lubbock wants to ban porn, in libraries Options

[Seeker]

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/07090...070906063.shtml

Lubbock library to review policy on Internet porn
BY JAMES GALLAGHER
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL

Jamar High visits the Mahon Library about three times a week to access the Internet.

The 22-year-old uses library computers to pay his bills and access his myspace.com page.

"It's convenient," he said. "It's real easy to grab a computer and just log on."

High said he's never used the computers to access sexually explicit material nor has he seen anyone doing it.

But it does happen.

People have accessed Internet pornography in Lubbock libraries, and the City Council wants it to stop. Now the city's Libraries Board and the City Council are in the process of reviewing the library system's policies regarding Internet access to ensure that people aren't accessing sexually explicit material.

"I want to learn more about what our policy is and why we have the policy we do," said Mayor Pro Tem Jim Gilbreath. "Why we have chosen not to filter anything at this time?"

Gilbreath said his daughter was recently using a public library computer and noticed the gentleman next to her was looking at a sexually explicit Web site.

According to the Lubbock Public Library Internet Safety Policy, Internet filters are not used because the library system does not want to "make any attempt to censor access to the Internet."

"We worked with our attorney in the legal department to determine the policy so people know up front that it is unfiltered," said Jane Clausen, Library Services director.

Instead of filters, Lubbock libraries require parental approval if children under the age of 17 want to use the Internet.

Adults are legally allowed to view sexually explicit material - even in libraries - if they choose. Obscenity and child pornography are not legally viewable anywhere.

Aida Rios signed a parental waiver form to allow her 16-year-old son to use library computers. She said she is concerned about what he can access, but she'll supervise it.

"I'll probably be here because I have to drive him," she said.

The city's Internet policy was last updated in August 2002, three months after a federal district court in Pennsylvania struck down the federal Children's Internet Protection Act, which required libraries accepting federal funding for computers and Internet access to install Internet filters.

The district court said the filter requirement violated the First Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that decision in 2003. The court ruled that requiring the filters did not violate the First Amendment, so long as the filters are turned off at the request of an adult library patron.

The federal government now requires libraries accepting funding for public computers and Internet access to install filters.

Clausen said Lubbock libraries do not use their federal funds to pay for public computers or Internet access and are therefore not required by the federal government to install Internet filters.

Still, Gilbreath wants the library board to consider it.

"The City Council is responsible for administering community standards," he said. "Given where we are with sexually oriented businesses and all, to me, using public funds to supply access to pornographic Web sites is not a good use of public funds."

City Attorney Anita Burgess said her staff is looking at the policy and will help the Libraries Board refreshen it, if needed.

Steve Lindell, who coordinates the Bidwell Technology Center at the Mahon Library, said he has had to deal with patrons accessing Internet pornography a couple of times in his three years there.

"It's not as prevalent as people think," he said.

More than 105,000 library patrons used public access computers in the city's four libraries during the fiscal year 2004-05.

Lindell said in the few instances when someone accessed sexually explicit material, he asked them to change to a different Web site or offered to move them to another computer, away from other patrons.

The American Library Association, which leads the charge against the Children's Internet Protection Act, also said that few people complain about seeing others accessing sexually explicit material in libraries.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, deputy director for the office for intellectual freedom at the American Library Association, said libraries respect their patrons' privacy and have no way of tracking how frequently library computers are used to access sexually explicit material. Rather, the organization relies on anecdotal evidence from participating libraries.

"There are libraries that tell us there's absolutely no problem at all, and there's other libraries that had complaints, and they adopt policies to address the viewing problems," she said.

Caldwell-Stone said the association would prefer individual communities establish their own policies regarding the Internet and filters instead of Congress mandating it. The association also questions the effectiveness of filters.

"The thing about filters is, filters are promoted as a silver bullet, and they really aren't," she said. "They are costly. They require staff members to maintain. And they are inaccurate."

Caldwell-Stone said the filters often block legal sites, such as health sites, while failing to block all pornographic sites.

Two studies conducted by the National Research Council and by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2002 concluded that filters are a good tool for limiting access, but they are not perfect.

The Kaiser study found that filters work best when set at the lowest level. At more restrictive levels, filters "block access to a substantial amount of health information, with only a minimal increase in blocked pornographic content."

Caldwell-Stone said many libraries across the nation have forgone federal funding rather than complying with the Children's Internet Protection Act. She said the libraries find the discounts and funding they receive often aren't enough to offset the cost of buying Internet filters and paying someone to monitor them.

"It's interesting to watch, but libraries have just given up," she said. "It's so complex to comply with CIPA, they've just given up the money."

To comment on this story:

james.gallagher@lubbockonline.com 766-8753

brian.williams@lubbockonline.com 766-8717

[James]

...

