What kind of a cretin views porn on a public library computer?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I am at the library killing time and this cretin is viewing porn. This is the second time I have seen this...

I couldn't care less what a person does in private but c'mon...

[hobbit709]

1. You had the operative word right there "cretin"

[OhWiseOne]

162. More prejudice against poor people who can't afford a computer.

[hobbit709]

164. Still no excuse for viewing porn at a public library.

[WinkyDink]

2. The kind of cretin who goes to a library THAT ALLOWS IT.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. When he saw me he switched to youtube.

What if I was a child?

I am in Los Angeles. In Florida it's a misdemeanor.

[MADem]

28. Rat him out--fuck him...if he can't behave like an adult, he shouldn't be treated like one.

Is your library "porn friendly?" If not, they'll shut him off.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I was conflicted.

Was the behavior so offensive that it would overcome my objection to being a snitch?

That's a moral dilemma. If i saw a kid stealing a cd from Wal Mart I am keeping my mouth shut. If I saw a kid pick some woman's purse I'm saying something.


Also, I would have had to point out the guy and make a scene.

[MADem]

34. I can appreciate the conundrum.

I just don't understand why some people have to do their shit out in public.

Hell, there are kids in the library--take that crap to some skeevy place like STARBUCKS, or something!!!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. It was more stupid than evil.

But folks don't want to see that isht at the library. It's not as if they can't access it on their own.

[woolldog]

52. What if they don't have a computer at home?

Should only the relatively well off be able to access porn?

[nomorenomore08]

65. Still gotta be a better place than a public library. Regardless. n/t

[woolldog]

132. like where?

[LanternWaste]

180. "Think of the poor's access to porn" is how you rationalize this?

"Think of the poor's access to porn" is how you rationalize this? I suppose it takes all types of logical fallacies to see a guy though a juicy justification...

[TipTok]

102. Out of curiosity....

Which crimes are a-ok in your book?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. Crimes against the vulnerable. Oh, someone is showing a little too much leg.

[pnwmom]

135. All libraries are supposed to. Freedom of speech includes images.

With certain exceptions, such as child pornography, the First amendment protects the right to view porn, and librarians protect the First Amendment.

http://nypost.com/2011/04/25/city-libraries-say-checking-out-porn-protected-by-first-amendment/

New Yorkers can take their pick at the city’s public libraries, thanks to a policy that gives adults the most uncensored access to extreme, hard-core Internet smut this side of the old Times Square.

The electronic smut falls under the heading of free speech and the protection of the First Amendment, library officials say.

“Customers can watch whatever they want on the computer,” said Brooklyn Public Library spokeswoman Malika Granville, describing the anything-goes philosophy that’s the rule at the city’s 200-plus branches.

SNIP

Under US law, all libraries that take federal funding only must install filters on publicly used computers to block content containing illegal obscenity and child pornography, and New York City officials say they comply to the letter.

[WinkyDink]

147. What poppycock. DO ALL LIBRARIES STOCK HARD-CORE PORN MAGS ON VIEW? I think NOT.

[pnwmom]

166. This is about free access to the Internet, not about the special purchase of anything.

This is from the official statement of the American Library association:


http://www.ala.org/bbooks/challengedmaterials/preparation/guidelines-internet-use-policy

By providing information across the spectrum of human interests, and making them available and accessible to anyone who wants them, libraries allow individuals to exercise their First Amendment right to seek and receive all types of expression, from all points of view. Materials in any given library cover the spectrum of human experience and thought, even those that some people may consider false, offensive, or dangerous.

In the millions of Web sites available on the Internet, there are some—often loosely called “pornography”—that parents, or adults generally, do not want children to see. A very small fraction of those sexually explicit materials is actual obscenity or child pornography, which are not constitutionally protected. The rest, like the overwhelming majority of materials on the Internet , is protected by the First Amendment.

SNIP


Knowing what materials are actually obscenity or child pornography is difficult, as is knowing, when minors are involved, and what materials are actually “harmful to minors.” The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides. Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally. Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or “harmful to minors.”

[Warren DeMontague]

168. The good ones do. You just have to know how to find them.

You know, using the gooey decimal system.

[Pope Sweet Jesus]

3. Tell the librarian, and they'll kick him out.

And also suggest filltering porn out - plenty of free software to help assist with that.

[Gormy Cuss]

4. Tell a librarian.

The sign-in agreement usually includes language about inappropriate content for a public user station.

[Tipperary]

8. Yes, I am quite sure all libraries do not allow porn on their computers.

I know every library I have been to has that rule.

[jberryhill]

30. Heh, you don't go to the right libraries...

I think the only policy they ever had was "Be kind, rewind." But not since DVDs came out.

[Cartoonist]

38. Why is there an apostrophe there?

Book's?

[virtualobserver]

42. perhaps that was the name of the owner...

[jberryhill]

74. The owner of what, the store? Or an adult?

Or are you saying his given name is "Adult" and his surname is "Book"?

[virtualobserver]

75. yes...the latter.....it was the only way to make the sign correct

[jberryhill]

76. Fine. Then what sort of establishment was it?

Although it may have been a chain of them. Perhaps fast food restaurants of some kind - a knockoff of Arthur Treacher's maybe.

[virtualobserver]

77. could be, but it does say "movies" on the right and with "25" on either side

so I am going to go with "Adult Book's 25 cent discount cinema"

[jberryhill]

81. How is 25 cents a "discount"?

In my day, they were a nickel!

[virtualobserver]

82. you have a point.....and it does appear that the location has not been in use recently....

perhaps the 25 refers to the number of screens in Adult Book's Cinema Multiplex 25. perhaps that shot doesn't give us the full perspective of the true size of the complex

[jberryhill]

83. Or it's like Heinz "57", and merely arbitrary

Or the way it has become fashionable for designers to put the year of establishment in their brand.

Having been established in 1925, then they may not have adapted to talking pictures as swiftly as they should have.

