Friday, May 11, 2012

Porn on Public Computers- Chance


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
Cornell University Law School.  (2012, May).  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN     LIBRARY ASSN., INC. (02-361) 539 U.S. 194 (2003) 201 F. Supp. 2d 401,         reversed.  Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-361.ZS.html
Ho, Vanessa.  (2012).  Seattle Library Lets Man Watch Porn, Despite Complaint.  Seattle       PI.  Retrieved from http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-library-lets            man-watch-porn-despite-2873692.php
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

No comments:

Post a Comment