Focus on the Family Praises Supreme Court Library Porn Decision

When I read this this morning, it said that the Anti Christian Legal Union (ACLU) was strongly opposed to the Supreme Court's decision (what a surprise ). They think some pervert should have the right to view porn in plain view of everyone else in the library, but let a library hang the Ten Commandments on the wall and see how they react .

 

I sorta support the decision (and I give money to the ACLU, go figure ). It does not state that patrons can't view porn in the library, as it is explicitly mentioned that a patron can request the filter be turned off. And there's really little worry about ipso facto restriction, since there are myriad reasons a patron could need to request the filter be turned off, not just to view porn.

It seems like the justices had to convolute it a bit, but it wasn't an altogether terrible ruling.

 

I used to work in a public, university library. It was my job at nights to make rounds and make sure things were all set. Nothing was better than finding an middle aged man with his pants down in front of the computer screen. I kid you not. Then I was supposed to ask him to stop. (because the computers were not for internet "surfing" only catalogs and the like. Honestly, common sense people! libraries are for books and education, not porn.

 

I agree with Kelly on this too..

I think that parents should be able to drop off their kids to study at the library without a perv accosting them or having them "explore" porn sites. However, adults can request the filters to be turned off...the best example I have heard is that one doing research on Breast Cancer will find legitimate sites blocked by filters because of the word "breast".

That same filter might block the Tyson's Chicken or KFC website too.

 

Serious question, LAWC - should we remove all fiction from libraries? I thought libraries were about media (books, movies, periodicals . . . ), some of it purely academic, some of it for entertainment.

 

fiction and entertainment can also be eductational. In a university library, most work was educational - 90%.

I do realize this issue is not about university libraries, but on a whole about any public library, which in fact does have more material for the average person - fiction, movies ect.

on another note, we had playboy on reserve. i was fine with that, because one can read playboy without exposing others. (though most men walked straight to the bathroom...) Computer screens display to more than the reader. I think patrons should have a right not to be exposed to pornography (which is prohibited by law to minors).

 

stubbornkelly, that is a quite large red herring you just laid out there.


Russ <><

 

Of course I disagree.

It's hardly a red herring; it's a suggestion that the proposal that books and education are the sole purposes of libraries be reexamined.

Porn is a form of entertainment for many people, as I'm sure we all know, as are many novels that can only be categorized as fluff. Such fluff novels provide nothing more than a way to pass a few hours, yet they are contained in libraries. I could go right now and pick up a copy of Confessions of a Shopaholic with no problems, and that particularly book can't be said to be anything but fluff entertainment. Now, am I saying that Nina Hartley's website is the same as Sophie Kinsella's book? No, not at all. But, they both exist solely for entertainment purposes. Actually, you might say that Nina Hartley's site is a bit more educational.

My point is just that if we're going to say what the purpose of a library is and include in that definition articles produced solely for entertainment, it makes no logical sense to disinclude some porn from that categorization.

Now, if we want to be lofty and say that libraries only exist for serious literary work (in addition to academic works), I daresay much, if not most, of the fiction should be removed.

LAWC, thanks for your clarification. You clearly had few problems with the Playboy being available, so it would seem your argument really isn't about libraries being no place for porn. It seems to be the "out in the open" bit you have problems with. Would that be correct?

 

The thing is that a guy would hardly have to have his "pants down" when a discreet unzippering and a jacket artfully draped could allow for simple masturbation (no, I am not recommending this to anyone and yes, that would still be gross). It sounds as if he were a bit disturbed and not an ordinary library patron. Someone exposing himself to that degree would probably do so porn or no.

The reason to have the filtering turned off is that legitimately educational web-sites are all too often disallowed by imperfect software. Breast cancer info is the one most often given as an example.