Go 
|
New 
|
Find 
|
Notify 
|
|
Reply 
|
|
Admin 
|
New PM! 
|

Registered: March 08, 2004
Posts: 1686
|
I have no idea where to put this topic, but it's become political so I guess I'll put it here.
Several months ago, a man was caught looking at porn in one of Tucson's public libraries. Library staff decided to monitor their computers more, and they discovered that -- gasp -- people occasionally use the library computers to access porn.
Now there's a citywide debate raging. Internet filters are already installed on the childrens' computers, but the county supervisor (as well as a good two-thirds of the city, it looks like) wants to put filters on all library computers to prevent access to pornography. They claim, and probably rightfully so, that it's only a matter of time until a kid walks by and sees porn over an adult's shoulder.
Most of the opposition to the filters seems to believe we shouldn't be installing filters on library computers, period. They say that the library is supposed to be a place of free access to all publicly known information, and that for the sake of making sure that standard is upheld we have to define "information" as broadly as possible. The opposition has also brought up the slippery slope argument: if we don't allow access to pornographic websites at the library because we believe they are distateful, what's to stop us from banning other websites that the majority of the public believes is distateful?
One compromise that has been brought up that seems reasonable to me is to move the adult computers into their own room. Most of the city's libraries would have the space to do it. Unfortunately, most of the city, especially the pro-filter people, don't like this compromise at all.
I'm planning on writing an editorial for the local paper about this issue, but first I'd be interested in getting all your opinions. All I ask is that you keep in mind that this issue is a lot more complex than your personal feelings on pornography.
|

Registered: August 09, 2006
Posts: 1074
|
sry dbl post
The original draft of The Lord of the Rings featured Chuck Norris instead of Frodo Baggins. It was only 5 pages long, as Chuck roundhouse-kicked Sauron's ass halfway through the first chapter.
|

Registered: August 09, 2006
Posts: 1074
|
quote: Originally posted by Hydrok: Wow... if you stick around after tonight your going to be my all time favorite punching bag... I like porn as much as the next guy... but what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?
To be perfectly honest...no i do not know what i am talking about half the time. 80% of what comes out of my mouth is a "Star Wars" quote 10% is from either "Indiana Jones" or a Kevin Smith movie and the rest is...well lets just say original!
The original draft of The Lord of the Rings featured Chuck Norris instead of Frodo Baggins. It was only 5 pages long, as Chuck roundhouse-kicked Sauron's ass halfway through the first chapter.
|

Registered: August 14, 2004
Posts: 3132
|
Wow... if you stick around after tonight your going to be my all time favorite punching bag... I like porn as much as the next guy... but what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?
"So others may die" - USAF Intel Targeteer Motto (607th AIS)
|

Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6058
|
Filtering is censorship, which is an unnecessary evil. That's all that need be said.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|

Registered: July 14, 2006
Posts: 1
|
I think that they should filter the computers. They need computers in the library, it's a way to obtain information and there are sites that the librarians can give you that are extremely helpful when doing research. yes, i could look up the site at home, but i would have no idea it was there if not for the librarian, and if there weren't computers in the library she wouldn't have that information either. that said, i think that the library is a public place; therefore it should be safe for all ages. that's a pretty bad world when you have to worry about your kids at the library seeing something inappropriate. i do not think that if a kid wants to "experience sex" you should let him. it's human nature to want it, but he must wait. he needs to learn the consequences. think about all the STD's out there? what of we had little third graders running around w/ aids, b/c they are sleeping around. looking at porn is not "experiencing sex" sex is what happens b/t a man and a woman. looking at porn is filling your mind w/ thoughts and maybe it works for your sexual desire, but it's not the real thing, it won't be the same. if some guy or girl wants to fill his or her mind w/ all of that....i whole heartedly disagree w/ them and think they need help, but if they are going to do it, i don't want them using the tax money. i will one day have to pay taxes, and idk about you, but i don't want my money to go to helping some kid look at nasty pictures on the internet, he should just wait and get married, then all of his nasty pictures won't be needed. he will have a wife whom will fill his desire. AND i DO BELIEVE you SHOULD SAVE sex for MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|

