The mayor of Phoenix, AZ, and a coalition of city council members are going up against the First Amendment to restrict library Internet access to pornography. City leaders want to restrict library patrons’ ability to view pornography through libraries’ publicly provided Internet access following the arrest last week of a child molester who viewed kiddie porn on library machines. According to one official, “The fact that it is legal for someone as an individual to view pornography doesn’t mean that there is a constitutional obligation for the city, as a public entity, to provide everyone access to it.” Read all about it.
Recent Posts
- E-Books Can Subvert Book Bans, But Corporate Profit-Seeking Stands in the Way March 10, 2024
- Ten Stories That Shaped 2023 December 15, 2023
- War Sows Disruption at the National Book Awards November 16, 2023
- “No one else is saving it”: the fight to protect a historic music collection November 16, 2023
- No, I Don’t Want to Join Your Book Club November 9, 2023
- Iowa election 2023: Pella Public Library retains independence November 9, 2023
- A door at a Swedish library was accidentally left open 446 people came in, borrowed 245 books. Every single one was returned November 9, 2023
Recent Comments
- Examining Arab and Muslim librarians in fiction – Pop Culture Library Review on Librarian Combats Muslim Stereotypes
- St. Paul libraries face moment of reckoning – LISNews – News For Librarians on Secret and mysterious libraries
- Ellie on Just How Gross Are Library Books, Exactly?
- Prodigious1one on The Teaching Librarian Versus The Teacher
- Jason on Ten Stories That Shaped 2019
- centaurea on Libraries using Internet Trust Tools
LISNews Archives
- March 2024 (1)
- December 2023 (1)
- November 2023 (5)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (1)
- August 2023 (22)
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (20)
- December 2022 (6)
- February 2022 (3)
- December 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- July 2020 (11)
- June 2020 (11)
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (4)
- October 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (4)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (11)
- February 2019 (41)
- January 2019 (31)
- December 2018 (6)
- November 2018 (11)
- October 2018 (15)
- September 2018 (9)
- August 2018 (22)
- July 2018 (1)
- June 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (7)
- April 2018 (8)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (17)
- January 2018 (13)
- December 2017 (8)
- November 2017 (16)
- October 2017 (18)
- September 2017 (11)
- August 2017 (8)
- July 2017 (8)
- June 2017 (21)
- May 2017 (39)
- April 2017 (22)
- March 2017 (15)
- February 2017 (21)
- January 2017 (40)
- December 2016 (20)
- November 2016 (9)
- October 2016 (20)
- September 2016 (48)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (55)
- June 2016 (61)
- May 2016 (39)
- April 2016 (67)
- March 2016 (81)
- February 2016 (85)
- January 2016 (69)
- December 2015 (90)
- November 2015 (126)
- October 2015 (107)
- September 2015 (85)
- August 2015 (42)
- July 2015 (32)
- June 2015 (35)
- May 2015 (39)
- April 2015 (14)
- March 2015 (60)
- February 2015 (75)
- January 2015 (44)
- December 2014 (30)
- November 2014 (39)
- October 2014 (43)
- September 2014 (30)
- August 2014 (36)
- July 2014 (59)
- June 2014 (46)
- May 2014 (62)
- April 2014 (58)
- March 2014 (52)
- February 2014 (37)
- January 2014 (42)
- December 2013 (41)
- November 2013 (25)
- October 2013 (43)
- September 2013 (28)
- August 2013 (32)
- July 2013 (61)
- June 2013 (51)
- May 2013 (50)
- April 2013 (52)
- March 2013 (68)
- February 2013 (62)
- January 2013 (62)
- December 2012 (53)
- November 2012 (64)
- October 2012 (111)
- September 2012 (109)
- August 2012 (128)
- July 2012 (57)
- June 2012 (75)
- May 2012 (163)
- April 2012 (158)
- March 2012 (109)
- February 2012 (125)
- January 2012 (136)
- December 2011 (109)
- November 2011 (74)
- October 2011 (82)
- September 2011 (95)
- August 2011 (106)
- July 2011 (93)
- June 2011 (102)
- May 2011 (94)
- April 2011 (105)
- March 2011 (100)
- February 2011 (92)
- January 2011 (110)
- December 2010 (124)
- November 2010 (83)
