Censorship in the Library

fuse, I agree, but it means a new thread. Do you want to start it?

I don’t think this avoids the problem, as many works have been and still are described as pornographic by those who don’t like the ideas expressed within. Even limiting it to pictures requires someone to decide what’s acceptable and what isn’t. Just think of what would be considered pornographic in a fundamentalist Islamic community: visual depictions of Any part of a woman but the eyes, images of men and women interacting unchaperoned. For a less extreme example, what about renaissance art with nudes? The Vatican has a bathroom with erotic imagery painted by Raphael, which if made today would almost certainly pass as pornography, but which with equal certain I would call culturally significant. What about the stereotypical National Geographic story on the Nude tribe from Wherever.

I belabor the point, which is that even limiting “mature” to “pornography”, and even further limiting “pornography” to “visual pornography,” still enables the suppression of expressive works.

As you point out, nothing is “actually being censored,” by which I take to mean that the content is still available. But the additional burden you put on expression is a legitimate burden, and will certainly decrease readership (indeed, that’s the whole point). Soft censorship is censorship.

In the context of the linked document, “sexual misconduct” is probably something more than simply making pornographic images available. The specific cases mentioned all involve something more, in particular physical molestation or some sort of sexual gratification on the part of the teacher. That’s distinct from providing pornography in one’s role as a teacher, which sex education teachers are hired to do.

You raise a good point about the “arm of the government” argument I made, and I agree the argument is weak, at least as it applies to current law. A better distinction is as certain individuals functioning as an arm of the parents. I can certainly hire someone to teach my child about sex, including having them show my child porn as an informational activity. I could also hire someone to give my child any accessible information they ask for, including information about human bodily functions of any stripe. These people would be acting as an agent of me as parent, and so would almost certainly not be liable for any crime associated with showing a minor pornography.

My guess is that the same applies to teachers, that they are assumed to have parental rights and responsibilities as regards education, so that they would not be liable for a crime if they provided a minor with pornography as part of that duty. This distinguishes the book store owner/employee, who has no parental rights or responsibilities. The legal argument then is whether in general a library is more like a teacher or more like a book store owner, when it supplies pornography and allows children access to it. Does that analysis work for you?

I think that the question about pornography vs. not pornography can largely come down to purpose. Hugh Heffner started Playboy because he, personally, was tired of there not being any revealing magazines of that nature on the market. It’s undisputed. The articles were an after-thought to add legitimacy needed to circumvent an outright Government ban.

The purpose of the Renaissance Art is just that, historical art. The Nat’l. Geo. is basically just documenting other cultures, as you know. I understand the possible objections to the disclusion as pornography. However, there’s clearly very, very, little, if anything at all, inherently sexual about that nudity. Playboy is meant to be sexually provocative, that’s the purpose of the magazine.

My other problem is, where does it stop? Let’s say I allowed Playboy, which undeniably has an inherent sexually provocative purpose, why not Hustler, then, Barely Legal, Celebrity Skin…harder stuff of which I wouldn’t even know the name?

Purpose seems to be my dividing line.

It can, but I think that you have reached such a niche at this point, given what I have said about sexually provocative intent, that it hardly matters.

Do you mean that libraries would no longer buy Playboy? Even if that were the case, (which I contest, in whole, but will concede that some may no longer buy it) I don’t think libraries represent anything even approaching Playboy’s main source of readership.

I strongly disagree with your assertion. My disagreement is based on experience of sex education classes at the High School level. I coul;d look for some numbers, but don’t know how successful I would be. I usually hate to, “Pass the buck,” so to speak, but I would ask you, then, to provide a case-law counter-example demonstrating a teacher being successful, on appeal, in a case based on the teacher providing pornography to students in a public school setting.

You would be correct about that, but I would certainly argue that the edcucator in question would want written consent, at a minimum, concerning the pornography. I’m pretty sure you can do just about anything outside of overt sexual acts provided you have written consent from the parent. For instance, if you were a family of nudists and a child from a different family wanted to come over, then you could have the parent sign a contract stating understanding of the fact that you are nudists, and will go naked in front of the child, and the other parent could consent to that.