Lance, that title is misleading. They're preventing it on library computers. Good. I don't want children walking by that shit.

[Seeker]

uhhh, if they prevent it aren't they banning it? it means the same thing

plus, it's perfectly legal to view porn at libraries, and by banning it they'd be breaking the law

Adults are legally allowed to view sexually explicit material - even in libraries - if they choose.

[GOB]

a lot of cities have done this. i hope lubbock does it.


and shouldn't people have enough self control to at least wait until they're in their car to jerk off, anyway?

[Mommy]

I think they should ban porn at the library. I dont think adults should have the right to view obscene material in public. Thats something that should be for the privacy of the home. If they want to look at dirty things, the can buy a porn or look at a magazine if they dont have internet. I dont want to walk by and see some old creepy dude viewing tranny porn. It also makes the library a less safe environment in my opinion.

I agree that the thread title was misleading.

[Seeker]

I think they should ban porn at the library.

I agree that the thread title was misleading.

You agree with the article that they should ban porn. Then you throw in the second comment about the title being misleading?

Which is it? Are they attempting to ban porn and you're for it? Or is the title misleading?

Or did you just regurgitate what James said because he's a smart guy (typically what girls do)? Can we say sheeple?

And you guys are old fuddy-duddies. Where else am I going to view my tranny porn and pleasure myself?

[GOB]

don't you live in dallas? i'm pretty sure dallas has more "adult" libraries than actual book libraries

[Mommy]

You agree with the article that they should ban porn. Then you throw in the second comment about the title being misleading?

Which is it? Are they attempting to ban porn and you're for it? Or is the title misleading?

Or did you just regurgitate what James said because he's a smart guy (typically what girls do)? Can we say sheeple?

And you guys are old fuddy-duddies. Where else am I going to view my tranny porn and pleasure myself?

Lance, I thought the thread title was dumb well before I ever scrolled down to see James' reply. The thread title says "Lubbock wants to ban porn" which makes it sound like that porn cant be sold anywhere... when all that is really going on is that they want to ban it in PUBLIC libraries. You arent being censored...there is a fine line between censorship and making a public library appropriate for all ages.

Believe it or not, you may hang around with a bunch of dumb bimbos who have to use the process of elimination when deciding what foot a shoe goes on, but that doesnt mean that all girls are dumb. I think of myself as a pretty damn intelligent person.

[Seeker]

Read the thread sub-title dumbass, it distinctly says "in libraries"!!

I like how you dumbasses bash my thread titles, but you don't even read the full thread title!!!

[James]

Yeah. Because the subtitle is listed on the main forum listing...

[Mommy]

1) I think you later added that, but I have no proof

2) When I hit the reply button all it says is "Replying to Lubbock wants to ban porn"

3) When reading the article I thought it was a little misleading of a thread title... the topic DESCRIPTION says "in libraries"....thats not the topic title.... so therefore I can say that your thread TITLE is misleading.

4) I just think that it was used as an attention getter...if that was the case, then job well done. Im not bashing that...I was just saying that it was a tad misleading. You are the one that started throwing insults.

[FORSAKENR320]

you cannot legislate morality

[Seeker]

I DID NOT add the sub-title later, it has ALWAYS been on there.

OPEN the FORUM and then click the threads if you want to see the SUBTITLES.

Accusing me of things I DID NOT do means you are very close to a BANNING.

[Seeker]

Everything I do gets logged in the admin control panel:



WHERE OR WHERE IS THE LOG OF ME EDITING THE TOPIC TITLE? HUH HUH?

WANT TO ACCUSE ME OF MORE SHIT NOW?????

[Mommy]

I DID NOT add the sub-title later, it has ALWAYS been on there.

OPEN the FORUM and then click the threads if you want to see the SUBTITLES.

Accusing me of things I DID NOT do means you are very close to a BANNING.

Lance, please stop. Im not trying to start shit with you. It kinda just pisses me off that basically call me stupid. Fine its always been there. I didnt see it. You are right. I think my other points legitimize what Im trying to say without that anyways. I cant believe we are going at it about a fucking thread title. I was just saying it was misleading...thats all. I wasnt insulting you. Again, you are the one that accused me of being a stupid girl.

If you are going to ban me over something stupid like this then Im sure I will get banned sooner or later anyways. I post on this site because I know people on here and because I enjoy it. Yeah, I like it and it would suck if I was banned, but I'll get over it pretty damn fast. Besides would be pretty ironic if I got banned because of a post I made in a thread having to do with censorship. Im not going to kiss your ass and call you god, but I dont think we have ever had problems on here before and I much enjoy some of your posts. If you ban me, ok. Just think about it first though because again you are the one that threw the first punch. Dont get in the ring if you cant take getting hit.