Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2011-04-27 10:23 AM in reply to: #3468795 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries Goosedog - 2011-04-27 10:09 AM jazz82482 - 2011-04-27 10:53 AM However, pornography, in and of itself is not illegal, and therefore it is not up to the public library to bend to the moral views of a few patrons at the expense of freely available content for all of its patrons. I suggest that it would be illegal for me to set up a huge TV on my front lawn, beside a public sidewalk, and show pornography. Thoughts?
Which has exactly what to do with the question at hand? |
|
2011-04-27 10:26 AM in reply to: #3468840 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries ride_like_u_stole_it - 2011-04-27 11:23 AM Goosedog - 2011-04-27 10:09 AM jazz82482 - 2011-04-27 10:53 AM However, pornography, in and of itself is not illegal, and therefore it is not up to the public library to bend to the moral views of a few patrons at the expense of freely available content for all of its patrons. I suggest that it would be illegal for me to set up a huge TV on my front lawn, beside a public sidewalk, and show pornography. Thoughts?
Which has exactly what to do with the question at hand? If people have a RIGHT to view pornography at a public library, do I have a RIGHT to view pornography on my front law? Does that help?
|
2011-04-27 11:11 AM in reply to: #3468856 |
Master 1920 Ann Arbor, MI | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries Goosedog - 2011-04-27 11:26 AM ride_like_u_stole_it - 2011-04-27 11:23 AM Goosedog - 2011-04-27 10:09 AM jazz82482 - 2011-04-27 10:53 AM However, pornography, in and of itself is not illegal, and therefore it is not up to the public library to bend to the moral views of a few patrons at the expense of freely available content for all of its patrons. I suggest that it would be illegal for me to set up a huge TV on my front lawn, beside a public sidewalk, and show pornography. Thoughts?
Which has exactly what to do with the question at hand? If people have a RIGHT to view pornography at a public library, do I have a RIGHT to view pornography on my front law? Does that help?
I don't know the answer to that, but if you had quoted my whole post, you would be able to read that I already stated that the library should do what it can to prevent people from accidentally glimpsing 'objectionable' material. I don't know why people keep selectively quoting both me (and others) about what a library can/should do to limit porn exposure. It seems like you are arguing that filtering the internet is the only way to accomplish this. I believe that filtering the internet impinges on free speech to all of its patrons. One consequence of this is that porn would be available to those that seek it. If I were in a library and a patron were watching porn next to me, I would ask to be moved to another computer, simple as that. I don't believe in banning books, and I don't believe in filtering the internet. |
2011-04-27 11:16 AM in reply to: #3468856 |
Expert 864 Village of Lakewood, Illinois | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries Goosedog - 2011-04-27 10:26 AM ride_like_u_stole_it - 2011-04-27 11:23 AM Goosedog - 2011-04-27 10:09 AM jazz82482 - 2011-04-27 10:53 AM However, pornography, in and of itself is not illegal, and therefore it is not up to the public library to bend to the moral views of a few patrons at the expense of freely available content for all of its patrons. I suggest that it would be illegal for me to set up a huge TV on my front lawn, beside a public sidewalk, and show pornography. Thoughts?
Which has exactly what to do with the question at hand? If people have a RIGHT to view pornography at a public library, do I have a RIGHT to view pornography on my front law? Does that help?
Yes, But with all the consequences that come with it. |
2011-04-27 1:19 PM in reply to: #3469031 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries jazz82482 - 2011-04-27 12:11 PM I believe that filtering the internet impinges on free speech to all of its patrons. One consequence of this is that porn would be available to those that seek it. If I were in a library and a patron were watching porn next to me, I would ask to be moved to another computer, simple as that. I don't believe in banning books, and I don't believe in filtering the internet. OK, I'm not going to quote the whole thing, so my apologies if you think this is selective. Here's what I don't understand. Do you think a patron at a library have a free speech right to view pornography? If the library doesn't provide internet access, I assume you would not believe that the patron's right to free speech has been impinged, but correct me if I'm wrong. So, assuming you agree that libraries don't have a constitutional obligation to provide internet access, how is it a violation if they only provide partial access? To be clear, I'm not talking about what you think the library should or should not do from a policy perspective. The OP dealt with the issue in terms of 1A rights. So, I'm trying to understand if people believe that viewing pornography in a public library is a constitutionally protected right.