However, this again brings us to the argument of implied consent vs. express consent. With respect to libraries, schools, anyone showing pornography to children, my position has consistently been, “With express consent.” I referenced live sex shows in the library, at one point, as an extreme example. I’m really unconcerned about even that, provided there is express consent.

What you have referenced by LizbethRose with handing these kids Playboy is the concept of, “Implied consent.” I suppose the consent is, apparently, the fact that the child was allowed to have a library card, which, at a certain age, I don’t even believe a parent need be present for the child to get that. Twelve years old at most of my local libraries, if I am not mistaken.

Further, my position of, “Express consent,” already relaxes standards that are arguably already in place as, “Express consent,” is not going to enable a kid to buy Playboy at the local gas station.

As previously stated, you would have to legally be able to construe it, per the course/school/district guidelines, as part of the educator’s duty. There’s really no getting around that, because, on the surface, you’d be guilty of three (or so) different crimes.

That analysis works somewhat, except I don’t think we have satisfactorily established that even a public educator could show kids porn, and particularly not without express consent. Assuming, however, that your analysis works, or in legal terms, “Objection. Without waiving objection,” I would suggest that the librarian would be more along the lines of a book store owner, because you go there to borrow/read books. I don’t know that the librarian necessarily educates anyone on anything, and to the extent that the librarian may, I would be hesitant to suggest that is among the more fundamental duties of a librarian. They certainly do not hold any classes that children are required to take, as children are required to either go to public school, private school, or have alternative (and monitored) home-schooling.

No child is ever required to set foot in a library. There will be no truancy if the child does not.

The problem, pav, is how do you judge what’s pornographic and what isn’t. Is Romeo and Juliet about the psychological dangers of teen-age sex? Is the Illiad a story about a man trying to steal another man’s wife? Is the Kama Sutra a sex manual?

Even if a library cataloging system had a pornography designation, how would you catalog any of the three examples?

If I read him correctly, Pav already answered that:

I tend to agree with him.

It’s really not so tough to make the assessment that Romeo and Juliet or The Iliad isn’t pornography, almost seems like a disingenuous question. I guess I’d put the question to you: Do those works have significant merit above and beyond any sexual content?

Thanks, Anita.

Anita is right, I stand by my earlier statement. The purpose of the Kama Sutra is, arguably, to educate about sex. Even if that were not the case, it is hardly pornographic as it is primarily prose, and what is not prose, is merely drawings. It’s also historical text, which does not apply to Playboy.

Want to wait a couple thousand years and make a case for Playboy as historical text? My ears will be open.

I’m glad you put in the qualifier, arguably, pav, but I think both you and Anita are missing my point which is that pornography is subjective. Is Playboy pornographic? Is it published with the express objective one of arousing a sexual reaction? As you’ve said, pav, it’s the “purpose” that makes pornography ‘porn.’

I really don’t care about Playboy or [u]Playgirl{/u]. They’re not displayed in my library in the public magazine section; they’re behind the Reference Desk. There aren’t tens of thousands of screaming 13 year old boys standing in line in front of the desk all demanding Playboy magazine.

A library is the repository of knowledge. Knowledge may not, cannot, should not be censored. How an individual uses the knowledge is entirely up to her/him. The library doesn’t have ‘knowledge’ restrictions.

Anyone can check out anything s/he wants. Publications are kept in-house because they’re so popular they can’t be checked out until they become ‘old’ issues, so newly issued magazines are kept from circulation for a month in order to allow casual readers the opportunity to read them.

I apologize. I don’t know what this thread is about any more. Do you want “thought police” in libraries?

I harbor no ill-will to you personally, and will likely continue to address you unbiasedly in future conversations. However, I am finished discussing this matter with you.

Great! Now I can you invite you out here in early Feb.–the 11th, to be exact–to watch the Jello Wrestling Extravaganza at The Spitfire! O:)

LOL

I over-reacted anyway, a guest had just gotten done seriously pissing me off, sorry about that.

The comparison to, “Thought police,” is unfair, though. That’d be like me saying, “You just keep right on molesting kids, now…”

I would suggest that Playboy is published with the express…at least, Hugh Heffner seems to think so. That was the idea behind the whole thing.

