Pornography in Libraries (free speech vs. censorship)

[jayx8318x]

Sorry all my hot topic issues are US related (maybe this one applies to your country tho), but that's what I'm more familiar with.
And sorry that they're either old or boring ....
I wish someone would bring up an issue in their country, or something international =)

Anyways, here's a topic that diverts away from religion =) (for the most part)

In a nutshell, the issue concerns filtering in libraries that would block access to porn related sites. Some say it violates free speech, or it blocks legit sites, others say it's a means to protect children (at least the ones not purposefully looking for porn :rolleyes:)

Well the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (I think that's what it's called, there might be another one) was enacted in part to protect kids from the 'evils' of the internet. And for you under 13 year olds here at jay-chou.net, you probably remember having to fill out the COPPA form before becoming a member here. That is if you didn't lie about your age, which brings me to the point does this act even really do what it's suppose to?

Back to the main subject
So...
Does filtering really work?
Who decides what to filter? What is crude to you could be art to me.
What are they going to try and prevent next? In terms of rights...

[scarletwillow]

Filtering? Sheesh. Kids can look at all the porn they want in the libraries, it's the library's fault for placing computers in bad places where children can access them.

Now, what's wrong is porn books at libraries. When I was in 7th grade I went to the downtown library to look for a book on watercolor techniques, wandered into the art section, found an interesting looking photography book, and whoa.

First thing I see: black and white picture of a naked woman with a d*ldo. Now that's sick.

[jayx8318x]

First thing I see: black and white picture of a naked woman with a d*ldo. Now that's sick.

Well see that's the thing...to you and me, yes that's disturbing.
But people do find it artistic.

Shock and awe is also a technique widely used in artistic circles.
They had an exhibit at the Smithsonian of human feces.

Which brings me back to the point, how can you ever determine what's appropriate or not?

[cowboy]

So many civil liberites issues. Time to see who's liberal and who's conservative. This issue involves the 1st Am again. Since we are looking at internet porn, the difining case is Reno v ACLU (2000). The Court ruled that internet porn can't be prosecuted under that child protection bill with the really long name. Thus all the internet porn sites. in fact, in the US the only stuff considered "obscene" and thus not allowed is child pornography, other than that, we are as open as it gets almost.

here's the issue, public libraries are a public forum. similar to a public street, where free speech and access to informaiton should not be restricted by the gov't (as the Courts have affirmed time and time again.) Furthermore, the internet is something that shouldn't be restricted (as it is the unltimate venue for free speech) and can't be restricted practically. Filters are unconstitutional because they often block sites that are not porn-related. This is a gross infraction in my opinion. If I need to get access to informaiton, I should be able to find everything I need in a public library on the internet.

True, kids are at risk here, but the are at risk at home too. At their friends house, and at school. Supervision, not filters is the answer to this issue. Personally, I feel that any restriction of access to informaiton on the government's part is a gross violation of the Constitution.

Censorship is always wrong. Without free speech, there can be no such thing as a free democracy. thankfully in America we try to uphold this belief, though many try to dismantle it. Free speech is paramount to censorship in every instance in my opinon. There is always another solution to a problem, other than censorship. Do we need porn online? No not really, but it's there because there is a demand for that informaiton, and in the marketplace of ideas (dropping a little John Stuart Mill there) only the popular ideas remain, while the unpopular ones get weeded out.

[Viv]

If kids my age or younger did come across something inappropriate on the web, it's their responsibility to close it or block that website. If kids want to look at porn, let them be. It's their own life, their own choices. Even though their superiors would get quite mad, it's still freedom of speech err...freedom of action. I don't think filtering is right. There are kids that are responsible and kids that aren't. Heck, there are tons of kids that are more responsible than some adults. If your gonna filter for younger kids, why not filter the whole world? It's up to them to chose what to do. No one should prevent something like that.

Oh and btw, I don't recall filling out any COPPA form...

[jayx8318x]

Viv - But what if your kids are responsible, they aren't the ones looking at porn. Imagine your child is innocently doing his research and sitting next to him is some guy looking at porn on his computer. Your kid in unwillingly exposed to the porn. Sure he can walk away, not look, etc. But do you still not mind, that even though your kid isn't looking for it, he's still exposed to it?

And so what do you do if you can't supervise your kids 24/7?
Yes they can find porn elsewhere than libraries,
but I think filters would do more good than harm. If they legitimately research something like "breast cancer" sure they'd come to road blocks, but, wasn't there a time when we didn't have the internet? I'm sure they'd manage.


The COPPA is for under 13, you would have had to fill it out, unless you clicked the wrong link, and lied about your age.

[Viv]

But do you still not mind, that even though your kid isn't looking for it, he's still exposed to it?

The COPPA is for under 13, you would have had to fill it out, unless you clicked the wrong link, and lied about your age.

I'm not sure about when I grow up (which would probably change my answer) but right now, I'd think, "Hey, they are gonna get exposed to it sooner or later." I mean, think about it, how many 13 year olds do you know that has never been exposed to a nude picture of anything of that sort before? I can tell you one thing, not many.

If the COPPA is for under 13 then I probably didn't need it because I was 13 and 5 months when I joined this forum.

[vashdestampede]

hmmm...this is interesting...

because when i read the title...i thought it was about library's stocking on pornography...

i remember a few years back...a library was stocking up on Playboys and Penthouse because they said they had to 'preserve the media communication of the era' or something

[GaryDAI]

Well let me just say from personal experience, filters don't work.

