The only thing worse than a politician is a lawyer. Wait, most politicians are lawyers...

Okay, this is as dumb as anything I've ever come across. Is the porn industry a big funder of the ACLU?

I believe Benjamin Franklin said something like "Those willing to give up some freedom for security, are worthy of neither freedom or security."

This isnt about porn, but preventing the states from censoring using tax payers' money.

Here's an idea, why don't the libraries just put the computers in isolated rooms, where someone can "study" in private, or not have the computers at all.

Derek, yes they are, as are the recording, publishing, television, and motion picture industries.

ON that front we better watch drone use in the usa.Thank god the supreme court banned lo jacking cars w/o a warrant

The issue here is that the library should be able to have the filters on by default.

But, that any adult should be able to request that the filters be removed during their session.

.

I don't have a problem with libraries filtering out porn and gambling sites (why should my taxes support access to those?), but they need to redesign their filters so they don't exclude legitimate sites. From what I understand, this is what the ACLU is filing against, not blocking porn/etc.

The problem, UnitedStates, is that minors (and young ones at that) often frequent libraries, and it's illegal for them to view pornographic web sites.

...when they should be fighting for our spelling.

The name of this article is totally misleading. This isn't talking about a person using the library computer to go to actual porn sites it's talking about someone doing research, like for example, wanting to see what wiki says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

but that result would be blocked on the library computers, even though it isn't actually pornographic material. This suit is just simply over harmless sites like this being blocked. It's censorship, plain and simple, and it's wrong. If a site is for "adults only" then blocking it in a setting where families are at, is perfectly fine, but blocking a wiki page, simply because it talks about porn, is just wrong.

It is a disgraceful shame that I can't take my kids to some public libraries because some pervert gets his thrills through exposing porn to others. Viewing pornography in a public place is not a human right - it is a disgusting addiction of which people should be ashamed.

“This case is about an overly broad filtering policy that has restricted an adult student from using the Internet for a class assignment . . . ”

Two questions: what class? and where do I sign up?

;)

Wouldn't any "adult" in their right mind do this "research" from the privacy of their homes or somewhere where children aren't likely to be present?

Last time I checked, libraries aren't the only place you can get access to the internet.

What's next? Churches have to provide access to porn too, or it's "censorship"? A little common sense would go a long way.

Or just stop providing internet access at the libraries... problem solved.

@wives fan

The photographer in the suit would be hard pressed to explain why he was looking up "porn" to view artistic photography...

Did you read the story or just the headline? Let me help you out-"The search censorship by the North Central Regional Library also means some websites -- such as Google Images and YouTube -- are blocked too." See how simple that was?

I work in a library. Public computers can be seen by ANYONE walking by (including children). When are the RIGHTS of CHILDREN (To BE CHILDREN) going to come before the RIGHTS of adults?

The name of this article is totally misleading. This isn't talking about a person using the library computer to go to actual porn sites it's talking about someone doing research, like for example, wanting to see what wiki says:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

but that result would be blocked on the library computers, even though it isn't actually pornographic material. This suit is just simply over harmless sites like this being blocked. It's censorship, plain and simple, and it's wrong. If a site is for "adults only" then blocking it in a setting where families are at, is perfectly fine, but blocking a wiki page, simply because it talks about porn, is just wrong.

This is the kind of drivel that the ACLU puts out to pretend their suits have merit. In the end, they really want to give people access to porn. I honestly don't know what drives the ACLU to do what they do. It's like an organization intent on bringing as much corruption into the US as possible. What a misguided mission under the guise of "freedom".

When are the RIGHTS of CHILDREN (To BE CHILDREN) going to come before the RIGHTS of adults?

When? People are always trying to abridge the rights of adults under the rallying cry of "think of the children." Not everything in a library must be suitable for viewing by children. Let's think of the adults, too.

If the worry is underage kids surfing porn in a library, then that's the fault of the parents and not the library - heaven forbid they have to sit their kids down and make them know that surfing porn is a no no or whatever. Besides, if they're after porn, they'll surf it on any computer available, be it at home or a friend's computer or whatever. Install a filter that's removable by any adult requesting it. And if some kid gets around that, problem can get resolved by banning them or calling social services or whatever.

If worry is that kids will see adults surfing porn in a library, then that also has a simple solution - call the cops and have the pervert or reckless adult arrested for corrupting a minor or whatever (showing porn to kids is probably a crime in any jurisdiction).

But what you can't/ shouldn't do is go ahead and burden everybody, especially the adults, with such overly broad censorship just to spare some parents from the inconvenience of having to do their job as parents.

I'm quite stunned that some have equated the de-humanization of half our population with "free speech"...indeed, folks in social services (both faith-based and secular) know for a fact that porn not only preys on women, but it also markedly decays the sensitivities of everyone involved. And then for a supposedly "freedom loving" outfit like the ACLU to dignify twisted sexuality in a manner that often leads to violence is...well, it's just breathtaking. Oh---how the ACLU has morphed from being a pillar for freedom into a sinister and cowering lackey of sex addicts...

Barabas, if we had your way, then access to Islamic, Bhuddist, Jewish, Communism etc websites would be blocked because they are against Jesus the King.

The worst part is, the library is using tax dollars to fight lawsuits from the ACLU. I wonder how many reading and arts programs are getting cut to deal with this nonsense. Most libraries do not stock Playboy and my guess is probably none stock hard core porn. So why should they make porn available on line?

Come on ACLU, do something constructive.

If you think this is wrong, you should check out the ACLU's stance on child porn. Here's a quote - “Mere possession should not be a crime,” said John Roberts, executive director of the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
So who wants to give ACLU some money to keep fighting for our rights? Pedophiles and the porn industry.

With me it's about priorities. Doesn't the ACLU have anything better to do? Like defend cases of people they believe were wrongfully convicted. What's more important, somewhat falsely imprisoned or somebody not getting their daily dose of porn?

(On an aside, if the library does allow people to view porn on some computers, I want to know exactly which ones. No way I'm touching that mouse or keyboard.)

@cygnus - Just because someone utters words does not make the words true or the utterer smart. Franklin had no concept of todays events and was likely speaking to the times he lived in.

I believe Benjamin Franklin said something like "Those willing to give up some freedom for security, are worthy of neither freedom or security."

The idea that tax payers should pay for this is crap. A whole section for just viewing porn in the "Adult" section would have to be built to keep kids from viewing anything and who in their right mind would go in there and clean up? its just gross and slightly insane.

Okay, I was really trying to maintain some levity on this topic, but the volume and intensity of self-righteous hand-wringing and ignorant condemnation in these comments is just too much. So, for the record, let me just clarify a few of the most egregious falsehoods: watching porn does NOT necessarily make one a pervert, "sex addict," pedophile or misogynist . . . grow up. But, that's not to say it should be provided in a public library.