The purpose of renaissance art is more than just art, which gets at an important distinction, between the purpose of the creator and the purpose of the audience. If I find medical textbooks erotic and I produce one for the purpose of arousing textbookophiles like myself, is the medical textbook porn? What if I make a movie of attractive people having sex to demonstrate and examine human sexual behavior? The subjective element is not removed.

In any case, this line of argument about how to define pornography is a red herring. You may find nude imagery for the purpose of sexual excitement to be offensive and worth hiding, but other feel that clothed photographs with that purpose, or literature with that purpose, to be offensive. Others may not find any of it worthy of hiding. Why should we pick your standards of decency over someone else’s? More generally, who’s standards should we use, and how do we as a collective pick?

As I argued earlier, “[a]ll moves from UC towards OC require some government agent to define information that is ‘bad’.” This is not something government has proven itself to be particularly good at. You suggest earlier that parents aren’t off-loading their responsibility because the library is “handing” kids pornography, but is that really the issue? If libraries are passively operated, or robot operated, or only consist of a few computers with internet access, they aren’t handing anything. They are making available any information the child wants, but it is the child’s initiative that is key.

At some point here, you want the library to intervene, either by stopping the child at point of reference (taking the book from his hands, switching off the computer screen), at the time they place the resources they stock in the library, or when purchasing. And further, you want them to intervene to apply your subjective evaluation of what is and isn’t appropriate for kids. And every parent wants basically the same thing, only substituting their subjective evaluation of what their children shouldn’t see. That’s offloading parental responsibility. Sure, one can’t watch one’s child all the time, but that doesn’t entail that anyone else is compelled to either.

I don’t know that there is one; I couldn’t find a case-law example of a teacher being unsuccessful, either. The closest I found to either was Brown v. Hot, Sexy, and Safer Productions, Inc., from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and denied certiori by the Supreme Court. The case doesn’t involve pornography, but involves a sexual explicit sex education presentation which included the adult instructor and a minor student (plaintiffs were 15, so probably the same age) licking a giant condom. Not only was no one found criminally liable, the civil case was dismissed. Defendants acknowledged that parental consent was required and was not obtained for a presentation of this kind, and that that violated a statute describing proper sex education, but it did not create a private right of recovery.

I also found the Ohio Code provision which makes giving porn to kids illegal: (tabbed because it’s a long-ass block of text)
[tab]

[/tab]
Of note, in (C)(1) it includes librarians as “proper person[s]” when distributing the material for a “proper purpose.” At first I thought this was conclusive, but reading it again I find it less so. The exception doesn’t cover the librarian, but someone who got the material from a librarian. On the one hand, it is an indication that a librarian is somehow special when they are acting in their role. On the other hand, it could be interpreted to set a higher bar for librarians, requiring them to filter more than others, and possibly vindicating that, whether or not they should be, they in fact are charged with some parental offloading.

In my opinion, to the extent that we look at purpose, it should come down to the purpose of the creator of the work in question. However, that purpose can change with respect to historical art, because it would no longer be based on an antiquated definition of pornography used by the creator, but by a generally accepted, “Common-sense,” standard.

To that extent, Hugh Heffner has admitted Playboy to be pornographic, has stated that it was created for that purpose, and even if not, common-sense says it’s pornography.

I’m not asking you to use my standards in the case of Playboy. I’m asking you to use the standards of Playboy’s creators/distributors/manufacturers, and the creator, Hugh Heffner, is still alive. Hugh Heffner says it is for the purpose of sexual arousal! What else could you possibly want!? I didn’t say it, (though I agree with him) he did.

Strawman. “Handing,” was not meant strictly literally.

I’m not asking them to do so. I’m asking them to move materials and unlocked computers to a separate area, and either make someone present a card to enter that area (with a stamp) or have some kind of key sliding door thing with the library card which either approves or denies access.

That is how it reads. It also says that it must be for a, “Bona Fide,” educational purpose. I fail to see:

1.) How Playboy exists for a bona fide educational purpose.

