Filtering Internet Content in a Public Library
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Filtering Internet Content in a Public Library
Several local public libraries have had issues with patrons viewing "innapropriate" content and children walking by, or sitting at the computer next to someone looking at "innapropriate" content. Parents have been upset. Children may have gotten a look at something they really shouldn't know about ...
The problem is that filtering programs may filter out other important websites that patrons may use for research.
Another issue is the freedom to view what you want, as an adult.
What do you think? Should libraries have a policy that prevents patrons from looking at certain web content? Should they filter to enforce the policy?
What's your take?
Ame
I think this is a tough one for sure.
Would a option be to have some computers in an adult only section and some in the kids section to keep kids from seeing some things they shouldn't? I am not only talking about p*rn either. I think there is a lot more than that out there that kids shouldn't see.
I guess I have never thought too much about this before and this is the first thing that popped into my head.
If I remember right, the American Library Association has taken the stand that EVERYONE has the right to have unfiltered access to the Internet- even minor children. Something is wrong with that picture.
If they can restrict where one smokes, they can restrict where one looks at p-o-r-n. Myself, I feel that p-o-r-n on the Internet should be restricted in public, just like smoking has been.
I believe that more than just p-o-r-n should be restricted in public. I think that there are plenty of websites that have adult content that I don't want my kids seeing as they walk by a computer in the library, like all those terrorist videos of people dying and such. I personally think that like Vicki said maybe they could separate some computers to somewhere kids can't go or somewhere that kids are less likely to go in the library. I know that there if there really are no restrictions for kids on the internet at the library I won't be letting my kids use the computer there anytime soon.
The American Library Association has taken a stand that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as stated by the Supreme Court in 1997, is still the law of the land, and passed a resolution in favor of Supreme Court's ruling upholding the First Amendment. Resolution
Here also is a site provided by the American Library Association that looks at all aspects of this issue.: Filters and Filtering
I have to admit, I try not to look at the computers, as I'm walking past, because it feels like I'm intruding on their surfing. When I have looked, I've never seen anyone at anything other than an email site, or something like that. I suppose not to say it doesn't happen, but I have seen any •••• on a computer screen, at our library.
The children's floor and the adult internet computers, are on 2 different floors, so there is less kid traffic on the 2nd floor, but I'm sure they are there, sometimes, with their parents.
Ginny, I Googled "library internet filters" and found this Supreme court document. I must admit that it is a bit confusing to me. It appears that the US Supreme Court decided in 2003 that it was in fact constitutional to require that libraries place filters on the internet and overturned a PA Federal Court decision ? If you could look at this, I would appreciate your interpretation of the legal speak.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf
(Beware, it is a 56 page pdf file!)
That is indeed what is says, Lisa. (Easier sites for reading Supreme Court opinions are the Cornell University site: Cornell or Findlaw: Findlaw
The essence of the ruling is that Congress has the right to put conditions on federal funding, and if libraries accept federal funding they have to comply with the rules Congress establishes.
You should note, however, as explained at Findlaw, that in the course of the litigation the government agreed that libraries could remove the filters for any individual user at the individual's request - without asking for a reason for the request. Findlaw analysis Findlaw notes, correctly, I think, that there was a "plurality" of Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas (only four votes - not a majority). Justice Kennedy concurred (a fifth vote) on the theory that the filters could quickly and easily be removed by a librarian at any patron's request, hence there was no hindrance to any library patron and no interference with First Amendment rights. Justice Kennedy also noted that if the filter were not promptly removed at request, a library patron might indeed have a First Amendment claim. Justice Breyer's concurrance (sixth vote) also relied heavily on the ability to easily and promptly have the filters removed (among other reasons).
I find this all very troubling. Like you, I don't want minors easily viewing p***. Unfortunately, from every review of filtering programs I have read, the filters often allow unwanted material (i.e., p***) to come through, and equally often block legitimate research sites for people doing legitimate research on, say, breast cancer or conditions affecting sexual organs. And, I have every confidence that the bad guys will quickly find a way to get around every new filter that is developed.