Edited by Goosedog 2011-04-27 1:20 PM |
2011-04-27 2:07 PM in reply to: #3469396 |
Champion 5615 | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries Goosedog - 2011-04-27 2:19 PM jazz82482 - 2011-04-27 12:11 PM I believe that filtering the internet impinges on free speech to all of its patrons. One consequence of this is that porn would be available to those that seek it. If I were in a library and a patron were watching porn next to me, I would ask to be moved to another computer, simple as that. I don't believe in banning books, and I don't believe in filtering the internet. OK, I'm not going to quote the whole thing, so my apologies if you think this is selective. Here's what I don't understand. Do you think a patron at a library have a free speech right to view pornography? If the library doesn't provide internet access, I assume you would not believe that the patron's right to free speech has been impinged, but correct me if I'm wrong. So, assuming you agree that libraries don't have a constitutional obligation to provide internet access, how is it a violation if they only provide partial access? To be clear, I'm not talking about what you think the library should or should not do from a policy perspective. The OP dealt with the issue in terms of 1A rights. So, I'm trying to understand if people believe that viewing pornography in a public library is a constitutionally protected right.
Throughout this thread, there has been the consistent attempt to directly link a generalized trigger word ("pornography") to the larger argument of accessibility to explicit information. I'm going to start with the settled fact that pornography, in its general state, is constitutionally protected as free speech. Within that general state, there may be specific elements that could be classified as obscene, which are not a protected class. The test for whether material is obscene was outlined in Roth v United States (1957) as "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." When you remove the use of the term "pornography," the broader argument here becomes the accessibility of socially objectionable material in a specific venue where that objectionable material is constitutionally protected. Your question, "if people believe that viewing pornography in a public library is a constitutionally protected right," truly depends on the specific circumstances. If someone is accessing material of protected speech through a process that allows access to other material of protected speech, then yes I believe they have that right. Restricting the ability to access protected speech simply on the basis of content is censorship. However, if a specific set of facts is provided where it can be argued that the material accessed qualifies as obscene (as judged by a court), then it is not a right because the material is not protected speech.
[edited for grammar] Edited by CubeFarmGopher 2011-04-27 2:18 PM |
|
2011-04-27 2:19 PM in reply to: #3469532 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries CubeFarmGopher - 2011-04-27 3:07 PM Then how does that jibe with protections against a hostile workplace where pornography even very mild forms can be said to create a hostile environment for women in the workplace and can result in winnable sexual harassment lawsuits? Same material and though not the same it is a shared space.Goosedog - 2011-04-27 2:19 PM jazz82482 - 2011-04-27 12:11 PM I believe that filtering the internet impinges on free speech to all of its patrons. One consequence of this is that porn would be available to those that seek it. If I were in a library and a patron were watching porn next to me, I would ask to be moved to another computer, simple as that. I don't believe in banning books, and I don't believe in filtering the internet. OK, I'm not going to quote the whole thing, so my apologies if you think this is selective. Here's what I don't understand. Do you think a patron at a library have a free speech right to view pornography? If the library doesn't provide internet access, I assume you would not believe that the patron's right to free speech has been impinged, but correct me if I'm wrong. So, assuming you agree that libraries don't have a constitutional obligation to provide internet access, how is it a violation if they only provide partial access? To be clear, I'm not talking about what you think the library should or should not do from a policy perspective. The OP dealt with the issue in terms of 1A rights. So, I'm trying to understand if people believe that viewing pornography in a public library is a constitutionally protected right.
Throughout this thread, there has been the consistent attempt to directly link a generalized trigger word ("pornography") to the larger argument of accessibility to explicit information. I'm going to start with the settled fact that pornography, in its general state, is constitutionally protected as free speech. Within that general state, there may be specific elements that could be classified as obscene, which are not a protected class. The test for whether material was obscene was outlined in Roth v United States (1957) as "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." When you remove the use of the term "pornography," the broader argument here becomes the accessibility of socially objectionable material in a specific venue where that objectionable material is constitutionally protected. Your question, "if people believe that viewing pornography in a public library is a constitutionally protected right," truly depends on the specific circumstances. If someone is accessing material of protected speech through a process that allows access to other material of protected speech, then yes I believe they have that right. Restricting the ability to access protected speech simply on the basis of content is censorship. However, if a specific set of facts is provided where it can be argued that the material accessed qualifies as obscene (as judged by a court), then it is not a right because the material is not protected speech. |
2011-04-27 2:19 PM in reply to: #3469532 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries CubeFarmGopher - 2011-04-27 3:07 PM If someone is accessing material of protected speech through a process that allows access to other material of protected speech, then yes I believe they have that right. Restricting the ability to access protected speech simply on the basis of content is censorship. Excellent! Thank you for your post. Again, my apologies if you are offended by a selective quote. So, you would suggest that if a public library offers internet access, but prevents access to pornography (let's say not obscene), that would be a violation of a patron's 1A right? Is this unique to the internet? Let's say a libary has a subscription to Sports Illustrated, but chooses not to provide access to the swimsuit issue. Is that a 1A violation?