2.) How the librarian can do anything for a bona fide educational purpose, given that a librarian is not charged to educate anyone.

To that extent, simply handing a child Playboy would certainly not qualify as a, “Bona fide educational purpose,” because you are not using the material to educate anyone.

Also, in Grosser v. Woollett 45 Ohio Misc. 15 341 N.E.2d 356, 74 O.O.2d 233 (1974) a permanent injunction was GRANTED stating, " A permanent injunction will issue enjoining the defendants and each of them from using or assigning ‘Manchild in the Promised Land’ and ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ as part of the curriculum of the high school for use by juveniles except where a parent or guardian of a child has knowledge of the character of the books and consents to their use." This injunction was based, in part, pursuant to O.R.C.2907.31(C).

It is the only case invoking O.R.C.2907.31(C) available on Fastcase, but there was a permanent injunction granted on books, that were, not even pornography as I am using the term!!!

TO BE HONEST:

The following article, composed by an attorney:

oplin.org/content/the-intern … erspective

Would seem to indicate, as much as I hate to admit it, that librarians are NOT doing anything wrong by providing the open Internet access to anyone as the Internet access, itself, is incidental to the pornography. I think that’s fucking bullshit because the pornography could not cocur without the Internet, because how can you look at Internet porn without Internet!? But, whatever.

Helping my position is the fact that librarians would be liable, it seems, if they specifically led a minor to an obscene website, or gave obscene material to the minor directly as said material would be patently under the library’s control.

This article:

safelibraries.org/harmful_to_min … arians.htm

Seems to think that librarians would not be able to invoke the defense, though, unless they permitted access to an unfiltered computer for a bona fide educational reason. The same would certainly go for guiding a minor to a, “harmful,” website and certainly for disseminating materials such as Playboy.

***It seems that both of our positions are supported, to some extent. It seems that librarians could be liable for allowing unfiltered internet access, but no case has been brought yet, and probably, no case ever will.

It seems that librarians would be undoubtedly liable for specifically directing children to pornographic websites, and certainly for specifically disseminating graphic print materials to children UNLESS it was for a bona fide educational purpose. (It seems that, “Research for school,” qualifies) but not just for the Hell of it. It would also seem that the child would have to specifically state it was for educational research purposes, OR the parent would have to directly give consent.

I’m looking forward to when I have some extra money to file suits in these kinds of matters, if applicable, (I imagine most libraries aren’t stupid enough to do it, given Ohio law, in Ohio) I’m pretty sure I could win, pro se, and Permanent Injunctions of Playboy and the like in libraries are going to fall like rain…

Pav, You said “To that extent, Hugh Heffner has admitted Playboy to be pornographic, has stated that it was created for that purpose, and even if not, common-sense says it’s pornography.” Where did you find that?

I, personally, don’t think [u]Playboy{/u] is pornographic, but I’m female and don’t get turned on by viewing naked bodies–either male or female. We all have a naked body, after all. But I guess that only shows that pornography, as is so much in life, is subjective.

Pav, I found this for you.

seattlepi.com/local/article/ … 873692.php

How about coming out here for the Beard and Stash Contest?

Thanks, if you’ll peruse my most recent post addressed to Carleas, however, you will see that I acknowledge the bullshit legality of allowing that man to view pornography openly. It’s bullshit, but if it’s legal, I’m not going to argue.

However, in Ohio, you could not hand a kid Playboy or direct him to a graphic website without a bona fide educational purpose, so that satisifes me to some extent.

I have a goatee that I keep short and would have no chance of winning, thank you though. That was one cool thing about the call center, the customers can’t see you, I was rocking a kick-ass beard then.

I think I’ll start a thread in Mundane Babble about what people do to overcome SAD and other examples of boredom and depression in the upper latitudes. But it isn’t just SAD around here. I mean it can get pretty sad no matter where you live. It’s also a need for fun, silliness, and laughter. Expressions of absurdity, perhaps? We’ll see what the response is.