And, at heart, I think the First Amendment is a shining star in our national flag - one that distinguishes us from almost every other nation in the world. Even in England, home of the Magna Carta and the roots from which our Constitution arose, has government censorship of news media in many areas.
I can live with that compromise, that if a library patron requests that the filter be removed then the librarian may remove it.
But what I find difficult to accept is that fact that if that library patron is a minor, it appears that the librarian is still obligated to remove the filter anyway.
Our country seems so backward with regard to laws for minors. We restrict them from certain things reserved for adults, like voting, smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, and serving our country in the military. Yet some states allow minor girls to obtain birth control and to have abortions even without parental notification.
We as a society have acknowledged that kids are not always capable of understanding the consequences of their actions and therefore are not always held as responsible for their actions as adults are (hence the reason for the existence of the juvenile justice system). Yet with regard to the Bill of Rights, minors are given full rights as adults and they are recognized as equals with every other adult citizen. So, if a 13 year old were to go to a library he would be able to have the filter removed and would then have full access to the Internet.
The issue of the quality of the filtering software is also a concern, but that concern can only be answered with some sort of advancement in technology, so in the meantime, we need to figure out how to compensate to protect our children.
I guess regarding p*rnography only, I have the issue that the library is not required to carry reading material such as Playboy, etc. so why should they be required to allow people to access it on their computers? These people are being given a service, for free. For this, they should have to follow guidelines. If they are caught not following guidelines, their privalages are revoked. Just like if I choose not to return my books in a timely fashion or pay a fine. I then don't get to check more out. It's that simple.
If a person wants access to inappropriate material, then I guess they should have to find a computer elsewhere. A library is a public place, but don't all public places have guidelines? Can I go into the library and sit down naked just because I want to?
I know this is taking it to a different level, but the point I am making is that just because it is public access at the library, it shouldn't mean there are no guidelines to follow. Especially when children may be around.
Haven't read the other posts but....
IMO, the "freedom to view what you want, as an adult" means that freedom is in the privacy of your own home. Public library internet access should be restricted IMO, just as it's restricted in schools and many businesses (I'm not sure if all businesses do that, but my DH's does). If you really want to see p-o-r-n that bad, get a computer and get an internet connection. The library doesn't carry •••• to check out, you go buy it at the bookstore or get a subscription. I don't buy the request for the restriction to be released by the librarian. It's bad enough that pedifiles, perverts, and future murderers are using the internet in their homes to help plan and pursue, so now we're going to make it even more accessible in the public library? Don't get that one.
P-o-r-n is a personal and highly sexual endeavor and does not have a place in a public library IMO. Like I said, if it's that important to someone, then they need to stick with the bookstore magazines or find the means to get a computer/internet. As far as the other sites mentioned, like terroristic/bomb-making/sick-o sites, we're just making evil more accessible. Again, if you want to watch that kind of stuff GET A COMPUTER! It seems to me that a public library is advocating those things are okay by making them available.
I think the idea of separating computers seems nice on the outside, but what it would really turn into is the X-rated section of the video store. A walled-off area in the public library for the perverts to go hang out, then come out watching me and my child walk through the door with dirties on their minds. YUCK-O.
To answer you Ame, YES, I strongly feel that they should have filtering in public libraries. 
Maybe we need to clarify the difference between public and public.
When we think of going out in public, it is anywhere other than home, such as a restaurant or a store.
But the word public when used to describe a library means that the library is a government entity and is funded with taxpayer money, such as the public schools or public transportation.
The Right to Free Speech as stated in the U.S. Constitution only pertains to the government and totally forbids government from sensoring or restricting our free speech as citizens.
I believe that it would be possible, for example, for the independent owner of a Starbuck's to impose restrictions on Internet access since he basically owns the access, or the computer on which access is granted.
But for a government owned and operated library to do so amounts to infringement of First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of expression. This is why it is a topic for debate within the public library system.
But I still think there should be restrictions as far as minors go.
>>>>I think the idea of separating computers seems nice on the outside, but what it would really turn into is the X-rated section of the video store. A walled-off area in the public library for the perverts to go hang out, then come out watching me and my child walk through the door with dirties on their minds. YUCK-O.>>>
I regularily surf nude picture sites. Some are art nudes, some are nudist photos and some are art reference photos. I draw a lot and don't hav access to a model so how I improve the anatomy in my drawings is to draw off those nudes. Nothing sexual or anything I'd be unwilling to let the kids see but everything is generally out in the open.
