Smut in the library


COLUMBUS | "Public libraries would be required to use Internet smut filters and parents would have to sign waivers to allow their children to check out any library videos — from Lion King to Apocalypse Now — if a pending bill becomes state law."

Stories like this one as well as CIPA make me wonder when the goverment started to think I couldn't take care of my own children.


There seems to a contradiction in this country. There are numerous public service announcements about drugs, how parents should connect with their children, etc. Doesn't this seem to indicate that there are ills in society that are not always fixed with parental control. Why does the library have to be the test case for the unlimited unrestricted distribution of pornography and other harmful things. Children today do many things in spite of parental control. The parent is a not a policeman, but rather his/her child's mentor and teacher of values and morals. Society on the other hand can undo the best parental guidance and control instantly once the child leaves the home. I know many parents who are decent people with high values and their children get taken in by harmful destructive elements. Shouldn't the parent expect that law enforcement protect their vulnerable children from harmful and destructive influences. Have you noticed pre-teens with tattoos and body piercings. There are parents who permit that as well as preaching self destructive behavior mirroring their own. Not all parents and households are responsible and to gauge unlimited use on a generic parent paridigm is wrong. Libraries have a public responsibility. Why do other public service places listen to parents concerns and the libraries seem to ignore them. Libraries can drive away reponsible parents and their children and be left with a reading public that welcomes smut or to put it politically correct, adult artistic expression. It is a sad day in the history of libraries when they help contribute to the decay of society instead of its intellectual growth.

Flamebait? Not sure I agree with that mod... but anywho...You're equating drug use, tatoos, values and morals, harmful and destructive influences as if we all share the same concerns. We probably all share the same concerns on illegal drugs, but we all have very different values and morals, and many different feelings on what harmful and destructive influences are. Sure, we may share many things in common, but we probably have a larger number different."Have you noticed pre-teens with tattoos and body piercings" Yes, so? Styles change, this style has been around for a long time, most kids think a tat or a piercing is no big deal. Because it frightens you doesn't mean it's wrong. I think I remember you bring up how those darns kids are dressing now adays as another example of the decay of civilization as well, the same thing has been said for decades, and we're still doing pretty good as a society, in my opinion, contrary to what I think many people seem to be thinking.Libraries do have a public responsibility, but I'm not sure it's instilling a limited set of values and morals. My guess is you'd outlaw all the scary things those darn kids are up to lately, but I'm not sure that I'd do the same, my point is there are few values and morals that the majority of people share. How could libraries possibly begin to be run with values and morals? Wouldn't they just begin to anger anyone who doesn't share the same values and morals? Though, are they just doing that now by trying to avoid values and morals?"Libraries can drive away responsible parents and their children and be left with a reading public that welcomes smut or to put it politically correct, adult artistic expression."Interesting point, this (what libraries do) is all done in the name of intellectual growth. I'm not sure I agree with you on anything (ever), but the driving people away point is something that is worth discussing. People (being patrons, users, the public, legislators, government, budgets and all that jazz) are being driven away by "smut," so is it worth it to not use filters? Do we need to use some kind of values and morals to avoid alienating a large number of supporters? By doing nothing are we taking some kind of position? How do we stop those darn kids from being different than we were back when we were their age?This was probably long, rambling, and maybe incoherent. Just some thoughts while I eat lunch here.

This is a repeat. About 6 years ago I was a morning regular at a local McDonald's before going to work. When the assistant manager found out I was a librarian, she told me she'd never allow her children in a library because of the pornography access.

I continue to be amazed at what bad PR libraries are creating in order to protect pornographers and their customers. Maybe the newspapers are right--the profession is changing.

I used to stop by McDonald's too, but found the library a lot safer. The staff at the library (and now I'm one) was a lot less intrusive, without the need to harangue customers. :)
And all I wanted was an Egg McMuffin and a cup of coffee. Instead, I got "Whatcha doin' tonight?".

That is because our profession as not done a good enough job of framing the issue correctly. I do not know of any library that touts their Internet access as "pornography access" or any librarian who wants to protect pornographers.

You need a filter.

Just a reminder that it is illegal to access material that is obscene or child pornography, even in a library. Protecting freedom of expression in no way says that libraries endorse their patrons accessing material that is not constitutionally protected speech.

What does a filter have to do with being hit on at McD's like she was? I'm sure curious. Let all of us know ok?

Thanks, blackcat, but something tells me that wasn't about filters. Someone may be in a snit. (How's that for a nice oldfashioned word? I think I'll be in one for the rest of the morning!)

Subscribe to Comments for "Smut in the library"