I think the master librarian is a 4 year graduate course… I only know this because my spiritual mother is a librarian herself… she and I met as a 14 year old when I dropped out of school and began systematically digesting the library’s non-fiction collection. I was the library’s paper boy previous to that… they have only three masters on staff, and she’s not one of them, and she swears up and down it’s a master’s degree, her degree is in something else, special disability learning something or another. Anyway… the library needs to keep so many of them on staff or their screwed. I have one of them HEAVILY indebted to me because a day or two after getting out of the military, the grass cutting police threatened to jail her if she didn’t have her grass cut… she began to cry to my spiritual mother, asking if I would come in and see if I would weedwack it. I was drawn a picture of it… a few trees with little weeds not even knee high, and said sure, I’ld do it for free. Carried my weedwacker up a hill through a forest trail to her house… and discovered the fucking weeds she was talking about on the corner of her house was LARGER than he damn house… and the weeds were bushes, several, interlocking that covered half her immedate back yard area wise, and prevented me from circling her house. This isn’t counting her 30 foot tall hedges that hadn’t been trimmed EVER, they were taller than the 20 foot cutter she had. This doesn’t include the several acre yard she had exposed to the street, or the oak tree in the back that had branches that were cutting paint off people’s cars as they had grown so low.

Took me a fucking week. One day mowing that grass alone. It was a archeological expedition, found all sorts of bird baths and lawn chairs and walls in that tree as I hacked… wore out a few machetes, and threw my back out. The pile of refuge went HIGHER than her house… and I had no car, and said I didn’t know what to suggest to her regarding it. She offered to pay me, and I laughed VERY, VERY HARD, deeply insulted, telling her outright she couldn’t possibly afford to pay for my services, as it would run in several thousand dollars, and know from now on, if I needed a book proofread or something looked up… she as a research librarian would do it. What made it especially annoying is she went on a SF outing in Pittsburg while I was doing it. What made it disgusting was asking to use the restroom, and discovering the inside of the house was worst that the outside. She needed to get arrested, like a fucking gerbil lived in that place. I still to this day don’t know the color of her carpet. She’s the worst, but not the only one. My spiritual mother has the pack rat disease as well. Only time something leaves is when water floods and and destroys stuff, turning it moldy… IF EVEN THEN!

Your probably a secret dirty bird Liz. Shame on you.

Yeah… I had access to books on sex at my library as a child, but it’s had a benefit, as I’ve trained two sexologists in the San Francisco Bay Area in philosophy while living there. And Pav… I am homeless, and I’ve touched some of the most expensive books the US owns. I’ve much more qualified than anyone here on the forum, save perhaps Liz- in which we’re equals, in handling and caring for rare antique books. I’ve even had to call the rare books room of the library of congress in for letting some weird ass hard fungus grow on a page of the book of hours. I assure you, it’s not necessarily the homeless you need worry about looking stuff up. It’s everyone. As I’ve said, I’m more civilized than most people… homelessness doesn’t have much to do with one intentions, upkeep, character or discipline. Just means your minus house. Might be for good reasons, and I just saw some foreign navy guys from some asian country on shore leave walk infront of my starbucks here… WTF… anyway… yeah.

Porn- fuck, I don’t care. The Ohio law can easily be overturned on First Amendment Grounds, it’s not a sufficient basis protecting children eye’s from nipple and pussy to override this right, and it would certainly be struck down by the supreme court. I’m half tempted to walk into a library and break out some porn as my reading material while studying the history of pornographic aesthetics or some shit in the boring ass law section of the library… the cops can quote the section of the state law, and I can hand them a copy of the constitution, and federal rulings. Fucking nipple is not violent… you gotta try really hard to hurt someone with one. Squirt you in the eye while driving on a icy road along a cliffside or something.

A comment, cn, it’s a two year master’s program

:laughing: you guys…

Sorry you missed the jello wrestling, pav–you also missed the “Undies Run.” I’ll keep a look-out, but you may have to wait until the Fremont Solstice Parade featuring the nude bikers.

You think I’m kidding, fuse? I’m not. All of these events take place. And there are even more I haven’t mentioned–like the naked pumpkin race.

I don’t like pornography, but I see no way how or why a library can infringe upon Constitutional rights. So I’ve tried to put it into perspective, is all.