[virtualobserver]

86. I like the last one, because their inability to adapt also explains the

demise of the business.

I think that the two of us have so completely mastered the art of misinterpretation that we both could very soon find ourselves with a successful career at Fox News.

[jberryhill]

87. Still, attractions like this are timeless

https://m.

[virtualobserver]

88. that is a pretty serious exercise routine

she was even using Indian exercise clubs....pretty strenuous.

[47of74]

44. Yeah where I live the libary says no to it;

Where I live the local library had this to say on that question;

The library affirms the right of every individual to have access to constitutionally protected material; however, the library must also respect the right of patrons not to be inadvertently exposed to content that they may find objectionable. Exposing unwilling patrons or staff to pornography – defined as the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement -- can be interpreted as sexual harassment. Users will not send, receive, or display text or graphics which may reasonably be construed as pornography. The library staff will be the arbiter of what may be construed as unacceptable content and reserves the right to ban patrons from using Internet computers who violate this policy.

I do remember when I was in college I remember a couple students came in to the open computer lab and were using the computers in there to look at porn. Didn't have enough sense to keep it in the dorm rooms. Ugh.

[woolldog]

53. This violates the first amendment, imo. nt

[pnwmom]

137. Actually, the First Amendment protects the right to view porn

according to most librarians.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7189051

[jberryhill]

6. One that doesn't have his own computer?

Discreetly mention it to the library staff, as they are best situated to manage use of the library.

[NuclearDem]

7. Well excuse the hell out of me for my home Wifi being down!

[Tipperary]

9. Oh hell, thank you for this much needed laugh!

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. Dammit

Beat me to it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. I bet you know where ALL the "good" libraries are.

[A HERETIC I AM]

41. :::Ahem::::

I honestly have NO idea to what you refer.


But I know some pretty good free porn sites, if you have a hankerin'!




PS...glad you made it home safe and didn't spend too much time at the Blackjack tables!

[Warren DeMontague]

59. ...so to speak

[nomorenomore08]

66. Damn wankers always beat you to it!

[47of74]

45. Mine stays up most of the time and the speed is good.

However I still like to go to the combination bar/coffee shop once a week or so just to get out of the house every once in a while. I don't look at "adult" sites on other people's bandwidth.

[nichomachus]

10. The same kind of cretin who reads porn on an airplane

Happened to me. Really creepy business guy too -- big, sweaty, rumpled suit, messed up hair. I saw more parts of more vaginas than an OB-GYN sees in a week.

[villager]

11. Saw it once in an L.A. library, all equipped with "privacy screens"

...so if that if you're a couple inches off dead center, you can't see what anyone was looking at.

My chair and table (for laptop work) happened to be behind him, dead center, that day. So I was, um, treated to quite a show.

This particular fellow favored the same clip over and over again. Until he got tired of it.

I think he might have been one of the library's homeless patrons. I guess this was one of his only daily chances (using the "15 minutes free" computers that require no library card) to watch "salacious stuff..."

[murielm99]

12. It is very hard to manage.

I know that as a former librarian.

Some filters block other much needed content as well as the porn. The example everyone uses is the breast cancer reference. The wrong software blocks references to breast cancer, STD information, sex education, etc.

Sometimes the best options are user agreements and privacy screens.

Remember, librarians have to walk a fine line. Patrons need to agree to a certain level of civility in the library. But we HATE censorship!!!!

[SwissTony]

20. I don't know how it is now, but some of the early software

used to cut out even very innocent sites such as "The 10 best chicken breast recipes".

[Glassunion]

23. Yeah... Sometimes the filters are bad.

Especially back in the day.

GotAHoe.com or GoTahoe.com
PenisLand.com or PenIsland.com
DollarSexChange.com or DollarsExchange.com

At work a red flag went up on any website name that contained a bad word. So a website with "tits" contained in its name would be flagged and blocked. I recall it was a website about birds.

[jberryhill]

32. TherapistForChildren.org

[Glassunion]

33. ExpertSexChange.com

[jberryhill]

36. FirstBaptistCumming.org - no really, that's what it is

It is the First Baptist Church of Cumming, Georgia, and that's their domain name.

[Rod Beauvex]

49. I don't want to enter a subject.

Parts Express, which is something akin to what Radio Shack used to be, used to have the URL www.PartSexPress.com (caps mine)

They've since changed it.

[murielm99]

54. I remember someone asking me for help in the library.

They wanted the films of Alfred Hitchcock. They were blocked.

We found a way around it, I just don't remember what it was. At my discretion, we found other software.

I hated all that blocking. I still do.

[jberryhill]

89. So you were Hitchcock-blocked, eh?

[Glassunion]

91. Alfred TowPackage

[exboyfil]

127. Beaver College had this problem

They changed its name.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. I bet.

[madamesilverspurs]

13. Couple decades ago

and well before I got my own home computer, I'd gone to the local community college library to do some research on Social Security. Instead of the more familiar card catalog, the facility had a bank of new computers; I signed up to use one, and started scrolling through the list of articles. I selected one that looked promising, but instead of the info I expected there was a full screen photo of, um, not what I was looking for. I tried to back out, tried to start over, but it just sat there. Fortunately, the librarian happened to glance my way and came over to see what had caused my bright red face. She unplugged the computer, explaining that it was the only way to get rid of the pictures; she also said that someday they would be able to prevent real files from being hijacked. I was just glad that no one was sitting next to me when that happened.

[Eleanors38]

14. The same what sticks up people and runs off in light-up Nikes.

[WinkyDink]

148. More like, the same what looks like your next-door neighbor.

[Android3.14]

16. Tell the librarian

[Warren Stupidity]

17. In general the ALA and many libraries are strict first amendment advocates.

The ALA fought and lost in the USSC against requirements to install filters on public access computers, the court ruling that they were required for protecting children by law and that this law was legitimate. The general policy in at least some major library systems, for example NYCs, is that adults can view anything they want on the internet and may request that filters be disabled while they are using a system.