@cygnus - Not being able to watch porn has nothing to do with security. Try some other stupid statement.

Whats next, is the library going to have to provide a jacking room for the porn watchers?

Lord Aaron, you have made me finally make my mind up about the A.C.L.U. after going back and forth for many years. The A.C.L.U. can go to hell.

Gotta love the ACLU. Always ready to go to bat for the filth of the world.

Anyone who would go to a PUBLIC library to watch porn is a mental degenerate. I don't care if somebody wants to watch porn. Not exactly a big deal. However, that is something that should be done in private. NOT in a public library.

Kudos to the library for trying to maintain a certain level of decency in public. I hope the courts side with them on this one.

Sorry people, but you do not have a RIGHT to view porn in public. Trying to say it's against the Constitution is nothing but a bs argument that totally lacks logic.

The library should just tell the ACLU to Beat It.

Keep the Porn in the privacy of your own house, where it's no ones business but your own, or perhaps you'd like the Police state to continue to grow, and they will return to doing home invasions where they think your lifestyle is illegal...lest we forget the lesson learned in these few examples of Many,
www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usnews64.htm
www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/texas/txnews16.htm
www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/john-lawrence-plaintiff-in-lawrence-v-texas-dies-at-68.html?_r=1
www.brokenjam.com/news-views/299657-man-downloads-kiddie-porn-library-after-wife-bans-internet.html
deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/2007/11/public-libraries-safe-havens-for-kiddie.html
afrocityblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/liberals-libraries-and-child-pornography-by-jenn-q-public/

All due apologies, pc locked up in mid sentence,
Consenting ADULTS, watching ADULT porn in the privacy of their own home, Is No Ones business but their own. Stay out of it ACLuelessU.

@Like Me Now?

@cygnus - Just because someone utters words does not make the words true or the utterer smart. Franklin had no concept of todays events and was likely speaking to the times he lived in.

So anything that was said yesterday has no relevance today? Hope you're not a Christian because if what B Franklin said 250 years ago is already irelevant then the Bible would be completely meaningless right?

I believe Benjamin Franklin said something like "Those willing to give up some freedom for security, are worthy of neither freedom or security."

Still sounds pretty relevant to me.

I would agree with the whole censorship argument if the websites were blocked from everywhere. However, libraries aren't stopping people from having this stuff out there, just from viewing it on their computers. Libraries don't have every book that's ever been printed. They pick and choose what they want to have. Why shouldn't they have the same discretion with websites. If someone wants to read a book they don't have, or see a site they don't give access to, they can find it elsewhere.

Barry- I do not want to walk into a public library and see pornography on a computer screen. Books can be looked at privately-no one has to see what someone else is reading-but the computer screens are just too out there. With budget cuts I think it is highly unlikely the libraries are going to install private screening rooms so Patrons can watch whatever they want. As adults we can protect ourselves -children are innocent and powerless and need our intervention and protection.

Would the ACLU next defend some guy arrested for Masturbating in front of a computer showing porn at a public library defending his right of free expression?

Come on..this is Porn. Somethings should just remain private. If you want to watch porn, rent a video, or get your own computer.

I believe Benjamin Franklin said something like "Those willing to give up some freedom for security, are worthy of neither freedom or security."

When Ben Franklin said this, he could not have envisioned the world we live in today. While I'm an adamant supporter of the Constitution (the spirit and the letter) we also need to be smart. Crude rifles, cannon and sword were the WMDsof the day. Now a single bomb can kill millions in the blink of an eye. Porno was more or less limited to what consenting adults did behind closed doors. To me, the ACLU is more dedicated to destroying America than preserving it, just my opinion.

@Peace-3229398

Barry- I do not want to walk into a public library and see pornography on a computer screen. Books can be looked at privately-no one has to see what someone else is reading-but the computer screens are just too out there

So you're suggesting that computers simply be banned in libraries? Or that they should just be prevented from accessing things YOU don't like? Why should we pander to your likes and dislikes and not those of others? Atheists may not like seeing religious information on a computer screen. Homophobes may not like seeing gay rights information. Don't do a report on the history of abortion in this country because you may offend a pro-life advocate sitting next to you. etc, etc, etc

You can name pretty much any thing and you'll likely be able to find someone in this country who is offend by it. Being offended is the new national passtime after all.

I have a question; who funds the ACLU?

Get your own computer, like the rest of us! I don't want my taxes to pay for your prurient activities!!

Agreed. If you want to research porn, get your own dang computer. If you are doing it for an art class, use the schools computers, most to all schools have their own library and computer station. There really needs to be a fine for lawsuits like this, they are a waste of taxpayer money and a waste of the courts time. Lawyers who decide to take any case even if it's a frivolous one, need to pay.

You all realize right that this is not about porn sites, thats just the spin that the meida has put on it, the two people that are being represented by the ACLU were not trying to access porn, they were trying to access sites that the filter the library has in place to block porn also blocked.

Its not all about porn, get your minds out of the gutter.

@Backcountry - it's not relevant to this topic and it's especially not relevant in todays world. Running into a traffic intersection in the 1700's would likely not be a big deal. Today you'll get run over. Same freedom differing personal security posture. On a grander scale you can travel to Europe without fear of reprisal today but in the late 1700'syou were likely to be jailed. Again same freedom but in his day they guarded it differently.

Franklin supposedly said those words, cygnus repeated them here and I commented on that.

"Derek-381097 -
Okay, this is as dumb as anything I've ever come across. Is the porn industry a big funder of the ACLU?"

Not sure about funding, but it seems the aclu is full of sick perverts who like to watch porn in public. New twist on walking around with a trench coat and exposing themself to children.

Class assignments? Photography?! Please. Men use the excuse of 'art' to draw/view naked women waay too often. Some people view nudity and porn as one and the same, and who's to say they're wrong? Either way, it's indecent exposure when it comes to children and those who simply don't want to see it. No one's suggesting it be removed from the Internet, but libraries should be able to excercise the right not to allow nudity inside their own walls. If being naked in public is illegal, how is exhibiting naked pictures in full view of the (non-consenting) public any different? I, for one, like knowing that no one is checking out nudity right where my kids can walk past and see it. Where's your common sense, America? If you need a 'nudity fix' for an assignment or otherwise, go get it where everyone else doesn't' have to be subjected to it: in private.