I regularily visit an atheist message board. I've done research on witches and dragons. I visit sites on evolution and sites that dispute creationism. I've visted sites with an obvious gay or lesbian focus. I've been to sites with erotica.
I regularily visit sites that would be offensive, horribly offensive, to many parents with children in tow if I were at a library.
I'm no fan of p-orn and would be rather disgusted to see it in the local library. However, the same filter that disallows access to a p-orn site might also deny access to a nude refference site. The parents who pushed for the p-orn filter might also push for an evolution one. P-orn ( i can't believe that word is filtered here ) is often a wedge issue used to make space for other, less clear and more questionable arguments.
The thing is, the library ISN'T a safe place to let your children run around if you're concerned about what they may see. A library's primary duty is to give the public access to information NOT take care to see our children don't see certain things. As a parent, in my mind anyway, we really shouldn't have the expectation that our children should be able to visit the library without being exposed to objectionable stuff. Heck, we as adults shouldn't have that expectation.
I don't think the library has any duty to protect our kids from objectionable words or images. That's OUR responsibility and one we should take seriously everytime we visit.
I didn't really address your quote Reds. I think the assumption that a seperate place for adult use computers would mean a haven for p-orn is erroneous.
However, I agree that there doesn't need to be a seperate room for them. Maybe a seperate group in a different part of the library at most. But I really think a parent has to understand the primary obligation of a library when they take their children to one and be willing to steer their kids away from objectionable stuff or discuss it if a child manages to see it.
The thing is, the library ISN'T a safe place to let your children run around if you're concerned about what they may see. A library's primary duty is to give the public access to information NOT take care to see our children don't see certain things. As a parent, in my mind anyway, we really shouldn't have the expectation that our children should be able to visit the library without being exposed to objectionable stuff. Heck, we as adults shouldn't have that expectation.
I agree with this statement also. As I said, I guess I never gave it much thought before. When I suggested seperate sections for the computers, I didn't mean a whole seperate room for the adult computers. Just an area that only adults can use those computers. That way, parents would know that it is an adult only section and if you allow your kids to go there, they could see something that you might be ok with. And as I said, I don't think that is just p o r n. There is a lot more out there I wouldnt' want my dd to see that is perfectly ok for adults to look at if the want to.
>>"A library's primary duty is to give the public access to information NOT take care to see our children don't see certain things. "<<
I agree. I guess I'm not really thinking about the children seeing inappropriate things, just the fact that the library shouldn't be a place to view inappropriate things. That probably makes me un-American, but I have problems with freedom of speech anyway so what's new. I feel like there are other places for adults to go to view adult sites...internet coffee shops for one and your own home. Why is it so difficult to just view whatever you want in the privacy of your own home? (That's not directed at you Vicki, just throwing it out there.)
Unschool - You're right and I see what you're saying. I still feel that a separate area for adult-use computers would really mean ONE person like you viewing possibly objectionable material to children and TEN perverts looking at p-orn. Ideally, yes, it would be nice if the "room" or "area" was for people like you but I just don't think it would be. I think it would be the perv room.
Cocoabutter - good clarifications on "public" and you're exactly right as well. I think for me it all comes down to my own personal problems with freedom of speech, and that's a LONG story!!!
I guess I'm not really thinking about the children seeing inappropriate things, just the fact that the library shouldn't be a place to view inappropriate things.
But that is the question, who says what is appropriate and what is not? Just because you might be ok with your child seeing something might not mean I am ok with the same thing. And I am not talking about the p o r n sites either. There are things on news sites that I wouldn't want dd to see either!
Dawn, the word is filtered here so it does not come up in search engines, and this prevents us from getting a lot of p-e-r-v-s *loitering* here.