|
2011-04-27 2:23 PM in reply to: #3465122 |
MotoQueen 13195 | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries This debate is not going to be settled here. This debate has been going on for years in the library world ever since the internet became available. Because of the Child Internet Prevention Act (CIPA), libraries are able to place filters on the computers as long as there is a computer made available to an adult that has no filters on it should they desire it. The computer without a filter must be used in an area that is least likely to be viewed by children. Many libraries have put filters on their computers. No filter is able to catch all of what people find objectionable because filters are based upon words and not images. At least what is made available to libraries. If you abide by the CIPA guidelines, libraries are able to get internet access at a reduced rates. Libraries that do not abide by CIPA have to pay full price for their access. Many libraries were build before there was the internet and to put the computers and the internet into them, they are restricted by space and aren't always to put the computers in what would be the best location for them. Many libraries have restrictions on library cards that the parents can choose for their children restricting the internet access of that child. Once they turn 18 through, they are an adult and have the same filtered access as all adults. Our library system tried the privacy screens. They don't work. They only work if you try to look at the screen from an angle, the less of an angle the more you can see. Plus, the public could not stand the privacy screens and were contstantly taking them off. And it is not just the homeless trying to look up what you think is inappropriate. It is the 8 year old boy who is curious. It is the teenager who can't do it at home because his parents would know. It is the college student, and it is the businessman in his suit and tie. And yes, it is usually the males. We have yet to have an incident reported in our system of 15 branches of an female viewing what someone else considered inappropriate. My building is 5 years old. The internet computers in my branch are placed all in the adult area of the branch. I have no internet in the childrens area and the 4 childrens computers that I have are not connected to the internet. If someone were to bring in their laptop in the area, they can get on by using the wireless. I can't control the persons computer, however my wireless is set up with the same filter that is on all of my computers that do have internet access, so even with your own computer, you will have filtered access. However, with that being said, the children do not stay in the childrens area. They walk all throughout the library with or without their parents. So, no computer is absolutely safe from a childs eyes. And to the person who earlier mentioned going to the library alone as a child, many libraries now have policies regarding unattended children. Even if the parent is in the building, the child should be with the parent and not on their own. Libraries are PUBLIC buildings, which means that ANYONE can come into the building and believe me, we get them all. I am always surprised by the number of people who drop off 5 and 6 year olds and think they will be okay because it is the LIBRARY. NOTHING BAD happens in the library. HA HA HA. Bottom line - parents stay with your child in any public building. Give other people the privacy you would want to have and don't look over their shoulders to see what is on their screen. Many people are doing their banking, etc. and there is no need for you to be looking at their screen. |
2011-04-27 2:24 PM in reply to: #3469565 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries trinnas - 2011-04-27 3:19 PM Then how does that jibe with protections against a hostile workplace where pornography even very mild forms can be said to create a hostile environment for women in the workplace and can result in winnable sexual harassment lawsuits? Same material and though not the same it is a shared space. I think the workplace is just a different animal. For example, I could call you an offensive name walking down the street and it would (likely) not be illegal. If I call you the same offensive name in the workplace, then it's a hostile work environment. You're not entitled to a non-hostile environment in public places - when comparing what would constitute a hostile environment in the workplace.
|
2011-04-27 2:26 PM in reply to: #3469573 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries kns57 - 2011-04-27 3:23 PM This debate is not going to be settled here. Oh, this is where you're wrong . . . and thanks for offering your insight.
|
|
2011-04-27 2:30 PM in reply to: #3469583 |
MotoQueen 13195 | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries Goosedog - 2011-04-27 2:26 PM kns57 - 2011-04-27 3:23 PM This debate is not going to be settled here. Oh, this is where you're wrong . . . and thanks for offering your insight.
You're welcome. . . and if I were viewing your avatar in a library, there would be someone who would complain that it was inappropriate because of the undergarment that is on a childs head. |
2011-04-27 2:40 PM in reply to: #3469575 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries Goosedog - 2011-04-27 3:24 PM trinnas - 2011-04-27 3:19 PM Then how does that jibe with protections against a hostile workplace where pornography even very mild forms can be said to create a hostile environment for women in the workplace and can result in winnable sexual harassment lawsuits? Same material and though not the same it is a shared space. I think the workplace is just a different animal. For example, I could call you an offensive name walking down the street and it would (likely) not be illegal. If I call you the same offensive name in the workplace, then it's a hostile work environment. You're not entitled to a non-hostile environment in public places - when comparing what would constitute a hostile environment in the workplace.
