From the Vancouver, Washington newspaper
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/02142006news189746.cfm

Library to filter all Web access

Tuesday, February 14, 2006
By MARGARET ELLIS, Columbian staff writer

In the wake of persistent criticism that the library distributes pornography, the Fort Vancouver Library board decided Monday to change its Internet policy and impose the most restrictive rules of any local library.

The library board voted 4-3 on Monday to filter all Internet access, to make viewing pornography against the library's policy, and to have library staff monitor Internet use. The policy may take a month or so before it can be implemented, Executive Director Bruce Ziegman said at the Monday night meeting.

Board member Jack Burkman said he came to his decision in part after hearing from folks who felt uncomfortable in the library. "I believe it's critical the library be friendly to families," he said. Some are concerned that library users will access sexually explicit material online, and that children could see it. Others object to pornography itself, and that anyone could use the library to get it.

The board has been debating Internet restrictions since Fort Vancouver libraries began offering Internet access. It was not clear Monday exactly how the new policy would be implemented.

Opponents of the old policy have demanded that computer monitors be placed where they are easily visible to passers-by, because eliminating privacy might eliminate inappropriate Internet use. But some board members, including Bill Yee, said privacy is important. Staff will research how best the computer use might be monitored and return to the board with details.

Burkman, who proposed the policy change, said he didn't expect the debate to end with the decision to filter all access. "I think we're going to have some conversations around chat rooms and gaming," he said. But Monday, the focus was on access to pornography.

That word came up frequently during the two hours of public comment and debate. About 50 people attended the meeting.

It inspired Marlene Adams to see what all the fuss was about. She told the board that she "Googled a vulgar term for female anatomy." She clicked on the first site. "It was a depiction of oral sex close-up," Adams said. "Well, if this isn't obscenity, I don't know what is."

Jerry King, library board chairman and former Vancouver city attorney, explained that garden-variety pornography doesn't qualify as obscenity, because it is widely available. "The city has lots of stores that sell it, and it sells well," he said. Therefore, it has been judged to be consistent with community standards.

Even if people are looking at pornography at the library, they're doing so without disturbing anyone else, he said. "There's never been anybody seen doing anything (inappropriate.) There's just an idea that something might happen," he said.

Board member Karen Peterson, who cast her vote as "reluctantly, yes," in favor of filtering, did so because she said she saw no value in the pornography that would be blocked, but King steadfastly defended Internet access to legal material. "There are valid reasons to watch porn in a library," he said, to gasps and a shout, "It's a matter of right and wrong!" from the audience.

Many other audience members were staunch free-speech advocates. "I have a real problem with censorship," said Carrie Parks. "I don't like pornography, but we are adults and we live in a free society."

But board member Rose Smith said she saw only problems from unfiltered access. "I think it's time for us to do something," she said.

Board members had used the filtered computers to obtain both medical information and Web sites about tattoos and body piercings. Searches filtered out pornography and left plenty of information to be viewed.

Burkman said the vote wasn't an attempt to curry favor with voters, who in November rejected a $44 million bond issue that would have replaced the Vancouver and Cascade Park community libraries. It got 59.37 percent approval, but needed a 60 percent supermajority. A March 2004 bond issue for $48 million got 55.69 percent of the vote.

"We might pick up a point or two," by changing the policy, he said, but "we'll alienate some people and lose a point or two."

The Fort Vancouver Regional Library District's Internet policy is now more conservative than libraries locally and nationally. The library's previous policy allowed only those 17 and older to access the Internet without a filter, which meets the standards of the federal Children Internet Protection Act.

The old Fort Vancouver policy is the same as the Camas Public Library's policy. Libraries at colleges and universities in Clark County aren't filtered. At the Multnomah County Library, filtering is up to parents' discretion.

Libraries that comply with the federal act are eligible for discounts from the federal government on their Internet access, though the discount Fort Vancouver libraries get is too small to affect their policy decision, library officials have said.

A 2004 study by the Information Use Management & Policy Institute at Florida State University found about 40 percent of public library outlets use Internet filters.


******************

How do we feel libraries should police/restrict/allow internet usage?