Should libraries also remove all books with explicit sexual content?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. " Should libraries also remove all books with explicit sexual content?"

" Should libraries also remove all books with explicit sexual content?"

There is a difference between books with explicit sexual content and pornography. The pornographic book is really a dead genre but I never saw one in a library in my entire life.


And viewing porn where others can see it who don't want to becomes other directed behavior and can and should be regulated. Reading a pornographic book is self directed behavior.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. porn is "video with explicit sexual content".

books with explicit sexual content are on the shelves of all major library systems, and children can take those books off shelves and read that explicit sexual content.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I have never seen XXX books at libraries.

I suspect if I asked a librarian for one she would think it was a prank or I was a cretin.

Most folks don't go to the library and expect to see some cretin watching bukakke videos.

[kcr]

121. Children can if they aren't supervised

There is a difference between categorized books on a shelf and porn viewable in the open on a screen.

[jberryhill]

35. "The pornographic book is really a dead genre..."

But a good library should have at least some of the classics.

I was fortunate enough to patronize a library which was also a federal document depository library, so we had copies of the unbeatable Meese Commission Report on Pornography. Volume I is kind of "meh", but I assure you that the copies of Volume II were a favored and well-thumbed landmark of pornographic literature.

Seriously, if you can ever get a copy of Volume II of that report, do not hesitate to obtain such a fine work for your personal reading room.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I have no problem with a person viewing porn in private.

I really have no problem with someone dropping acid in private. I just don't want to share a public road with him or her.


By xxx books I mean books with graphic descriptions of sexual acts in street language. The Hite Report came close but that isn't really the genre I am referring to.

[murielm99]

56. It got even worse in schools,

when I went to teaching computer courses and working in the school library. We could not get certain grants from the state unless we installed blocking software. It was state law. Some of the software was very restrictive and cumbersome.

We had a staff computer that was unfiltered. The kids could ask us for help if they were filtered out of a legitimate site. It was a PITA to do all that extra work.

I don't think it is as bad now. I have done some subbing and not seen the same level of restriction. Of course, teachers do their prep ahead of time and check out the sites they want the students to use.

[Warpy]

18. The kind who can't afford online access at home

or the kind with a nosy significant other who objects to it.

Personally, I never look at what anyone has on the screen when I go to the local library.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. At this library the computers are scattered.

eom

[oberliner]

24. Someone who doesn't have a computer at home

Or who has a serious addiction maybe?

[LittleBlue]

25. Maybe someone needed a wank and his neighbors are password protected

[47of74]

47. And probably with wifi names like this

I live out in the country so the only ones I usually see are the ones in use on the farm. However if I go in town to my favorite hang out place some of the wifi names are rather interesting. Since I work from home I keep the wifi names clean here.

[MohRokTah]

31. I guarantee surfing porn on a library computer violates their terms of use.

And you have to electronically agree to those terms of use.

If you report them, they will be banned from the library, or at least from ever using the library computers.

[Rex]

39. The kind that doesn't have a PC at home with internet?

Why are you looking at their shit anyways? Who cares. So they have no class...billions of people don't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. See Post 27

You literally can't miss it. It would be like someone reading a super large book.

[yeoman6987]

46. I guarantee it is not someone who has Internet access at home

I am sure it is some either homeless or poor person who cannot afford Internet access or even a computer at home. I am shocked this thread is DU. I was thinking I was on the wrong website for a minute. The poor get criticized for everything!!!!

[Rex]

64. Save up and go buy a porn mag! Or get them free at porno stores.

I can see it if there are partitions so people have privacy, but swinging it around so everyone can see it on the big screen is really without class. And don't tell me poor people don't get a choice, everyone gets a choice in mannerisms.

[Blue_Adept]

94. There are porno stores left?

Most towns have made those impossible to operate within their limits, so it's not exactly an easy access kind of thing there.

[Rex]

124. They are all over the place in south Texas.

[Rex]

63. Oh wow...that is just straight up trashy then.

Like I said...no class at all. Yeah I might even say something if it is that obvious, sometimes libraries have partitions for semi-privacy.

Glad he ain't wanking off in front of everyone, but that might come to pass.

[Peregrine Took]

48. Its quite common in big city public libraries.

They often had situations in the city college where I worked, too.

The "lookers" used to put it in as wallpaper and it was the devil to take it down the way they configured it. Our computers were located all over several floors so it was impossible to watch them all. As i recall we didn't really have a policy about it - our director was very much into "let them do whatever they want."

[hedgehog]

55. Now, i am ambivalent aboutl imiting access to porn -

(even though I think porn is skanky) - as long as there is a privacy screen of some sort, I'm OK with it. There should be a privacy screen anyways for all users. What if someone is researching a delicate medical question or ordering something from Amazon and putting in a credit card number?

But re-setting wallpaper with anything is an attack on the library's system. What if they wall papered with an ad for Trump?

[47of74]

70. Something the libary had where I live

They had a program that every time it rebooted it returned the system to a baseline configuration (probably something like Deep Freeze). The user could make configuration changes but when their time ran out the system rebooted and their changes were wiped out, the system was brought back to a clean baseline.

[rug]

50. It's not the viewing I object to . . . .

[xmas74]

51. For some, it's the only internet they have

while for others it's a fetish. They want to get caught or want the chance of being caught. They want a reaction. The reaction makes them hot

[Warren DeMontague]

58. ...People do all kinds of things on library computers, like troll DU obsessively.

just ask the loyal order of evanston lemurians, they know all about it.

[patsimp]

60. Maybe they don't have a computer?

[bklyncowgirl]

61. As a librarian I've seen it all.

Porno peepers are pretty common. First You have the sneaky types. These are the ones that don't want to get caught. Probably don't have home computers so they can get their jollies in private. You can pick them out because every time you walk past they change the screen. If challenged and reminded that this is not appropriate in a public place they are contrite and apologetic.