Registered: July 24, 2006
Posts: 1320
|
i don't thing that there should be filters, but i also don't think that kids should have access to porn.
Please save this for me. I'll come back for you, love, I promise to.--Ludo
|

Registered: January 16, 2004
Posts: 3993
|
There is a HUGE sexuality/porn collection at Cornell. It takes up one room. That and books written in Icelandic.
L'enfer, c'est les autres. -Jean-Paul Sartre
|

Registered: December 11, 2003
Posts: 9501
|
Actually, you can get a book at a library that extreme. He's called Marquis de Sade and is a pretty famous author. Filters screwed up my internet, when I had a filter at my computer. It blocked out religious sites and sites that weren't porn. Like Aguagon said, they can't masturbate at the library. And I'm sure that's illegal.
"Regardless, I have always, and will always, succeed."
|

Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6058
|
Filters in a library? Might as well start censoring the books as well. I agree with Aguagon that the library is a place for free access to information. Some people don't have computers (or Internet access) in their own homes, and while it's not necessarily a good habit to be fixated on porn, it's completely within their rights. Indeed, a kid could just walk by and see some guy viewing pictures of shemale bondage. The kid could just as easily pick up a book about how to have sex with your dog. Well, maybe not quite that extreme, but I've found some interesting stuff in public libraries. Not my local library, though. They're too conservative to have anything more explicit than knitting. In any case, I think the best solution would be to have some form of isolating the adult computers to ensure that underage kids don't witness any "unwanted" material. Porn is not the best thing to be accessing in a library, but it's completely legal to do so. Filters are censorship for the Internet. And I think everyone knows that censorship is a bad thing. No filters.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|

Registered: March 08, 2004
Posts: 1686
|
I see your points, but I've taken a different attitude towards pornography than most people. I'm actually of the opinion that if a child wants to see what sex looks like, he shouldn't be stopped from satisfying his curiosity. If he's too young to understand what he's seeing in a proper context, then I believe he's too young to be warped by it. But that's another topic entirely.
One thing I hold very dear about the library is that it's a place where I can feel comfortable doing research on literally any topic without having my motives called into question. I like being able to view the KKK's website for research purposes, I like being able to look up the specifics on how to make explosives for fictional stories, etc. As bad an argument as it sounds, you never quite know why someone is looking at porn (after all, it's not like they can masturbate to it in the library).
Another big concern is that these filters might cut off access to sex-related web sites, such as sexual practice and education sites/blogs that might come with a couple pictures some people would find inappropriate. Besides, anybody who's ever had WebSense installed in their school computer lab knows how shoddy most filtering software can be (I still remember being able to access Homestar Runner but not Fox News).
Anyway, if you can't tell by now, I'm in the camp that believes filtering the Internet in a library is categorically bad. Maybe it's just reached a point where I'm a little too comfortable around porn.
|

Registered: July 14, 2006
Posts: 3
|
Personally, I think that they should still put filters on the computers - not just because it's unsafe for kids (the compromise seems to fix that well enough), but because that's not really the purpose of the library. To me, it seems like a waste of good library computers - there are other people who want to use the computers too, for somewhat more... library-related reasons. If people really want to look at porn, they should do so in their own home.
|

Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 3802
|
I think that putting filters on computers makes since. There are lots of kids in the adult section of the libraby. It would be very easy for a kid to see what is on a computer. And as to the idea of putting them in a different room, that wouldn't work either. I use the computers in the adult library all the time. The computers in the kids library are always full of little kids playing computer games. Bottom line- It's a public library. It should be a place where eveyone is comfortable. Put filters on the computers.
It must be lovely to wake up in the morning and understand everything.
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|