Local News | Mother challenges viewing of Internet porn at library; girl saw it | Seattle Times Newspaper

I don't think it's appropriate in public at all. My opinion is biased toward Constitutional rights. I don't think censorship is among those rights, so I don't think it's a question of whether it should be allowed. It would be wrong to censor it. We arrive at the difficult part of supporting freedom when we discuss concerns like this one, but I have to say 'allow'. I also say, 'watch your children'.

Truthfully I find the story difficult to believe. Not calling anyone a liar, it's just I wonder who would sit there in a public library viewing porno. It's just weird. Maybe I should stay away from Washington after all. (JK)

Go to a Barnes & Noble. The Kiddie Section is pretty far away from the magazine section. At least it is that way here. Our local library has computer terminals all over. I don't know if you can get porn on them, never thought to try it out. We also have free wireless at library, so I guess the risk might exist there too.

I don't have a problem with porn in general, I just think it's a private thing. Kids look at porn and think it's cool. At least my kids do. I don't share with them and they don't share with me, but I've overheard a few of their conversations. I guess I'm guilty of not trying to protect them from it, but today I can say they're all grown up and as far as I can tell, their childhood experience with porn didn't create any lasting ill-effects.

I just say again, 'watch your kids'. I didn't tell you to have kids, in fact some people don't even like kids. Ever watch 'Sex and the City'? They have good insight on single (non-parents) attitudes toward overbearing bossy parents with their kids running around tromping on singles' rights.

Don't we have public decency laws for this purpose? If two people can't have sex in the middle of a public market, how is that different than showing images of two people having sex in the middle of a public library.

I'm not seeing the distinction.

How is that different? You're kidding right?

I can't tell - are you taking issue with my statement? If so, what is your argument?

It's not an argument, it's a discussion. You indicate that two people having sex is equivalent to a picture of two people having sex?

By the way, I don't see why people can't have sex in the middle of the market. After a while of seeing it, I'd get used to it and hardly notice any more. I mean, what's the big deal? Personally I like privacy, and the government is steadily trying to take that away. While they'd like to have cameras everywhere, they'd also like to give us a short list of what we can do. Not on the list? Can't do it.

By argument, I was asking what your position was that was contrary to mine.

You can certainly state your opinion, but the fact remains that we have laws that cover this sort of thing. The act of sex and images of sex would seem to be tantamount to the same thing under those laws. Are you refuting that?

Laws, by definition, are a list of things we can't do, not so much the things we can.

I agree that the right to privacy is important. This doesn't strike me as a privacy issue to me. The man was on a public computer in a public room in a public building.

To address the first, yes. I disagree with the comparison.

The rest, don't get me wrong I agree that public display is not a matter of privacy. Obviously some don't value privacy or they wouldn't do it in public. If I was porn fan, I think I would be embarrassed to have people watching over my shoulder to see what I'm viewing.

Your definition of law is a popular position and I think a result of our misunderstanding of what law should be. The intent of laws should be to support individual rights. We are involved in a discussion of collective rights versus individual rights where a community can force its position on individuals and demand conformity. The Constitution is supposed to protect us from such misuse of laws, and it is being systematically and effectively undermined.

To address the first, yes. I disagree with the comparison.

Fair enough. I'm no judge. I think that the law as written is vague enough to cover it, though.

Your definition of law is a popular position and I think a result of our misunderstanding of what law should be.

I would agree - I think my definition is very common. What purpose the law should service is most definitely subject to debate. I sounds like you're already heading there in 3.14, so I'm going to post my response there. We've also been discussing this very same topic on another vine, so it might get a little repetitive.

Because it is public. How will we decide what to censor and what is allowed?

BD, would you think it wrong to place ANY limits on it? Regarding porn, it's like someone once said: "I know it when I see it." No one can seriously classify it as poitical speech, at least not yet. Maybe that's the next dodge: A naked gal with a "Vote for Noot" sign around her neck...

I'm not asking for a vote. I live in this world of censorship, and I have a larger focus than worrying about pornography.

Why not have a 'vote for noot' sign around a naked girl/guy's neck. It's what people really want. Let's ask for truth, like : Drink our beer, it get's you drunk!

The problem with censorship, once you begin, it's hard to stop. Give 'em crack for free, they'll buy it next time. You like my avatar?

And again, mind your children...