Simple solution if someone wants to view porn they should just go to the local ACLU and use their computers and the ACLU would finally be providing a useful service to the people they represent, then the ACLU can deal with the viruses, worms spies...etc that comes with that filth, they can pay to have their computers replaced every six months! those college students and photographers can use their own computers or share a friends,its not a public responsibly. the reason the library has standards of use is to protect our youth and the equipment. we as a society also have a moral responsibility to our citizens. and the library also has a responsibility to keep overhead to a reasonable prospective, to set up private viewing areas for 3 or four of every 300 people would be a wasted expense, besides there is probably a porn shop around the corner they can use, that young college student can get his education their and the photographer can look at all the pictures he wants. Who was the third person a pedophile? these people want society to furnish this for them so they don't have to risk their own computer.

ACLU does destructive things, never constructive. This is the problem with the ACLU.

Enough already. If I EVER see some pervert in the library watching porn, I'm going to point at him and say REALLY LOUD, "look everyone, this POS is sitting her getting his jollies watching porn on the computers your tax dollars pay for." If everyone did this, maybe these aholes would buy their own computer and internet hookup and stay home and we could help nip this nonsense in the bud.

Let's put aside for a moment the fact that this is a stupid idea... here's another reason why public libraries and other such places would not want porn viewed on their computers: they are a hotbed for viruses and spam mail and adware.

I'm a 20 year member of the ACLU and I again support this stance because it is about protecting controversial free speech even when I do not agree with the action involved. I find Fred Phelps, Neo-Nazis, the Klan and NAMBLA ideas unacceptable and abhorrent, but even those groups have free speech rights that must be protected, because if we allow their rights to be violated then that legal precedent will be turned on us when we disagree with the majority.

Voltaire was correct about the right of free speech when he said "I detest what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "

Freedom cannot protect itself, so please protect it for future generations.

Normally I agree with most of the things the ACLU does. NOT this time. Protecting the first Ammendment is important but this is not a free speech matter. You want on line porn get a job, buy a computer, and pay a IPC for internet service. A library is a public place not a smut shop.

I personally do not wish to go to the library to use a computer and find some guy watching the meatspin website. I'd prefer to see some censorship. We already censor what people do in public in other ways. We are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded building if there isn't a fire. We can't walk around in the nude at a public school. We don't go into court and expect it to be cool if we wear a shirt that has the recipe for making crack. We already live censored lives, and in some cases censorship is a good thing.

So the only way I would consider allowing computers not to be censored in a public access location is if there is an adult only computer room that is still monitored, but the search ability is unregulated. Is if some sleazy guy wants to go to the adult computer area and look up a video involving 2 pigs, a goat, a goose and 3 guys, then he can do that. Now if he decides to start fondling himself in that room, I don't want to hear about the ACLU crying foul that the library is restricting his civil liberties if somebody at the library calls the cops on the pervert.

If I recall correctly, it wasn't too long ago some guys got arrested for watching porn in their car while at a drive through McDonalds. Some lady in the vehicle behind them and her daughter/kids, saw the chicka bow wow happening on the little DVD screen and called the cops. They got arrested for good reason. I don't think I recall hearing the ACLU complaining about their 1st amendment rights. Next we will hear that the ACLU is gonna cry foul over somebody watching child porn at a library. Sad sad sad.

The ACLU has lost their minds along with their credibility with this one! Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

epistemologist:

In 1973, in the case of Miller vs. the State of California, the US Supreme Court decided that 'obscene' material is not covered by the First Amendment. They defined 'obscene' in relative terms of offense, prurience, and sexuality, leaving it up to the communities to define what was and was not 'obscene'. The speech of Fred Phelps, Neo-Nazis, the KKK, NAMBLA, and such ARE protected.

In other words, there is a line. The speech of Fred Phelps, Neo-Nazis, the KKK, NAMBLA and such are on one side of it, pornography is (usually) on the other side of it. Defend our rights when someone crosses that line with censorship, but not before, because we don't have any rights beyond that line.

The Library has to block some sites because they are unhealthy for the computers. just because they don't make them available does not mean they are censoring, they are simply not providing, and those people will have to use one of a million other sources to get that info. if you allow porn in the library in private viewing areas what else will you be allowing?????? sorry not at my expense. our libraries are not porn shops and we don't need the perverts taking over the libraries. Hay! they can be sperm donnors, I hear those places have all the Pictures , videos and privacy they need and sometimes can even get paid for it.

Those "porn" filters do not work, really. I have lost count of the times I have tried to look up CLASSICAL ART on a library computer -- only to have pictures of the Venus DeMilo, Michaelangelo's "David", and many other CLASSIC STATUES either blurred out or just plain not allowed. Plus, many of the libraries that have those "porn" filters installed also have National Geographic Magazine accessible to the general public, and we all know that NatGeo "happens" to contain pictures of *gasp* nudity from time to time.....

If I am allowed to see pictures of naked people in NatGeo, in the Public Library -- why am I not allowed to see pictures of the Venus DeMilo in the same Public Library?

Backcountry164, You are very correct in saying that one can pick about anything and someone somewhere will be offended by it. What these people fail miserably to realize is that they should be thankful that they live in a country where we have the right to be offended. To not be allowed to be offended is tyrany. People who are offended by something have the right to speak out about it, but they do not have the right to prohibit whatever offends them, provided it doesn't infringe on somene elses rights. That is part of the joy of freedom, the right to be offended and complain. Without those rights we would be living in a land where no one has the right to be offended by anything, or at least not the right to speak about being offended.

Those people are too busy complaining about being offended rather than considering the alternative, such as N. Korea where if you complain you dissappear. These people, while having the right to be offended, also have to grow some thicker skin. I'm sure the early settlers were pretty offended when the Indians attacked their homesteads and villages, but they had thick enough skin to go on with their lives.

There are many things that offend me, but I don't waste my time dwelling on how offended I am, I ignore them and go on.

@C Smith. I disagree with Miller v. State of California because it is too vague and leaves the decision open to communities instead of setting a single national standard.

I obviously don't want to see someone masturbating in the library but there are other less intrusive ways of dealing with that situation than allowing the every different community to decide what is free speech and what isn't because what is considered obscene in NYC won't be the same as what is obscene in Iowa.

There are laws in this country about sexual harrassment. If you look them up, one of the criteria is "hostile work environment". This means you can't tell off color jokes at work or put up a swimsuit calendar at your desk or otherwise cause those around you to feel uncomfortable. I would guess that most Librarians would feel uncomfortable if patrons began watching porn in their vicinity, looking at them with bulge in their pants. Should the Librarians then be able to sue for having to work in a hostile work environment?

This is not a first amendment violation. Not providing access to information is not the same thing as abridging free speech. It's like someone ranting against the government, saying that "Obama is a crook" for example. They can rant all they like and the government can't do anything to stop them, and you can go listen to them if you want to without fear of landing in jail.

