Gays and Public Libraries

[Rasmus]

Librarians do work for libraries (hence the name). If they become aware of sites that might be considered objectionable, then yes, they should look at them and decide whether or not they should be filtered.

What criteria should be used to make that kind of decision?

Should what can and cannot be viewed in anyone library depend on who is responsible for the computers?

It's too bad they don't have software that identifies sites that are 18+ and filters them, though. It'd be a useful tool for libraries to use to filter porn. Someone should create such a program. I dunno, call it something like, Net Nanny or something.

Neat. I am sure this follow just after the rise of true AI, too.

Silly idea, I know.

It is indeed a silly idea. Even if it wasn't there is still no reason to think that banning sites would be a good idea.

Here's just one more reason why:

In Germany, it is indeed illegal to supply certain images to anyone aged less than 18. Naturally, it is the site owners' responsibility to assure that proper age verification is in place - hence there would be no need to use any 3rd party software.

So, if there would be any sites that free access was illegal to in a libraries jurisdiction it stands to reason that they wouldn't require any filters, either.

 

[Marc L]

Marc L:

WHY should something be filtered?

I am not asking WHAT should be filtered, I just want to know WHY you'd want to filter something?

I mean, can't reasonable people decide for themselves, what they are and aren't going to look at??? As far as kids go, don't you think that the 'parent' should get to decide what their kids look at or read???

I am in favor of freedom, not censorship.

Maybe you could change my mind.

I agree with you to a large extent. If parents feel their kids are mature enough to view porn (since that's the biggest issue I've seen so far), then by all means, they should be allowed to do so-at home.

A library is a public place. Personally, I don't feel anybody should be using public computers to view or download porn, not just kids. I view the issue in much the same way as a workplace. Pretend I'm a dirty old man, who is racist, homophobic and rabidly anti-religion.

Under the First Amendment, I have the right to express all of that. I can view dirty pictures of my wife, or anyone else for that matter, call for the extermination of gays, blacks, Jews, you name it. That is my right. At home, or in a place where everyone agrees with my views.

I can't, however, go to work, put up dirty pictures of my wife in my cubicle, tell people that gays are all going to hell, and call all the black employees the "N" word.

Why? Because people who disagree with these views have to work there as well. No, it's not acceptable to say, "Well, they can go work somewhere else" (finding a new job is not as easy as some people think). Because of this, I agree to keep my views to myself in the workplace. It enables others to work there in peace.

A library is the same way. Other people use the library, and have as much right to be there as I do. Some of them don't wish to view pornography or racist slogans as they go about their business. Because not everyone is as reasonable as I am about keeping their views to themselves (or may not realize that everyone doesn't agree with them), the library has the responsibility to say, "There are certain things we will not allow to be expressed out loud (or placed in obvious view) that might offend other patrons."

This doesn't mean that these books shouldn't be made available. Mein Kampf has as much right to a library bookshelf as Green Eggs and Ham. A person checking that book out, or even reading it in the library does so in the privacy of his or her own mind. Other people are not affected by it.

It isn't about censorship to filter things in a public forum. It's about respect. I wouldn't want to go to a public library and have a preacher sounding off about how I'm going to hell, any more than he would want me sounding off about how God is imaginary. And yet we both have the right to check out the Bible or The God Delusion if we so choose.

Marc

 

[Marc L]

What criteria should be used to make that kind of decision?

Tough question. Certainly, as I said in my above post, racism and pornography should be filtered (in my opinion). I don't feel that a library is an appropriate place to put those things in the limelight (as opposed to making them available on bookshelves, where people can check them out and view them in the privacy of their own minds).

Of course, what you're really asking (I suspect) is what constitutes things like "racist", "porn", "homophobic", etc. Some things are obvious. Sites that say, "You must be 18 or over" are fairly obvious. The Kill All the Jews Official Website* is also obvious. I could say, filter out sites that contain the words "n*gger" or "k*ke", but then you run the risk of filtering out sites that use those words, but aren't spreading a racist message.**

Should what can and cannot be viewed in anyone library depend on who is responsible for the computers?