Yes and no you did take a fairly innocuous example as many words can be considered hostile in the workplace to both men and women what about the female librarians do they not have the right to a workplace free of pornography. If a librarian complains of sexual harassment in the workplace due to pornography should they not win their case just as they would in any other place of employment? |
2011-04-27 2:47 PM in reply to: #3465597 |
Master 1862 San Mateo, CA | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries mkarr0110 - 2011-04-25 5:37 PM tjh - 2011-04-25 5:14 PM I think that just because something is "protected speech", that doesn't obligate the public library to provide access to it. I'd have no problem at all with libraries (or businesses that provide wifi to customers) blocking access to porn sites. I agree completely, I understand porn is protected but why the heck does that mean it is going to show up in our public libraries. Who wants to watch porn at the public library? It's free! I've run across a few folks watchin' their porn at the library. And no, the library did not offer a special "library porn viewing room" to shield small children. People watch their library porn right out there in front of everyone. |
2011-04-27 2:52 PM in reply to: #3469638 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries trinnas - 2011-04-27 3:40 PM If a librarian complains of sexual harassment in the workplace due to pornography should they not win their case just as they would in any other place of employment? I don't know. It may involve the nature of the employment - I'm sure there is a better way to put this. Examples: bartenders in strip clubs and cooks in Hooters. You could argue that a librarian knows that he or she may be exposed to adult material in books, internet etc. as part of their job.
Edited by Goosedog 2011-04-27 2:53 PM |
2011-04-27 3:48 PM in reply to: #3467982 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries Renee - 2011-04-26 10:20 PM TriRSquared - 2011-04-26 4:31 PM But let's face it people, IMO the only people who are going to watch porn in a library are the homeless or the mentally disturbed. Whoa. You lost me with that sharp right turn. What are you saying? I think I was quite clear. 99% of people are going to watch it in the comfort of their own homes. |
|
2011-04-27 4:31 PM in reply to: #3469638 |
Champion 5615 | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries trinnas - 2011-04-27 3:40 PM Yes and no you did take a fairly innocuous example as many words can be considered hostile in the workplace to both men and women what about the female librarians do they not have the right to a workplace free of pornography. If a librarian complains of sexual harassment in the workplace due to pornography should they not win their case just as they would in any other place of employment? From Henson v City of Dundee 1982: 1. For sexual harassment to state a claim under Title VII, it must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. Whether sexual harassment at the workplace is sufficiently severe and persistent to affect seriously the psychological well being of employees is a question to be determined with regard to the totality of the circumstances. In your hypothetical, the burden would be on the librarian to prove that the accessing of pornography by library patrons was so severe and persistent as to create an abusive working environment. 2. In addition, there would need to be a clear indication that the abuses were only directed to female librarians. Where both sexes are equally likely to be exposed to the material, "the sexual harassment would not be based upon sex because men and women are accorded like treatment. Although the plaintiff might have a remedy under state law in such a situation, the plaintiff would have no remedy under Title VII." |
2011-04-28 12:44 PM in reply to: #3466056 |
Master 1946 Memphis, TN | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries TriRSquared - 2011-04-26 7:19 AM Jtiger - 2011-04-26 8:12 AM As far as kids in libraries, their parents need to be there anyway with our without porn availability. Why? When I was 10ish my parents would drop me off at the library (at my request) and they would run a few errands while I got lost in the stacks. I was great for building independence and it fostered my love of books. Granted 2011 is a different time, but still, I let my son wander the library (I'm off in one section, he's in another).
Don't you think pedophiles know that? I'm not criticizing your parents but the library isn't a babysitter. |
2011-04-28 12:45 PM in reply to: #3466058 |
Master 1946 Memphis, TN | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries orphious - 2011-04-26 7:20 AM Well if they allow people to surf porn on computers then why not start stocking Playboy, Penthouse and what ever other smut there is in the media rack as well? Or how bout putting some xxx books on the shelves for check out while there at it? whats the differnce really?
