ACLU sues library for not allowing access to internet porn

[punisher733]

Gotta love this one!

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ibrary-for-not-allowing-access-to-online-porn

 

[MA-Caver]

Hey ACLU! The PUBLIC Library is just that... PUBLIC... children wander around libraries and don't need to see that on some person's screen... Porn sites also hosts viruses 90% of the time so unless the ACLU wants to pay for the library's installment of anti-viruses and the like, don't be calling it censorshit. <no that is NOT a typo>
If someone wants to lookit porn then let them do it in the privacy of their own home and if they don't have a home then get a job!

Who the hell is running the ACLU now-a-days anyway? Geez there are alot more important civil rights violations going on than just a PUBLIC library's desire to maintain the focus of a library... education and enlightenment. Next thing you know we'll be seeing a porn section in the library shelves.

 

[Empty Hands]

The American Library Association is also opposed to the use of content-filtering software in libraries. Nevermind, I'm sure it's just those weirdo hippies in the ACLU for this.

You are also being played. The linked article goes on and on about porn. However, the article they link to for evidence of their story isn't about porn, and in fact the ACLU spokesperson does not mention porn in their remarks or their argument. Here is what they did say: &#8220;This case is about an overly broad filtering policy that has restricted an adult student from using the Internet for a class assignment and a professional photographer from accessing art galleries online,&#8221; said ACLU cooperating attorney Duncan Manville of Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP. &#8220;The library&#8217;s policy prevents adult patrons from accessing inoffensive speech that everyone &#8211; including the library &#8211; agrees is constitutionally protected for adults.&#8221;

That article also mentions that the following sites are blocked:
"&#8226; the website of an organization encouraging individuals to commit random acts of kindness (www.kindnessusa.org)
&#8226; the Seattle Women&#8217;s Jazz Orchestra website
&#8226; the website of an organization encouraging women to carry to term by creating &#8220;a supportive environment for women in crisis situations to be introduced to the love of Christ&#8221; (www.acceptpregnancy.org)
&#8226; YouTube"

The library also refuses to unblock even these innocuous websites for adult users.

Do just a modicum of research, please. I know the ACLU has long been hated, but that's no excuse for ignoring the facts. The author of the first linked article also ought to be ashamed, they have blatantly mislead their readers that this is about "porn" in order to sway opinions to fit their bias. Bad journalism.

 

[granfire]

The American Library Association is also opposed to the use of content-filtering software in libraries. Nevermind, I'm sure it's just those weirdo hippies in the ACLU for this.

You are also being played. The linked article goes on and on about porn. However, the article they link to for evidence of their story isn't about porn, and in fact the ACLU spokesperson does not mention porn in their remarks or their argument. Here is what they did say: &#8220;This case is about an overly broad filtering policy that has restricted an adult student from using the Internet for a class assignment and a professional photographer from accessing art galleries online,&#8221; said ACLU cooperating attorney Duncan Manville of Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP. &#8220;The library&#8217;s policy prevents adult patrons from accessing inoffensive speech that everyone &#8211; including the library &#8211; agrees is constitutionally protected for adults.&#8221;

That article also mentions that the following sites are blocked:
"&#8226; the website of an organization encouraging individuals to commit random acts of kindness (www.kindnessusa.org)
&#8226; the Seattle Women&#8217;s Jazz Orchestra website
&#8226; the website of an organization encouraging women to carry to term by creating &#8220;a supportive environment for women in crisis situations to be introduced to the love of Christ&#8221; (www.acceptpregnancy.org)
&#8226; YouTube"

The library also refuses to unblock even these innocuous websites for adult users.

Do just a modicum of research, please. I know the ACLU has long been hated, but that's no excuse for ignoring the facts. The author of the first linked article also ought to be ashamed, they have blatantly mislead their readers that this is about "porn" in order to sway opinions to fit their bias. Bad journalism.

Bah HUMBUG, who needs kindness and encouraging environments, Jazz is yuck and youtube is the devil!



:lfao:

jotting down the sites, when i go to the library I see if we got them blocked (though I am amazed sometimes, I thought our bible belt institutions to be more restrictive than they actually are)

 

[Tez3]

True enough there is nothing in the ACLU statement about porn. From what I read it seems the libraries have a filter than ensures that the content is suitable for children only, this stops adults looking at many sites that are not considered suitable for children are are fine for adults. there's probably quite a lot of stuff you don't want children to see or read about but which are fine for adults and are as far removed from porn as you can get. The ACLU are asking for libraries to temporarily unlock the computers when an adult wants to research something, sounds reasonable to me.

 

[ballen0351]

Apparently you can already watch Porn in the Library:

For example, despite repeated complaints from women about men watching porn in full view of their children, the Seattle Public Library held fast to its policy of unrestricted online access for adults, according to the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

"Sometimes, in a library, you're going to see information that's going to make you uncomfortable," Barbara Jones, director of the association's intellectual freedom office, told radio station KUOW Wednesday.

 

[Big Don]

anyone who is surprised by this is too stupid to live

 

[Sukerkin]

As Tez noted above, it seems like one of those occasions where the 'headline' is not really indicative of the 'story'. Even the BBC is guilty of this, to the extent, sometimes, that the details of the story show the opposite of what the headline implied.