Responsible in what sense? The maintenace person? No. The Reference Librarian?*** Probably not.

Ultimately, I'd say the library would have to appoint someone or a group of people to decide what needed to be filtered. Some things would be easy. Others would require further research. I'm not saying it'd be an easy task overall, though.

Marc


*I have no idea whether or not such a site really exists. I just made the name up.

** For instance, this post. While I didn't spell the words exactly, I still use them. Since I'm talking about filtering, as opposed to being racist, this post wouldn't be considered a racist post, but would still be blocked by such a filter.

***That's where the computers are located in my local library.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree with you to a large extent. If parents feel their kids are mature enough to view porn (since that's the biggest issue I've seen so far), then by all means, they should be allowed to do so-at home.

A library is a public place. Personally, I don't feel anybody should be using public computers to view or download porn, not just kids. I view the issue in much the same way as a workplace. Pretend I'm a dirty old man, who is racist, homophobic and rabidly anti-religion.

There is a difference your employer is paying you and you aree to meet certain requirements. The library is there to provide information, even about contraversial subjects.

Why? Because people who disagree with these views have to work there as well. No, it's not acceptable to say, "Well, they can go work somewhere else" (finding a new job is not as easy as some people think). Because of this, I agree to keep my views to myself in the workplace. It enables others to work there in peace.

False issue. Disruptive activities are not anything anyone has suggested should be allowed at a library. KoA, specificaly said that permiting showing such material to the library as a whole was not permitted, hence turning a screen so that others can not see it.

What information should the library absolutely block? How do you find a practical way to limit the blocking to only that content?

It isn't about censorship to filter things in a public forum. It's about respect. I wouldn't want to go to a public library and have a preacher sounding off about how I'm going to hell, any more than he would want me sounding off about how God is imaginary. And yet we both have the right to check out the Bible or The God Delusion if we so choose.

Marc

Yes it is. There are plenty of ways that have been suggested to not expose this material to the library at large, and no one suggested that downloading porn that is being shown to the library at large is acceptable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree with you to a large extent. If parents feel their kids are mature enough to view porn (since that's the biggest issue I've seen so far), then by all means, they should be allowed to do so-at home.

A library is a public place. Personally, I don't feel anybody should be using public computers to view or download porn, not just kids. I view the issue in much the same way as a workplace. Pretend I'm a dirty old man, who is racist, homophobic and rabidly anti-religion.

There is a difference your employer is paying you and you aree to meet certain requirements. The library is there to provide information, even about contraversial subjects.

Why? Because people who disagree with these views have to work there as well. No, it's not acceptable to say, "Well, they can go work somewhere else" (finding a new job is not as easy as some people think). Because of this, I agree to keep my views to myself in the workplace. It enables others to work there in peace.

False issue. Disruptive activities are not anything anyone has suggested should be allowed at a library. KoA, specificaly said that permiting showing such material to the library as a whole was not permitted, hence turning a screen so that others can not see it.

What information should the library absolutely block? How do you find a practical way to limit the blocking to only that content?

It isn't about censorship to filter things in a public forum. It's about respect. I wouldn't want to go to a public library and have a preacher sounding off about how I'm going to hell, any more than he would want me sounding off about how God is imaginary. And yet we both have the right to check out the Bible or The God Delusion if we so choose.

Marc

Yes it is. There are plenty of ways that have been suggested to not expose this material to the library at large, and no one suggested that downloading porn that is being shown to the library at large is acceptable.

 

[Marc L]

What criteria should be used to make that kind of decision?

Tough question. Certainly, as I said in my above post, racism and pornography should be filtered (in my opinion). I don't feel that a library is an appropriate place to put those things in the limelight (as opposed to making them available on bookshelves, where people can check them out and view them in the privacy of their own minds).

Of course, what you're really asking (I suspect) is what constitutes things like "racist", "porn", "homophobic", etc. Some things are obvious. Sites that say, "You must be 18 or over" are fairly obvious. The Kill All the Jews Official Website* is also obvious. I could say, filter out sites that contain the words "n*gger" or "k*ke", but then you run the risk of filtering out sites that use those words, but aren't spreading a racist message.**

Should what can and cannot be viewed in anyone library depend on who is responsible for the computers?

