Wandering through
the Morgan Library, searching for an open computer. Its finals week, so there’s about as much
chance of finding an open desk as there was finding a parking space before
getting here. The clock is ticking to
turn in that online assignment. Alas, an
open seat…but it’s shut down for maintenance.
Even that computer that sounds like it’s about to fly away is
occupied. Nothing to do but casually
walk around, keeping an eye out for someone to start packing up.
Suddenly, something
catches your eye that makes the frustration of finding available computers
alleviate for a moment. An older
gentleman, in the corner, next to the wall, has his monitor tilted away from everyone’s
view.
He clearly doesn’t
resemble a student. With all of these
variables in place, what could be so secretive that he could only share it with
the wall that the screen was aimed at?
Walking in his direction, he doesn’t look up, clearly very much engaged
in whatever is on the screen. Acting
oblivious, you catch a glance at the monitor.
“Wow,” you think, “I always assumed Catholic school girls wore
underwear…I guess I was wrong.”
The
obvious thing to do would be to contact the library staff so they can kick the
guy off of the Internet right?
Surprisingly,
anyone of legal age with a library card has the right to view pornography on
public computers whether they are part of a college campus or a community
library.
Michael
Troyer is an IT Help Desk employee with the Morgan Library at CSU. One might think that only students have
access to the library’s resources, but as Troyer explains, “We’re a land grant
university. We serve the community,
which grants access to the computers.
Community members get two hours of computer access a day, while students
are allowed 18 hours.” If lap tops are
available for checkout, as they are at the Morgan Library, material is viewable
on these as well.
Troyer said that
the demographic of people looking at porn on the computers typically are community
users rather than students, “Usually in the back somewhere.” He explained that “people complain
all the time, at least once a week,” about other people’s reactions to the
questionable content. “There’s nothing we can do about a patron complaining,
unless the material is illegal.”
Couldn’t the folks
viewing the porn be asked to stop or to give up their computer to, say a
student who has a paper to write? “Nope,”
said Troyer, “We have no way to prioritize everyone’s use.”
Although CSU’s
library may be open for public use, many of the school’s computer labs require student
identification for log in. Amparo
Jeffrey is the office manager for the English Department, and in charge of the
building’s computer lab. Similar to the
issue of public funding in libraries, Jeffrey explained that the lab computers
are “supported by tech funds by grad and undergrad students” which hinders the
ability to censor online material.
As for her personal
opinion, Jeffrey stated “If we could filter out porn, I would support
that. The computers are meant to be used
for the students to do their work. Since
the lab is supported by fees, it would just be too hard to put up
filters.”
Throwing
children into the mix opens up another can of worms. Morgan Library is an easier case to observe,
because it is mostly comprised of students who are at least 18 years of
age. The Loveland Public Library, on the
other hand, has a large volume of children that frequent the library all day. Some with their parents, and many unattended.
Kent
Bumguardner, IT specialist with the Loveland Public Library, described how the
library works within the regulations while still attempting to shield minors. Bumguardner recognizes the obligation
the library has to offer the community unfiltered content, but patrons have to
go to somewhat greater lengths to use these types of services than they might
at the Morgan Library. Access is only
allowed to unfiltered computers if patrons approach the IT desk. “If people want to look at (porn), they have
to come to us and request it,” said Bumguardner, explaining that the users have
to tell the staff why they require the use of unfiltered internet.
Further
consideration is put forth by placing these computers in an area that is out of
the path of the rest of the library’s computers. “Currently, these computers are in an area
that is completely out of traffic” said Baumgartner. Other than this, Bumguardner explained that
users of the unfiltered computers are free to surf whatever they wish stating
“if they’re minding their own business, there is nothing we can do. If they’re soliciting, then we can
intervene.” Intervention would also include the viewing of illegal
pages, such as child pornography.
The
Loveland Public Library has recently been remodeled and these unfiltered
computers were previously found in closed off rooms. “Since we moved, it’s not as much of an
issue,” said Bumguardner, “but we did have a couple of regulars on a daily
basis before the remodel. One guy would
come in five days a week.”