Things are made to be broken. There is a flaw in everything. Some just take longer to find than others.

With that said, I can't imagine a kid actually looking up porn in the library. If I ever tried to do that I would be so embarrassed.

Censor away..............everything else is

[cloUdsuRFer]

heeeey...i work in a library....or at least did until today

and yes..porn is a problem...at least the librarians think so...

at our library, they filter...but i don't think its very good. the other day, an older librarian was complaining to me about how these two kids were looking up serious porn on the net the other day.

they used some program to stop the filtering (have no idea...completely lost)

i think the main thing she was p/o-ed about...was the fact that it changes the home page to whatever the porn site is......and it can be really difficult to get out...so say they finish using it, and close the browser...then a little kid comes a long...opens IE...and there it is ....

gary> people do.....teenaged boys do... >_< alot....

[muzikanjel]

i rekkon filtering is just an action to make themselves feel like they've done what can be done, to make themselves feel beta and to show that they actually did something about it instead of nothing..in canto the word is "on wei"..u get my point?

i think filtering doesnt really work..kids are smarter than we really think...they wont go "oh, i cant visit this site coz im a kid, then i'll just go outside and kick a ball"..nono..they dont do that..unless they are like..super innocent kids..anyway..the point is they can go to an older siblings, and as you guyz have mentioned lie about their age. theres just so many things we cant control. theres no rite or wrong about filtering, if the kids intention is to look at porns, then they wont stop just coz they are not allowed.

The more u wont let them do something, The more they want to do it..its called rebellious..ahahaha! im sure we've all experienced that sometime...

i think girls checking out hot or cute guyz in magz is like guyz checking out girls in magz...but we just read Dolly/Girlfriends and guyz read playboys..?? well maybe some girls read playboys too...>.<" ahahahaz! anywayz..looking at porns is undecent..i feel like writing an essay here...thats all i have to say for now..hehehez..!

[jayx8318x]

Well the issue isn't really stopping kids from looking at porn, because we already established, they'll find it elsewhere. The issue is preventing it from happening in public libraries.
It is offensive to innocent bystanders (i.e. the librarians) to have to be exposed to it. I almost view it as a form of public indecency. But yeah the filters don't work perfectly, but maybe a part of it is the Librarian's/staff's fault, either they don't get the best filtering programs, can't configure or maintain it properly, etc. Either way, when you got all that porn splashed on the screens, it horribly degrades the reputation of an educational institution.

muzikanjel - Good point about the fact they're doing it just to say make it seem they are trying to prevent it. At least makes them look like the good guys in some eyes.

[kahel]

America can afford to filter their libraries. We in the Philippines don't normally have internet on our libraries. But large libraries have it. On our university for example have filters for porn sites. I think it's just appropriate. As Karen pointed out, it is indeed offensive to bystanders if porn suddenly splash out of the screen. Besides, the library is not just some public place, it's an educational institution. Therefore, filtering is just fairly appropriate.

The drawback is, librarians have to train as well to effectively use these filters. So when some bored student decides to sabotage the filter, they'd know how to handle it.

[Shay]

i know this may be a bit extreme, but i think it's the same point - i don't approve of people walking around naked in public

[vicks]

i think censorship in general is wrong (infringement on free speech blah blah blah).. but i think filtering or what not should should be an option for people who don't wanna see certain things. i for one have accidentally stumbled onto weird sites (not necessarily porn but stuff i didn't wanna see regardless) and it's pretty shocking. kids who wanna see stuff WILL find it but at least filter can protect the kids (or even just more conservative ppl like me) who don't want to see that stuff.

[freebird_brown]

censoring porn is fine in public places. i mean the people who want to see it can find it elsewhere. and the people who don't want to see it are saved the shock/disturbance/etc.

[wkhwa]

It all depends.
Suppose that you have never seen pornographic images b4, how are you to have sex when the time comes. There comes a time when all of us have to take a glimpse at it.
Then again, kids who are immature who stumbled into these things may have dirty thoughts about them. Some think this stimulates masturbation...

[ftlouiea]

It all depends.
Suppose that you have never seen pornographic images b4, how are you to have sex when the time comes. There comes a time when all of us have to take a glimpse at it.
Then again, kids who are immature who stumbled into these things may have dirty thoughts about them. Some think this stimulates masturbation...

^ Your first point. Looking at porn is different to having sex. People look at porn to have pleasure, right? Some people dont share 'pleasure' in the same things an other person likes to do: e.g. looking at porn.
Your second point. Exactly, so censoring porn in public where people dont want to have these immature kids muck around is fair.

censoring porn is fine in public places. i mean the people who want to see it can find it elsewhere. and the people who don't want to see it are saved the shock/disturbance/etc.

^ Agreed.

[kasic_fantasy]

i feel that its damn normal...i mean...the libraries here do have books on sex stuff...but not up to that kinda level....it still depend on the parents...how they teach their kids about it....filtering doesnt really works...the kids..or in fact...everyone will have to see those stuff someday...it just depends on how we look at it....

[JenJensen05]

I think what the Supreme Court has decided on censorship of porn issues is that if it has artistic value in the eyes of an average person, then it is okay. If it is not designed to be artistic, scientific, etc. and an average person would find it offensive, then it is not okay. That would make scarletwillow's experience of finding a picture of a woman with a dildo unconstitutional. That's not at all artistic or scientific! It's just to turn you on, and many would find it offensive, especially in the hands of a thirteen year old boy.