I know Vicki and I'm not disagreeing with you under freedom of speech. You are right! What I've concluded over the last few years about myself is that *I* disagree with the Right to Free Speech on so many levels that I always go against it. I guess I should just say that I disagree with free speech so therefore I disagree with unfiltered internet access in public libraries. Right to Free Speech has been taken to such a level IMO that boundaries are sowly going out the window. Boundaries on EVERYTHING in America for that matter. It's ridiculous and (IMO) the cause of the fall of the United States. It's always "we have to provide this" or "he can say this" because of "Free Speech", meaning you can do/say what you want regardless of others or morals. I'm getting off topic though.
Adena, I agree with you. I missed your post!
A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away...
there used to be a pretty much universally accepted standard that our society as a whole agreed upon that we needed to protect children from things that were possibly harmful to them. For instance, I just read an article on Fox News that states, "Sexual Images Psychologically Damaging Young Girls." Back in the old days, that would be a big "duh" moment to most adults and parents who cared about the images and information that any children were exposed to before they were ready.
Granted that the article refers more to the general media than specifically to the Internet, but the point I am trying to make is that we have lost our way when it comes to protecting the minds and psyches of our young children.
Hillary Clinton wrote, "It Takes a Village." But that isn't true. These days, the only people who are doing the job are vigilant parents who are ferocious about protecting their children from the evil that lurks at every turn.
I hate to think of a library as not being a safe place to take children.
Oh I totally understand what you mean about free speech! I think it has been so blown up also. People think they can say anything because of it. I don't think it was ever intended to be what it is today.... but again, that is another topic. LOL
I guess my whole point about filtering what is ok and what is not ok at the library is that is putting onto me what someone else thinks is ok. Or what is ok for adults vs what is ok for kids. I don't have a problem with adults being able to look up adult naked statues in the name of art, but that doesn't mean I think it is ok for a child to walk behind it and see it. There is no easy answer!
I think we agree???? LOL
>>>Dawn, the word is filtered here so it does not come up in search engines, and this prevents us from getting a lot of p-e-r-v-s *loitering* here.>>>
Thanks Karen!
Don't knock freedom of speech, Deanna and Vicki. Our founders didn't put the various personal freedoms in the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) were part of a deal to get states such as Virginia to ratify the Constitution. The founders who insisted on, among other things, freedom of speech, had first hand experience with living under a government that said you couldn't say or print this or that, and if you did so, you went to jail. They knew that one of the important factors in keeping a government relatively honest and in preventing government from becoming oppressive was to make it a matter of highest law that people are free to say what they want and newspapers (media) are free to publish what they want, free of government censorship (barring obscenity, calling for violent overthrow of the government, or "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater").
One of the first things oppressive governments do is crack down on media; the second thing they do is crack down on people speaking out in public; then they crack down on people speaking in private, in their homes.
Yes, freedom of speech is often misused, in my opinion and to my taste. But when I consider the alternative, I'll put up with being offended or annoyed, so long as it means that the Pentagon Papers can be published, Woodward and Bernstein can investigate and publish an investigation into the wrongdoings of a presidential campaign.
Last weekend the Washington Post published investigative articles about Walter Reed Hospital, and the head of the military system in charge of the hospitals said today that the system had failed and had it not been for the Washington Post articles, he would not have known the system had failed. Today the Philadelphia Inquirer reviewed a book, "The Race Beat", recounting how a few brave reporters and publishers of newspapers in the South began priting stories about the evils of segregation, and how the media brought those evils to the attention of the nation, bringing an end to segregation laws and the beginning of laws making acting on racial prejudice illegal.
For me, the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech is, as I said above, one of the shining stars in our flag, and we would be poorer without it or if it were diminished.
And, back to libraries, I agree with Vicki that children should not be moving around the library unsupervised - heck, these days children shouldn't be moving around any place unsupervised. I don't like the risk of children being exposed to ••••. But I also know that some people consider the David and Venus de Milo statues ••••.
I do know that in my library, a child under 13 can't borrow "adult" books, that is, books in the adult section, without written parental permission - in which case the child is given an "adult" library card. I also know that some libraries require parental permission in writing before allowing children to use library computers. I have no problem with rules like that, because it involves the parents in making the decision on what their child is exposed to.
I don't like what children are exposed to in a lot of ways and places in today's world. And often wish for simpler times, until I remember that in those simpler times, all the same things happened - we just didn't talk about them.
