What a cute title for an Editorial column!

So - a contributing writer to the Santa Monica Mirror, Steve Stajich, wrote a nice enough editorial column about porn use in his local library called, Santa Monica Library Internet: Please Remain Dot Calm. I say nice enough because I'm sure Stajich meant well. And I don't know him personally, so I have to assume that he really IS looking out to protect the First Amendment. Anyway - the article had the same old arguments about protecting the First Amendment and the same old slams against Internet filters. If you've read one like it already, save yourself the time and energy - don't bother reading this one.

However, in spite of the all-too-common approach to this topic that the article seems to take, I decided it was about high time that I responded. So - I tried to post a comment in response to his article.
I really did.
Several times. However - the automated system kept kicking back with

The text you entetered contains characters or words
that are not allowed.

Please revise your entry and resubmit or
contact the site administrator.

(Typo theirs.)

It has been modified slightly, in case maybe the parenthesis or quotation marks were causing the kickback.

They weren't.

Maybe it was the word "pornography". Or "child pornography". Anyway - it seemed ironic to me that there appears to be censors on the comments system of a editorial column that is so flamboyantly against censorship or restrictions of any kind, or at least those on the Internet.

This is my response. (Post parenthesis and quotation mark modifications.)

I am currently living in Chicago and the Chicago Public Library, CPL, also allows unfettered access to the Internet, including pornography.

You make many good points in this article. But I disagree with some of your arguments. For instance, you quote Mullen as saying that it would be inappropriate to introduce restrictions. Yet, most, if not all, public libraries claim to do just that with the very mention of child pornography. Regardless of the ever-widening reach of adult pornography, child pornography remains illegal and public libraries continue to publicly decry any association with it. There are more than a few cases covered in newspapers Nationwide of arrests for Registered Sex Offenders choosing to view child pornography at a public library. How do public libraries keep child pornography off their computers if not restricting it in some way?

Next, a similar concern also regards our laws. Pornography is considered to be Material Harmful to Minors. Depending on each state, a minor can be any person under 16 or even up to 18 years of age. Because pornography is considered Harmful to Minors, it is generally a punishable offense to display it or use it publicly. Consequences vary, depending on individual state laws.

A public library is very much a public place and children are allowed in all areas of the library, even the computer lab that isn't meant for just them - so why is it that a law that protects them outside of the library is somehow made nonexistent behind the closed doors of their local public library?

You also compared Internet pornography to magazines or disturbing newspapers. I feel that's similar to comparing apples and kiwis. If someone chooses to view a magazine or read a newspaper, those around them are not forced to read it too. Actually, most people in the general area will have no idea what the others are reading. However, a computer screen, similar to a movie screen, especially when you're not the one clicking the mouse and controlling the show, does force all those around to view the same images.

You even mentioned the privacy screens or monitor screen covers in use by the Santa Monica Library. Although the idea of a privacy screen looks great on paper, I assure you, they are less than ideal in real life. Especially at my local branch of the CPL when rows of computer terminals lines up. On one visit, you can be subject to 7 or more screens of second-hand pornography, regardless of age or proclivity towards viewing this material.

Also, public libraries regulate the use of many things while in their buildings. Everything from cell phone use, which is usually banned, to eating, sleeping and even personal hygiene. What if I were to choose to express myself by not showering for a month? Or is my First Amendment somehow violated because I'm not able to talk on the cell phone that I myself purchased while I'm in the library? What about smoking?

Finally, I understand the Freedom of Speech and I very much support our First Amendment Rights - but I do think we need to consider the bigger picture here. Disallowing Internet pornography use does not equal censorship, especially for a multi-billion dollar industry that is in no danger of being shut down. No, instead it states that the public library is not the place for Internet pornography.