Responsible in what sense? The maintenace person? No. The Reference Librarian?*** Probably not.

Ultimately, I'd say the library would have to appoint someone or a group of people to decide what needed to be filtered. Some things would be easy. Others would require further research. I'm not saying it'd be an easy task overall, though.

Marc


*I have no idea whether or not such a site really exists. I just made the name up.

** For instance, this post. While I didn't spell the words exactly, I still use them. Since I'm talking about filtering, as opposed to being racist, this post wouldn't be considered a racist post, but would still be blocked by such a filter.

***That's where the computers are located in my local library.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree with you to a large extent. If parents feel their kids are mature enough to view porn (since that's the biggest issue I've seen so far), then by all means, they should be allowed to do so-at home.

A library is a public place. Personally, I don't feel anybody should be using public computers to view or download porn, not just kids. I view the issue in much the same way as a workplace. Pretend I'm a dirty old man, who is racist, homophobic and rabidly anti-religion.

There is a difference your employer is paying you and you aree to meet certain requirements. The library is there to provide information, even about contraversial subjects.

Why? Because people who disagree with these views have to work there as well. No, it's not acceptable to say, "Well, they can go work somewhere else" (finding a new job is not as easy as some people think). Because of this, I agree to keep my views to myself in the workplace. It enables others to work there in peace.

False issue. Disruptive activities are not anything anyone has suggested should be allowed at a library. KoA, specificaly said that permiting showing such material to the library as a whole was not permitted, hence turning a screen so that others can not see it.

What information should the library absolutely block? How do you find a practical way to limit the blocking to only that content?

It isn't about censorship to filter things in a public forum. It's about respect. I wouldn't want to go to a public library and have a preacher sounding off about how I'm going to hell, any more than he would want me sounding off about how God is imaginary. And yet we both have the right to check out the Bible or The God Delusion if we so choose.

Marc

Yes it is. There are plenty of ways that have been suggested to not expose this material to the library at large, and no one suggested that downloading porn that is being shown to the library at large is acceptable.

 

[King of the Americas]

Marc:

I am sorry to say, that you have it wrong.

Your not being able to put things up at your office, has nothing to do what happens at a 'public' library. An office, is a 'private business', so is say inside a movie theater, as is your home. Within these places, it is the 'owners' who get to set rules as to what 'expressions' can or will be tolerated.

However in a 'public' place, such as a street, a 'library', or a park, you might be subject to other people's freedom of speech and or expression.

You don't have the right to NOT be offended in a 'public' place, period.

In a library, what YOU view, read, or check out is YOUR business. No one should stop, interfear, or be looking over your shoulder at what you do. It is simply none of their business. So, if your offended by someone else's habits in the library, then I suggest your mind your own business...

Now, in MY library, if someone is disturbing others, then I will ask them to cease- first. If they continue to do so, then they will be asked to leave. Upon returning, if they continued to disturb others, then they could be barred.

You have the right to review WHATEVER you want in the library, and NOT be disturbed by others.

This has more to do with 'noise' and being 'loud' than it does anything else. Sitting at a computer looking at porn, doesn't disturb anyone.

In fact, you do NOT have the right to see what other people are doing, THEY have a right to privacy within their reading habits.

Expressing ANYTHING in the library 'outloud' is frowned upon, unless it is said in a whisper... However, if you were to wear a t-shirt with explicit pictures on it is probably allowed... Freedom of expression IS allowed.

Censorship IS censoring, even if it is about respect. The ends does NOT justify the means.

May I suggest that if you are offended by people looking at porn at the library, that you mind your own business. Otherwise, you may very well be offended, which is always likely to happen in a 'public place'.

Moreover, if you don't want o be offended, stay home, and keep your TV & radio off.

Forgive my ignorance, but I still didn't get your reason WHY something (porn) should be censored or filtered. I mean, for me, you are going to have to demonstrate some 'damage' done by allowing ALL the information to flow freely. If you can't demonstrate some hardship suffered, then I don't think you have a case. No one is 'forcing' you to look at what other people are looking at... In fact, I think you could very well be charged with something, if you were found guilty of invading someone else's reading habits.

