I have to list every single act. Only an idiot doesnt know what porn is. If you have to be 18 to buy a porn mag you shouldnt have it broadcast in a library.

People cant honestly be this stupid can they? If you just want porn in libraries sack up and say so and quite hiding behind this stupid itd make us like China crap

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My point is that the screens are a good solution
> to the whole issue of "inappropriate" material. I
> am not advocating that the computers be used for
> porn.

Yes you are because you want it there. No the screen is not a good solution because you are still watching porn in public around children. Both of which are illegal

> Unless you have super-strong filters, you will not
> remove the ability of users to view material from
> the internet that might be objectionable to
> others.

Youre not removing everything thats objectionable youre removing hardcore porn sites.

> Libraries know that they need to provide access to
> the internet because it is a resource that has way
> much more information than can be contained within
> the physical walls of the building. They also know
> that there is no perfect way to censor the
> internet.

No one is saying to get rid of the internet in libraries straw man.

> The "you're stupid as shit" guy who keeps replying
> wants to have adult supervision of adults in the
> library to prevent the possible viewing of porn.
> I'm saying that this is a slippery slope in that
> you will either have a severely locked down
> machine or you put the librarians in a position
> that they are the porn monitor.

Theres no slippery slope you ban porn not information. Straw man argument again. Nothing is actually being banned by the government anyway its all stil available in the appropriate settings.

> If you have problems with homeless people
> overusing your resources or abusing them, then
> that is another problem -- and I'm sure that
> libraries have been struggling with this issue for
> a long time already.

That is another problem that does need to be addressed on its own. But homeless or not no one should be watching porn in a public library around children.

> Porn is sex or nudity.

This is the slippery slope I am talking about.

Which one is it? Sex or nudity?

If you say nudity, you are opening up Pandora's box.

If you say sex, then you need to start defining definitions of what kinds of sex acts are prohibited or else you get rid of mainstream films and science films.

---

Look, we can call a truce here. Some libraries have decided to make it so computer screens can only be seen by the individual actually using the computer. They are doing this so unsuspecting passers-by, including children, won't suddenly see something they would find objectionable.

This is a good solution to a complex problem.

Sex or nudity.....the real test is if it is prurient sex.

Anyone remember Mapplethorpe? He was this supposed photographer that tried selling his hardcore porn as art. The term prurient sex was used a lot during this controversy, and if a nude scene has no artistic or scientific value, it is plain ol' porn.


If you are looking at Renaissance paintings on a library computer, that is fine. If you are studying breast cancer exams, that is fine......


Looking at Backdoor Sluts 9, Crotch Capers 3, or Naughty Nurses 2 on a public computer, it is not okay and should be banned.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are looking at Renaissance paintings on a
> library computer, that is fine. If you are
> studying breast cancer exams, that is fine......
>
>
> Looking at Backdoor Sluts 9, Crotch Capers 3, or
> Naughty Nurses 2 on a public computer, it is not
> okay and should be banned.

Note the big blank space in-between these two.

THAT is the problem with censorship.

And the librarians correctly do not want to go there.

This has gotten derailed because one particular guy is obsessed with watching porn on computers in the library.

My argument is that there is a whole lot more objectionable content on the internet besides sex and porn. There are some pretty disturbing images that people can bring up on their screen that I wouldn't want to see -- certainly not casually walking by the screen.

The images might even be legitimate -- like videos of open heart surgery or war footage. Or someone could be watching scenes from a mainstream film that wouldn't be appropriate for for children.

If you try to block users from objectionable content, then you really can't have a connection to the internet because that shit is out there.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Porn is sex or nudity.
>
> This is the slippery slope I am talking about.
>
> Which one is it? Sex or nudity?
>
> If you say nudity, you are opening up Pandora's
> box.
>
> If you say sex, then you need to start defining
> definitions of what kinds of sex acts are
> prohibited or else you get rid of mainstream films
> and science films.
>
> ---

Its both. The only slippery slope is the complete lack of common sense that we now have because of idiots like you defending watching porn around kids on taxpayer money.

