(Note that the above headline is from the print edition–KSH).
On a recent morning at the main public library here [in San Francisco], dozens of people sat and stood at computers, searching job-hunting sites, playing games, watching music videos. And some looked at naked pictures of men and women in full view of passers-by.
The library has been stung by complaints about the content, including explicit pornography, that some people watch in front of others. To address the issue, the library over the last six weeks has installed 18 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.
In general I agree that libraries should be very careful about going down the censorship road. But there are common sense exceptions. For one thing laws in most states prohibit sexually explicit material from being displayed in the presence of minors. Thus minors are not allowed in so called “adult” stores or porn theaters. In every book store I have ever been in any “adult” material was either kept under wrap or was placed somewhere where kids could not get to it. I have seen some book shops with areas that were segregated from the rest of the store with signs saying “18+ Only.”
If a library is gong to allow these perverts to use public computers to get their jollies then minors should be barred from that area of the library.
Excellent point, AO.
Will it still be considered an issue of “privacy” if the perverts in question begin taking “actions” in accord with their chosen viewing matter?
Perhaps the library should just go all the way (no pun originally intended) and construct enclosed “privacy carrels” for the use of “adult” “patrons”.
(I apologize for the abuse of “scare quotes”. Please rest assured that no quotes were harmed in the production of this missive. 😉 )
I submitted the following comment online at the NY Times site but I do not think it was allowed:
Library security screens only work to allow libraries to fool the public into thinking they are protecting First Amendment freedoms when instead they are denying legal rights to citizens to keep porn out of libraries.
The San Francisco libraries must rely on San Francisco people forgetting “Porn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation,” KGO, 29 Nov 2006, “[T]he Martin Luther King Library has a problem with pornography. They have no rule against viewing photographs or full-screen sex videos from Internet sites, even with children nearby. Chief librarian Jane Light says it’s a matter of free speech. …. ABC7’s Dan Noyes: ‘I’ve seen the [privacy] screens and I see how they work and the stuff is visible from behind. You can see everything.’ Jane Light…: ‘So you can avert your eyes.’ …. San Jose’s police blotter over the past year lists several arrests for child porn at the library, at least ten cases of child molestation or other sex crimes involving kids and several cases of men viewing porn and performing a lewd act, right at the terminal. …. Sgt. John Laws, San Jose library police: ‘It showed him sitting at the computer terminal and … masturbating.’ …. Marcia Stacke, Child Quest International: ‘You know, sometimes I wonder if we’re just too afraid to be, I don’t know, sued in this country. We’ve got to step out and protect our kids. Enough is enough.'” http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=4808374
Avert your eyes. There’s the solution. Great, right? Even the NY Times author mentions it.
But the NY TImes author plays along with the game by calling it “censorship” to keep pornographic images out of public libraries. That is factually and legally false. US v. American Library Association [ALA] says, ” public libraries’ use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons’ First Amendment rights….” http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html
“Christi Chidester, 32, who works in communications for a federal agency in San Francisco, was in the main library here recently when she walked past someone watching hard-core pornography. She complained to the librarian and was told there was nothing that could be done.” That is plain false. The library is intentionally lying. There are both technologically sound and legally sound means for keeping pornography out of public libraries. Anyone saying otherwise is using dogma. Dean Marney is a library director who has exposed the ALA’s dogma: http://tinyurl.com/ALADogma And Ernest Istook is the author of the Children’s Internet Protection Act who says the ALA intentionally misleads a third of American communities: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/02/cipa-author-exposes-ala-deception.html
Cities have the right and duty to stop libraries from acting outside the law, and there’s no law allowing Internet porn on computers in public libraries. Contact me if anyone would like assistance in bringing suit against governments for dereliction of duty, or help with any issue related to libraries allowing porn.
Dan Kleinman http://tinyurl.com/AboutDan