- October 2010 (118)
- September 2010 (115)
- August 2010 (110)
- July 2010 (108)
- June 2010 (113)
- May 2010 (78)
- April 2010 (121)
- March 2010 (191)
- February 2010 (182)
- January 2010 (168)
- December 2009 (129)
- November 2009 (116)
- October 2009 (131)
- September 2009 (149)
- August 2009 (162)
- July 2009 (166)
- June 2009 (189)
- May 2009 (112)
- April 2009 (164)
- March 2009 (185)
- February 2009 (151)
- January 2009 (173)
- December 2008 (200)
- November 2008 (155)
- October 2008 (252)
- September 2008 (267)
- August 2008 (193)
- July 2008 (208)
- June 2008 (161)
- May 2008 (208)
- April 2008 (253)
- March 2008 (201)
- February 2008 (246)
- January 2008 (185)
- December 2007 (200)
- November 2007 (208)
- October 2007 (241)
- September 2007 (227)
- August 2007 (269)
- July 2007 (201)
- June 2007 (205)
- May 2007 (157)
- April 2007 (217)
- March 2007 (250)
- February 2007 (183)
- January 2007 (181)
- December 2006 (163)
- November 2006 (180)
- October 2006 (170)
- September 2006 (215)
- August 2006 (210)
- July 2006 (202)
- June 2006 (257)
- May 2006 (280)
- April 2006 (271)
- March 2006 (347)
- February 2006 (284)
- January 2006 (300)
- December 2005 (267)
- November 2005 (238)
- October 2005 (364)
- September 2005 (349)
- August 2005 (377)
- July 2005 (382)
- June 2005 (403)
- May 2005 (371)
- April 2005 (420)
- March 2005 (367)
- February 2005 (368)
- January 2005 (346)
- December 2004 (311)
- November 2004 (260)
- October 2004 (308)
- September 2004 (228)
- August 2004 (319)
- July 2004 (395)
- June 2004 (338)
- May 2004 (288)
- April 2004 (364)
- March 2004 (348)
- February 2004 (438)
- January 2004 (266)
- December 2003 (222)
- November 2003 (226)
- October 2003 (281)
- September 2003 (317)
- August 2003 (315)
- July 2003 (278)
- June 2003 (282)
- May 2003 (265)
- April 2003 (271)
- March 2003 (249)
- February 2003 (283)
- January 2003 (210)
- December 2002 (186)
- November 2002 (184)
- October 2002 (222)
- September 2002 (210)
- August 2002 (207)
- July 2002 (184)
- June 2002 (166)
- May 2002 (160)
- April 2002 (195)
- March 2002 (183)
- February 2002 (195)
- January 2002 (203)
- December 2001 (203)
- November 2001 (238)
- October 2001 (183)
- September 2001 (153)
- August 2001 (204)
- July 2001 (243)
- June 2001 (176)
- May 2001 (92)
- April 2001 (116)
- March 2001 (153)
- February 2001 (142)
- January 2001 (131)
- December 2000 (110)
- November 2000 (124)
- October 2000 (128)
- September 2000 (132)
- August 2000 (138)
- July 2000 (166)
- June 2000 (135)
- May 2000 (120)
- April 2000 (121)
- March 2000 (181)
- February 2000 (163)
- January 2000 (54)
- November 1999 (37)
1st Amendment?
Well as I read article 1 of the First Amendment government shall not abridge the right to speak or publish. Nowhere does it say the government has to pay for you to look at porn. Maybe my Constution is outdated, it was signed on 9/17/1787.
Re:1st Amendment?
But you’re not paying for pornography. Not in the same sense that I walk into an Adult Porno Shop, plop down $10.00 and walk out with an adult DVD. The interenet will cost the same whether or not you allow people to access porn. In fact, keeping people from porn will cost more than allowing them to access porn. So, should the government be in the business of spending money to restrict you from viewing protected material?
Re:1st Amendment? 😉
True, it doesn’t, and thankfully neither did they write in anything about “shall not abridge the right of any person to touch themselves in a sexually gratifying manner”, either – though if they’d added “in a public place” I’d be quite pleased.
This is a touchy subject, nevertheless. I just took a look back at a number of related articles on LISNews and can see that this subject seems to come up pretty often. In one past discussion Fang-Face suggested that rebuking someone in a nice loud voice yelling “Don’t touch your penis!” might work, which I must say sounds like it would deter most manipulators!
The bottom line question, seems to me, to be whether or not the public library has a responsibility to allow its patrons to view not just all the news and information that’s fit to print (in their opinion), but all of the information that is published?