Then there are the kids. They're doing what kids do-mostly standing around in a group giggling. Some librarians throw them out. I call their parents.

Then there the Exhibitionists these guys--and they're always guys--get their thrills by letting others see what they're looking at--including library staff. They get belligerent if you challenge them. I've called the cops on some.

Finally there are the creeps. They hang out near kids. They are very sneaky. I had one download a kiddie porn search engine on one of our computers. To this day I have no idea how he did it and neither do the cops. I only know that we had to get rid of it.

Some here will I'm sure accuse me of violating people's rights. I beg to differ. There is behavior that is fine in private but inappropriate in a public space. Viewing porn is one of them. Every library needs to have policies in place and enforce them.

[Nye Bevan]

62. So is it legal or not to prevent people from viewing porn on library computers?

As others havd mentioned I know there have been lawsuits over this question.

[bklyncowgirl]

68. You need to have a strong policy in place

The policy should be vetted by a lawyer. Training on what is and what is not porn for staff is also important.

Having users agree to an appropriate uses and standards statement is essential.

Criminal conduct e.g. Public masturbation, soliciting children and abusive or threatening behavior

Naturally there are differences within the library community. Urban librarians like me are more likely to eschew things like privacy screens and go for a strict policy soliton than suburban librarians who don't see much is this sort of things.

[pnwmom]

136. The First Amendment protects images, including most porn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7189051

[bklyncowgirl]

157. And in the privacy of your own home I agree

This is not theoretical for me. I've worked in libraries with half way houses down the block. I've seen men masturbating in front of other patrons. The library first and foremost must be a place of learning and a social center where all feel welcome. In order for that to happen you need some rules. When patrons agree to not view porn as one of the conditions of using the computers then this agreement must be upheld.

[pnwmom]

163. I'm as repelled by you are, but the American Library Association's official policy

says that viewing most porn is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Apparently your libraries haven't been sued yet because numerous court cases say they would lose.


http://www.ala.org/bbooks/challengedmaterials/preparation/guidelines-internet-use-policy

By providing information across the spectrum of human interests, and making them available and accessible to anyone who wants them, libraries allow individuals to exercise their First Amendment right to seek and receive all types of expression, from all points of view. Materials in any given library cover the spectrum of human experience and thought, even those that some people may consider false, offensive, or dangerous.

In the millions of Web sites available on the Internet, there are some—often loosely called “pornography”—that parents, or adults generally, do not want children to see. A very small fraction of those sexually explicit materials is actual obscenity or child pornography, which are not constitutionally protected. The rest, like the overwhelming majority of materials on the Internet , is protected by the First Amendment.

SNIP


Knowing what materials are actually obscenity or child pornography is difficult, as is knowing, when minors are involved, and what materials are actually “harmful to minors.” The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides. Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally. Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or “harmful to minors.”

[bklyncowgirl]

182. The policy I referred to was vetted by the city attorney to insure 1st Amendment comliance

The key is that no one was allowed to use computers unless they agreed to this policy. It was entirely voluntary and that's the difference.

My library by the way did not filter the Internet, filters are too crude and block useful information. A voluntary agreement is much less obtrusive. Also, I fought back against board members who wanted much more restrictive policies--not only filtering but limiting computer use to library card holders only.

Once again, I when I was a working librarian I lived in the real world. I've worked in libraries where prostitutes met their johns in the public restrooms and drug dealers plied their trade on the stoop. Two of our regular patrons, both of whom were banned from our library for getting aggressive with staff members who reminded them that view porn was not appropriate behavior in a public space, were later arrested for soliciting children in other local libraries.

There has to be a balance. Libraries are a safe haven for everyone from the homeless to children to the elderly. It may not be PC but I'm not going to defend the sort of people who want to tear this down.

[pnwmom]

183. "no one was allowed" and "it was entirely voluntary."

Hmmm.

But your policy sounds better than using filters. It would be defendable in court.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I used to work in a video store that, like many video stores of the day, had a porn section.

People would do all kinds of weird shit- like come in with razor blades and very methodically cut some of the pictures off of the boxes to steal.

So they would get free "porn", of a sort-- in the form of little tiny pictures of naked women, usually- about an inch or so across.

I always imagined these guys sitting there with a magnifying glass... "Oooh ahhh i got free smut muahahaa oooh"

[Efilroft Sul]

69. One who keeps the volume turned down real low?

[brooklynite]

71. You object to porn in the Library because it is "bad"...

...care to guess how many books in the Library someone thinks are "bad"?

A quick check of the New York Public Library indicates that both "The Story of O" and "Fifty Shades of Grey" are available. Should we dump those as well?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I suggested no such thing, not even close...

He was watching bukakke; that's where a group of men ejaculate on a woman's face. That is not R or even NC 17 fare like Fifty Shades Of Gray, Emanuelle, Last Tango In Paris, and The Story Of O, et cetera.


If you believe there is no difference between a R or even a NC 17 film and an XXX film there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. A person can watch as much porn as his wrist will allow. I just object to him watching it at a public library where children and others who shouldn't see it or don't want to see it can... You can even smoke enough meth to kill a horse. I just don't want to share a public road with you.


And no, you can't rent XXX videos from the library nor can you borrow XXX rated books, so it stands to reason you shouldn't be watching it there.

There is behavior that is appropriate in private that is inappropriate in public.

[brooklynite]

73. ...and everyone has a different standard as to what "appropriate" is

How violent could an online video watched at the library be? How violent could a book be?

My point is that applying "we all know" standards is incredibly subjective in most cases.

[840high]

79. You're defending the library creep?

[jberryhill]

84. He seems to be the only one needing a defense

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. Even John Stuart Mill understood the line between self directed and other directed behavior.

Lots of behavior that is appropriate in private becomes inappropriate in public. A person should be able to drink a liter of Southern Comfort in one setting if that is her or her want. He or she should not be able to drink it and drive.


