Yes I have seen Naked Lunch it was part of my nihilistic, psychedelic phase.  And as I recall it contains scenes of a boy being sodomized by a giant bug.  I don't think anyone could find any socially redeeming message in that.  And of course you had to throw out your usual anti christian message.  Please try to remember that I am not your Daddy.  The Passion of Christ can not even be compared to this movie and you certainly have no basis to call it "hope, snuff, porn"  Have you seen the Passion of Christ?

Do you even know what "Naked Lunch" *IS*, Buffoo?  Certainly not my cup of tea, but a kid expecting porn would be *SADLY* disappointed.

.

I'm happy to hear it's available at the library.  I sure hope snuff porn like "The Passion of the Christ" is kept under lock and key, though...

The problem is bigger than the computer area.  I was just at the Beale Library looking at DVDs.  I noticed that the library has in its collection a number of videos that are unsuited for children.  One like "The Naked Lunch" is just plain obscene.  I asked the Librarian if a child could check out such a video and he said they sure could.  That's just DVDs and videos what about the lack of controls on books and music.  It is ironic that children couldn't buy a ticket to see R rated movies unless occupied by an adult and Cd's have to carry warning labels if they contain obscene lyrics ,but they happily have access to all this at tax payer expense in our public libraries. 

  RF, it's also notorious for blocking certain sites that disagree with the political views of the people paying for it.

We can only hope a Democrat is elected this November to reverse this insane policy.  Cthulhu knows McBush won't do it.

.

Lots of blocking software does this more or less inadvertently--blocking off entire subjects of study "to protect the kids."

 Just one addition here: http://blog.wired.com/27bst...

U.S. Funded Health Search Engine Blocks 'Abortion'

 A U.S. government-funded medical information site that bills itself as the world's largest database on reproductive health has quietly begun to block searches on the word "abortion," concealing nearly 25,000 search results.

Called Popline, the search site is run by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland. It's funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, the federal office in charge of providing foreign aid, including health care funding, to developing nations.

The massive database indexes a broad range of reproductive health literature, including titles like "Previous abortion and the risk of low birth weight and preterm births," and "Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services, 2005."

But on Thursday, a search on "abortion" was producing only the message "No records found by latest query."

Stephen Goldstein, a spokesman for Johns Hopkins, said he wasn't aware of the censorship, and couldn't immediately comment.

Under a Reagan-era policy revived by President Bush in 2001, USAID denies funding to non-governmental organizations that perform abortions, or that "actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

A librarian at the University of California at San Francisco noticed the new censorship on Monday, while carrying out a routine research request on behalf of academics and researchers at the university. The search term had functioned properly as of January.

Puzzled, she contacted the manager of the database, Johns Hopkins' Debbie Dickson, who replied in an April 1st e-mail that the university had recently begun blocking the search term because the database received federal funding.

"We recently made all abortion terms stop words," Dickson wrote in a note to Gloria Won, the UCSF medical center librarian making the inquiry. "As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now."

There was no notice of the change on the site.

4025. 

4023. 

 I have some questions? Was this person looking at porn or what he looking at "Kiddie Porn" that is 2 very different issues. While I think common courtesy would be not to view porn from a public access's point, I don't think it should be against the law. But if it was looking at "kiddie Porn" then go after him w/ the full force of the law.

Last year, I sat next to a man on the plane who had bought a Playboy at the Airport store and decide he should review the articles inflight. I felt uncomfortable, but I decide to read my book and just ignore the man who I view as being socially inept.

 I understand where the library is coming from in that they don't want people acting outside the chain of command.  I'd also guess that this isn't the first incident with this woman doing something against the will of her employer.  That said, I do think she did the right thing.  Her supervisor should have been the one calling the police, but someone needed to do it and who would want to work in an environment that prevented that sort of action?

As for the ACLU's role in this, did they come to the defense of the person in the library who was viewing porn or is this another case where we talk about two entirely separate things as if they are related?

 Actually etbartley, you have Constitutional rights completely wrong. They protect the minority (in numbers, not necessarily race) members of society against the excesses of the majority. Your definition of censorship is precisely what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent.
 

"keep it to yourself for God's sake.  There are booths at Wildcat adult store for this type of thing - the public library is not a proper forum for it."

There was a recent court case in which a place like Wildcat was prevented from putting up privacy screens in their booths, for the "public good".

No one wants kids seeing porn so no need for the high horse.  Marylee does not have a monopoly on values.

Yes to all of this. 

They’re also none too pleased with the policy that allows librarians to ask people to stop looking at content that “would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment.”

Porn, in other words.

What if the library doesn't like kids getting info on contraceptives?  Or worse, what if it was a library in Berkeley that thought that having Republican Party information on a screen might make some people "uncomfortable" or a librarian in Bakersfield that thought looking a the B.com website might make someone uncomfortable because people post things like this:

BTW, this post of yours has probably already been blocked by most library filters based on the use of the word "porn".

JBS: When I was a student in a science summer enrichment program at CSUB in 1996 there were a few students who would access the porn sites. That was actually my introduction to the internet.

I don't doubt it, jf; I've seen people looking at some weird stuff (photos of a dead Chris Farley, etc.) on school computers.  I don't believe that Marylee saw what she claims to have seen, though. She'll pull "anecdotes" out of a hat - or some other dark place - to try to make her bland stories a bit more appealing, never realizing that many of us have been B.S.'d by people a whole lot better at it than she is.