However, the government is under no obligation to disseminate that information either. The governement does not have to give every wackadoodle consipracy theorist a stage. They do not have to broadcast their opinions on NPR so that the whole nation can have access. The same goes for this case. No one is saying that these pornography sites mus be taken down, they are not saying people cannot look at porn if they want to... what the library is saying is that they choose not to disseminate that information on the porn industries behalf. The choice not to facilitate the spread of speech and thought is not the same thing as abridgment.

And yes, I would rather have no computers in Libraries at all then be told that a homeless guy is masterbating 10 feet from where my kid is having storytime.

"How-to-manuals-for-human-copulation" are segmented in virtually all fiction published today in "best sellers."

The quality of authorship we are offered by once distinguished publishers (St. Martin's Press, Random House, Simon and Schuster to name only a few ... and, of course, Harlequin which opened the tide with their version of "Romance" novels years ago)... these books are ruined as good fiction but more a total insult to the reader.

Now, otherwise skilled authors who have truly gifted writing skills are pressured by those publishes to "spice" up the narratives or they won't get published.

That goes beyond appalling. It has nothing to do with "religion" or even "morality." I see too many who post here in NewsVine who show utter contempt for those standards of life. But, I suggest to these folks they consider survival skills for a rewarding life... particularly the self-labeled "Civil Liberties" protectors. These folks have no concept at all what "civil" liberties are.

“Your freedom stops at the end of my nose.” That is civil! And ACLU should be defending OUR liberties to protect our parenting rights at the least, and my personal rights at the most. How? Why should I have to be threatened physically or verbally by a population which craves or lives on pornography? And if pornography is allowed in Libraries that my tax dollars support, even trying to shelve the junk separately doesn't protect our youngsters. Parenting comes first in our civil rights. My adult rights to escape abnormal behaviors in others are my civil rights.

Porn can be purchased in bookstores by adults who crave them.

Pornography does not belong in Public Libraries. Pornography bespeaks HARM. And bottom line, Do No Harm is the basis of Civil Rights. ACLU is on the wrong side of the issue.

@Like Me Now?

Franklin made a general statement that holds as much meaning today as it did then. On top of that I can use your same argument to counter much of what is in the Bible, do you doubt that? Apparently not since you choose not to address that comment.

btw- The proper quote is-“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both”

The Patriot act is the perfect example. People willingly gave up some freedoms they didn't consider to be very important or that they felt wouldn't affect them. Are we more secure now than before? No, we've traded the one in a trillion threat of a terrorist attack for the guaranteed and constant harassment of the TSA. In other words, we've lost both freedom AND security.

Whenever an issue like this comes up, all these people talk about the kids. I am all for protecting the children. This is why these prudes need to learn the difference between nudity and pornography.

We don't need a bunch of old hags making everyone ashamed of nudity and of their own bodies. That is a lot worse than seeing pornographic images. It's the kind of shame and repression that makes someone interpret anything involving the physical as potentially erotic.

I don't think anyone should look at actual pornography in public. I also do not think libraries should ban entire services like google images and youtube. A lot of people get way too offended by their own non-sensibilities.

Class assignments? Photography?! Please. Men use the excuse of 'art' to draw/view naked women waay too often.

Personally, I visit porn sites for the articles.

;)

Get your own books. I don't want my tax dollars funding your interests.

Funny all you who are saying the real issue is that Google images or Wiki articles on pornography are the real issue, yet the ACLU is not suing to loosen the filters in the Libraries, but rather to lift them altogether allowing unfettered access. So it is about porn.

Also your right to free speech and free press does not mean that the governement or agencies receiving governement funds is required to provide you with an audience. Pornographers are free to make as much filthy nasty sticky porn as they choose. You are free to watch it. The County Library is free to ban it from their premises. Just because a building is public doesn't mean the public can do whatever it wants within it's walls.

"I'm quite stunned that some have equated the de-humanization of half our population with "free speech"...indeed, folks in social services (both faith-based and secular) know for a fact that porn not only preys on women, but it also markedly decays the sensitivities of everyone involved. And then for a supposedly "freedom loving" outfit like the ACLU to dignify twisted sexuality in a manner that often leads to violence is...well, it's just breathtaking. Oh---how the ACLU has morphed from being a pillar for freedom into a sinister and cowering lackey of sex addicts..."

So it's not free speech if it "markedly decays the sensitivities of everyone involved?" Let's assume you are correct, even though there is a strong argument to be made that you are not. Is it really your position that free speech only covers works that have what the authorities deem to be a positive social impact? That's not very free at all.

"Do No Harm is the basis of Civil Rights."

Umm... no, it isn't. "Do no harm" is the basis of the Hippocratic Oath, not of civil rights. Living in a free society means people will use their freedom in ways that quite often will do harm on some level. Sorry!

And for everyone else-- the article clearly states that most libraries don't use these filters. Has that led to your children being exposed to a great deal of harmful pornography?

It rains a lot too.

LMAO! The ACLU needs to get A CLUe! Is it really OK for an adult to watch porn in a public library while somebody's kids are walking around behind them and looking over their shoulder? We don't allow minors to go to porn palaces or gambling places but these cretins seem to think it's fine to allow them the opportunity to observe a "responsible" adult do just that in a public library. Does this organization have anyone in charge with enough common sense to walk and chew gum at the same time?

It's more a public health issue than a First Amendment issue.

They don't care so much about people watching the porn...it's all the beating off and jizz left on the countertops that's the problem.

The obvious solution is to have restricted adult sections where the computer are unfiltered. You people are over-reacting. The actual problem is the filtering is too generalized. And I hate to tell you this but the world does not revolve children and especially not around your opinion of how they should be raised or what they should or should not be exposed to. Adult students and researchers should not be burdened with your child's need to monitored...that's your job.

Maybe if the world DID revolve around children and their needs the world wouldnt have so many messed up adults...........Researchers-thats a good one!!!

culheath - You are sick to think children shouldn't be able to freely walk around their library without being exposed to porn playing on computers. Are you going to volunteer to "clean up" that "special" adult room with the "special" porno computers? You even look like the type that goes to the library to view porn. Ish.

See that's a great solution; most people forget that it is in fact the connection at the library that prevents such viewership, so even if one took his/her own comp. to the library, the preventative measure would still be in place. In all seriousness however just do it at home people, Ithe only individuals I can imagine doing this is exhibitionists, everyone else might be too shy. That said, their right to freedom of expression should still be protected.

jac-931625

culheath - You are sick to think children shouldn't be able to freely walk around their library without being exposed to porn playing on computers. Are you going to volunteer to "clean up" that "special" adult room with the "special" porno computers? You even look like the type that goes to the library to view porn. Ish.

I guess you missed the part about "restricted area". Of course I don't want kids walking around being exposed to porn...try being a little hysterical, ok?