A person should be able to sate his desire by watching enough internet pornography to cause him carpel tunnel syndrome in the privacy of his home or in a private place. A person surrenders that right when he enters the public square.

[Orrex]

95. Diogenes sez otherwise:

If to breakfast be not absurd, neither is it absurd in the market-place; but to breakfast is not absurd, therefore it is not absurd to breakfast in the market-place.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. I am sure that no philosopher, ancient or current...

I am sure that no philosopher, ancient or current, would disagree with the proposition that while onanism is not inherently untoward in one's home it becomes inherently untoward when practiced in front of a elementary school.

[Orrex]

97. Diogenes was kind of vague on that one

Though he apparently masturbated in the public square and afterward lamented that he couldn't alleviate his hunger as readily ("by rubbing my belly.&quot

But the issue, I think, was porn at the public library. Regardless of Diogenes' opinions, that's very different from porn at an elementary school.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. I am sure Diogenes wouldn't approve of watching bukakke porn...

I am sure Diogenes wouldn't approve of watching bukakke porn in a public library on a unfiltered screen on a computer that is not in a 'private' part of the library but situated on a table where patrons have to pass to get from the magazine section to the exit.

[Orrex]

108. Statements about him suggest exactly the opposite, in fact

Diogenes is said to have eaten in the marketplace,[45] urinated on some people who insulted him,[46] defecated in the theatre,[47] and masturbated in public.

From Diogenes' Wiki entry.

Sure, he left no writings behind, so this is all based on acts/statements attributed to him by his contemporaries, but such feeble evidence is more than adequate to establish a billions-strong religion, so I think we can accept it here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. If Diogneses masturbated in public he showed a blatant disregard for the rights of others.

Diogenes is said to have eaten in the marketplace, urinated on some people who insulted him, defecated in the theatre, and masturbated in public.

If Diogneses masturbated in public he showed a blatant disregard for the rights of others. That seems pretty self evident.

[Orrex]

112. "Self evident" is a red herring in this context

"Rights" are seldom the self evident entity that they're purported to be. Your definition of "self evident" is very likely at odds with mine, and certainly appears to be at odds with Diogenes.

Declaring rights to be "self evident" is argument by assertion. Sure, we might agree with the sentiment, but that's a seductive trap to fall into. What if someone else disagrees and asserts that some right is not self evident? Who is correct? On what basis?

[Warren DeMontague]

171. He was the Ted Nugent of his time, so to speak?

[Orrex]

179. But arguably less disgusting.

[brooklynite]

101. No, I'm challenging the responses that say the library can bar him or the content.

[MohRokTah]

117. They absolutely can.

Viewing pornography in public is illegal in many jurisdictions. A public library is an inappropriate place for such viewing and anybody who does so should be arrested.

[Orrex]

152. Really?

This was addressed already in this very thread.

I don't believe it's as clearly defined as you seem to assert.

[Orrex]

98. What if, instead of this particular vid, he'd watched a vid of a wet t-shirt contest?

Would that have been acceptable? No sexual penetration, no exchange of fluids. Just context-specific nudity.

What if he were watching graphic archival video of Rwandan machete genocide?


Where do we draw the line? Based on what criteria? And who gets to draw it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. The line is drawn when behavior goes from private to public.

If a person masturbates in his or her home he or she likely gets off...If a person masturbates in front of a elementary school he or she likely ends us in the hoosegow.

[Orrex]

104. That's a red herring

No one here is justifying masturbation at the elementary school, so why do you keep bringing it up?

Instead, the question is what is permissible at the library.

I notice that you ignored my question entirely, so I'll ask it again:

What about videos non-invasive, fluid-free nudity presented in a sexual context? Are these permissible? Why or why not?

What about videos graphically depicting Rwandan machete genocide? Are these permissible? Why or why not?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. That is a red herring

What about videos non-invasive, fluid-free nudity presented in a sexual context? Are these permissible? Why or why not?

That is a red herring. The cretin was watching bukakke porn where an abundance of fluid is exchanged.

I have a question.

Should library patrons be able to view bestiality on computers with unsecured filters on computer screens that can readily be seen by other patrons, young and old, and those who might be so inclined to view it and those who don't?

Most folks have lines. It's always instructive where those lines are. A fair line in a pluralistic society is when someone's behavior goes from the private (self directed) to the public (other directed).

[Orrex]

109. Answer my question, please.

You've repeatedly ignored my questions while posing others. Why should I answer yours, when you ignore mine?

Of course "most folks have lines." Do you believe that your "lines" should be enshrined as law? It certainly seems so.

A fair line in a pluralistic society is when someone's behavior goes from the private (self directed) to the public (other directed).

Really? What behavior? I sing in private. Should I be legally barred from singing in public?

My friend reads poetry in private. Should she be forbidden to read it in public?

Two of my other friends are gay. Should they be arrested for lovingly holding hands in public?

You're proposing a clear distinction based on criteria that are, at best, nebulous. That's a formula guaranteed to result in oppression.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. Okay

Of course "most folks have lines." Do you believe that your "lines" should be enshrined as law? It certainly seems so.

Depends, a person should be able to masturbate in his or her home. It should be illegal for that same person to masturbate in a playground, that whole private-public behavior thing.

A fair line in a pluralistic society is when someone's behavior goes from the private (self directed) to the public (other directed).
Really? What behavior? I sing in private. Should I be legally barred from singing in public ?

No

My friend reads poetry in private. Should she be forbidden to read it in public?

No

Two of my other friends are gay. Should they be arrested for lovingly holding hands in public?

No, but they should be barred from having sexual intercourse in public as should your straight friends, that whole private-public behavior thing again.

[Orrex]

113. Why?

Explain why "private/public" is the necessary dividing line.

In some regions of our great nation even today, gays are persecuted simply for showing natural affection by holding hands. The people who persecute them claim to be justified for reasons that are scarcely different from your arbitrary "public/private" distinction. Are they wrong?