Did your parents not have the sex talk with you yet? You should probably go ask your dad what sex is. If youd get arrested for doing it in public its sex straw man
>
> Look, we can call a truce here. Some libraries
> have decided to make it so computer screens can
> only be seen by the individual actually using the
> computer. They are doing this so unsuspecting
> passers-by, including children, won't suddenly see
> something they would find objectionable.
>
> This is a good solution to a complex problem.

youre stupid as shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > Look, we can call a truce here. Some libraries
> > have decided to make it so computer screens can
> > only be seen by the individual actually using
> the
> > computer. They are doing this so unsuspecting
> > passers-by, including children, won't suddenly
> see
> > something they would find objectionable.
> >
> > This is a good solution to a complex problem.


Forgot this part in the above response.

Thats not a truce at all. Thats still looking at porn to get aroused around family and kids.

My response as the library would have been fine were getting rid of the internet all together because idiots like lto are to stupid to figure out what porn is why why its wrong to watch it in front of children and families and school field trips. When they can show they have a brain well bring back the internet. Until then we are not going to expose children to this crap and ill just let the public opinion take its toll on how stupid this argument is

You just called people watching porn in front of kids so they can spank it in the library or the bathroom a complex problem. Its not even remotely close to one. Figuring out how to build a space station is a complex problem. Stopping someone from doing something they should be getting arrested for if the police were there is not complex

If you want the US to look like China and their government firewall, then start blocking "objectionable" content. If someone wants to look at digital images of porn in a library, let them. As long as they aren't masturbating in public.

Respect the first amendment.

Alexander Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want the US to look like China and their
> government firewall, then start blocking
> "objectionable" content. If someone wants to look
> at digital images of porn in a library, let them.
> As long as they aren't masturbating in public.
>
> Respect the first amendment.


Is this seriously the mental capability of liberals? All they can do is make straw man arguments?

China blocks information. A library blocking anything isnt blocking information dipshit. You can go home and still look at it. In China you cant leave the building and get access.

Can you tell me which part of the first amendment deals with looking at age restricted pornographic material in public in front of children while breaking breaking at least 3 laws that have all been held up by the supreme court?

Stupid as shit may be an understatement for you liberals on here

youre stupid as shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you tell me which part of the first amendment
> deals with looking at age restricted pornographic
> material in public in front of children while
> breaking breaking at least 3 laws that have all
> been held up by the supreme court?

I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, so I can't. Nor can I point to which part defines the separation of Church and State, which part deals with campaign contributions by corporations to candidates, nor can I point to which part allows the KKK to rally and denigrate Jews and African Americans. Funny thing that First Amendment, it doesn't have a very many words, but it packs a whole lot of meaning.

Personally, I have no problem with a homeless guy looking at porn on a library computer. At least then he's not out pissing on the street or harassing folks for money or yelling at squirrels or something.

As for your "in front of children" statement, I have but one thing to say about that...
Attachments:

Snark Vark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> youre stupid as shit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Can you tell me which part of the first
> amendment
> > deals with looking at age restricted
> pornographic
> > material in public in front of children while
> > breaking breaking at least 3 laws that have all
> > been held up by the supreme court?
>
> I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, so I can't. Nor
> can I point to which part defines the separation
> of Church and State, which part deals with
> campaign contributions by corporations to
> candidates, nor can I point to which part allows
> the KKK to rally and denigrate Jews and African
> Americans. Funny thing that First Amendment, it
> doesn't have a very many words, but it packs a
> whole lot of meaning.
>
> Personally, I have no problem with a homeless guy
> looking at porn on a library computer. At least
> then he's not out pissing on the street or
> harassing folks for money or yelling at squirrels
> or something.
>
> As for your "in front of children" statement, I
> have but one thing to say about that...


Cus clearly peeing in a bush would be worse than wacking it to hardcore porn in a library. Yea definitely wont be harassing people at all after getting all worked up from porn.

