Porn filters: The battle of protection vs. free speech in local, national librariesBy Chris Bausinger, Jason Le Miere, Dominique Dumadaug, and Dan Lu
The Internet is hailed as the last true bastion of free speech, but how free should it be in a public place where individuals and the innocent eyes of children watching?
This is the essence of the debate over whether pornography filters should be installed on the computer systems of public libraries.
Porn filter advocates say they are a must as children need to be protected from seeing illicit material on the Web, as well as to prevent unscrupulous users from viewing such material and engaging in public acts of profanity.
The other side of the debate is that porn filters not only infringe on an individual’s right to freely view any desired material, but that filters will unintentionally block non-harmful sites, particularly those containing health information.
The issue gained notoriety in San Jose over the past year as council member Pete Constant attempted to get the San Jose City Council to vote to install pornography filters in all of the city’s public libraries.
Constant’s argument, according to the San Jose Mercury News, was that men were using libraries to view explicit material and then exposing themselves.
In a December 2007 interview with Constant, he said he became interested in the topic when he saw a November 2006 TV report by ABC Channel 7 News correspondent Dan Noyes, who brought the issue out into the light.
At the time, this was countered by San Jose Library Director Jane Light who said that only 12 arrests were made for computer related sex offenses during the 2006-07 budget year, according to the San Jose Mercury News.
In a February 2006 article in the Spartan Daily, University Library Dean Ruth Kifer countered Constant’s concerns by saying "the library does not have a significant problem with pornography and inappropriate behavior," Kifer said, "The vast majority of our library users utilize the computers to access digital information resources in a responsible manner."
Current SJSU librarian Paul Kauppila said that he believes most librarians to be against the installation of filters.
“It's simply not possible at this point to develop any sort of filter technology that does not also block many forms of legally protected speech,” Kauppila said.
Despite this view, filters are in use at half of the country’s libraries.
Even though the librarians have shown their dislike for using filters in their libraries, some patrons feel differently about what goes on inside the library.
In a random polling at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library, 14 of 35 people polled thought that the viewing of pornographic material was a problem inside the library. Of those 14, eight said they witnessed a library visitor viewing the material on a library terminal.
While age was not a question in the polling, yes-responding participants generally were older and parents, which is a key point for Constant in his proposals to the City Council. In the interview with Constant he said, “My biggest group of supporters are parents,” also adding that, “The city should not be paying for people to view porn.”
Constant is not alone in his beliefs and has the support of not just parents, but SJSU students as well.
“The library is a place for studying,” Samantha Nitta, a junior public relations and Japanese double major said, “and you should not be able to go to the library to look at content like this. If people are going to do that, they need to do it in the privacy in their own home.”
Library Poll: "Do you think that the viewing of sexual material in the library is a problem?" (Click graphic to enlarge)
Of those answering "Yes,"8 said they have witnessed people viewing pornographic material on the library terminals
3 said they have witnessed people viewing pornographic material on their laptops
2 said they have witnessed people viewing pornographic material but were unsure of the medium used.
Of those answering "No,"
10 said they thought that filters would help prevent pornographic material from being viewed by other library patrons.
1 said they thought that filters would not help prevent pornographic material from being viewed by other library patrons.
Of those answering "Not enough information,"
5 said that filters would be a good idea for the library to help reduce incidents of "lewd acts"
3 said that filters would not be a good idea and would create problems for issues of free speech.
1 said that the use of library filters is unnecessary.
1 said that filters should be used to prevent children from viewing pornographic or violent images.
1 said that filters would prevent students and curious teens from doing research of a sexual nature.
"Users are responsible for determining that the information they access is acceptable, reliable and suitable to their needs...In doing so, the Library does not monitor and has no control over the information accessed through the Internet and assumes no responsibility for its content."For the full internet access and use policy of San Jose Libraries, go to:
http://sjlibrary.org/legal/policies.htm?pID=310
Slide show of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library and filter story pictures:
(Click link to view)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25265322@N03/sets/72157608972214320/show/
Sidebar:
Porn Nation Poster
Porn Nation: What is porn? Who decides what is pornographic and what to ban in libraries?Michael Leahy can freely admit now that he had a problem.
“As a guy who had an affinity for porn, I became an early adopter of everything that came out.”
Leahy, the author of Porn Nation, used to work for the tech industry. When the Internet came out, it became even easier for him to obtain pornography and further fuel his addiction.
“A common definition of porn is this,” said Leahy, “Any material designed with the purpose of arousing you sexually.”
Leahy grabbed that definition from Webster’s Dictionary.
Yet, the Cambridge University Press Dictionary defines pornography as: “books, magazines, films, etc. with no artistic value which describe or show sexual acts or naked people in a way that is intended to be sexually exciting but would be considered unpleasant or offensive to many people.”
So which definition is right?
“As an art major who has actually had to check out books from the library containing art with nudity, I have to find a line between what is art and what is designed to stimulate or arouse the viewer,” said sophomore and Campus Crusade for Christ member Ryan Geery. “I don’t believe nudity to fall into the category of porn necessarily.”
Playboy founder Hugh Hefner would probably agree with Geery, as he believes the pictures in his magazines are art and not pornographic as many of his opponents claim.
Who decides what is considered pornographic and should be banned from libraries when dictionary companies can’t even agree on a definition?
“City Council had a meeting several months ago in which I attended to support the position of some form of porn filters, said Geery. “Obviously, you want to be careful not to block everything, such as medical files with some nudity in it.”
Different people do have different opinions of what can be considered porn; some people do believe anything with nudity or a hint of sexual nature in it is considered pornographic.
In Leahy’s Porn Nation presentation, images of sexuality from popular television shows and movies and of pop stars were blended into the same category as pornographic movies and websites and its stars because of the “common definition” of what is porn.
“My idea is that porn filters should block pre-determined sites based on my definition of pornography, not necessarily content,” said Geery. “The human body is not bad thing, only in the context of lewd, sexual acts, so I don’t believe that content filtering is necessarily the way to go.”
The debate will go on for as long as people will keep disagreeing on what is considered pornographic.
Questions or comments, contact us:
Chris.Bausinger@gmail.com
D_dumadaug@yahoo.com
Jason_Lemiere@hotmail.com
Rollwithdan@hotmail.com