In short, "Mind your own business, what other people are doing in the library is THEIR business."

 

[Marc L]

There is a difference your employer is paying you and you aree to meet certain requirements. The library is there to provide information, even about contraversial subjects.

I've no issue with providing information, as I mentioned in my post.

False issue. Disruptive activities are not anything anyone has suggested should be allowed at a library. KoA, specificaly said that permiting showing such material to the library as a whole was not permitted, hence turning a screen so that others can not see it.

You're right. I was trying to find an analogy, and obviously, it failed. Turning the screen, however, isn't always practical. What do you do, for instance, when the computers are in the center of the room, and there is no "back corner" to hide in?

What information should the library absolutely block? How do you find a practical way to limit the blocking to only that content?

Again we run into the issue that I didn't want to get into. The whole, "what about this specific site? what about this one?" Otherwise know as the "where do you draw the line" argument. I don't have a line drawn, and I refuse to draw one for this discussion. For my daughter, I draw a line, after discussion with my wife. That's our responsibility as parents.

Yes it is. There are plenty of ways that have been suggested to not expose this material to the library at large, and no one suggested that downloading porn that is being shown to the library at large is acceptable.

Read my above comment about practicality (in this post). Turning away the screen isn't always practical. Even if there is a back corner, that limits you to one, maybe two computers. People walking by can still see the page you're viewing. By saying, (as I mentioned in the post you replied to) "The library doesn't allow this material to be viewed because it may be objectionable to other patrons," the problem is solved. Granted, there will still be discussion on what should be considered objectionable, and I covered that in my response to Rasmus.

Marc

 

[King of the Americas]

Marc,

The problem is that we live in America, land of the Free, remember.

Just because YOU have issues with a topic, does NOT give you the right to infringe upon others their right to access whatever information or media THEY choose.

Your issue with computers just doesn't count. We make every attempt to hide what people do on computers, because their privacy matters, so we purpose NOT to put internet computer 'out in the open'. As I stated above, people's library habits are a 'private' thing, and you shouldn't be looking at or concerned with what other people are doing, period.

I am literally appauled by the very suggestion of creating a 'moral committee', to decide what should be acceptable in a public library...

'I' decide what I will look at or read in a library, not you or some committee.

You are no better than the book-burning nazi.

In entreat you to consider changing your stance.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've no issue with providing information, as I mentioned in my post.

BUt you do. You label certain things porn or objectionable and say that they should not be accessable from the library. That is limiting the information.

 

[King of the Americas]

ponderturtle:

I am utterly dumbfounded, shocked, and appauled that there still exists in this world, persons who would want to censor public libraries...

...BY COMMITTEE, no less!

 

[drkitten]

For my daughter, I draw a line, after discussion with my wife. That's our responsibility as parents.

But that's exactly the point. For YOUR daughter, YOUR responsibiilty as a parent is for YOU to draw a line.

At what point did the library or librarian suddenly become responsible? At what point did it become reasonable for YOU to impose the line YOU drew for YOUR daughter on the community's librarian, and by extension, on the community as a whole?

Or, to put it another way -- you can either parent your own daughter according to your rules, or you can have me parent your daughter according to mine.

There is no "me parent your daugher according to your rules" option.

 

[Spindrift]

I don't have a line drawn, and I refuse to draw one for this discussion. For my daughter, I draw a line, after discussion with my wife. That's our responsibility as parents.

Exactly.

And by the library having everything and anything available it lets you, the parent, draw the line where you see fit, not where some other parent sees fit.

 

[AgingYoung]

....Since my arrivial, I have done eveything in my power to put stuff on the shelves that would shock, dismay, and or outright offend local patrons,
...I am a librarian. I catalog .... An item's 'contents' has little to NOTHING to do with wether or not we will add it to our collection.
....

I was wondering how you manage those two seemingly mutually exclusive ideas.

Gene

 

[BayAreaGuy]

I'm real proud of my little North Ontario hometown .

Yes, it's like something out of Twin Peaks, but at least they're doing the right thing when it comes to it's Public Library and the complaints of a single individual.