I'm betting Marylee hasn't been to the library branch I use.  Kids run unattended from opening til closing.  I don't think the kids are safe at all.  Their parents have no idea what can and does happen because they don't watch their kids.  

No one wants kids seeing porn so no need for the high horse.  Marylee does not have a monopoly on values.

I don't want Sacramento Library to filter for me, I can do that myself, thanks.  Glad the ACLU thinks so, too.

And let's not jump to conclusions either about the Lindsay library staffer (wasn't a librarian by the way, but clerical staff).  The library's hands are not permitted to discuss a personnel issue so none of us knows, even opinion writers,  why the staffer was let go.

This column was a dud on a number of counts. 

Potter Stewart.

4013.

 JBS: When I was a student in a science summer enrichment program at CSUB in 1996 there were a few students who would access the porn sites. That was actually my introduction to the internet.

One evening a number of years ago, while a student at Cal State Bakersfield, I was researching a paper in the school library when I paused to take a stretch. As I glanced up, my gaze fell on a nearby computer screen, in front of which sat a man deeply engaged in a pornographic peep show...

Nice try. There was no internet back in those days.

 Really? Looking back, the Beale Library sure wasn't when I was a kid. A child was molested in the bathroom there ( in the early 90's before computers were there), I saw a man expose himself there, and was called a n+*^er and chased home once.

That's horrible, jfrancais. :(   Last time we were at Beale, there was a guy who swore every other word and was ranting about hispanics.  It's too bad that some adults are incapable of acting appropriately no matter what their vice.

 Here in Kern County, libraries are still kid-friendly

Really? Looking back, the Beale Library sure wasn't when I was a kid. A child was molested in the bathroom there ( in the early 90's before computers were there), I saw a man expose himself there, and was called a n+*^er and chased home once.

 Wow.  Your perspective is quite frightening. I won't even bother to expound on other assertions in your post. I hope your husband (or wife, or same-sex domestic partner, or transvestite-crossgender-live-in transsexual) agrees with you.

I invite you to expound because, for the life of me, I'm having difficulty understanding what part of my post is "frightening"?  And, what purpose does it serve to speculate about my marital status?  Attacking someone's character whom you do not know is not only bad form, but undermines any objection in your argument.  But, as most know here, I have a very, very conventional lifestyle - quite conservative in family values, actually.  However, if I were homosexual or transvestite, it would be less shameful than your apparent lack of maturity and inability to face an issue, as opposed to making unsubstantiated claims about another person. 

 And, just so we're clear...my argument said:

1.  Parents have ultimate responsibility for their children.

2.  I, personally, do not enjoy porn.

3.  I think porn in a library *is* inappropriate in the presence of children.

4.  And, finally, that there are likely better ways to handle the situation than censorship.

 Chico, the Supreme Court defines it as "anything that causes sexual thought, and has no artistic value".
 

"Funny, that describes every commercial I've ever seen on television." -- Bill Hicks

 Just curious Marylee....how do you propose to keep porn off of library computers? And please don't say filters because they don't work.

 Possummoma ... "People who view porn aren't deviant  and I would be willing to wager that 99% of the people who view porn have no desire to push it on unwilling viewers."

Wow.  Your perspective is quite frightening. I won't even bother to expound on other assertions in your post. I hope your husband (or wife, or same-sex domestic partner, or transvestite-crossgender-live-in transsexual) agrees with you.

What are "computors"?

Who do you define as "weirdos"? People who look at child porn, or people who look at adult porn? I have never looked at child porn, and have never wanted to, but I've definitely seen my share of adult porn, on the internet and otherwise. Let's hook your husband up to a lie detector and find out if he's ever looked at porn. Would you care to wager? I'll lay down $500, and you lay down $5. That's how confident I am that I'll be right, because, after all, I still have 20-20 vision. 

 I agree that it might be inappropriate for an adult to view pornographic websites in a library where children are present.  However, once again, you're uncalled for attitude towards the ACLU, along with the judgmental jab at the end towards those who view pornography, makes your argument easy to dismiss.  People who view porn aren't deviant and I would be willing to wager that 99% of the people who view porn have no desire to push it on unwilling viewers.  

There are a great many things that I think are inappropriate for children online.  Porn is one of them.  So, it is my responsibility, AS A PARENT, to keep tabs on what they view.  If they're on a computer at the library, then you can bet I'll be sitting next to them making sure it's appropriate.  That's my job...not the governments.  The problem with censoring access based on a moral position is that you can quickly get into a slippery slope.  Is a naked statue porn or art?  Which do you block?  Is religious art showing a naked Mary with a naked baby Jesus going to be blocked...what about Michelangelo's David?  What about sites that feature the anatomy of humans? Can you show pictures of an anatomically correct penis or vagina?  And, since I hate glorified violence, does that mean I can expect the library network to make sure there are no violent websites being shown to children?  Can I suggest that all religious promotion be pulled from library computers because I don't want my tax dollars going to support someones obsession with religion? 

I think that there's another solution here.  Why not have computers for adults and computers for children?  We already have laws that say you can't purchase porn until you're 18... why not have computers in or near a children's section be limited, while leaving other computers (with screens facing a wall or inaccessible (for children) place) for adults?  Those people viewing porn likely pay the same taxes you do - therefore, the computers are just as much at their disposal as they are at yours.   So, rather than violate someones right to porn (even though I have some serious problems with porn and think it's inappropriate in a library), why not expand on our established exposure laws?