Culheath, it's not all about the children. It's also about the adults who don't want to see that stuff either. And when you say it's the parents' job to monitor the children...how do they do that when their child is at the public library? Do they follow them all over, making sure they don't accidentallly catch sight of the porn people are openly watching? Yeah, I don't think that's possible either. Despite your obvious aversion to protecting children, they DO need to be protected and it's ALL adults' jobs to do that, not just their parents', hence public laws that protect children.

If you don't mind paying for all the public libraries' new open-access rooms, and fund the cleaning of them out of your own pocket, then I would be fine with open access on those computers. What? You can't afford it? So you thought I wanted to help pay for it then, along with the rest of America? You're just wrong on so many levels here. Next, you'll be saying I must allow access to porn in my home, otherwise I'm infringing on my child's right to watch it. Oh wait, you don't care about kids. Never mind.

SisterFeelsYa,

Nice habit you have of putting your words in other people's mouths.

Of course I care about kids and your aspersions to the contrary as just hot air.

I said have restricted areas, meaning where kids don't have access and only adults are allowed. Librarians and other adults can police that.

And far as you not wanting to see porn yourself, then don't look at it or don't go into the restricted area. There are many simple solutions but none would likely be ok with you given that you seem to be somewhat hysterical about the whole thing

culheath Are you volunteering to pay to have private porn stations in public libraries? will you also go in 3 times a day and clean those private rooms, are you volunteering to furnish the maintenance on those computers that will crash every time they are used, or are you just the same unintelligent individual that is represented by this ACLU atrocity? why cant these people just go to your house and use your computer? do you know what cull stands for? you are so liberal you are about to implode.(empty & void of reasoning). good day and good luck with that mental health issue.

do you know what cull stands for?

for one thing, it's "cul" not "cull" and its an text-talk abbreviation for "see you later"... I suppose if you were a Francophone using street talk you might try to make it another word for nether parts...but I somehow doubt you are a French speaker and would only know that if you were a fancier of foreign porn sites.

Dis-banned?? You my friend need to visit a library and borrow a dictionary.

This isn't about porn. It's about censorship. Should they take away books that show classic paintings of topless models?

Don't be deceived by a news organization's attempts to sensationalize a story and attract clicks...

Ha! Ha-Ha!

Craneguy - I see your point, but isn't there a concern here on the flip side of the argument? If a library is government funded, does it become a government service? Just because they are receiving funding, does the government have a right to dictate what materials and services they must make available to their patrons?

The ACLU does not receive any funding from the government. None of your tax dollars are funding them. This article is sensationalist and misleading. This isn't about pornography at all. The ACLU wants publicly-funded institutions to refrain from internet censorship in its service to the people. Porn is just a red herring that proponents of censorship use to scare people into submitting.

But that's my question, Robamation. How much say does a publicly funded library have in determining what materials it makes available? If offering the service is not supported by the mission statement of the library, doesn't the library have the right to say no? When it comes to running the library, they are the authority, right?

@GOP Undecided

Just because they are receiving funding, does the government have a right to dictate what materials and services they must make available to their patrons?

When you go into a bank to get a loan does the banker have a right to ask you what you plan on doing with the money before he decides whether or not to give you the loan?

Actually it is about porn. There should be some simple common sense here. If you want to view porn, fine. Go somewhere private and do so. Libraries should not be required to allow unfiltered access to porn. Rights and liberties need to be guided by some degree of common sense. Under the Second Amendment, people should be free to purchase, use and maintain fire arms. However, they shouldn't be allowed to build nuclear bombs. Come on people, it's really not that hard.

@WakeUpAmerica-3716462

Actually it is about porn.

Yeah, because everything else that gets blocked is just collateral damage. Who cares what rights we infringe upon as long as we mange to stop that ONE thing nobody likes. How very American.

Under the Second Amendment, people should be free to purchase, use and maintain fire arms. However, they shouldn't be allowed to build nuclear bombs. Come on people, it's really not that hard.

Your analogy makes no sense. No one is prevented from obtaining a legal firearm in order to make sure they don't aquire a nuclear device.

"Jerry D Williamson - ...This organization should be dis-banned and barred in the USA.

From my own stand point I do not want my tax dollars going to this organization."

And that's why we need the ACLU: it's the twenty first century, but there are still plenty of small minded people running around with a mentality straight out of the Dark Ages, whose reaction to disagreement is an instinctive urge to ban and suppress. If you ever wondered how dictators can thrive, it's b/c in any society there are always people like this eager to cheer on those who promise to crush those with discomfiting ideas that challenge or threaten their world view.

And don't worry about your tax dollars going to the ACLU - it's privately funded. Which reminds me I've gotten lazy about renewing my membership for a few years - thanks for reminding me why it's vital to keep the ACLU running.

Backcountry, your rights end when they cause harm to others. You have a right to possess a firearm within the limits of a city, but you don't have the right to fire that weapon. Why, because your actions are likely to cause another harm.

The harm is exposure of minors to pornographic files and images. Laws generally don't allow minors access to pornography. In the libraries I've been to, the computers are out in the open where anyone walking by can see what is on the screen. This means that it is reasonable a minor would see the images and thus be harmed.

Is it censorship if a public library does not have the latest edition of hustler or carry XXX movies? After all, you have a right to view these therefore the library should carry them.

To play devil's advocate: should parents of minors exposed to pornography in a public library then sue the library for allowing the exposure?

I agree. Along with the porn, lets also put a copy of the Ten Commandments up on the wall and watch all the small-minded people squirm.

And that's why we need the ACLU: it's the twenty first century, but there are still plenty of small minded people running around with a mentality straight out of the Dark Ages, whose reaction to disagreement is an instinctive urge to ban and suppress. If you ever wondered how dictators can thrive, it's b/c in any society there are always people like this eager to cheer on those who promise to crush those with discomfiting ideas that challenge or threaten their world view.

Which reminds me I've gotten lazy about renewing my membership for a few years - thanks for reminding me why it's vital to keep the ACLU running.

It's people like you that are ruining what was once a great nation. Oh sure, it's "small-minded" to want to protect innocent children at their public library from having to view disgusting porn and the perverts who sit there and masturbate while they watch it. (don't tell me it doesn't go on either!) You should hang your head in shame. Perverts like you DISGUST me. Go take your rambling liberal nonsense and get out of the USA.

jac-931625

It's people like you that are ruining what was once a great nation. Oh sure, it's "small-minded" to want to protect innocent children at their public library from having to view disgusting porn and the perverts who sit there and masturbate while they watch it. (don't tell me it doesn't go on either!) You should hang your head in shame. Perverts like you DISGUST me. Go take your rambling liberal nonsense and get out of the USA.

You definitely have issues. It would be helpful if you acted more adult and tried not to call people you've never met names because you seemingly have a hard time controlling your emotional outbursts.