If so, then why are you correct?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. Straight people should be able to do anything in public that gay people can and vice versa

Explain why "private/public" is the necessary dividing line.

In some regions of our great nation even today, gays are persecuted simply for showing natural affection by holding hands. The people who persecute them claim to be justified for reasons that are scarcely different from your arbitrary "public/private" distinction. Are they wrong?

If so, then why are you correct?

Straight people should be able to do anything in public that gay people can and vice versa, why not?

[Orrex]

115. Again, you avoid a question by asking a question

You still haven't answered my question from three posts ago. Why do you think I'd be inclined to answer yours?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

116. I answered your question.

Reasonable behavior can distinguish behavior that is appropriate in private and inappropriate in public. Evacuating one's bowels in the restroom at Staples Center would be appropriate, evacuating one's bowels in the mezzanine at Staples Center would be inappropriate.

[Orrex]

118. No, you didn't

You made concrete statements based on nebulous assumptions. In other words, you didn't answer anything. You punted and hoped that I wouldn't notice.

Evacuating one's bowels in the restroom at Staples Center would be appropriate, evacuating one's bowels in the mezzanine at Staples Center would be inappropriate.

Why not? According to what verifiable standard?

Defecation is natural bodily function, after all. What about shitting into a sanitary receptacle in public view? Why would that be forbidden?

What about breastfeeding? Should that be banned from public view as well?


Your non-answers display a consistent, disturbing and arbitrary puritanism, but rather than supporting your non-answers, you offer vague, semi-irrelevant examples that are no more certain than your taken-on-faith assertions.


Curious.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. If you believe...

Evacuating one's bowels in the restroom at Staples Center would be appropriate, evacuating one's bowels in the mezzanine at Staples Center would be inappropriate.
Why not? According to what verifiable standard?

Defecation is natural bodily function, after all. What about shitting into a sanitary receptacle in public view? Why would that be forbidden?

What about breastfeeding? Should that be banned from public view as well?

If you believe there is no difference between a woman breast feeding her child in a public space and a man or woman evacuating his or her bowels in the mezzanine at Staples Center there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

Would you be okay with a man or woman evacuating his or her bowels at the counter of a Burger King?

[elehhhhna]

129. Sure! Why not?

Lol


Oh my.

[Orrex]

133. I note that you still haven't answered any questions. Why not?

You make a lot of concrete statements, an dyou kind of assume that people will believe you on faith, and then when they don't you require them to justify it.

So tell us where and how, exactly you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, without depending on vague notions of propriety that you assume are correct and inherent and universal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

134. Not evacuating your bowels in public is as close to a universal norm as you are going to find.

Not evacuating your bowels in public is as close to a universal norm as you are going to find. Even in the absence of bathrooms men and woman will try to find a tree or some other object to hide behind when evacuating their bowels.

[Orrex]

139. Ok, let's assume that your arbitrary threshold is a useful standard

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that private defecation is a recent social convention, so it's hardly the immutable absolute that you seem desperate for it to be.

However, even if we assume--as you do--that the natural function of defecation must be hidden from polite society, that still doesn't do anything to support your objection to other people's viewing choices at the library.

Since the guy in question presumably wasn't defecating, urinating or ejaculating at the library's computer, your whole tortured rumination on excretion is irrelevant here.

In short, you still haven't provided any real criteria by which one viewing choice ist verboten while another is acceptable, though you repeatedly and incorrectly insist that you've answered.


Why are you unable to answer?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

140. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose...Your right to see several men ejaculate on a woman's face ends at my eyes...

That is a useful standard.

[Orrex]

141. I know that you think it is.

Did he strap you to a chair and force you to watch it?
Does the library have a 72-inch screen that you're unable to avoid?
Do you have no other recourse than to stand helplessly and watch?

In other words, your complaint is twofold:
1. You don't get to dictate what others choose to watch
2. You can't seem to tear your gaze away from displays of hardcore pornography

Sounds like those are your problems, not his.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. As I said you could not get from one part of the library to the other without seeing it.

As I said I could not get from one part of the library to the other without seeing it. You suggested that it would not be inappropriate for a man or woman to evacuate his or her bowels in the mezzanine of Staples Center:

Evacuating one's bowels in the restroom at Staples Center would be appropriate, evacuating one's bowels in the mezzanine at Staples Center would be inappropriate.
Why not? According to what verifiable standard?

Defecation is natural bodily function, after all. What about shitting into a sanitary receptacle in public view? Why would that be forbidden?

What about breastfeeding? Should that be banned from public view as well?

The instances are similar. In both instances I can turn away; from watching several men ejaculate on a woman's face and from watching a man or woman deliberately evacuate his or her bowels in the mezzanine at Staples Center. That begs the question. Why are they invading my space in the first place?

Can't a guy or gal just defecate and masturbate in private?

[Orrex]

145. No, you suggested that. You're jumbling your quoted text.

I offered nothing about the Staples mezzaine--that was your idea.

My question was about the possiblity of public receptacles. Several European cities, for instance, have public urination facilities, and somehow society hasn't ground to a halt. How is this possible, if excretion is the corrupting evil that you seem to think it is?

As I said I could not get from one part of the library to the other without seeing it.

Unless the monitor is hung in front of you in a narrow hallway, your claim is absurd. You can easily walk to the front of a theater without looking at the movie screen, so I simply don't believe that your helpless gaze is helplessly driven to a computer monitor from within the entire space of the library.

But even if we were to accept that the library is built specifically to force the screen into your view, you still need to demonstrate why your preference takes precedence over anyone else's.

As for the breastfeeding comparision, which I know you are desperate to make more complicated that it is, I was referring to a natural biological act that does not inherently require privacy. If we are able as a society to accommodate this natural function, then why are we not similarly able to tolerate other natural functions?

Why are they invading my space in the first place?

They aren't invading "your" space; they were in the public's space, and they have as much right to be there as you do.

You might be happier if you worried less about what other people are up to.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. Au contraire

But even if we were to accept that the library is built specifically to force the screen into your view, you still need to demonstrate why your preference takes precedence over anyone else's.

