Quantcast

Should Public Librarys Have Unfiltered internet access?

ummbikes

Don't mess with the Santas
Apr 16, 2002
1,794
0
Napavine, Warshington
I say NO.

My town's library had a public meeting to discuss the issue tonite.

Those opposed to filtering , argued that the 1st amendement was being trampled if the 'net is filtered. My feeling is that as long as minors can access the computers then LEGALLY (untill the age of 18 here in Washington) they must not view porn. Besides we limit speech all the time. We can't slander, we can't lie under oath, and we can't plagerise.

Those for the filtering were simply asking that no minors have unfettered access to the 'net. Which is good.

Okay, what do you all think?
 

eric strt6

Resident Curmudgeon
Sep 8, 2001
23,190
13,452
directly above the center of the earth
Originally posted by ummbikes
I say NO.

My town's library had a public meeting to discuss the issue tonite.

Those opposed to filtering , argued that the 1st amendement was being trampled if the 'net is filtered. My feeling is that as long as minors can access the computers then LEGALLY (untill the age of 18 here in Washington) they must not view porn. Besides we limit speech all the time. We can't slander, we can't lie under oath, and we can't plagerise.

Those for the filtering were simply asking that no minors have unfettered access to the 'net. Which is good.

Okay, what do you all think?
unfiltered .
 
Z

Zonic Man

Guest
Speech can be regulated if it's objective is content neutral and sets forth rational time-place-manner restrictions.

God I hate the bar exam.
 

Spud

Monkey
Aug 9, 2001
550
0
Idaho (no really!)
Originally posted by ummbikes
I say NO.

My town's library had a public meeting to discuss the issue tonite.

Those opposed to filtering , argued that the 1st amendement was being trampled if the 'net is filtered. My feeling is that as long as minors can access the computers then LEGALLY (untill the age of 18 here in Washington) they must not view porn. Besides we limit speech all the time. We can't slander, we can't lie under oath, and we can't plagerise.

Those for the filtering were simply asking that no minors have unfettered access to the 'net. Which is good.

Okay, what do you all think?
I don't understand those arguments. Some of Stephen Ambroses work is clearly palgerism and is available in all libraries. Are you suggesting that we limit children's access to Ambrose's work?

Censoring the net is a slippery path. There are numerous examples were net filtering unintentionally limits access to respectable sites. e.g. government or medical sites providing information on STD's, reproductive health etc.

I understand the concern to limit access to porn on the net, but filtering just doesn't work. I'd bet that ridemonkey is not accessible at some filtered portals as numerous posts have the word "porn" in the header.

Seems like the crusty librarian with giving patrons the hairy eyeball is the more effective curb to that behavior.

My $0.02
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
Unfiltered, but minors can only use it when accompanied/supervised by an adult... like an R-rated movie.

edit: I take that back, for the reasons mentioned above. A pregnant 16-year-old girl should be able to look at sites with helpful info without having her parents looking over her shoulder...
 
R

RideMonkey

Guest
I say filter it.

I have been in several libraries when these desparate men have been in their surfing porn right in plain view of everyone (are they so pathetic that they can't get their OWN computer for this?). Children and parents shouldn't have to walk around the library with their eyes averted so that they don't catch a glimpse of something offensive.

Computers are not like books. You can't take a computer into the corner and peek under the cover. What is displayed on the screen can be seen by more than just the person viewing it.

A library should be a place of comfort, not a place that parents, female employees, and children all need to feel uncomfortable in because the hairy palms are running it over.

If ya need porn, we got the corner adult store, private Internet connections, and Dirt! :eek:
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
Originally posted by RideMonkey
I say filter it.

I have been in several libraries when these desparate men have been in their surfing porn right in plain view of everyone (are they so pathetic that they can't get their OWN computer for this?). Children and parents shouldn't have to walk around the library with their eyes averted so that they don't catch a glimpse of something offensive.

Computers are not like books. You can't take a computer into the corner and peek under the cover. What is displayed on the screen can be seen by more than just the person viewing it.

A library should be a place of comfort, not a place that parents, female employees, and children all need to feel uncomfortable in because the hairy palms are running it over.

If ya need porn, we got the corner adult store, private Internet connections, and Dirt! :eek:
If that's the case the librarian needs to remove those people from the library. What they're doing is no different than opening up a Hustler in the middle of a playground... Leaving it unfiltered doesn't mean that people should be allowed to look at whatever they want in public, it means that people who need access to sites that might be accidentally censored can get it.
 

Spud

Monkey
Aug 9, 2001
550
0
Idaho (no really!)
Originally posted by RideMonkey
I say filter it.

I have been in several libraries when these desparate men have been in their surfing porn right in plain view of everyone (are they so pathetic that they can't get their OWN computer for this?). Children and parents shouldn't have to walk around the library with their eyes averted so that they don't catch a glimpse of something offensive.

Computers are not like books. You can't take a computer into the corner and peek under the cover. What is displayed on the screen can be seen by more than just the person viewing it.

A library should be a place of comfort, not a place that parents, female employees, and children all need to feel uncomfortable in because the hairy palms are running it over.

If ya need porn, we got the corner adult store, private Internet connections, and Dirt! :eek:
Dude - you just wrote "porn". The filtering software has just determined that ridemonkey.com has adult content and should blocked from viewing at public libraries. Forums with posters attaching photos under the caption of Porn.

Black and white filtering. You smut salesman, shame! :devil:
 

ummbikes

Don't mess with the Santas
Apr 16, 2002
1,794
0
Napavine, Warshington
Originally posted by ohio


If that's the case the librarian needs to remove those people from the library. What they're doing is no different than opening up a Hustler in the middle of a playground... Leaving it unfiltered doesn't mean that people should be allowed to look at whatever they want in public, it means that people who need access to sites that might be accidentally censored can get it.
A little more background on Timberland Regional Library...

The current policy allows unfiltered access on 1/2 the computers. Those computers are free for all to use. The proposed policy is for internet access to be 100% filtered for MINORS and that legitimate research being done by minors that was being thwarted by the filtering system would be remedied by the librarian granting full, but supervised access. The adult patrons would still have full access.

Now the problem for me personally, is that my community has more than it's fair share of sexual predators. One spoke up at the meeting and claims to know that some of his "fellows" are using the library to access child pornography. If child porn was downloaded on my computer, the authorites could arrest me and I would face criminal charges. Why then can the library allow this occur and be protected?

The other problem I have is that adults would be accessing porn in a public setting. I'm a fan of freedom, however, I also realize that there are limits to what should be done in public. If a person wishes to surf for porn at home they have every right to do so if they are 18 and are not viewing illegal porn. I am just not seeing the logic the defenders of the status quo are using. They say that in essence the first amendment allows for porn, librarys are free to shelve any material they see fit, and that allows them to access everything the 'net has to offer. The problem with the arguement is Timberland Regional Library, shelves no porn; unless you count Danielle Steele, or "Lady Chaterly's Lover".:)

So why then would hardcore porn fall under the materials the library sees as a benefit to the community?

Thanks for the great "conversation" on this topic.

Hugs and Smootchs

Rob