Seems to me that the reporter and editor may have taken the wrong tack in tagging this with a reference to the First Amendment.
Do all public libraries have the same bylaws or is it up their boards to decide what they should be?
Re:1st Amendment?
Well porn is not protected, but I know what you mean. You do have a point that the internet connection costs the same if patrons look at porn or fish. However it costs nothing more for our library to keep patrons form porn, they pay me the same if I tell people to quit looking at dirty pictures or not.
We don’t filter at my library, and my director has decided that we will not as long as he is director. However that does not mean we do not maintain community standards. I am told about once a month a patron is asked not to visit certain types of websites.
Re:1st Amendment?
I think I was the one who came up with the “Don’t touch your penis!” rebuke, but it could have been my anarchist friend Fang-Face.
Libraries can’t possibly make everything available, there just is not space. However no more space is needed for internet porn, but I think the majority of library patrons prefer not to have images of persons in flagrante delicto on library computers because their children use the library and they wish to shield them from that ( or don’t wish to have the talk) until the proper age whatever that might be.
I think all libraries have different policies, and my library is in a conservative (what a surprise for me) relatively affluent area. If those people want porn they get it at home like the rest of us with internet access at home. If you or what you are looking at is in any manner undressed beyond what is seen at the local public beach you are asked to leave.
Re:1st Amendment?
Oops, sorry I gave Fang-Face the glory for that rebuke – either way, it was priceless!
Good point that there’s not enough room in our libraries for everything that’s available and I certainly agree with your assumption that most patrons in most areas probably prefer not to have Internet porn using up space or energy. Unfortunately, I can imagine someone piping up to ask about those who want their Internet porn but can’t afford a connection at home. Perhaps there’s a niche market here for Internet cafés? I hope I’m kidding.
Re:1st Amendment?
That would be like saying I want to watch Debbie Does Dallas on my VCR at home but can’t afford to rent it, why won’t the library buy it?
Re:1st Amendment?
“Well porn is not protected”
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. If you mean porn is not protected by the 1st Amendment, you’re wrong, at least according to all the Supreme Court decisions I’ve seen. (Justice Scalia doesn’t think it’s protected, but his citations all seem to be of dissenting opinions by Justice Scalia, and he rarely gets more than one or two others to agree with his “porn isn’t speech” view.)
Obscenity is not protected by the 1st Amendment. The difference between obscenity and pornography is…well, there’s that somewhat self-contradicting three-part Miller test (It has to simultaneously turn you on, disgust you, and not have any redeeming qualities).
(Child pornography is also not protected. That and obscenity are illegal speech in the U.S. But pornography in general is constitutionally protected speech.)
Re:1st Amendment? 🙂
Because they can get it ILL
Re:1st Amendment?
twistedlibrarian said something about ” So, should the government be in the business of spending money to restrict you from viewing protected material?”
Porn is not protcted, perhaps restrcited would have been a better word.
Certainly people have a right to pornograph make dirty movies as long as they are not obscene. But then again you are right in how hard it is judge obscenity, but I’ll know it when I see it.
I would buy some pornography but I don’t have a pornograph to play it on.
Re:1st Amendment?
How about “public porn is not protected”?
Did the Founding Fathers Want to Allow porn?
This debate seems endless with no resolution. Doesn’t anyone realize how harmful and dangerous porn is? True one can make the case that each individual reacts to porn differently. Perhaps out of 100 people 80 have no reaction to porn. What about the other 20? the group can include people who are depraved, psychotic, and the like. Porn impacts on them very differently. Should society take that chance by playing the percentages. If something is not clearly safe, should the government and taxpayer money allow unrestricted use with possible harmful consequences? The real question here is not constitutional it is dealing with a potentially dangerous and harmful substance. No one is impeding one’s right to watch, read, or express their own will in the matter of porn. The police are not raiding homes, searching people on the street, and the like looking for porn. When taxpayer money is supporting resources then then the welfare of all people is at stake. the preamble of the constitution makes reference to promoting the general welfare. That is the general welfare of the whole population. That is government responsibilty. One doesn’t go into a hospital ward to see how healthy they are. Some may do so and that is their choice, the government and the taxpayers ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT SUCH A CHOICE. Next thing you know we should allow one passenger to drill a whole in the boat where he sits, after all it is his choice.