We can talk all day about what should be, but RCW (Revised Code of Washington) 9.68.060 includes:

(5) Any person who, after the court determines material to be erotic, sells, distributes, or exhibits the erotic material to a minor shall be guilty of violating RCW 9.68.050 through 9.68.120.

It then goes on about penalties. We have laws concerning what is, or is not indecent and what can be on display in a public setting. I would argue that this individual had every reason to expect that children might be able to view the video in passing.

I fail to see how this is subject to a slippery slope argument. We already enforce it.

Am I interpreting this code correctly?

Sounds applicable to me. The section I cited refers specifically to minors, whereas this covers sexually explicit displays in general. Probably could cite him with both.

Laws are not rights, they are laws. What's the difference? The floodgate is open for laws that restrict rights rather than laws that protect rights. Take a look at rights and laws on the books, count them up. Rights are losing by a landslide. Wouldn't it be easier to make a simple list of what we can do instead of making up all these laws about what we can't do?

Running around naked or posting naked pics is about being civilized. It is a strong indicator of a society that can only be civilized through law rather than by choice. Basically US is beginning to look like a penal colony. There are still a few activities remaining to us that aren't regulated or licensed, or just plain outlawed, and off hand I can't think of one of any significance. I'm surrounded by people who can't get enough law.

I'm guessing we originally wore clothes because of weather or other protection like bugs, or maybe just for privacy. Those without clothes suffered the consequences. We're so 'civilized' now we require clothing by law. If a naked person walks by, I'm bound to do a double-take. I sure won't go crying to the law about it. Each to his/r own.

I think we should ban sex on TV while we're at it. Wait I can just turn the TV off. Hm...

What's really disgusting is all those doctor shows on TV where they show a lot of blood and guts and pictures of peoples' insides.

Ahem yes... glad you see the humor in it too. I'm not all that serious. Fact is, if people were more concerned about each other, some of these problems would go away. I don't mean just being nice either. Like that guy exposing himself to little girls in the library, for instance. If I kicked him in the face and beat him over the head with a couple of law books, he might not be so anxious to try it again. What's the problem with that? The problem is I would go to jail for beating the molester. And if the law is correct, then it is correct in stripping us of the right to use force to oppose force. It also strips us of the right to administer appropriate punishment to our children or our neighbor's children. You see where I'm going with this.

So what if we took a wrong turn somewhere? Maybe it was a100 years ago, maybe more -- or less. Maybe we were wrong to believe that this United States was a good idea with a fancy Constitution restricting government and expecting people to be responsible citizens. The hard decision is how to undo the wrong, or how to 'go back' and make the correct turn.

I'll meet ya at 'the colony' ;-) Italian Swiss anyone?

we'd better get it set up on K-12 computers in public schools to be fair... ? I mean, why should kids be forced to go to the public library to get daily or weekly quota of porn?! :/sarc.

Oversight on my part, I missed this tidbit earlier because I was focusing on on something else. I, uhhhh play chess between comments.

Of course we shouldn't encourage it any more than religion or 'Tyranny for Dummies'. But say I'm a really ugly guy. Should I wear a mask? Should we have a law that says ugly people have to wear masks? More importantly should we make a law against people staring at me and pointing and whispering? Should I be banned from the swimming pool because I have three tits -- even if I cover them up? And how about that woman with the two vaginas?

What is it we are protecting our children from? There is a lot of ugly in the world, and face it, all who are born are destined to grow up, and we're not all going to make the cover of Swimsuit, I mean 'Sports Illustrated'. The sooner we deal with it, the sooner we get on with our lives. We may never be 'normal', but we'll be human nonetheless. I have some experience with this too. I raised four children to adulthood.

In the first part, I am trying to evoke a strong feeling about the right to self-protection and our right to protect our family and our children. In the current scenario, this right is being stripped from us and is assumed by government. I have a personal interest in the issue, so I'm attempting to distance myself from it while still addressing the problem.

I have found that our system of justice has boiled itself down to who has the power and who does not. This measure is based on who can leverage a political system using money or connections, whereas in my scenario the true measure of power would be restored to individuals. It is anarchical in that sense, however perhaps not in the way you suggest. When we think of anarchy we think of mobs and Molotov cocktails and violence. I would suggest a more peaceful version of Anarchy, and I have been called names for this perspective. Those same people think their idea of name-calling is perfectly fine while taking issue with other name-calling that doesn't fit their mold.