On the other hand, perhaps you are just trolling for reactions.

@culhealth: "it's people like you..." Are you profiling now?!

I didn't say "people like you"...I was quoting the other poster. Re-read, please.



When you go into a bank to get a loan does the banker have a right to ask you what you plan on doing with the money before he decides whether or not to give you the loan?

Actually, yes, he does. I used to be a loan officer. Depending on the type of loan they absolutely have the right and excercise it frequently. If you want a loan to open a buisness for example, you better have a buisness model prepared to show the bank. If you want a new mortgage, they are going to order an appraisal and inspection and determine if the house you want to buy is acceptable to them. Don't be ignorant.

And where in the consititution does it talk at ALL about public libraries and your right to obtain any and all published information for free in one? Oh that's right.... no where.

This is absolutely insane! The supposed research involves google images and you tube That tells you right there that all the want to do is view porn! If they really want to know what "porn" means or an in depth description they can look it up in a BOOK! Either an ENCYCLOPEDIA or a DICTIONARY will have a proper explanation. You ARE in a LIBRARY after all! No they would not be interested in that because that would involve ACTUAL research, the card catalog, etc. Besides - you can't display it publicly and that's where the real satisfaction is to these sickos. This is nothing more than FLASHING! Stop taking all the rights away from the decent people and giving our “freedoms” to idiots who want to live like pigs. Buy a PC - if you cant afford one - stop "researching porn" and get a job!

This is absolutely insane! The supposed research involves google images and you tube That tells you right there that all the want to do is view porn! If they really want to know what "porn" means or an in depth description they can look it up in a BOOK! Either an ENCYCLOPEDIA or a DICTIONARY will have a proper explanation. You ARE in a LIBRARY after all! No they would not be interested in that because that would involve ACTUAL research, the card catalog, etc. Besides - you can't display it publicly and that's where the real satisfaction is to these sickos. This is nothing more than FLASHING! Stop taking all the rights away from the decent people and giving our “freedoms” to idiots who want to live like pigs. Buy a PC - if you cant afford one - stop "researching porn" and get a job!

I'm mad at my bank! They are not providing porn on the lobbies public computers. can the ACLU go in there and set them straight! those bankers are blocking all the good sites! what are we to do? I don't want that stuff on my computer, and no one will let me put it on theirs, what kind of a society is this. Cull can I come over to your house and use your computer? I promise these are all safe sites they wont infect your computer not a bit, it will only be for a few minute's 2 or 3 times a day. oh wait you say the public library has to allow me any thing I wan't, and privacy, does that mean they have to provid me with a partner as well, all I have to do is check one out, and its free! that library is going to be one hot spot. how late will they stay open? its pedophiles by day and perverts in the evening hours, got that!

Sounds like you didn't read past the headline.

A stance you will have until your rights are infringed upon.

Don't let the headline fool you. That was just a ploy to get you to read the story. This really isn't a story about porn, it's a story about access to information. And no, I'm not in favor of full display of pornograpic material in public places, and though I usually scoff at slippery slope arguments, this policy certainly lends credence to them.

I don't know what your views are, given the knee-jerk disdain for the ACLU in your post, I will assume you lean conservative (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). So let's say that the headline was about how the library was blocking access to Guns and Ammo or the Southern Baptist Convention's web site or <insert your favorite cause here>; would you in that case be willing to say that what's wrong with this country is the ACLU? I will hazzard to guess that your post would look more like this: "Wow, I never thought I would be praising the ACLU". Maybe not.

Filters always impact legitimate uses while allowing the thing they are designed to filter through. I know it is hard to envision academic uses for pornography, but there is such a thing. So while I may be doing a term paper on pornography and have my access to information blocked, the 15 year old sitting next to me found a way through the filter and is educating himself in a most unacademic manner.

Does the school where this student attends have a library with access to whatever he/she was researching? If it does, the person has options.

The ACLU defends EVERYONE'S rights.

The headline was just to get your attention. If you READ the article, you'll see that the library filter is preventing adult access to legitimate, non-porn sites, as well.

Porn is legal for adults. It is not the library's job to censor and tell adults what they should or should not look at. Children are allowed in restaurants where alcohol is accessible to adults, while parents and waiters must ensure that kids don't drink it. Libraries should be required to provide access to adult websites to adults. If you do your JOB as a PARENT, your kids won't see it.

Mister Precedent,

Precisely. Well said.

@Mister Precedent and culheath,

Unfortunately, many libraries have their computers right out in the open. For example, at one of our local libraries, the stairs down to the children's library are right past the computers. In another of our local libraries, the banks of computers are right next to the children's books.

As parents, are we expected to put blinders on our kids so they can only look straight ahead, and ensure their eyes don't wander? Should we put blindfolds on our kids and we'll just lead them to the children's books?

I do understand and advocate for parental responsibility, which is all too lacking these days. That means that while at home, I can make sure my kids aren't accessing violent or sexually explicit material. But outside the home, it becomes more difficult for a parent, short of keeping one's kid in an opaque bubble, which isn't fair to the kid.

Although, it could be fun to teach your kids to yell, "BAD MAN!" whenever they see someone in the library looking at pornography. :-)

Prof,

Unfortunately, many libraries have their computers right out in the open. For example, at one of our local libraries, the stairs down to the children's library are right past the computers. In another of our local libraries, the banks of computers are right next to the children's books.

I agree that's a problem, but not one that cannot be corrected. I see that as bad planning for a number of reasons.

Porn is legal for adults. It is not the library's job to censor and tell adults what they should or should not look at. Children are allowed in restaurants where alcohol is accessible to adults, while parents and waiters must ensure that kids don't drink it. Libraries should be required to provide access to adult websites to adults. If you do your JOB as a PARENT, your kids won't see it.

Yes Porn is legal for adults.
Cigarettes are legal for adults. Yet it is commonly agreed upon that the Public Library is not under obligation to allow people to smoke in or around the Library or it's grounds.
Alcohol is legal for adults. Yet no one is arguing that the Library should be forced to allow adults to openly consume alcoholic beverages while browsing the aisles.
As a community we agree that it is for the common good that certain adult activities, while legal, are restricted to certain restrictions, including times and places for which such activities are acceptable.

I think plenty of people already have engaged in sex at libraries. Matter of fact, before I read this article, that's what I thought libraries were for! So people read there, too..?

Courts have repeatedly ruled that libraries cannot restrict access to online materials more than they do to printed materials. So, if the library would fill an Interlibrary Loan Request for a coffee table type book of nude photographs, under current law, they already must allow access to sites that provide such materials. This is really an open and shut case.