My personal feeling is that viewing porn is grossly inappropriate in a public library. They don't have issues of Perfect 10 or Penthouse to look at, you shouldn't be allowed to view porn either. Anyone who is searching for legitimate information that is blocked by filters can consult with library staff about the search and so forth. There's no way libraries should be open season on the internet.

agreed

I'm on the library board here in Chapel Hill. We considered filtering software for the computers. All of the software that was presented to us had some "collateral filtering," which is to say it blocked non-porn things.

We ultimately decided that, rather than have an employee running around unlocking shit every time someone wanted to view a legitimate, blocked site, we'd leave it as part of the library code of conduct, and allow parents to block their kids' card (you have to scan your card to use the computer).

I think people need to use some common sense in these situations. I think you would have to be socially retarded to sit in a public library watching hardcore lesbian videos.

The solution is an adult section, with a curtain and little booths that you put a quarter in surf all of the adult content that you want.

B, working for a library, do you find a lot of people accessing porn in public like that, just curious.

Dang.

I thought this thread was gonna be about how all libraries should be shut down in favor of a more cost effective and environmentally friendly eBook database.


As for filtering, porn is everywhere on the Internet (and probably pays ofr most of the net). There's no real way to block it.

I am unaware of any incidents of someone accessing porn in the library. Most libraries don't filter, but WILL take your card if you're caught accessing porn. It's not like you can hide it in the middle of the library.

I work in a university library, so it's not really the same thing, but we were told that we are NOT allowed to keep people from viewing pornography or stop them in anyway. The only thing we can do is ask them to move to a more concealed station, and that's only if someone complains. We have had problems with people wanking though, and they get booted immediately.

I wish I went to USC

Why does that have to be a sarcastic response? I dont see a problem if libraries offered a more private room for internet surfing. There are certainly other things that one might want to look up or read in a private manner. Maybe just offer one computer in a private room or something, as opposed to an all out "filter or dont filter" choice. There can be an inbetween.

As long as there's a plastic mat on the floor and a box of Kleenex.

And as long as the government can track your every click and peer over your shoulder if they want.

Why should libraries be a free vestibule for pornography?

I guess my thought wasnt to address wheather people wanted to view pornography, it was that libraries didnt have to choose over "to filter, or not to filter". They could filter their computers that are out in the public areas and offer a private area as well if they wanted. There are other reasons people might want to view stuff in a private area besides porn. Reading over some private emails or documents, or viewing personal photos. That kind of stuff.

And I dont think the library should be "free vestibule for pornography" as much as it should be a "free vestibule for information". Once you start censoring the information, no matter what it is, it seems againt the idea of having a place where it's sole point is to be a catalogue of books and information.

If someone's over your shoulder or next to you reading your email, kindly tell them to piss off.

Then why don't they have porno in book format?

Have you seen the anatomy section?

But really, there lots of libraries out there that carry ponographic material.

Now THAT's bad policy. There's no excuse for allowing people to use the computers to view pornography.

Also, for Buggy's suggestion ... the #1 thing we argue about at board meetings is the complete and total lack of space in the library. Our users want more books, more CDs, more DVDs, more computers ... and there is NOWHERE to put them. I can't imagine that a library has the space to create a "private viewing booth."

No one should be free to view pornography. I just don't feel filters are the best solution. If someone has no computer at home, but needs to do something private on the computer (w/ credit card numbers or something), let them ask a librarian for special consideration.

I agree with Buggy 100%.

SHUT UP! Like what?

Well that's a reasonable point. But really, all you'd have to do is take one of the computers and have the user with his back to the wall (so the screen is FACING the wall) and then have a couple of dividers on each side (a-la urinal style in the men's room). There doesnt have to be a whone 'nother room. It just has to be set up so nobody else is viewing the screen.



I'm sure you can search the net and find details. Here is the first one I saw...

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2002/02/07/ ... 6923.shtml

Also, my High School library had a "locked up" stash that you could see if you requested it...and didnt someone in this thread already mention their school allowed it by some means? Aditionally, plenty of libraries do not filter their internet computers.

I think it's bad taste to be sitting in a public area and be surfing for porn. I think it's also bad taste to be censoring information at libraries. Again, I dont see a problem with a private area. I suppose, it's just something that each library will have to decide for themselves what works best for their situation.

Seems like too much trouble to go through to provide people with a means to view porn in a public library. Not exactly what they're intended to be used as IMO.