Because viewing internet porn doesn't cost anything unlike a subscription to Juggs Magazine |
2011-04-28 1:35 PM in reply to: #3471565 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries Jtiger - 2011-04-28 1:45 PM orphious - 2011-04-26 7:20 AM Well if they allow people to surf porn on computers then why not start stocking Playboy, Penthouse and what ever other smut there is in the media rack as well? Or how bout putting some xxx books on the shelves for check out while there at it? whats the differnce really? Because viewing internet porn doesn't cost anything unlike a subscription to Juggs Magazine How is the cost a component of the Constitutional issue?
|
2011-04-28 2:04 PM in reply to: #3471561 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries Jtiger - 2011-04-28 1:44 PM TriRSquared - 2011-04-26 7:19 AM Jtiger - 2011-04-26 8:12 AM As far as kids in libraries, their parents need to be there anyway with our without porn availability. Why? When I was 10ish my parents would drop me off at the library (at my request) and they would run a few errands while I got lost in the stacks. I was great for building independence and it fostered my love of books. Granted 2011 is a different time, but still, I let my son wander the library (I'm off in one section, he's in another). Don't you think pedophiles know that? I'm not criticizing your parents but the library isn't a babysitter. There is prudent and there is overprotective. It would be hard to drag a prepared kid out of a library (by prepared I mean one who would be kicking & screaming at the top of his lungs as we was taken out of the place) |
|
2011-04-28 2:16 PM in reply to: #3471710 |
Champion 5615 | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries Goosedog - 2011-04-28 2:35 PM Jtiger - 2011-04-28 1:45 PM orphious - 2011-04-26 7:20 AM Well if they allow people to surf porn on computers then why not start stocking Playboy, Penthouse and what ever other smut there is in the media rack as well? Or how bout putting some xxx books on the shelves for check out while there at it? whats the differnce really? Because viewing internet porn doesn't cost anything unlike a subscription to Juggs Magazine How is the cost a component of the Constitutional issue?
Cost is not being raised as a Constitutional issue but rather as why other material does not exist in the library. The reason for absence is not a question of whether they CAN be in the library but is the library able to justify the cost. The catalyst for the Constitutional issue was the availability of online free speech content of a socially objectionable nature at no additional cost from what is otherwise provided. |
2011-04-28 2:20 PM in reply to: #3471859 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries CubeFarmGopher - 2011-04-28 3:16 PM Cost is not being raised as a Constitutional issue but rather as why other material does not exist in the library. The reason for absence is not a question of whether they CAN be in the library but is the library able to justify the cost. The catalyst for the Constitutional issue was the availability of online free speech content of a socially objectionable nature at no additional cost from what is otherwise provided. Are you telling me that Juggs Magazine isn't in the public library because it's a cost issue to the exclusion of other considerations? I'll disagree with you there. Regardless, I apologize if I missed it, but what are your thoughts on my previous question about the library having a subscription to SI but choosing not to stock the swimsuit issue? Does that violate my right to free speech?
Edited by Goosedog 2011-04-28 2:21 PM |
2011-04-28 2:37 PM in reply to: #3465122 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries The unfiltered internet comes with porn included, you don't pay extra for it. On the other hand, if you want the internet without porn, that's where things get tricky. In the case of Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue, different libraries handle it differently, as far as I know, most just put it out like any regular issue (and expect it to get stolen). If a library wanted to restrict access to that particular issue, it could. The same way many public libraries control access to porn. Libraries have all sorts of material in them that might not be appropriate for exposure in public places. I doubt if a sex scene from a Jackie Collins would be appropriate for reading out out in on a city bus, or really even in the library itself. The material is still protected speech, regardless of the appropriateness of the venue in which it's accessed. What's legal and what's a good idea often diverge. |
2011-04-28 2:46 PM in reply to: #3471925 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Porn is Free Speech at Public Libraries ride_like_u_stole_it - 2011-04-28 3:37 PM The unfiltered internet comes with porn included, you don't pay extra for it. On the other hand, if you want the internet without porn, that's where things get tricky. In the case of Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue, different libraries handle it differently, as far as I know, most just put it out like any regular issue (and expect it to get stolen). If a library wanted to restrict access to that particular issue, it could. The same way many public libraries control access to porn. Libraries have all sorts of material in them that might not be appropriate for exposure in public places. I doubt if a sex scene from a Jackie Collins would be appropriate for reading out out in on a city bus, or really even in the library itself. The material is still protected speech, regardless of the appropriateness of the venue in which it's accessed. What's legal and what's a good idea often diverge. Thanks for your response. If the library can restrict access to the one issue of SI, that has been paid for, I am having a hard time understanding an argument that a library could violate a patron's 1A rights by restricting access on the internet using filters.
|
|