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.
First of all, let me apologize for not being on the last few days. We were setting up for our move, and what time I had for internet was spent in mindless pursuit of video games. I.e, I was too tired to think. If I can, I will try to respond to everyone's questions. Once we leave the hotel, I will be silent for a few more days, so after today, I may drop this thread altogether.
Secondly. KoA, I have only one thing to say to you. Either reduce your caffine intake, or hit yourself over the head with a baseball bat. You're reacting way too strongly to what I said. When you calm down, we can have a rational discussion.
There is a difference in passing someone reading a book and someone looking at a computer screen. If you have a book on your lap, a person walking by can't see the title, and unless they're being nosy, they can't read what's on the page.
Web pages are generally a lot more colorful and easier to read at a distance. The closest I can get to an analogy would be walking past an un-curtained window on the ground level and walking past a building with an un-curtained room on the second or third level. You can see into the first window quite easily, even if you're not trying to. With the second window, you may notice that there isn't a curtain, but unless people are hanging out the window, you're not likely to see what's going on in the room.
As for controlling what my daughter is viewing, while that's easy here at home, or on occasions where I (or my wife) would accompany her to the library, at some point, she's going to be old enough to go on her own. I'm not saying the library is supposed to babysit her, but on the other hand, there is material that's not appropriate for a young child. Knowing that the library limits access to that material (for instance, by requiring kids under a certain age to stay in the children's room unless accompanied by an adult) makes it easier to send her off on her own.
Let's take this to the ridiculous extreme for a second, why don't we? Would you want to have your (hypothetical) five year old watching R-rated horror movies without you there to talk them through it? (Yes, I know you probably wouldn't send a five year old to the library by themselves, that's why it's called the ridiculous extreme).
As for objectionable material, I personally hold to the Safe for Workplace standards in regards to internet access. It's an easy standard-if it's Not Safe for the Workplace, then it shouldn't be accessible from a public library. It is not, despite everyone's protestations, censorship. If you want to go home and log on to the internet and view this stuff, you can. If you want to check a book out and read about it, you can. No one's stopping you. The information is still available, just not from a public computer. Why is this censorship?
As I mentioned above, I likely will not be back to the forum until next week, and thus, will not be posting to this thread. If you wish me to clarify specific points, go ahead and pm me.
Marc