State
funding of public libraries is the key factor in its unregulated use. As Baumgartner explained, “The law, as were
we told by the city attorney, is that we can’t hinder people’s use since we are
state funded.”
A
criminal justice attorney and instructor at Front
Range Community College,
who requested to remain anonymous, sees the filtering any material at the
library as unconstitutional. We’ll call
him John. “The computers are publicly
funded, and it’s a slippery slope,” he said.
“If porn is filtered, what’s next?
It’s a blatant violation of free speech.”
John understands people’s concern for profane
images open to anyone in the library to see.
“I’m absolutely opposed to the infringement of free speech, but I’m not
opposed to sectioning off a space.
That’s not unreasonable.” He
followed this up with the challenge to “Define obscenity. One person’s obscenity is another’s Sports Illustrated: Swim Suit
Edition. I’ve got a student who says
he’s offended by what girls wear when it starts getting warmer out…I’m glad
he’s not running things!”
Looking
at the issue from a political point of view, John said that “I can see this as
an argument to privatize libraries.
That’s what conservatives would like to do.”
The
censorship that John mentions has already been put into place, but to a lesser
degree. In 2003, the United States
Versus the American Library Association was a case in which Congress would
require any library receiving federal funding to install filtering software,
via the Children’s Internet Protection Act.
The constitutionality of CIPA was challenged and Congress was sued by a
variety of web site publishers, libraries, and patrons. It was eventually ruled by the Supreme Court
that CIPA was not unconstitutional, nor did it violate the First Amendment.
Parents
are the demographic of people who are understandably most affected and
concerned about pornographic material on public computers. Amanda Marshall is the mother of two small
children. She worries about her children
seeing graphic material on the library’s computers, but appreciates the fact
that some libraries separate filtered and non-filtered computers. “As long as the adult computers are
completely separate from the children’s computers, I don’t have a problem with
what people look at,” said Marshall. The Loveland Public Library, which Marshall
frequents, keeps filtered computers for kids under 18 on a separate floor.
In
January, a Seattle library made
national news after a mother complained about pornography in the library. Differing from the Loveland Public Library,
which keeps its unfiltered computers out of direct sight, a man was looking at
graphic material at a desk in which patrons had to intentionally divert their
eyes. Seattle’s
Lake City Library responded by saying “We’re not in the business of censoring
information.”
Keeping
within the bounds of the First Amendment, it’s interesting to observe the
creative ways that libraries deal with porn on their computers. Poudre River Library Services Representative
Misty Thresher explained that “we offer public access on the basis that people
will view appropriate material.”
The Fort
Collins library offers three types of internet access
when requesting a library card: unrestricted, restricted, and no access.
Poudre
River has a computer lab, staffed
with a lab monitor, with rows of computers which are in plain sight of anyone
else in the lab. If a patron complains
about someone looking at pornography, the lab monitor will send up to two
instant messages to the viewer, telling them that the content being viewed is
inappropriate. If the patron continues
surfing porn sites, the monitor will ask them to cease out of courtesy, but
this is the extent of what can be done.
“Most
often people are using their own laptops,” said Thresher when clarifying that
generally, people are not using the library’s computers to look at porn, but
their own.
As
a CSU student studying for finals, Molly Witt can relate to the frustrations of
fighting for an open computer. To her,
anyone surfing any non school related web site is just as guilty as the guy
looking at porn. “It’s the same as
watching You Tube when there is something someone else could be working on,”
said Witt. “I feel like since it’s a
college, there are always going to a lot of things people are doing that they
shouldn’t.”
Porn
on public computers is a fine example of finding common ground between
technicalities and common sense, a slippery slope and constitutionality.
These are the
types of issues that, although they may seem silly, require we utilize our
arsenal of reasoning, logic, and law.
Eventually, we call into questions our beliefs and the beliefs of
others, walking away more educated and informed.
Works
Cited
Bumguardner,
Kent (970)962-2710
Jeffrey, Amparo (970)491-6429
Marshall,
Amanda (720)422-3798
Thresher, Misty (970)204-8407
Troyer, Michael
tailwatertroyer@gmail.com
Witt, Molly (720) 366-0037