I'm not sure how the final paragraph addresses the statement. My statement indicates the subjective nature of laws intended to control what is deemed appropriate or inappropriate. So the ugly mask is the analogy to the obscene nudity.

Regarding your definition of anarchy.

It sounds as though you are advocating allowing citizens to defend the law (as defined from a Libertarian view) using violence.

Is that a correct interpretation? I don't want to proceed with a misunderstanding on this because then I'm just debating a phantasm.

Or course, this is already legal to an extent, depending on the state. For instance, it is generally legal to defend yourself with lethal force if you have reason to believe that your life is in danger. Some states are more relaxed about this right.

Richard: I refer to the NRA slogan, "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". When criminals are afraid of armed civilians, presumably the criminal will move on to greener pastures. Unfortunately vigilantism has its drawbacks too. So if you beat the crap out of some pervert in the name of protecting children, you may be considered a hero or an outlaw.

I do believe too many laws protect criminals, and I also believe the right to protect ourselves is constantly undermined, in particular when we defend our property against criminal behavior and when we defend our privacy rights against illegal search and seizure. I don't believe violence is an answer as it begets more violence, however the threat of violence or the fear of recourse will create the environment where criminals are more likely to seek their satisfaction elsewhere.

Guilty as charged, I I'm creating the alleged phantasm -- you have me in check with your correct analysis, but I also can see some positive outcome in this discussion. It is refreshing.

CL1: I include our right to protect our communities, for instance our children, from those behaviors.

For you both, there may be no law against my activity, however do you feel you have the right and perhaps even responsibility to discourage my activity? Please take this question in harmony with the discussion rather than some sort of personal attack or insult as I engage in neither. I have had recent experience with such an example interacting with family, and alternative views might help me to sort it out.

Each of us should hold some personal view of law and order and contempt for the criminal. The analysis is clear cut on some issues, and more difficult on some others. "I am the law", "You are the law", and collectively "We are the law". I'm unsure if this implies anarchy. If so I prefer it to the current law where we are victimized twice, first by the criminal and second by a system of justice that is tainted by money and political force. Dostoyevsky anyone?

BD -

This might surprise you, but I support the right to bear arms and I support the right to defend your property with any means necessary. I don't think you should have to first try to run away if someone invades your home. That's ridiculous.

When citizens move from defending themselves to actively applying law to others, you run the risk of violating the very same Libertarian ideals that I think you want to uphold.

Legitimacy is absolutely essential for justice. If the arbiter of justice is not seen as legitimate, then the law cannot stand. Judgments get overturned on these grounds. If the legitimacy of the justice as applied by a random group of armed citizens is in question, what separates this activity from arbitrary vigilantism? How do you manage the mob?

I also can see some positive outcome in this discussion. It is refreshing.

I live for spirited, intelligent debate. We've been debating across a couple vines now, and I've learned a lot about a perspective that was always a little foggy to me. Win-win.

Richard, honestly the way the conversation has evolved I am not surprised. I think I saw it coming. You take the broader position and I appreciate your insight.

Win-win.

See that's realistic and what we need in political discourse. Get over being 'right' and listen to others long enough to learn something.

where do we draw the line in protecting 'others,' as the question that needs to be answered/determined within ourselves.

It's difficult yes.

If we reject 'their' societally imposed moralism, then we might find ourselves in a state of eternal mental retribution, which would only have a negative outcome.

Digesting :-)

We can read how the law interprets that morality, but we need to justify the morality of our actions to ourselves in order to accept or mentally reject the consequences imposed on us by the 'law.' If we reject 'their' societally imposed moralism, then we might find ourselves in a state of eternal mental retribution, which would only have a negative outcome.

I'm going to have to chew on this a while myself. Reminds me of my college days when I had to parse out a sentence at a time.

BD - FR received and gladly accepted. You might pop back over to Marshall's vine on the insurance of contraceptives (last posts on the vine). We're on to the international and corporate implications of a Libertarian regime. I think that Marshall is starting to get fed up with me. If you have any insights on the matter, I would be glad to see them.

I was there earlier. I had nothing to add, and this seed is placid.

No our taxes should not pay for it but you can put a purchase price on time for that room maybe? As for an age limit I think that there should be a limit/supervised by adult rule in place. Or they can have age appropriate sections where so many computers for age 5-12 then 13-17 then 18+ something like that.

