Replies

I work in a library that provides public Internet access.

When we first installed the computers, we assumed that they'd mostly be used by students, genealogists, people doing medical research, that sort of thing. What we got instead were creepy middle-aged men who'd sit and stare at the screen for hours. Once we learned how to check the browser histories, we found out why. They were accessing every kind of porn you could imagine. And this was in our reference room, with kids doing homework ten feet away.

Luckily, our board of trustees approved filtering as soon as we told them what was happening. Within two weeks of installing the filtering software, most of the perverts had lost interest and vanished. Only one person hung around complaining about "censorship"; he was recently arrested for posession of child pornography.

Now when students come in, there are actually computers available for them. The computers are being used for education and research, the things they were intended for when the library bought them.

The ALA loves to wring their hands and say "Oh, but filters are imperfect! They block access to legitimate information!" Sure, if you buy a cheap piece of software, you're going to get what you pay for. (I actually know of librarian at a nearby library who purposely bought the worst filter she could find, so as not to "censor any more than she had too.") But there are execellent, highly configurable filters on the market. I know, we have one.

I agree that parents should take responsibility for supervising their children. But the fact is that most of them don't. Parents assume that the library is a safe place and use it as free day care. I've seen kids so young they need help going to the bathroom dumped at the library for an hour or more while mommy goes grocery shopping. That kind of parent doesn't think twice about leaving a 12-year-old alone at a public computer for several hours. If we insist that kids under a certain age must have a parent supervising them, the parents look at us like we're from Mars.

I don't have a problem with libraries voluntarily filtering -- but I'd personally they take an active role in the filtering rather than blindly putting up blocks to all kinds of legitimate information in the cause of fighting porn. Configurable filtering software is the best method (apart from blocking sites at the router level). I do have a problem with the federal government mandating filtering software (or lose funding), because it puts the federal government in a position where they may be allowed to determine what is "acceptable" internet content for a library.

Hmmmmm. Well, I don't think we should be turning our public libraries into adult peep shows. This used to be something that was previously restricted to "adult" bookstores and sex shops.

I simply can't understand any librarian who would actually want someone to be looking at porn in the library. Yuck.

Thank you very much for a healthy dose of reality in this discussion.

Congressman Billybob