I understand that many people don't want "their" tax money going for this, but why is it always YOUR tax dollars. I have NO problem with my tax dollars going to libraries providing access to perfectly legal material to adults. If all of you who oppose this got your way, what would be next: banning Karl Marx' books because you don't like communism? banning athiest tooks? banning sex education books? These filters don't just ban porn: they can limit access to information on breast cancer (as they would "hit" on the word breast) and if they use a scan that measures the percentage of skin tones in photographs can ban grammas from sharing photos of their new grandbabies.

This isn't about porn in libraries it is just the subject that catches the eye's of the readers. It is about not allowing access to information they get the money to allow. There is an easy answer if they won't to promote life long reading they should cut all Internetaccess off. I don't want my kids looking at porn at a library either however, if you want freedoms it does mean you have to take the good with the bad otherwise it isn't freedom it is permission. Just another example how the public is so simple minded and doesn't think of the total effect there decision's have.

Simple fix - the county commissioners should just close the libraries and then the issue is settled. If there are no public libraries, there are no issues with access to information.

Agreed. Perhaps it would be better to draw attention to the guy. "Hey everyone! This guy is looking at porn!" You might get a serious shushing from a librarian, but at least you won't be in jail. We really should be giving people their appropriate signs so everyone knows how ignorant they are.

Actually RP, it is guaranteed by the constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that it doesn't say "freedom of speech (unless RP in Texas objects to it)". You gotta love the constitution. The more I read it, the more respect I have for its framers- those dudes knew what they were doing.

How does freedom of speech and of the press translate to viewing porn in full view of children? If it's illegal for kids to go into an adult shop due to what they can see, why is this supposed to be acceptable?

JMux, some things should be absolute. First ammendment rights, in particular should be absolute. I invite you to read post #20.2. The sensibilities of the young should not dictate our constitutional rights.

The first ammendment isn't there to protect the speech we agree with, it's there to protect that speech with which the majority disagrees.

I believe that anyone engaging in viewing porn in a public setting is a complete and utter douchebag, however I'm not inclined to deny him the right to do so. Maybe in this case, rather than blocking the sites, teh library could make accomodations whereby one cannot accidentaly see what's on the screen. There are many privacy technologies available whereby the monitor is only visible to the person viewing it from a specific angle.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Actually, I'm not sure that covers it exactly...I don't speak, and use more of a jerking motion than a pressing motion when I watch porn.

Is there a lot of talking involved in porn? JK. But I think since libraries haven't historically been legally obliged to carry every single book, it means they have the right of discretion in what information they furnish.

Alright, I'd be outraged but I'm laughing too hard. Well played sir/madam.

You gotta love the constitution. The more I read it, the more respect I have for its framers- those dudes knew what they were doing.

You can't be serious. I hardly think the founding fathers back in the 1700s had the intent that the first amendment was meant so perverts could watch pornograghy in public libraries in full view of innocent children. In fact, I think our founding fathers are rolling in their graves right now over how far in the gutter this nation has gone with liberals like you.

I'm just laughing at your "innocent children" remark. I'm participating in another thread on newsvine about eleven and twelve year olds who robbed an elderly man at gunpoint and EVERYONE there is howling for these "innocent children" to be tried as adults and to be subject to the death penalty if the man they injured dies. So much for consistency!!

JM, I think the constitution is there to protect the young too, isn't it? The last I checked, all the major studies were saying viewing porn is damaging to children. I'm pretty sure they're right, even without personally verifying their conclusions. Therefor, we as adults should certainly be providing a safe environment at "teh library" in which our children can learn. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we are legally and morally required to do so.

You have the right to be vulgar under the constitution, but not the right to subject others to your vulgarity. If I need to go to the library to research on the open-access computers, I don't want to be subjected to the nudity/porn going on in that area. So how am I protected from others' vulgarity? I guess I'd have to do my research in private, where I won't be exposed (pun intended) to what's being viewed in my public library. How sad.

Sorry Sister, but the founding fathers did not include your right not to be offended in the constitution. And that is why groups like the KKK have the right to exist in our country. Do I like what they stand for? Hell no. As a Hispanic man, I resent their putrid ideology, yet I support the ACLU's decision to defend their rights to be hateful a-holes.

However, I do understand the need for decency in public, after all we have evolved a little since our chimp days. There are technologies existing today that allow only the intended user to see what is on their monitor. Type the following in google to see a sampling "monitor privacy filter". Problem solved.

Do not allow your rights to be eroded because one day it will be your speech that offends someone else. See how that's a problem?

It has already been decided by the supreme court that our freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. You can be prosecuted for inciting a riot if you use hate speech at a rally and violence erupts. The first amendment does not guarentee that the government shall make any and all speech available to you. If it did, then I could sue the library for not carrying my book of memoires. They have abridged my free speech!

Just because you have a right to say something (or view it as the case may be) doesn't mean that you have the right to force the government to provide it for you free of charge. I have the right to watch HBO if I want to, but the government doesn't have to pay my cable bill. Certain adult activities have no place in a public library. Viewing porn, consuming alcohol, smoking cigarettes - all are activities that are restricted by law. You have a right to do them, but within limits.

Xina the Awesome (love your screen name),

The first amendment ABSOLUTELY "makes all kinds of speech available to me". The whole amendment is One sentence long:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, i get the part about "fire in a crowded theater", really I do. But here is where your argument falls a bit short: you say "doesn't mean that you have the right to force the government to provide it for you free of charge"; only in this case the state (in the form of the library) is going thru additional expense to deny it to me (me in the figurative sense, cause believe it or not it think viewing porn on library computer is a pretty duchy move not to mention creepy). They are already providing a service, except for the bits they find objectionable and that puts them in a position of censorship. Now THAT is not cool. Trust me the government already tried to be the arbiter of decency and they failed miserably (The People vs Larry Flynt).

Trust me, you don't want your government to start deciding what's good and bad for you (though they already do that for you plenty).

Why aren't films of the live dismembering of people allowed on library computers. How about snuff films or peolpe having their heads chopped off. How about showing kids how they can get a gang together and attack Mosques. Or my favorite scary thing showing needles being shoved into peoples eyeballs. after all doesn't freedom of speech allow me to watch these as well. The ACLU is mostly just a bunch of lefties whose real purpose is to undermine society (after all the ACLU's birth parents were the communsit party) No really check it out and their core goals are still the same disruption of society and destruction of anything traditional. They accomplish this under the guise of protecting rights and twisting of the constitution because the people who wrote the constitution had no intention of sanctioniong many of the issues the ACLU champions.The end result is usually the elimination of the rights of the majority and a degradation of the the people. their mores and morals.

downwith: maybe because films of the live dismembering of people are illegal and porn is perfectly legal? Just sayin.

The end result is usually the elimination of the rights of the majority and a degradation of the the people. their mores and morals.