And ill respond to youre constitutional bs its not. Porn isnt protected. Its an age restricted item banned from public places. Its illegal for anyone to watch it in a library but the cops have better things to do then hang out there all day

youre stupid as shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cus clearly peeing in a bush would be worse than
> wacking it to hardcore porn in a library. Yea
> definitely wont be harassing people at all after
> getting all worked up from porn.

Ahh, but there's a vast difference between viewing porn and jerking off to porn at the library. There's laws against public lewdness that have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Homeless Joe would be arrested quite quickly for pulling his wang out in the Library.

Again, there's also a big difference between viewing porn and harassing folks. Again, Homeless Joe would be arrested for soliciting people at the library, that's not protected by the First Amendment either.

> And ill respond to youre constitutional bs its
> not. Porn isnt protected. Its an age restricted
> item banned from public places. Its illegal for
> anyone to watch it in a library but the cops have
> better things to do then hang out there all day

Yes, it's age restricted, but it's also protected. A child couldn't go up to a Librarian and request that an internet filter be removed so he could go to a Brazzers site or something. An adult, of legal age, could do so.

In UNITED STATES et al. v. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., the Supreme Court found that it was legal for the Federal Government to require libraries to install filtering software before receiving certain types of funding, but said "a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay on an adult user's request". The decision then goes into some discussion about whether porn is allowable or not, but doesn't actually say "As per Federal Law, pornography cannot be viewed in Libraries."

So, to a certain extent, you are correct. I cannot find a US Supreme Court ruling saying "Libraries must allow users to view porn." All I can find is a decision saying "Libraries must install filters in order to receive specific federal funds and allow adults to request the filters be removed."

But here's the thing, the Feds don't get to make that decision, it's up to the local governments. Apparently San Francisco feels that viewing porn in a library isn't such a bad thing. Do you live in San Francisco? If so, you really should be complaining to your city or state government. If not, well their decision affects you about as much as the toll rates on the Golden Gate bridge... not a whole lot. Perhaps you should solve the problems in your own back yard before you decide what's acceptable for everyone else in the world.

Snark Vark Wrote:

> Ahh, but there's a vast difference between viewing
> porn and jerking off to porn at the library.
> There's laws against public lewdness that have
> nothing to do with the First Amendment. Homeless
> Joe would be arrested quite quickly for pulling
> his wang out in the Library.

Yet somehow it escapes you that that law applies to whats on the screen as well and he is also able to be arrested for watching others pull out their wangs and stick it who knows where.

> Again, there's also a big difference between
> viewing porn and harassing folks. Again, Homeless
> Joe would be arrested for soliciting people at the
> library, that's not protected by the First
> Amendment either.

Viewing porn in public is harassing folks. And hes absolutely going to hit on everything the moves after watching porn and not jerking off. Or will everyone just get to hear him jerk off in the bathroom instead?

Watching porn in public isnt protected by the first amendment jackass

> Yes, it's age restricted, but it's also protected.
> A child couldn't go up to a Librarian and request
> that an internet filter be removed so he could go
> to a Brazzers site or something. An adult, of
> legal age, could do so.

Right just like places that sell beer or cigs never sell to underage kids.

> In UNITED STATES et al. v. AMERICAN LIBRARY
> ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., the Supreme Court found
> that it was legal for the Federal Government to
> require libraries to install filtering software
> before receiving certain types of funding, but
> said "a librarian will unblock filtered material
> or disable the Internet software filter without
> significant delay on an adult user's request".
> The decision then goes into some discussion about
> whether porn is allowable or not, but doesn't
> actually say "As per Federal Law, pornography
> cannot be viewed in Libraries."

No common sense says so.

> So, to a certain extent, you are correct. I
> cannot find a US Supreme Court ruling saying
> "Libraries must allow users to view porn." All I
> can find is a decision saying "Libraries must
> install filters in order to receive specific
> federal funds and allow adults to request the
> filters be removed."

And you never will find one saying that they have to. Just because they have the option doesnt make it right. They dont have to remove the filters if they dont want too.

