[email protected]

In a message dated 3/30/03 12:57:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, sheran@...
writes:

> she has unemployed men coming in and spending all day looking up
> porn.
> >There was one man who kept looking up not only porn, but also
> violent
> >things like how to make bombs.

A couple of years ago, when we didnt have Internet access, I would go to the
library to use the Internet. There was a older gentlemen, probalby 70ish who
was ALWAYS there.. Every single time we went to the library, there he was,
engrossed in the Internet. A few times I was seated right beside of him. I
was so curious.. what was this older fella doing online all the time. He
was.. "shifty" looking.. ya know? One day I got a good look at his screen
one day, and he was in a " girls looking for older men" chat room. The
conversation that I read a few lines of was along the lines of: OH
granddaddy, Yes yes..Thats it ( blah blah blah, cyber sex lingo). I was
so creeped out by that old man sitting there in the freaking library having
cyber sex. Ughghg.. There was also a kid around 11 or 12 who would sit
really close to the screen, he was in a chat room, and he would type then
cover the screen up with his hand and look around in a panic. A couple of
times I tried to engage him in conversation .. "Hey, whats up, find anything
interesting?" He never answered me.. LOL.. They changed the policies at the
library to no longer allow chat room or IM's. Personally, I think stuff like
that shouldnt be funded by taxpayers dollars.. Yeah, folks have a right to do
whatever they want to on the Internet, but not on the Govt's dime.

Teresa


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema

>interesting?" He never answered me.. LOL.. They changed the policies at the
>library to no longer allow chat room or IM's. Personally, I think stuff like
>that shouldnt be funded by taxpayers dollars.. Yeah, folks have a right to do
>whatever they want to on the Internet, but not on the Govt's dime.

Could you please explain why you think this?
Is it not that man's and that teenage boy's tax money in use, as equally as
yours?
Should your morality prevail over theirs?

I guess I'm wondering how the funding and morality aspects of it mesh (or
don't) in your viewpoint.
HeidiWD

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/30/03 8:27:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidi@...
writes:

> Could you please explain why you think this?
> Is it not that man's and that teenage boy's tax money in use, as equally as
>
> yours?
> Should your morality prevail over theirs?
>
> I guess I'm wondering how the funding and morality aspects of it mesh (or
> don't) in your viewpoint.
> HeidiWD
>

Well, I am assuming then, that you feel this kind of stuff is OK in a public
library. Perhaps it not as much as "who" is paying for folks to have "free"
access to pornography, as the fact that I just feel having cyber sex and
looking at pornography are not what the Internet access is provided for a the
library. Actually, there are laws now that prohibit displaying ANY thing
that can be construted as "offensive" on a "public" computer screen.
(http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/harass/cyberspa.htm) If someone can walk
by and see something on your PC screen and they find it offensive, then you
can be charged with harrassment. Yeah, I think that is a bit extreme, but
it helps keep folks from looking at porn in the library where children should
not have to walk by and see "Grand Daddy" ooggling some teen chick in the
raw.



Teresa


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema

> Well, I am assuming then, that you feel this kind of stuff is OK in a
> public
>library.

Actually, I try to keep my personal feelings separate from my civic
preferences. My civic preferences say that so long as someone isn't
hurting someone else, their tax dollar is as worthy as mine. Personal
feelings are irrelevant in this case. It has nothing to do with me
*personally*, but everything to do with what is available in a public
space. For instance, I feel upset when I read some textbooks and some
texts by religious-sounding persons, yet, both are available in
libraries. Civically, even though they are offensive to a member of the
public, they should be there for the people for whom they may serve a
purpose. Who am I to say what other people should be able to access?

>Perhaps it not as much as "who" is paying for folks to have "free"
>access to pornography, as the fact that I just feel having cyber sex and
>looking at pornography are not what the Internet access is provided for a the
>library.

Right, and there are a Whole Bunch of value statements going on
there. (It's time to play, "Spot the Value Statement!") What one person
values is not necessarily that of another person, and what is valued by the
majority is not always best for society as a whole. This is something
basic that's been shown time and again. That young man mentioned earlier
is probably from a household where sexual feelings are probably repressed
and denied, or treated as 'naughty'... so, he goes someplace safe to
explore them and is self-conscious enough to want to keep others from
prying. Is it the healthiest thing for him to do? Who is the person to
say it is or isn't for that particular young man? Whomever says so, then
becomes responsible for the rest of his development as well, in my
opinion. Once you've said, "No WAY!", you've taken choice away.

>Actually, there are laws now that prohibit displaying ANY thing
>that can be construted as "offensive" on a "public" computer screen.
>(snipped) If someone can walk
>by and see something on your PC screen and they find it offensive, then you
>can be charged with harrassment.

Is there really? How very strange and odd. How unfortunate.
...Which means I should hang out by the computers and every time something
rampantly-pro-war or pro-schoolist shows up on a computer screen, I should
holler harassment? What a concept. (chuckling) ...new way to protest,
maybe? (beg) (same goes for those on the middle or other side of the
fence on ANY issue!!!)

>Yeah, I think that is a bit extreme, but
>it helps keep folks from looking at porn in the library where children should
>not have to walk by and see "Grand Daddy" ooggling some teen chick in the
>raw.

Really, your libraries on-line computers are in the children's
section? Ours are up on the second floor, facing each other and near the
adult-level-books-on-tape. (and that law seems a touch extreme to me
too...) There's also a request that parents stay with their younger
children. Most folks seem to.

well, so far somebody's challenged my civic beliefs, but nobody's explained
to me why *they* think/feel it's okay to take computer-choice away from our
kids/us (ie, no IM or chat rooms and/or always-on filtering software), in a
public library, paid for by our tax dollars. I'm not sure there's a true
right or wrong, but nothing convincing's come up so far.
...but maybe I'm just cranky that way...
HeidiWD
"I prefer a person who will burn the flag and wrap themselves in the
constitution to a person who will burn the constitution and wrap themselves
in the flag" --- Molly Ivins

Fetteroll

on 3/30/03 4:39 PM, grlynbl@... at grlynbl@... wrote:

> Well, I am assuming then, that you feel this kind of stuff is OK in a public
> library. Perhaps it not as much as "who" is paying for folks to have "free"
> access to pornography, as the fact that I just feel having cyber sex and
> looking at pornography are not what the Internet access is provided for a the
> library.

And when we give people the power to control and stop the things *we* think
are bad we give people the power to control and stop the things *others*
think are bad -- which might be things we think are good.

It seems obvious that the KKK shouldn't march in public parades. But the
reasoning that allows them to stop the KKK would allow communities to stop
gay rights activists, Mormons, maybe even unschoolers from marching.

I'm not comfortable with allowing the KKK to march, but I'm *really*
uncomfortable with the thought of giving someone the ability to decide the
things I think are right are offensive enough to be removed from the public
eye.