A Discussion: Is internet filtering appropriate on public computers?

[Growltiger]

In a recent Board of Supervisors committee meeting for my county, it was decided that all county libraries would be subject to filters to eliminate users from visiting pornography sites (Board Ok's net filters) . Many people are opposed to this decision, including the ACLU...mainly because they think it is a violation of rights. Do you think there should be filtering on public PC's in government buildings?

My opinion: I don't really see the problem with filtering in the libraries. Children are all around the libraries and I feel it is inappropriate to subject them to the type of material some of these people are looking at. Some of the PC's are not in view of personnel at all times, so supervision is not always guaranteed. I guess I'm a little miffed that people are immediately opposed to the idea, but have not given consideration to the fact the filters are there for the kids. Furthermore, they are making this into a "slippery slope" issue when it really isn't. I think if someone wants to surf the net freely (i.e. porn), then get your own computer and do it at home. The computers in these places are a convenience to the public; there is nothing that says the library has to have them

 

[GasX]

How do you define public?

If it is public access in a private room, then no, you should be able to access whatever the hell you want.

If it is public access in a public room then the rules change. Especially if there are kids about.

Also, is there a provision to shut this feature off if you have proper proof of sufficient age?

 

[Pretender]

no, they should treat is as they would treat someone carrying a porno magazine into the library. Kick and ban him from the library. There are standards for decency defined in most libraries, viewing porno on a computer would violate those standards and be grounds for removal from library grounds.

filtering software is the lazy corporate-management-type way out of things. dealing with the problem directly (the user) would be the correct way to do it.

 

[ghostman]

For libraries, definitely block the sites. Before I got into computers, I used to go the library for the internet access. Once, I saw a whole group of little boys crowding around the computer. When my session came, I told them to beat it. They ran, leaving the page up. It was indeed a porn site. And there are often middle-aged men who look the stuff up too. They normally have a screen filter to prevent wandering eyes, but anyone walking by can see exactly what's on the screen. I say, if you're going to look at porn, at least do it from your own home.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Public computers? Like ones in libraries? YES! I've seen couples "stimulating" each other in our public library while looking at pr0n! What about my right not to see that?

 

[bmd]

No filters, thank you very much.

 

[pulpp]

i think filtering is appropriate in libraries, in any public place you have to conduct yourself in an acceptable manner, and i think looking at porn is unacceptable, specially that you get all kinds of people in a library, including children.

 

[BruinEd03]

question is what's ur definition of porn? Some famous artworks have nudity in them and that most likely will be blocked out by the site. Also what if someone was doing research such as on breast cancer or prostate cancer? filters aren't the way to go as there are just too many issues =P

-Ed

 

[Growltiger]

BruinEd03's comment is a legitamate concern. I think there should be some policy in place for situations like this where the librarians have to control to switch the filter off or change the filter to allow that user to do his/her research. As far as the artwork is concerned, don't the pictures have to be accompanied by text in order for the picture to be blocked?

 

[Growltiger]

An article I read on this issue stated - just as the library does not provide access or subscribe to PLayboy and XXX movies, it should not provide a means of allowing public access to pornographic sites.

 

[vi edit]

Filters are a disgrace to libraries. Filters SERIOUSLY impair very ligitimate searches and and queries.

Most filters will block searches for the following topics:

- AIDS
- Contraceptive research
- Pregnancy
- Psychology and genetic research of homosexuality
- Research on abortions
- Research on STD's

These are legitimate topics that students DO need access to, and would probably no longer be able to reach. A filter is a band aid...and a very pathetic one at that.

A library simply needs a lab monitor of some sort who periodically walks around making sure that no porn is being viewed. If you are caught looking at porn, then you get one audible warning and it is recorded on your access account. If you are busted a second time, then you are to be removed from the computer lab and your access priviledges will be revoked.

 

[Riddler]

i'm the computer lab manager at a public library, we have 18 computers for internet use- 3 of which have cyberpatrol on them. children 16 and under must have parents permission to use the internet, and the parent decides if the child get filtered or unfiltered. we also have a policies, of course, that state viewing of sexually graphic material is prohibited, on all machines. there are no privacy screens on the monitors, we removed those last fall, so i can see all of them from my desk and i also have VNC to monitor them. not one time has there been an incident where cyberpatrol has blocked sites where someone was trying to get research material from, because for the most part the patrons using the filtered computers are young kids, and who wants to do research on breast cancer and aids when you are that young and when there are games all over the internet to better amuse them.

 

[Thump553]

Its funny-I'm on our town library's board of directors and this same issue came up last year. It was definately the most divisive issue we had in recent years. The professional staff was dead set against filtering for philisophical and practical reasons (take the nude painting issue mentioned above).

Ultimately, the board adopted a compromise I brokered-no filters on the machines in the adult rooms with all machines relocated so the screens were easily viewable from the desk. Filtering was put on the machine in the kid's room.

I guess this board's members are more conservative than my town (best classified as small, bedroom suburbia, middle to high-middle income) as the comments posted above were nearly universal in favor of filtering/censorship. in my town, I would say among the voting age adults the split was more like 60-40 in favor of some filtering.

An update-the filtering software put on the kid's machine was such a pain and was so overzealous that it was ultimately scrubbed and that machine taken off the internet altogether.

PS: Part of the Bush legacy is he is now forcing this type of filtering on all libraries as a condition of participating in a low cost telephone program used by most. Please note that this is not a matter of receiving "federal" grants or monies, but a new condition tacked onto an existing program, purely to legislate morality. The exact same sort of big brotherism that the GOP party is supposed to stand against.

 

[Growltiger]

I just find it amazing that the ACLU is already getting their lawsuit ready against the county. I'm amazed at how quick they are to jump on anything! While I'm sure the ACLU has done a lot for civil rights, but it seems to me like a lot of their suits merely clog up the legal system over petty issues.

 

[vi edit]

I personally don't find this a "petty" issue.

I believe that it is an overzeoulous reaction to a problem that could be easily resolved by some good, old fashioned lab monitoring. Putting filters on library computers takes away from the very purpose that a person went to the library.

I do agree that people should not be going to the library to look up porn, and that is why I say that they are to be removed from the building if they are caught.