> But here's the thing, the Feds don't get to make
> that decision, it's up to the local governments.
> Apparently San Francisco feels that viewing porn
> in a library isn't such a bad thing. Do you live
> in San Francisco? If so, you really should be
> complaining to your city or state government. If
> not, well their decision affects you about as much
> as the toll rates on the Golden Gate bridge... not
> a whole lot. Perhaps you should solve the
> problems in your own back yard before you decide
> what's acceptable for everyone else in the world.


No heres the thing the feds could make that decision if they wanted.

But thats beside the point.

The real point is theres no decision to make. Its common sense you dont watch porn in public libraries. Of course its not shocking that Cali is the ones who really want this with their liberal utopia that also hasspens to be the shittiest state in the union as far as being responsible with anything. Im glad they waste their limited resources to fight for the right of people to watch porn in front of kids then wonder why they are going bankrupt and businesses are fleeing the state.

Wow... Talk about strawman arguments! Your sole argument is based on homeless guys jerking off to porn in a library.

Not censorship, not anti-porn even, just anti-homeless guys who jerk off to porn in public libraries. Have you thought about running for office?

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow... Talk about strawman arguments! Your sole
> argument is based on homeless guys jerking off to
> porn in a library.
>
> Not censorship, not anti-porn even, just
> anti-homeless guys who jerk off to porn in public
> libraries. Have you thought about running for
> office?


You do know straw man arguments arent actual logical arguments based in facts right?

And no my argument is based on the fact its illegal to watch porn in public, its illegal to watch it around minors, families go to a library, schools have field trips there, yes homeless people will jerk off to it or in the bathroom, and if they dont do that they will be getting themselves highly aroused in a public place of learning.

But dont let facts get in the way of your comments, facts havent been a concern for you yet why start now?

Have you witnessed this happen or is this just a fantasy of yours?

Well... If you were homeless where else would you jerk it? Library bathroom with some Macy's Sunday underwear ads seems plausible. Right?

 

in their house.. duh

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have you witnessed this happen or is this just a
> fantasy of yours?


Yea I just make up police reports and the fact that kids and schools go to libraries or that its illegal to watch porn in public. Keep towing the party line with bs arguments please

It's illegal to watch porn in public?

I best be more careful then.

 

friskydingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's illegal to watch porn in public?
>
> I best be more careful then.


best keep the pecker in your pants when little girls are in the library.

no lie


I saw a 14 year old girl researching porn on library computer




I saw a black man drooling over pictures of gillian anderson. she is the actress who plays the lead role of the FBI x files

Oh Please wrote:

I don't want to wait until he starts whacking it in the bathroom with some kid in the next stall. And librarians should not be put in the position of having to confront perverts.

Sorry...but our need for protection outweighs their access to porn.

Oh Please.. Suck much??? you Stupid lib
Attachments:

I applaud the library's approach.

If the library takes on the responsibility of filtering the web, then it's not just a slippery slope, it's more of a greased slide.

In the first day of filtering, they'd be inundated with demands to add/remove sites, and they'd be in the position of having to evaluate every single one of those requests, including those from Xenophobes, Homophobes, Religous bigots, and other various "Conservatives". When you filter some sites, you're at least indirectly responsible for those that you don't. A "hands-off" policy keeps libraries in their proper business, and out of public lawsuits.

I attended Mark Twain Intermediate in the early '80s. The Vice Principal, "Mr. Wallace" - IMHO, a disagreeable social misfit - was deeply involved in an effort to remove "Huckleberry Finn" from public library shelves because of what he deemed to be "racially insensitive content". Admittedly, the book IS racially insensitive, but that's a reflection of when and where it was written. That experience really helped formulate a lot of my feelings about censorship.

I'll never forget the day that a kid named D. Selby pulled a knife on Mr. Wallace. It was huge news for a Middle School, and many of us who otherwise hated David found something to begrudgingly respect that day.

No He Didn't (build Dat) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but our need for protection

You need protection from what other people are looking at on a computer screen? WTF just don't go to the library if you're so fucking scared. Maybe you'd like a law to help wipe your ass too.

Fear not, Hoss is here.