The Yakima Public Library allows porn. That is obvious from the news report and video in: "It's Legal But Many Don't Approve of Watching Porn at the Library," by Ileana Diaz, KNDO 23, 19 March 2010."[I]t's legal to look up just about anything, which includes porn." More "anything goes."
But look at the next sentence: "It's a policy that legislators set...." What? Will someone please print that legislative policy in a comment to this blog post?
I am going to investigate this further. Anyone in the area who wants to contact me, please do. In the meantime, please see these stories from about 80 miles away:
- "Sensible Censorship: Surfing for Porn Shouldn't Be a Public Library Service," by Elizabeth Hovde, The Oregonian, 11 July 2009
- "Filtered Internet: Safe, Appropriate," by Dean Marney, The Wenatchee World, 2 July 2009, reprinted in "Library Director Extols Internet Filtering; Porn Should Be Excluded From Libraries; Dynamite Reading For Library Directors, Trustees and Patrons."
As the library's motto says, "Yakima Valley Regional Library; Connecting People and Ideas...." And porn.
.
I don't know the Washington state situation in detail, but the situation described in Yakima is not especially unusual. Laws in some states define illegal obscenity as a category so narrow that it is almost impossible to prosecute anyone for it. Some penalize the distribution of obscene materials only on physical media, so internet porn is just not addressed. Some states, such as Wisconsin, have obscenity laws that specifically exempt libraries from prosecution.
ReplyDeleteA very quick check into Wash. state law indicates that the very last item in my comment above might be the explanation. RCW 9.68.015 appears to me to exempt many kinds of archives, libraries, and museums from the state obscenity law. See http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html&Item=4&X=321074550&p=1
ReplyDeleteThanks, Noncensor99, for raising that issue and providing that statute. Just having RCW 9.68.015 does not mean, however, libraries must allow porn. Indeed they need not as public libraries are not open public fora. See US v. ALA.
ReplyDeleteThanks again.
Indeed they must allow it, at least in Washington, since state law there provides no authority to restrict access to such materials in libraries. On what legal basis, then, would anyone intervene? Who is going to arrest or sue whom, and under what law?
ReplyDeleteLibraries are, by Supreme Court precedent, "limited public forums." The US v. ALA decision does nothing to change that, and is quite irrelevant to the question at hand (which is not about government funds or filters operating under the CIPA).
Noncensor99, you are saying public libraries in Washington state must allow porn, is that correct?
ReplyDeleteYou are saying they must allow porn since no state law precludes it, is that correct?
You are saying US v. ALA is irrelevant on the issue of public libraries being required to allow porn?
The issue of the legal basis for keeping pornography out of public libraries is legitimate. The existence of a state law on obscenity excluding libraries does not mean libraries must accept porn, as you explicitly state. There are other legal means to exclude it, as I have discussed from time to time in previous blogs posts.
And by the way, the issue is really not "pornography." Rather, that is just a convenient term to use to represent the actual things that may be legally precluded from public libraries.
I think you understand my meaning correctly. The definition and regulation of obscenity is mostly up to each state. The exceptions to that are Child Pornography (defined under Federal Law, and illegal everywhere, even Yakima) and Harmful to Minors (defined under Federal Law, but only for libraries bound by the CIPA, and only for minors, never adults). There is no nation-wide definition of obscenity (even the CIPA doesn't have one).
ReplyDeleteThe pragmatic question still remains: who is going to force the Yakima library to change its practice. What law will be invoked, and how will it be enforced?
If you're suggesting that the Yakima library could choose, voluntarily, to restrict access to some kinds of obscene material that the state didn't actually require them to restrict, I'd agree there might be a slim possibility of that. Not sure the courts would buy it, but I can see the outline of a viable argument.
Okay, then we appear to understand each other's view.
ReplyDeleteAnd before I can answer, I need more information, and in my original blog post I said, "I am going to investigate this further. Anyone in the area who wants to contact me, please do."
As you know, neither of us is from Yakima or even Washington, so more information is needed before I am willing to make a statement regarding the pragmatic question. I am actively seeking that information in my spare time, and I hope I have enough spare time to complete this.