Can't we just all calm down and act like adults?
Pornography is a hot issue, and coming out against it sure makes politicians look good. So maybe I shouldn't have been surprised when County Exec Maggie Brooks came out swinging after Channel 10's big expose last week. Channel 10 visited the downtown library branch half a dozen times during its investigation, and "on nearly every visit," said reporter Brett Davidson, "we found someone looking at porn."
The Channel 10 reporters witnessed, among other things, "a man viewing images of naked people engaged in sexual acts," said Davidson. "Standing nearby, we could see it all."
The Channel 10 team also saw a man looking at images on boylovesites.com. The reporters got his name and learned later from police that the man was on probation. The offense: "he offered a 14-year-old boy money to see his privates and touched him inappropriately," said the Channel 10 report.
Computers at libraries have filters to block pornography, but they can be turned off. And there's good reason for turning them off. Computer filters being what they are, they could block access to online medical information --- information about breast cancer or testicular cancer, for example.
And, notes Kent Oliver, who chairs the American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee, the same filter may let pornographic sites through with no problem. The pornographic web site whitehouse.com has snagged many a user looking for the official whitehouse.gov site, says Oliver.
The federal Children's Internet Protection Act requires libraries to have those filters. But as a result of a court case filed by the American Library Association, librarians may turn off those filters if patrons older than 17 ask them to.
The downtown library's policy is to do just that. "If you're going to have filters," says Oliver, "then what they're doing is ideal."
I'm no fan of pornography. I certainly don't think children should be exposed to it. I don't want it shoved in my face or anybody else's. But people have a constitutional right to read or see pornography if they want to.
Nor should librarians become our culture police, wandering up and down the aisles checking on what we're reading or viewing.
And we shouldn't make it harder --- and more embarrassing --- for people to get access to sensitive medical information. (Keep in mind that the downtown library serves a wide variety of people --- including many who can't afford their own computers.)
Clearly, the downtown library needs to review its practices --- as opposed to its policy. The Monroe County Public Library director, Paula Smith, was out of town last week and wasn't available for comment, but a City Hall spokesperson told us that all of the downtown library's computers have filters that block the computers on the first and second floors. That's where the children's and teen areas are located.
The Channel 10 report says that the man looking at boylovesites.com was at a computer on the second floor.
But this kind of thing can be fixed without trampling on the First Amendment.
And it can be fixed without grandstanding. And without beating up publicly on library staff.
Brooks would have scored a lot more points with me if she had picked up the phone and called the director of the library after the Channel 10 piece. I'd have thought more of her as a public servant if she had expressed her concern and asked if she couldn't sit down with the director and discuss the situation.
Maybe she did exactly that. Brooks doesn't return a lot of phone calls from this newspaper. But we do know that she sent out a press release threatening to cut off millions of dollars of county funds from the library if it didn't shape up. With that, the media were off and running.
The D&C's headline --- "Library porn policy stuns exec" --- lacked only the exclamation mark.
"The county executive saw an immediate threat to our children," county communications director John Durso told our reporter, Jeremy Moule. "She believed it was important to let the library board know how she felt and why it was important that they take immediate action."
Uh huh. And the library board couldn't have gotten the message unless the story made front-page headlines, with the county executive as the Protector of Our Children.
Thanks to Jeremy Moule for research for this column.
Comments for "LIBRARY: Maggie's shocked! Shocked!" (10)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
MAT said on Feb. 28, 2007 at 10:43am
I agree that the internet blocking software has the potential to limit viewing of potentially important information that is not at all pornographic. That being said, something needs to be done to limit the exposure of hardcore pornography to children or other bystanders at the Central Library. It seems to me that the library needs to rearrange their computer set-up. A row of computers that would allow the viewing of potentially adult content should be set up in a corner, out of view of random onlookers. This would allow the perverts to continue getting aroused at our public library; the library to continue receiving county funds; the Bill of Rights to remain intact; and, "our children" to be protected from witnessing the beauty of the sexual act until they themselves begin having sex at 13.
roy lee chapman said on Feb. 27, 2007 at 9:21pm
This is the deal: the precedent has been set. Llibraries did not--nor were they expected to--acquire, catalog, retrieve, or make available for patrons certain information. i.e., pornography, in book and magazine format; therefore, they neither should be required to acquire, catalog, retrieve, or make available for patrons that material just because the format has changed from book to any number of technologies including videotape, CD, DVD, Internet, Web site, or technologies to be developed hereafter.
DCO said on Feb. 28, 2007 at 12:21pm
Please get your facts straight. There is NO constitutional right to view pornography per se. The Constitution protects speech. If something is properly characterized as mere pornography, it is not enetitled to constitutional protection. There has to be a plus factor that warrants such protection.
Marc said on Mar. 02, 2007 at 6:14am
I agree that "people have a constitutional right to view pornography if they want." But they shouldn't be able to do so on the backs of the taxpayers; or in a manner that may illuminate such material to those underage or just not wanting to be exposed..
Martin Fass said on Mar. 02, 2007 at 6:47pm
Many thanks for the excellent column in response to the County Executive's shock. If only public servants would focus on the work they are facing, the needs of the community, rather than playing to the people and trying to garner favor.
J said on Mar. 28, 2007 at 11:45am
Little late, but there's been a huge debate at the D&C Chili blog over an article we cited at Rochesterturning.com... www.democratandchronicle.com/blogs/chili/2007/03/mias-whack-job.html
Dino K. said on Mar. 21, 2007 at 8:58am
Maggie Brooks has done an excellent job at choosing a battle that she cannot loose - no matter what the outcome, Maggie Brooks will come out the true winner. If the library captitulates, Maggie Brooks can score a "moral" victory and sure enough, there will be some mention of it in her re-election campaign as a champion of morality and "family values". If the library stands their ground, she gets to slash millions of dollars out of a tight budget at the Library's expense, and she will still get a popularity boost with her conservative base anyway. Win-win for Maggie. Loose-loose for the library system.
Let's not be mislead by rightiousness and constitutional rhetoric here - Maggie Brooks is using the hot button issue of sex and pornography as a weapon, this is little more than political chest pounding. Maggie Brooks, you are no moral champion, you are a bully.
LP said on Apr. 10, 2007 at 1:23pm
SEX IN THE LIBRARY? GOOD GRIEF, CHARLIE BROWN!
Suppose Maggie Brooks next discovers that (for instance) the county's Public Health Department is distributing free condoms (eeek, I'm shocked!) or free needles to HIV positive drug users? Or maybe information on (shhh) sex, STDs, or pregnancy to teenagers of all things? (Heart attack time!) Maybe she will threaten to withold funds approved by the County and State Legislatures for the Public Health Department too?
HK said on Apr. 16, 2007 at 8:27am
Ms. Brooks will take funding from the library if blocks aren't in place. The ACLU will sue the library if sites are blocked. Ms. Brooks gets funds that she can use wherever she wants and we will all lose the library because it will have no money. If Ms. Brooks is doing this to protect the people, not just to find some more funding for her pet projects, then the money she takes from the libraries should be given back to the taxpayers. Satan will be playing with snowballs before that happens.
HK said on Apr. 16, 2007 at 8:30am
Oh, and, by the way, the TV news media aren't telling anyone that the majority of people are fine with the library's policy. They choose to show only those who side with Maggie Brooks when they do their reports on TV. Thanks so much for bringing the real information to the people TV10!
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.