BTW even though you have to be 18 to BUY porn never stopped me from sneaking my dad's playboys when I was younger.

Good seed CL thanks

Our taxes shouldn't pay for unmanageable drug wars and wars against people who haven't attacked our country. Those are the big bucks. The incidental use of a library computer adds nothing to the general cost of a library resource and assuming the user of the resource has paid his/r taxes, why should any of us have the right to restrict that use to what we deem appropriate? What if someone decides we shouldn't use library resources for our contributions to Newsvine?

Is Newsvine considered indecent by the state of Washington?

Hehe, some of the comments are pretty indecent, but that's not really the point. Good taste is subjective, and indecency is offensive to good taste. We are making laws about good taste. My opinion is that laws regarding good taste are indecent.

BD -

I've read over a few of your comments on this vine, and I think I hear where your coming from. Laws that regulate certain behaviors can get pretty detailed - public drunkenness, public indecency, public disorder, etc etc etc. In general, people are expected to behavior like upstanding human beings in public, and are at risk of punishment for failing to do so.

If you're in a small community and someone goes out and acts like an idiot in public, I should think that such a person will either get shamed straight later, or people will just pass it off as not a big deal. Everyone knows everyone else.

In a large community, that's not the case. Strangers are more common than familiar faces, and intentions are difficult to read. There's a minimum standard for behavior encoded in law, because the community lacks the ability to police itself the way a small community can.

State and local governments that heavily enforce public decency laws have to deal with a lot of strangers. It's easier and more effected to just set a standard.

Thank you for the ack. I am more focused on small community. But it goes in line with the idea of decentralized power. How to apply the model to large communities is a daunting task, but one that is worthy of the utmost strenuous endeavor if we are to solve the ills of society. Unfortunately I don't see the role of government focusing on solving problems other than the problem of self-interest of government. Setting standards are perhaps easy and effective, but the true nature of the problem and solution lies in education.

Setting standards are perhaps easy and effective, but the true nature of the problem and solution lies in education.

If you have a model for applying a small community style of self-policing to a large community, then I am all ears. The larger the community, then less likely there will be any common identity to tie people together. I find that the larger the community, the smaller the community unit.

In a small community, the community unit might be the entire community, or at least a large portion of it. In a large community, the community unit might include your immediate household, your family, and/or your neighbors. This is not conducive to a community that can police itself.

The traffic around Seattle can be a little awkward. Drivers swerve around lanes, cut you off, weave through traffic, and so on (I hear NYC is much much worse). Such driving is dangerous, and points to drivers with little concern for the well being of other people on the road. The fact that cars on the road are impersonal supports this behavior. People are less likely to treat strangers fairly; it's easier to hurt someone you don't know.

Driving! Please don't get me started. Everyone is the best driver, and everyone else is the worst.

If you have a model for applying a small community style of self-policing to a large community

I do not. I blame human physiology. Although we are social critters, we are generally insensitive to others' pain. Through education we learn to be more aware of how exercising our rights may interfere with those of others, indeed we may cause actual pain. If we actually feel the pain we are less likely to engage in such activity. For instance my neighbor likes to burn leaves in a barrel. I never complain the smoke can be noxious at times. She does, however, use a barrel and polices the activity responsibly. I can deal with that. She may be annoyed by some of my activities, but ultimately we have a balance, and achieving that balance is of great importance to those of us who have had 'bad neighbors'.

I find that the larger the community, the smaller the community unit.

Good insight. It tugs at the periphery of my perception, like I should be able to draw more from it than I am. My military background is a hindrance in this case. We were regimented, the smallest unit is the individual.

Driving is such a good example, it's difficult to let go. There is so much you can get away with practicing the 'dog eat dog' mantra. War is no different, hence the need for traffic surveillance and obtrusive battlefield journalism.

I've had extensive training as a professional driver. I don't mean to say I'm any better at than anyone else, but that I've been provided in depth awareness and accident prevention training that has enhanced my ability, but not my enthusiasm, to drive responsibly. I make stupid moves, and I hope the other guy is looking out for me when it happens as I am looking out for the other guy always -- except when I'm not. :-)

The worst drivers I found are here at Fort Bragg. I could drive in Seattle and assess the habits after some time and develop a sense for what to expect. DC is different than Philadelphia and so on. I drove in Germany and Korea, always on the 'right', so I've missed the disorienting feeling of switching lane direction. What I find here that is so different is that there are so many varying tendencies. Our traffic is unpredictable on a good day, and frenzied on others. We are an interstate and international community, so driving habits are developed from many varying backgrounds. Perhaps you've observed this phenomenon in Seattle. I have never visited there.

