posted
Edit: This post is largely in response to Fugu's comments.
Neither is it the government's responsibility to provide access to anything that a community considers objectionable.
It is neither censorship nor in any way inappropriate for public libraries to monitor and/or restrict the internet and book access they provide at the community's expense.
It is absolutely appropriate, for example, for a public library to not allow children access to books containing nudity according to the standards of the community.
Also, I'm wondering how many times I will have to repeat that no one is advocating a law forcing anyone to do anything regarding the .xxx or any other domain, to my knowledge. I came closest and all I said was it would not restrict free speech, but would preserve a space for it, if it could be done.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WHAT? Was there something on that site that I missed? The article is ABOUT porn, and it discusses it using comedically colorful language, but I didn't think of it as being not work-safe. If you guys find it offensive, I can remove the link. I REALLY didn't mean for it to be a problem.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porno sites aren't exactly hiding on the web. They want customers with credit cards. It would serve them to be more easily identified. Those that would block them won't make good customers anyway.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you don't have to take it down. The content is fine--it's the fact that people might walk by my desk and see "questionable" pictures--even if those pictures are technically fine. Or catch the great big PORN word on my screen.
I'll check out the link when I get home, so I'd appreciate it if you DIDN'T remove it! Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At my library growing up, no sites were blocked, but children under 18 had to have parental consent (and a sticker on their library card proving it) to go online.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Okay. Why aren't there more subscriptions to Playboy and Hustler and other even more explicit magazines in public libraries? There is clearly a demand for them. How many people wouldn't enjoy getting to "read" such material for free, right along with a copy of Time or Newsweek?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brettly, a Library doesn't *have* to do anything.
By your standard, libraries are censoring every book and magazine they do not carry.
It would be utterly ridiculous, not to mention irresponsible, for the library to unilaterally decide to make Hustler availible to youths who cannot legally buy it in a store, or begin stocking X-rated movies and allowing youths to check them out.
In point of fact, no library I know does this. Are all of them guilty of censorship? If not, why must they provide access to milfhunter.com? (and yes, there is a reason why that isn't a link... definitely not safe for work).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with library net censoring, of course, is that every censor software has its own problems. Too many non-adult sites are blocked, too many adult sites sail right through. There's not an easy answer no matter what you do.
I have no problem with restrictions blocking children from stumbling across sites that parents would prefer to block. I have big problems with anything that restricts an adult from accessing whatever he or she likes. Hitting that balance is extremely difficult to do.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, refusing to promote and distribute something is not censorship. Not giving the public free access to paid or unpaid works of any kind is not censorship.
As Chris and I have said, a library is built by a local community and their funds, and as such is, and should be, subject to that community's standards and purposes in creating the library.
How do you feel, Brettly, about the Ten Commandments monument flap in Alabama? That was art, and donated, does the government have an obligation to display it? are they censoring the artist if they refuse to?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, so then if someone donates a religious book that doesn't get put into circulation, is that censorship by your standards?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brettly, in your example of the donated Mapplethorpe:
1) who is being censored? 2) how, exactly, is this person's ability to express their ideas being impaired?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't think there is a place for porn in the Dewey Decimal system. It would probably be listed as art.
The only sites that want to remain hidden are illegal sites, dealing with underage porn. The other sites want as much exposure (haha) as they can get which is why if you google for female celebrities you get porn sites in the list (if safe search is off). I've done some searches and ended up with stupid webpages with a white background and the bottom of the page is full of a white text dictionary, just so they can get linked to even though their page has nothing to do with what you searched for. Annoying as hell.
He got so much feedback that he had to go and invite a porn star to his radio show, radiogodaddy.com. Search for the 6/22/2005 show.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As Chris and I have said, a library is built by a local community and their funds, and as such is, and should be, subject to that community's standards and purposes in creating the library.
I'd just like to mention that I wasn't necessarily advocating this position, just trying to state it more clearly as Brettly10's version seemed contradictory.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No worries. I'm not at all adverse to talking about ways to make the library more friendly and beneficial to everyone, and I believe that compromises need to be made. Just don't know, exactly, where they will ultimately land, and I suspect it'll be different for many libraries.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally think a reserved xxx domain would be excellent. But only for the Vin Diesel sites; that new one with Ice Cube was lame.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe everyone is talking about this. xxx will never be safe for kids. There is a group called Clean Port 80 that is promoting legislative action that is perfect in my opinion. Below is from their web site.
quote:CP80 is not a content filter, nor is it another .xxx-domain-name solution.
CP80 is an Internet Channel Initiative that uses existing technology to re-categorize all content on the Web into two Internet channels: one for general-public content and the other for adult content (pornography).
By creating two Internet channels, consumers now have a choice—something that does not exist today on the Internet. Concerned parents and employers can protect their children and businesses from pornography—while consenting adults have unrestricted access to legal adult content.
With CP80 everyone’s freedom of speech is protected.
We use different "channels" for email than the web (and eventually we'll have to use different channels for the web because it is getting so full). Does anyone else understand the technology?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kent, if that means you understand it, then please do. I'm curious to learn more.
Thus far, the .xxx domain sounds like a great idea. Anything to make it easier to stay far far far away from porn is a good thing in my world.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
