- "Porn in the Library: Censorship vs. Decency," by Editor Karin Klein, Los Angeles Times, 29 December 2011. (Reprinting here under Copyright Fair Use provisions.)
Porn in the Library: Censorship vs. DecencyEditorial by Karin Klein, Los Angeles Times, December 29, 2011
The Times' editorial board has been pondering the availability of pornography in the library, an issue that catches the public's eye every few months when one of the porn viewers misbehaves, or parents find it's hard for their children to browse the stacks without catching on eyeful. Most recently, it was the November arrest of a homeless man in the Laguna Beach library for allegedly fonding [sic] himself while viewing porn, with a crowd of seven other men around him. It's the advent of the Internet, of course, that creates this new scene in the library. Some parents in the town are now calling for the porn sites to be blocked.
Editorial writers and editors were as bothered as anyone else by the thought that an institution we revere as much as the public library—remember that most journalists grew up with their noses in books—was being used to view lurid photos. It was pointed out that, although librarians hotly defend against censorship of any kind, nonetheless they make value judgments all the time about what sort of materials should be available in libraries, by purchasing news and home magazines rather than nudie publications. On the Internet, though, porn is, like most things, free. Keeping it away from patrons involves an active step, just as it takes an active—and costly—step of purchasing pornography in print to make it available.
"Lady Chatterley's Lover" was once considered pornography, not just unsuitable for a library but illegal to sell in some countries a little more than half a century ago. Banning materials from the library because the majority of people find them distasteful is a dicey step. What might the majority find unsuitable next? Something that you want to read, perhaps? Yet all patrons to the library should be able to search for books and videos without patently offensive material shining across the room at them.
Whose rights matter more?
"[P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...." US v. ALA
This is the first major paper of which I am aware expressing frustration over unfiltered porn in public libraries. Hopefully there will be many more. The fear of the ALA is obviously beginning to melt away.
Bravo, Los Angeles Times! Hey, it's not "banning" to block from the library what US v. ALA says is legal to block. So no worries about being "dicey."
NOTE ADDED EVEN DATE:
It appears the @LATimesOpinion approves of what I have had to say:
NOTE ADDED EVEN DATE:
It appears the @LATimesOpinion approves of what I have had to say:
 |
| @LATimesOpinion retweets my tweet to 3,188 followers! |
And now, @_ViceReport:
 |
| @_ViceReport retweets another of my tweets to 1,144 followers! |
NOTE ADDED 30 DECEMBER 2011:
Another retweet, this time by @ImDanielleEGray, who later thanked me for my work for children:
 |
| @ImDanielleEGray retweets yet another of my tweets to 1,169 followers! |
NOTE ADDED 3 JANUARY 2012:
The LA Times has now devoted a second editorial to the issue, and has come out four square in favor of filtering out porn from public libraries!
- "Libraries Walk a Tightrope on Porn; Without Engaging in Censorship, Many Can and Should Be Doing More to Protect Patrons From Seeing Pornographic Images on the Internet," by Editorial Board, Los Angeles Times, 3 January 2012.
Here is the comment I left there:
SafeLibraries at 8:44 AM January 3, 2012It appears my comments on the LA Times Editorial of only days ago have struck home, and the LA Times has openly come out four square in favor of filtering the Internet in public libraries! While it doesn't get things 100% correct, it comes really close. It is fantastic to see such a major media source exposing the library propaganda to fresh air.See LA Times Supports Filtering Porn from Public Libraries http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/12/la-times-supports-filtering-porn-from.htmlImprovements could be that the US v. ALA case applies whether or not the library gets funding since the relevant issue was decided first, only then was it applied to libraries getting funding. Also, privacy screens are a complete failure and everyone knows it. Anyone remember the Dan Noyes KABC report catching library director Jean Light in a lie, showing the screens do not work right on TV? And porn may be simply excluded--no need for a special area for adult viewing. http://tinyurl.com/ALADogmaBut the LA Times on the whole is outstanding! Really, I am very happy to read it, and to see that the editorial board really gave it a lot of thought and saw through the false information that has become an ALA standard.Bravo, LA Times! May other media sources loss their fear of the ALA and also call for filtering porn out of public libraries.
NOTE ADDED 4 JANUARY 2012:
I just remembered I wrote this:
I am now in the media due to my comments on the LA Times's first editorial:
- "Should People Be Allowed to Watch Porn In the Library?," by Amy Alkon, MND MensNewsDaily.com, 3 January 2012.
NOTE ADDED 10 JANUARY 2012:
New Jersey ACLU attorney Grayson Barber has written a substantially false and misleading piece on LibraryLaw Blog apparently intended to convince the Los Angeles Times Editorial staff to reverse its position favoring Internet filters. I will be writing soon exactly how and why she is so wrong and intentionally so (hint: US v. ALA). Here is the materially false information for your own review before I publish mine (assuming it has not yet been changed):
- "Pornography and Internet Filters, by Grayson Barber; Hat tip: Martin Gomez, LA Public Library," by Mary Minow, LibraryLaw Blog, 10 January 2012.
By the way, I made a courtesy call to Grayson Barber, Esq., to advise her that her article was substantially misleading and to give her the opportunity to consider changing it on her own before I responded substantively. I got a call back from the ACLU-NJ communications manager. I provided an example of the false information (US v. ALA says the exact opposite of what Ms. Grayson recommended) and, when asked, said my goal was that people should be given accurate information. I suggested Ms. Barber could change the article before I wrote about it. She said she would let Ms. Barber know. Good. I tipped my hand because I believe in fairness. I hope she does change the article.
NOTE ADDED 23 FEBRUARY 2012:
Los Angeles Public Library gets investigated by Inside Edition, and it looks quite embarrassing for the library. How long will the library drag its feet after the LA Times has called for Internet filters?
NOTE ADDED 23 FEBRUARY 2012:
Los Angeles Public Library gets investigated by Inside Edition, and it looks quite embarrassing for the library. How long will the library drag its feet after the LA Times has called for Internet filters?
- "Inside Edition Investigates: Who's Lurking In Your Library?," by Paul Boyd, Inside Edition, 22 February 2012:
INSIDE EDITION found men watching hardcore pornography–not it in the privacy of their homes or some sleazy adult store–they were doing it in a public library. And library patrons were shocked.
"That is completely absurd. Nobody should be doing that in public," said one man. Another woman–who happens to be librarian said, "It offends everyone. And it's something that should not be done in public."
But believe it or not, it's perfectly legal and even permitted in many libraries across the country.
....
We found another guy at the Los Angeles Library's downtown branch in Chinatown watching porn–right next to two young children.
When we asked him, "Do you realize there were children right next to you while you were watching the adult videos?"
All he said was, "No...No...No...No," and walked away.