The person watching several men ejaculate on a woman's face is putting his preference to see it over my preference not to see it. If a person wants to watch the entire population of a small town ejaculate on a woman's face I would defend his or right to death to do so with two conditions; everybody is consenting adults, and he or she is viewing it in private.

Society has wisely found places to masturbate and defecate, places that afford privacy.

[Orrex]

149. You sure do love typing that phrase over and over again. Interesting.

Upward of a dozen times in this thread alone you've explicitly described the scene he was viewing. Your choice to do so doesn't harm me, but it's interesting that you would feel compelled to spell it out repeatedly.

Your preference not to see it not relevant unless circumstances specifically force you to see it, which they simply do not.

You have the power to look or to look away. I refuse to believe that you're such a helpless victim that you lack sufficient agency to turn your gaze away from the offensive display.

Society has wisely found places to masturbate and defecate, places that afford privacy.

As long as you're willing to admit that your objection is based entirely on your own aesthetic preference, rather than on some inherent property, then I suppose we can leave it at that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

150. Indubitably

Upward of a dozen times in this thread alone you've explicitly described the scene he was viewing. Your choice to do so doesn't harm me, but it's interesting that you would feel compelled to spell it out repeatedly.

Indubitably, so people reading this thread know I wasn't objecting to a scene from Fifty Shades Of Gray.

As long as you're willing to admit that your objection is based entirely on your own aesthetic preference, rather than on some inherent property, then I suppose we can leave it at that.

My objection to seeing people masturbate or defecate in public is based on universal norms.

[Orrex]

151. If by "universal norms" you mean "the majority's preference," then maybe you're correct

Indubitably, so people reading this thread know I wasn't objecting to a scene from Fifty Shades Of Gray.

Interesting that you should mention that, since 50 Shades is explicitly about rape and abuse, yet for some reason you accept it.

Since your complaint was about the perceived injury you suffered (in being forced to view the video) rather than to any injury to the woman in the scene, we can conclude that you identified her as a willing participant.

Interesting that you're happy to accept a fictional account of rape and abuse, yet you reject outright a filmed account of a fictionalized yet consensual sex act.

What are we to make of that?

My objection to seeing people masturbate or defecate in public is based on universal norms.

No, you extrapolate universal norms from your own aesthetic preferences. That way madness lies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

153. Huh, what...

I have been consistent in this thread...What a person chooses to do with other consenting adults in private is of no business of mine. When they bring their activity into the public square it becomes all our business...


Private behavior- none of society's business.
Public behavior- society's business


I don't care if some guy or gal wants to spend their entire week holed up in some hotel room watching porn and eating from an industrial sized bag of Cheetos. I do care if they compel me to watch, by acts or commission or omission.

[Orrex]

159. Why do you insist on painting yourself as a helpless victim?

I don't care if some guy or gal wants to spend their entire week holed up in some hotel room watching porn and eating from an industrial sized bag of Cheetos. I do care if they compel me to watch, by acts or commission or omission.

You [font size=4]ABSOLUTELY NOT[/font] compelled to watch. You can look away, you can move away, you can close your eyes, you can ignore it, you can request that he stop viewing or you can exit the building. Unless you are immobilized in front of the screen, you are in no way are you "compelled to watch."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

160. Of course I can and will avert my gaze.

Of course I can and will avert my gaze. The question is why the person brought their aberrant behavior into the public square to cause me to avert my gaze.

[Orrex]

165. No, the question is why do you presume to ban it?

Last edited Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

You insist that you don't care to witness the described sex act. Neither do I, while we're at it. I didn't feel the need to explicitly describe it a dozen times over, but we won't harp on that point.

You claim to embrace "universal norms," which are--again--simply "majority opinion."

Since porn is a bigger industry than the NFL, we can infer that porn is at least as universal a norm as football.

You didn't indicate that the man was masturbating or engaging in any other forbidden behavior, merely that he was watching a video that you found objectionable. Since the man--by your own assertion--switched to YouTube when he saw you, you further demonstrate that you weren't "compelled to view it." On the contrary, he altered his behavior in deference to ambient conditions.

Given the well documented popularity of porn, the behavior of the man in question is far from aberrant, even if it's important for polite society to maintain the illusion that it is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

172. I don't want to ban pornography.

No, the question is why do you presume to ban it?

I don't want to ban pornography. The record is clear. I have stated that, ad nauseum and ad infinitum. I just don't believe it should be viewed in public libraries. If you want to watch it at your home or at an adult theater or book store that is your right.

[Orrex]

173. But that's not the question

From the first post you've been clear that you don't want to ban pornography. I accept that this is true, and it is not a matter of dispute.

But you do expressly want to ban people from viewing it where others might feel compelled to view it as well. That's simply not permitted under the First Amendment, barring obscenity (as determined through due process) or criminal activity (as determined through due process).

I get that you don't like people using public computers to view material that you find objectionable. And I get that you feel that the viewing of such material is an injury to passersby who don't also care to view it. But within the scope of what is allowed on library computers--including stuff much worse than the porn you've described--the right to access that material supersedes your purported right to be protected from it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

175. Yes, I understand...

Just because you have a legal right to do something doesn't mean it's right, fair to others, acceptable, or prudent.

I just think it's bad form to watch porn where other people can see it, even for a second. If a person wants to watch two or more consenting people doing god knows what to one another that his or her right and he or she should be left alone. I am just asking that they leave the rest of us alone and not subject us to their vices or habits.

[Orrex]

176. Well, I admit that I wouldn't do it.

Hell, I don't even watch superhero movies when my family is around because I know they don't care for them. I personally can't imagine hunkering down for a gonzo fest at the library in plain view of the community's bingo club.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

178. I have probably seen almost every genre of porn and I don't want to precludes others from...

I have probably seen almost every genre of porn and I don't want to precludes others from seeing what I have seen. I would just ask that they be considerate enough to be aware of who else can see it while they are.