Should gays and lesbians STFU and get their own library or should gayfriendly books be stocked in a public library?

As a youth, I spent a lot in time in this library. It's kinda neat that it was rumored that Frank Lloyd Wright may have had a hand in it's design. Dang, if it don't look Wrightish.

Charlie (we were helpless, helpless, helpless) Monoxide

The referenced article isn't really about "gays and lesbians" per se. It's more about library materials of a sexually explicit nature. At least that's what the complaint says. In the words of the complaintant, she was against books that contained information about "anal pleasures and health, erotic sexual pleasures for adults and topics that deal with gay and lesbian subject matter."

The sad thing is that people (like her) would automatically lump gays and lesbians in with anal sex and erotic sexual material. Gay and lesbian people don't just sit around having sex all day (I wish!). We are partners, friends, businesspeople, soccer moms and dads, people who double park, people who rescue cats from trees, party-goers, etc., etc. If a book that discussed marriage were found in that library, I doubt anyone would view it as about "sex." But if a book about gay or lesbian "marriage" turns up, people's knee-jerk response is, "Ewww! Sex!!"

Kudos to the good folks in Ottawa for standing up to such an idiotic complaint, though. At least rationalism is alive and well there...if not always elsewhere.

 

[King of the Americas]

To AgingYoung:

Before I got there, a books contents would often times leave it left uncataloged, here at our library. The previous staff didn't want to offend local patrons, so they'd put stuff on the shelves that they KNEW everyone would like and or not be offended by.

I took the exact opposite view. A book's 'age & condition' were the sole determining factors in deciding whether or not it would be kept. I purposed to 'keep and exhibit' the stuff that would offend people. There were books 'in the back' there were never cataloged, until I got there.

Does that remedy the descrepency?

 

[Joe Random]

<snip>
Read my above comment about practicality (in this post). Turning away the screen isn't always practical. Even if there is a back corner, that limits you to one, maybe two computers. People walking by can still see the page you're viewing. By saying, (as I mentioned in the post you replied to) "The library doesn't allow this material to be viewed because it may be objectionable to other patrons," the problem is solved. Granted, there will still be discussion on what should be considered objectionable, and I covered that in my response to Rasmus.

Marc

Quick, honest question on this point – do you see a difference between someone walking by and seeing what I have on my computer screen and someone walking by and seeing what book I’m reading? What if I’m looking at a coffee table book of fine art photos and someone walks behind where I’m sitting and is shocked and offended that they can see a woman’s breasts – do we then start considering what print materials to ban to avoid possibly offending people?

I’m not trying to be confrontational, just wondering if there’s a difference to you between people walking by and seeing something they’re offended by in one medium versus another, and if so, why.

 

[King of the Americas]

WHY...

'...would YOU be looking at someone else's e-mail, or internet information?

Just curious?

Because, when I do something, I 'purpose' to do so.

I say, "What is that chap look'en at?" Then I look over, and see... "Hey, that dude is checking out porn at the library!"

Then guess what...'I just interfeared!'

I crossed the line.

What 'was' someone eles's bussiness was now mine.

WHY?

Why on this earth does it matter, what someone else said, looked at, or did????

Who givies a flying F***!?

'I' made it MY business, when I LOOKED....

'I' made that decision.


WHO's fault is that?

---

When I 'purpose' to do something, who's fault is it?

 

[AgingYoung]

To AgingYoung:

Before I got there, a books contents would often times leave it left uncataloged, here at our library. The previous staff didn't want to offend local patrons, so they'd put stuff on the shelves that they KNEW everyone would like and or not be offended by.

I took the exact opposite view. A book's 'age & condition' were the sole determining factors in deciding whether or not it would be kept. I purposed to 'keep and exhibit' the stuff that would offend people. There were books 'in the back' there were never cataloged, until I got there.

Does that remedy the descrepency?

It seems that you're saying that you would shelf books that were in good condition (because they were never put on the shelves) solely based on their condition without consideration of their content, knowing full well their content would be considered offensive to some.

Do you have any part in the decision of what books the library orders?

Gene