 

[Tez3]

It's probably quite a mundane story to the journalists, legal things while important are often very dry so to spice it up a bit and add a bit of political twist to the story they've added 'porn' to the title.
it may be a technical issue, I know nothing about computers so is it possible for a librarian to switch a block on and off computers in the library as people want to use them or is it a block put on at a central site going out to all libraries which can't be switched on and off like that? It seems unfair that responsible adults can't use the computers for legitimate purposes in some places while others are having to put up with people watching porn in others. A happy meduim should be found surely.

 

[ballen0351]

Not really. They would never specifically list porn in the law suit they would get no public support so they use broad and general statements and find silly examples knowing no internet filter is perfect. But reading the staements of one of the plaintiff In the case you can pretty much tell porn is one thing they are interested in.

As Tez noted above, it seems like one of those occasions where the 'headline' is not really indicative of the 'story'. Even the BBC is guilty of this, to the extent, sometimes, that the details of the story show the opposite of what the headline implied.

 

[Tez3]

Not really. They would never specifically list porn in the law suit they would get no public support so they use broad and general statements and find silly examples knowing no internet filter is perfect. But reading the staements of one of the plaintiff In the case you can pretty much tell porn is one thing they are interested in.

I've just clicked on the OP's link again and this is all I could find so which one is the one looking for porn?

"The ACLU suit was brought in 2006 &#8220;on behalf of a college student who was prevented from researching for a paper on youth tobacco use, an artist who couldn't look at sites of art galleries and artwork, a political group whose publication &#8216;Women and Guns&#8217; was blocked, and a man who wanted to update his MySpace page,&#8221; the nonprofit advocacy group said in a statement."

 

[ballen0351]

The intellectual freedom office. Again they don't come out and say they want porn. But when the topic was asked the driector said well sometimes we see things that make others incomfortable. Nobody will ever come out and say they want porn they would get killed in the media. But they are ok with guys watching porn in the library around kids. just what I want to see some fat nasty pervert with an erection looking at porn as kids walk by.
They are asking for zero filters on the computers. I don't agree with that. They may need to adjust the filters to make them less sensitive to some sites but I don't know how all that works im don't know alot about computers.

I've just clicked on the OP's link again and this is all I could find so which one is the one looking for porn?

"The ACLU suit was brought in 2006 &#8220;on behalf of a college student who was prevented from researching for a paper on youth tobacco use, an artist who couldn't look at sites of art galleries and artwork, a political group whose publication &#8216;Women and Guns&#8217; was blocked, and a man who wanted to update his MySpace page,&#8221; the nonprofit advocacy group said in a statement."

 

[Sukerkin]

"Editor&#8217;s note: An earlier version of this post said the American Civil Liberties Union had sued the North Central Regional Library district, based in Wenatchee, Wash., for not offering access to online pornography. The ACLU says that its case was not about pornography but was aimed at overly broad Internet filters that blocked access to legitimate research and political activity."

 

[Tez3]

However I imagine there's things that people would find uncomfortable to see but that wouldn't necessarily mean porn, I imagine those who believe in the Creationist theory would be uncomfortable with a good many science sites and probably vice versa. I would be uncomfortable with the sites that advocate converting people from my religion to theirs. Uncomfortable isn't always what we think, a good many people are made uncomfortable by photographs of disabled people and injured service people. Some may be made uncomfortable by medical sites, ie a site about breast cancer could well have photos of breast or perhaps more uncomfortably after breast removal and breast reconstruction something I think women seeking information should see. Like men looking for info on testicular cancer etc. Look online at three of our newspapers and you will see topless women. Look at a couple of our mens magazines which are not porn but will still carry photos of topless women. I think whatever you have online someone will find offensive.


I think the link in the OP has changed, the story now is about the Seattle library and porn rather than the court case.

 

[granfire]

Around here a nipple showing pretty much constitutes porn.

but here is my question: Watching porn in a public library, does that not sort of defeat the purpose? I mean...you know.....

 

[Sukerkin]

Good to see that the article writers are following up and revising tho' the image is now in the readers brains anyhow so the issue of freedom of public access to information will be drowned in the clamour to not let kiddies see porn in the library.

The two don't have to go together. It is perfectly possible to filter pornography (of any sort, whether it be sexual based video content or gore-fest violence) without having to deny access to other sites of interest. There are some kinds of art based content that might be harder to filter properly but that's why you have staff to help out on request - after all, there's a world of difference between researching Botticelli and wanting to go to "Bare Naked Ladies dot com".

For the record, no, I don't think that being able to watch pornography in a public library is appropriate. What people want to watch in private is their own business and our own senses of propriety should be able to draw the line between what is acceptable where.

 

[ballen0351]

Around here a nipple showing pretty much constitutes porn.

but here is my question: Watching porn in a public library, does that not sort of defeat the purpose? I mean...you know.....

If you were say a child predator its perfect. You can watch porn and little kids at the same time. Its a win win for them.

 

[granfire]

But adult porn does not turn them on...the JC Penny catalog does more for them...


Not to mention that -at least around here - kiddies are segregated.
And though there are plenty of useless parents trying to dumb their kids (illegally) at the library...what parent would let their kid near a person watching porn...

No, don't answer that, I know, plenty enough.

 

[ballen0351]

But adult porn does not turn them on...the JC Penny catalog does more for them...

Adult porn and kids together turn them on. That's one of the ways they operate. Showing kids porn. Watching porn with kids. Not all are like that but there many. Sadly far too many.

 

[ballen0351]

All that's really not the main reason to be against it. Im ok with changing the filter to allow access to more sites but I don't want people watching porn at the library.