I've talked/typed far too long. A good topic, Ame.
Ginny, you are a shining star for Freedom of Speech and I agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, the founding fathers were more on target and we(universal) have gone way off target with it so in my eyes it (freedom of speech) has become a joke.
Vicki - Yes, we agree.
This is a strange debate for me because I feel that I agree with everyone in many ways, just more disagree with the way the Right to Free Speech is used in this day and time.
Cocoabutter you also make a good point in your single statement of "I hate to think of the library as not being a safe place to take children." Soooooo true. The library is supposed to be a wonderful place to take your children, I just fear that separating adult computers will gradually mean sickos with bad intentions and like most things, will be abused.
What are most of your libraries like? Maybe I'm coming at this from an individual experience. Our main county library is downtown, we go there weekly, and let me tell you there are weirdos lurking around ALL the time. A woman was raped in broad daylight in the back of a car behind the library about 2 years ago. The "lurkers" are really filthy looking men who stare and hang around, and 2 of them I recognize from my retail days of working in a bookstore. They came in every Friday night and bought STACKS of p-orn. It was bad enough walking in on my own, but now with a daughter, I just get the willies. With this topic, I imagine these same people using the library for free p-orn access (no longer heading to the bookstore) and then lurking outside to watch us come and go. Does that make sense? I know that people (like Unschool) use the internet as a resource for things that may be objectionable to some but isn't p-orn, but all I can think of is p-orn and all the sickos out there.
Yes, great topic Ame!
My library usually just has everyday people in there. I see some "weird" men, I suppose who like to read the newspapers, but they don't cause any trouble. They just may not be dressed that well, not really troublemakers.
We only have the one library and I've never felt unsafe there. I know that if they find you abusing the computers, they can take away your computer privileges. We aren't supposed to turn them off, or try to change the settings, at least on the card catalog computers, anyway. The internet computers are in a different area.
They do have a code of conduct:
Code of Conduct
So, I don't know if this means they could kick you out for viewing p-orn, or not.
Just want to make sure I clarify..I don't mind if there are physically dirty people in the library. But this is physically dirty to the point there is filth caked on them, they don't read anything, and just hang around and watch you. They are there almost every day.
HI all......... I am a Librarian. In our Library we do have filters on our computers. They filter out pictures mostly,but 1 site we do ban is My Space. No one can get to it. Our Director said after all the child molesters on TV,she just didn't feel good about having it open. We have had a few people ask about it.When we explain about why she banned it, not 1 person is angry.
I do have to say, our childrens library computers are away from the adults. Adults are not allowed to sit in the childres area and surf the net. We are of the mind that we are all here to protect the chlidren.Now I am not saying we babysit, but, in this one area, we can keep them safe. We have 4-5 child molesters that come to our Library on a weekly basis. They are not allowed to go into the childres area.
Hi, Nan. Haven't seen you for a long time.
I agree with your Director about banning My Space, partly because of the risks, and partly because it is a big server hog. My son often uses the computers in his college library because he has a modem at home and it takes forever to download stuff he needs for his classes. He is often frustrated when trying to download at the college library because so many students in the library are on MySpace or YouTube, another server hog. His school has only been using the internet for class material for a year or so and hasn't refined a lot of stuff (plus, probably had no idea how much server space they'd need when they started). The library has now started monitoring a bit and when they see students on YouTube or MySpace, ask them to stop using the library computers for that. Unhappily, my son says that anyone who is reasonably computer savvy can get to MySpace or YouTube by using a mirror site or some other way to get around the block your Director has on the computers.
What these kids don't realize is that whatever they post on MySpace can come back to haunt them in the future, because it never really goes away. A lot of employers are starting to search MySpace and YouTube when considering applicants, as are a lot of colleges. I read recently that Senator Bill Frist's son had something on MySpace in which he (the Senator's son) called himself an anti-Semite - which I'm sure the Senator just loves to know. Not that the boy is an anti-Semite, but that he was dumb enough to post something like that on the internet, where it will come back to haunt both him and the Senator. Even if he deletes it (and I believe he has), someone will have copied it and it will pop up.
|
Members