What you don't seem to grasp is that the constitution is meant to protect the minority from the majority, not the other way around. Your attitude is precisely what the constitution protects me from.

I agree with your statement in 10.3, culheath, but I will add that the rights of the minority do not supercede the rights of the majority. I've said here several times, but I believe it is worth repeating (obviously), that your rights end when they cause me harm.

....that your rights end when they cause me harm.

That's right. That's the two way street of it.

The problem here with this subject is that people are using potential harm to children exposed to porn in a public setting as an excuse to override the rights of students and researchers and anyone else that might be trying to access information that may not directly be considered porn by the average person, but rather that the filters being used are so generalized that they impose an unwarranted repression of people's right's to free speech and free information. THAT is what the ACLU is arguing.

There are relatively easy solutions to the problem, but many people posting here are so hysterical about the topic they won't abide any argument whatsoever and find it easier to just cast anyone who disagrees with them as "sick" or "perverted" or as someone who themselves desires to watch porn in public setting. It's not only a silly stance, but pretty childish as well.

I see the issue with people in public watching porn. However,there is a simple solution and I DO fault the library for not doing it. They need to make an area that is over 18 on the computers,or better yet,put the computers in places where people cannot observe what is being looked at. This solves the porn problem,but actually protects and enhances the free speech rights of everyone. Not only does it prevent children from inadvertantly seeing "Busty Asian Hardcore Babes" on someones monitor,it protects the privacy of someone who wants to look up information they may not be comfortable with others reading over their shoulder. "OH,I SEE YOUR LOOKING UP INFORMATION ON IMPOTENCE AFTER PROSTATE SURGERY!" "will you keep it down!" "LEMME GUESS,YOU CANT GET IT UP! YOU SHOULD WATCH "BUSTY ASIAN HARDCORE BABES",ALWAYS GIVES ME A STIFFIE!" I THINK I HAVE IT BOOKMARKED IN HERE SOMEWHERE" <Every Patron in Library is Now Staring>

I think there's a 'not' missing from your post. (Perhaps replacing one 'be'?) Either that, or you're very passionate about waffling.

@Tom in NH-294381

I usually support the ACLU! THIS time they're WRONG!!!!! Porn has no place in a public library.

I'll bet you a weeks salary that many of the times you supported them there were others who felt the way you do now. So why exactly do you think YOUR opinion is more important than those other people? Should the ACLU ask your permission from now on?

Let's see: porn has no place in a public library? Tell that to the Library of Congress which is mandated by law to have at least one copy of every piece of published material that is copyrighted in the USA. That includes a TON of porn!

From the way the ACLU rages against all religion, many of them probably will wind up there -

Though I hope not!

I would rather see the ACLU try to do something about Redlining rentals, which still occurs, Steering Real Estate - which also occurs, and Blackballing individuals for advancement in employment - which happens all the time. But no, the ACLU continues to behave like Albania's late president, Enver Hohxa, trying to Padlock Churches and enalbe the Religious Right's rabid assertions that they are the Anti-Christ (which they are not, they are just blathering stupid)

Rick, I don't think anyone is reading anything while porn is being watched. That's why they're blocking it.

@Jason: Sarcasm, I hope!

Two points:

1) Having porn on your home computer will not get you arrested (unless of course it violates other established laws - violating the rights of a child for instance). If I missed any cases where it was otherwise, I would be very interested in learning about them. Please post any links you may have.

2) Has it ever occurred to you that the ACLU tends to pick extreme cases to make a larger point about YOUR civil rights. I don't agree with someone watching porn in a public library any more than I agree with the hateful speech spewed by the KKK. I, however, agree with the ACLU's decision to defend both.

@Brian "the ACLU has done some really great things in the past...." Not in the last 40-45 years! Just my opinion

Well do you want a child watching porn style sex? There is a difference you know between porn and real sex, maybe you don't know that. And no, I am not a Bible thumper and I cannot stand them, but I don't want to watch the demeaning of women in offensive porn at the library when I am checking out books with my kids. If I see some perv doing this at the library I will say something and they can kick me out for it. Disgusting, and people who defend it are just as disgusting.

Look I'm all for kids - I have two of my own. However, when did we start basing our constitutional rights on the sensibilities of children.

Before you flame me about being a perv wanting to watch porn in a public library please feel free to check out my other posts on this subject by clicking on my name. I think that anyone engaging in that kind that kind of activity in a public place is a complete douchebag. As are neo-nazis barfing out hateful speech about n!@@ers and k!kes. However, I applaud the ACLU's decision to defend both.

The difference is, you won't see the bible-thumpers jerking off in public.

Your response says a lot about you.

So, if two people just started having sex on a library table, that would be ok? What's the difference....

You are a complete idiot

JM, you and I agree on many points; however, I have to disagree with you on this one. Where I do agree with you is that, yes, regardless of how offensive it is to some adults (who have been determined as able to make decisions), another's right should not be infringed upon. However, with minors, it is different for the same reason that a minor cannot enter into a contract or a minor cannot

In otherwords, the reason we weigh our rights against the sensibilities of children is based on potential for harm.

Would you be for public schools showing students in a health class videos of people having sex? If we don't allow this, aren't we censoring?

so what about adult movies, porn magazines ? Are these available on public library shelves for all to see ? honestly, to fight for the right to have porn on tax payer funded computers tells me the ACLU ( and I'm a believer in civil liberties but this is taking too far) and our courts have too much time on their hands. What ridiculous waste of brain, time and money.

Neil: I've worked at several different libraries in my life and I can assure you that libraries have subscriptions to Playboy, for instance, or own copies of coffeetable photo books of nudes. And if you go to the Library of Congress, you'll find that they are mandated by law to own at least one copy of every printed item copyrighted in the US and that includes a TON of porn that is all available for any adult to see.

Bookem Danno (I have to get me a cool screen name),

I think you make valid points. There is a lot of stuff out there that children should not be exposed to. But those concerns can be addressed in ways other than censorship (monitor filters for instance).

My problem is with the state (in this case in the form or the library) being the arbiter of decency. It didn't work when they went against Larry Flynt. In this case, the library already provides internet access minus the "naughty parts". That puts them in a position of being censors. I don't know if this is one of the points you agree with me on, but I don't need my government in that capacity.

Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you are the type to watch porn on a public computer, you sir are a douche, however I will defend your right to do so.

Watch porno at home! There shouldn't be a pervert magnet when you have children at the library! The library should be family friendly not like some XXX seedy theatre like in Taxi Driver. It encourages sexual predators to hang out in place where a child should be safe! I know a lot of times sites are blocked and they are not pornographic! The librarian should be able to override the restrictions to enable the site for viewing! I don't have anything against porn but there is a time and a place for it! The public is library isn't a good place for porno!