[Tipperary]

144. Oh ick. That is really a thing? So much a thing it has its own name?

Well I have learned something today. I wish I had not learned it, but there it is.

[Orrex]

155. There are more varied sexual acts in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

Funny old world.

[Tipperary]

174. Well, I do not really have a sexual philosophy that I know of.

I just found this particular "act" to be stomach turning. Ugh.

[Orrex]

177. As long as all participants are willing, I say go for it.

Not exactly my cup of tea either, though.

[Tipperary]

181. I agree with that. Since this is porn and these are actors, I cannot help but think that

is not a good day at work for that female actor.

[Blue_Adept]

184. I love that you explain what bukakke is

You should really let people go google it themselves instead.

[Chitown Kev]

78. Question: how are the computers positioned at the library that you used

Where I regularly go to the library, computers on the top of the desk are visible to the public and are filtered.

There are also a number of "unfiltered" computers below the desktop that are not visible to any passers-by unless someone is really looking and on those unfiltered computers, yes, I have seen people look at porn. And it is within the library's guideline of usage

[Recursion]

80. Someone researching depictions of sex, maybe? (nt)

[MannyGoldstein]

85. Oh! I'm sorry!

Good point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Are patrons allowed to view bukakke porn at the public library you frequent?

Are patrons allowed to view bukakke porn at the public library you frequent on unfiltered computers in plain view of other patrons? I am trying to learn about the various community standards in our nation.

Thank you in advance.

I should add it is my understanding that even adult book stores have doors on the booths where folks go to enjoy that fare.

[MannyGoldstein]

105. Interestingly, our library prohibits watching porn

while porn is actually being shot at the library.

This being Massachusetts, "Shooting Porn" is a required course at the high school level, it used to be tested in the MCAS but I don't know if it's covered by the Common Core testing. While watching a porno, it's very distracting to see a patron watching a porno within the action. And if the patron is watching a porno shot at our library, and within that porno there's a patron watching a porno shot at our library... well, you get the idea.

[merrily]

119. The librarian begged you to use a carrel.

[MannyGoldstein]

120. But instead, I used...

(Sorry, I'm unable to complete this sentence without offending all kinds of people and/or ending possibilities for future employment.)

Nice try, though.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

93. One who cannot afford to go to the porn booths?

As long as they are not pleasuring them selves I know I really don't care.

Take a look at Europe and how nudity and sex is openly shown and advertised in all forms of public media, including the beach policies and it does not seem to have even caused the children any harm either. From first hand experience after a day or two it just becomes party of the background scenery and you really don't notice it.

We as a nation, need to stop being such puritanical hypocrites.

[Historic NY]

106. The library should have their computers on lock down from

being accessed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. It would be nice if people read the entire thread before commenting.

The computers are scattered. There are no filtering screens. You literally can't go from the magazine section to the exit without passing the computers. The mix of patrons at the library are adults and children. The gentleman whose behavior I was commenting on wasn't watching your usual R or NC 17 fare but bukakke porn.That is the genre of porn where several men ejaculate on a woman's face.

To use some colloquialisms, kids don't need to be seeing that crap.

[KamaAina]

125. One who can't afford a computer and Internet at home?

Which would cover most cretins, except tRump.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. Not being able to afford a computer or connection only makes you underprivileged, not a cretin.

[KamaAina]

130. Not all underprivileged people are cretins,

but most cretins are underprivileged.

[Drunken Irishman]

128. When I was a kid I did.

Got busted too.

[no_hypocrisy]

131. A childhood friend was convicted of watching child porn on a library computer.

He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He has been committed.

[pnwmom]

138. Here is the official statement by the ALA, discussing the issue in terms of the 1st amendment.

http://www.ala.org/bbooks/challengedmaterials/preparation/guidelines-internet-use-policy

By providing information across the spectrum of human interests, and making them available and accessible to anyone who wants them, libraries allow individuals to exercise their First Amendment right to seek and receive all types of expression, from all points of view. Materials in any given library cover the spectrum of human experience and thought, even those that some people may consider false, offensive, or dangerous.

In the millions of Web sites available on the Internet, there are some—often loosely called “pornography”—that parents, or adults generally, do not want children to see. A very small fraction of those sexually explicit materials is actual obscenity or child pornography, which are not constitutionally protected. The rest, like the overwhelming majority of materials on the Internet , is protected by the First Amendment.

SNIP


Knowing what materials are actually obscenity or child pornography is difficult, as is knowing, when minors are involved, and what materials are actually “harmful to minors.” The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides. Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally. Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or “harmful to minors.”

[alarimer]

143. A sociopath with no regard for others.

Cue the First Amendment absolutists. "But we have to let them. It's their RIGHT!!!!" Boo fucking hoo. It's disgusting. I don't want to see that. I don't think anyone should be subjected to it against their will. Maybe, as a compromise, libraries need separate porn-viewing computers, maybe in separate areas.

I personally think anybody viewing porn in a public setting is a vile human being. I mean really?? Who the fuck thinks this is a good idea? And spare me the bullshit comparisons to naughty novels. Not the same fucking thing at all. Unless you read it aloud and act it out.

[snooper2]

154. what kind of porn was it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

156. Several men ejaculating on a woman's face, known as bukakke in the industry.

eom

[Initech]

158. He wasn't viewing porn, he was accessing his account at the 1st International Bank Of Spank.

It's research!!!!

[backscatter712]

167. Some people are just too stupid to live.

It's been a problem at libraries for years - creeps using the public computers, spooging on the keyboards and the furniture, that sort of thing.

Can't crack down on it too much - it's a library, a bastion of free speech, not censorship, so they're not going to filter their internet any more than they have to. But librarians don't want creeps wacking off around kids.

If you see it, tell the librarian, they'll tell him to go spank it somewhere else.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. They should just make the chairs really, really uncomfortable.

Although somebody'd probably like that, too.