Boiled down, it is self-preservation to include family and community. The larger group task is daunting.

I agree with everything you just said.

Not sure what to do with myself now.

If there is a means to make a large community work like a small community, I'd be all for it. Crime would drop like a freaking rock, as would the need for state-supported public assistance. It's a nice image.

Seattle is a university city with a number of retirement neighborhoods and a really poorly designed transportation infrastructure. There are a lot of young kids impressing each other next to old drivers going 10-15 below the limit in front of commuters who are late for work.

hafta find something else to argue about... :-)

Shouldn't be hard. I can get pretty liberal. Looking forward to it!

CL-1,,,We just had a case out here in Phoenix where a guy was exposing himself to little girls in the book aisles. One would have thought he would have been caught right off, but apparently he had been doing this for some time, as it was easy for him to findkids by themselves in there he stated.

Many people don't realize what all services their Libraries provide, I recently was there with a friend and when I walked to the desk and smiled at the lady working there, and said I need to check my firearm. My buddy was amazed when the Liberian handed me a key on a neck lanyard and I went behind the book checkout counter and opened a lock box and placed my 357mag. into it.

I know most would ask WHY did I feel the need to carry my firearm into the library in the first place? Because I don't leave a loaded firearm in my car unsupervised, because should some teenager steal my car I sure don't want them having a loaded firearm too !

Honestly I don’t know the answers about pornography.

As far as Nipples bad, killing good… just the display of a nipple on prime time is bad, no matter the context... provocative or not... many nations laugh at our Puritanical attitudes... they don't laugh at our willingness to use guns... wonder why?

As far as in a public library, pornography is not a good thing… I mean are we going to ask for private viewing booths, where will it stop… maybe a tissue dispenser and hopefully a sink? I really don’t see it.

Back in the old days did libraries have Playboy or Penthouse? Not that I ever saw, and I looked…

Wouldn’t those two magazines have been free speech? Trust me we all know the answer to that, Heck No!

Nobody would have had the guts to ask the question thirty or forty years ago if a men’s magazine was appropriate for a public library… smut had its place… on the bad side of town… no questions asked…

What’s changed? Is it our interpretation of free speech… is speech more free if it’s delivered electronically?

Aw, jeez I just don’t know! It’s probably something we need to decide as a nation.

to me this is just a problem of government.

government is for the protection of rights...not providing services.

if this was a private business...then yes they have every right to censor....government...no.

that is what the constitution is for....and why we need to have a limited government...not ever expanding.

So which is it men who feel superior or no men only extortionists? Want to try to discuss the article and not rant about porno? Or should we take from this rant how you feel and let you leave it at that?

Roberta women can be as sickly perverted as men and contribute a lot to the exploitation of sexual activity and they have the same right to do so as men. There have been and always will be abuses of our Bill of Rights, but that certainly is no reason to give them up.

Okay then, how about this from US Title 47,254(h),(6),(B),(C) & (D) :

(B) Certification with respect to minors
A certification under this subparagraph is a certification that the library—
(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are—
(I) obscene;
(II) child pornography; or
(III) harmful to minors; and

(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers by minors.

(C) Certification with respect to adults
A certification under this paragraph is a certification that the library—
(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are—
(I) obscene; or
(II) child pornography; and

(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers.

(D) Disabling during adult use
An administrator, supervisor, or other person authorized by the certifying authority under subparagraph (A)(i) may disable the technology protection measure concerned, during use by an adult, to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose.

No problem, but I would imagine they would back it up seeing from the 2003 Supreme Court Ruling the part about:

The protection of children was seen as a "compelling interest,"

Would it be considered indecent to look over someone's shoulder while they are writing a letter or reading a book?

Ahh, yes there is a difference. No law against being rude -- yet.

The point is from #10.2

(A)(i) may disable the technology protection measure concerned, during use by an adult, to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose.

Which probably isn't occurring. If this person wants to watch porn just to watch porn, then the children should be taken into consideration and he/she should be doing it in the privacy of his own home.

This person being rude, as well as inconsiderate of the children. Completely nacissistic.