Censorial
 

Evidently, I can look at it at my public library too; albeit when they are open.:neutral:

I wouldn't say censorship has "nothing" to do with the issue. If my library removed Huck Finn from the shelves because it had the "N" word, wouldn't that be censorship. How is that different than putting filtering software on their internets computers?

Which got me thinking. I think they DO use filtering software; that's why that guy was getting his porn pics through e-mail rather than going to an actual porn site. Pretty smart.:neutral:

Unless you're reading out loud, others do not usually "accidentally" get a peek at the page. A computer screen is notably more obtrusive.

I agree with the "porn at home" folks More power to ya! :) What the hell do we need people jacking off at the public library for? Following your logic...making people wear clothing in public is censorship. Hey, maybe we're on to something here.

Geez
 

Really, folks, I'm just asking the question. Should or should not library patrons be allowed to look at what is deemed by the Chief Librarian as "porn" on their public internet terminals?

I hear a resounding "No" from many of you, but I don't see libraries really doing anything about it.

Maybe that's how they do it; they wait for a complaint from the "No" camp of library patrons and then tell the person "Please desist.":neutral:

I'm not saying "no." I'm conflicted.

I'm against censorship in libraries, but I also don't want to be seeing that. It's a sticky* situation.


*:sadsperm:

Conflictions
 

I'm conflicted too.

Where I went to college, we had this big library that had aisles that overlooked a big study area, kinda like a big atrium. One year we had this mad masterbator dude who would go up to the edge of the aisle, choose an unfortunate female student, and start whacking away until...

:sadsperm: :sadsperm: :sadsperm: :sadsperm: :sadsperm: :sadsperm: :sadsperm: :sadsperm: :sadsperm: :sadsperm: :sadsperm:

And then it would fall, hurtling through space to land on the desk, notebook, or hair of the ill-fated student. I can't even imagine the feeling of the latter, looking up to see the grinning Onanist dash off; and he made sure to let the victims of his splooge attacks see him. After the third time they caught him.:neutral:

That's assault.

Viewing pornographic material in a place where others are subject to it without their consent, is assault.

I don't see the correlation between assault and censorship.

BTW, what's up with the "geez"? I thought we WERE having a conversation about this topic.

OK then...no, people should not be allowed to gratify their sexual needs in a public library. I don't want to see their porn. I don't want to see them screwing their wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, husband...whatever. I don't want to be subjected to their privates. I don't need their spooge in places I can come into contact with it. Shall I go on?

Finally
 

Thanks Shawnee. That's what I was looking for; a definitive statement.

But would you allow a patron to look at, say, pictures of famous 19th-Century French nude paintings? In other words, is it the images or the intent of the viewer (sexual gratification) that is more important? If I were doing a research paper on pornography in libraries in a library, would my viewing of the same still be "assault?":neutral:

You make an interesting point. Though I think I know the difference between smut and art (and I have high respect for both), my art may be another's smut. My smut may be high art to some.

I could say that we could draw the line and say a 19th century nude painting doesn't have people sweating, grunting, saying "give it to me baby...harder, you $#@#$ why don't you @#%$# me in the &*%$ you $#@#$. OHHHHHHH YEAHHHHHHHHHHH."

But again, I am assuming that those things wouldn't be art to anyone.

Rats, now I'm boggled.:)

One time I saw this kid in a public library, breathing really hard and obviously very worked up and excited, looking at...

...

...pictures of fires in a firefighting magazine.

True story, and I could not be more creeped out, but what're ya gonna do?

Should they take the Glamours off the shelves when George Costanza walks in?

Why don't you %$#@!!!!
 

:biglaugha

:biglaugha

I usually use only the neutral emoticon, but you guys cracked me up.

Thanks.

Oh. BTW, Shawnee, what is &*%$ ?

You couldn't view that kind of material with the library system back home

from here

According to the policy, the reason for this is the CIPA and NICA
No porn for you!

I wonder if that excuse'll fly with the school?

Ridiculous
 

Good sleuthing, bbro. So now we see the legal roots for banning porn in public libraries.

But after reading that, I am more convinced than ever that the whole notion of "protecting" kids from "indecency" in a library is ridiculous. Think of it; a LIBRARY! A place filled with books and magazines describing and illustrating all of the world's indecencies. Who judges what's "obscene?" What about the covers of magazines like Cosmo or a Time cover with W. on it? Now THAT'S obscene.

I grew up in a town that had one of the first comprehensive recycling centers in the nation. On Sundays, me and my friend Stuart would enter the closed facility through the woods on the back side and head toward the big green dumpsters labeled MAGAZINES. And when it came to finding good porn, my friend Stuart had the "green" thumb for sure. I always found some Playboys, but he could plunge his hand through copies of Redbook, Good Housekeeping, and Cat Fancy, and come up with a Penthouse or a Hustler. It was like magic.

And look at me today? Was I "harmed" by those magazines? Uhhhh.....I better not answer that one...:redface: