Name them and Shame them

[chanel]

This is from 2004:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a legal balancing act, the Supreme Court has decided Congress is allowed to protect children from pornography on public library computers, a move the majority said does not infringe on the free speech rights of others.

The 6-3 ruling on Monday by the justices upheld a federal law that allows the federal government to withhold money from libraries that won't install blocking devices. Libraries had complained that the law turned them into censors, but they lost their First Amendment challenge.

The library could put in a filter, but many don't. Our local library does not restrict any sites.

 

[chanel]

This is the AP photo of the library in question. Not much "privacy" here. Anyone walking by would be able to view the dirty deeds.

 

[Care4all]

This is the AP photo of the library in question. Not much "privacy" here. Anyone walking by would be able to view the dirty deeds.

why not just block porn sites? is this unconstitutional? if it is unconstitutional to block this access then what makes you think listing private citizens names is not also, unconstitutional?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Has anyone ever accidently stumbled onto a porn site?

 

[editec]

It is a PUBLIC computer. There is no expectation of privacy. Porn viewing is forbidden and these creeps broke the rules.

I think shame is a very effective deterrent. A few examples and the problem would be solved in a week.

One assumes that anything that one can view on a PUBLIC computer can no be illegal.

And if it is NOT illegal, then really, what right does the library have to public announce what people are viewing?

Like I said before, if I happen to get a lecisously pleasure viewing pictures of Guns or COWS, what right has the library to announce my predilections to the public?



I thought youse guys were all about INDIVIDAL PRIVACY AND PERSONAL FREEDOM?

Or are you telling us that you think the GOVERNMENT has the right to invade your privacy if they don't LIKE what you are interested in?

Where do you draw the line, exactly?

Creating non existent protections is not enabling Government protection or lack there of.

You know...I don't really understand what that sentence means.

It is against the law in some States and it is against the POSTED rules in the others.

One does NOT have an expectation of privacy while breaking the law or violating listed established rules at a public facility.

ARe you sure they're breaking any laws?

Is it?

Then why not shut down their access to the computer and arrest them?

Hell why not put a police substation right there in the library, too?

I think you don't KNOW what the laws are regarding what is illegal porn in MASSACHUSETTS.




But what I am not in favor of is the GOVERNMENT telling the public what other people are LEGALLY viewing on the net.

I'm all for arresting people who knowingly download illegal porn, aren't you?

But if YOU get all hot and bothered viewing images of guns, and the government decides that viewing guns ought not to be LEGAL, then they ought to change the law and arrest you for THAT.

What they should NOT DO, is announce to the public that you're a pervert for viewing things that are NOT illegal.

If it isn't illegal, then the government has no business telling people about it.

If it IS illegal, then they ought to arrest the people and be done with it.

 

[chanel]

Has anyone ever accidently stumbled onto a porn site?

ha ha. Believe it or not I was just looking for a painful face to post on the coffeeshop thread, and whoaaaa Nellie!

Filtering software is an option; but too many good sites are blocked as well. I think it's better to let the user monitor him or herself. And as they say "you know it when you see it". And if they violate the policy, then they are banned. This library gives TWO warnings.

 

[Care4all]

that's just ridiculous....your library WILL NOT restrict the sites but WANTS TO LIST THE NAMES of those viewing it? Sheesh, what a MESSED UP Library and town govt.....imho

 

[Barb]

QUINCY, Mass. (AP) - A city councilor in Massachusetts thinks he's come up with a way to stop people looking at pornography on public library computers — name them and shame them.

Quincy Councilor Daniel Raymondi has asked Mayor Thomas Koch to make public a list of people who have viewed pornography on library computers within the past year. The council unanimously approved a resolution on the idea last week.

Library director Ann McLaughlin tells The Patriot Ledger that using library computers to access porn is against policy, and violators are given two warnings before they are banned. She says she's not sure publicly naming violators would work.

Mass. official aims to shame library porn viewers

Good idea?

HELL no.
Do you like sex? So, you get yours live and in person? Maybe people who view porn do too, maybe they do not. In any case, those who like pictures of natural acts should be able to view them without some asshole posting their names and phone numbers at the post office as if they were doing something illegal.

I look up a lot of information for college classes I take, Because many of those classes are political in nature, my reading list might get the unwanted attention of spooks in the CIA. Librarians fought against such abuse of my privacy. I consider this to be the same level of abuse.

 

[editec]

Has anyone ever accidently stumbled onto a porn site?

I have.

Repeatedly.

Sometimes for hours and hours and hours.

I think it might have stunted my vision.

What I really need is a librarian to help me.

Or the government.

 

[ConHog]

It is a PUBLIC computer. There is no expectation of privacy. Porn viewing is forbidden and these creeps broke the rules.

I think shame is a very effective deterrent. A few examples and the problem would be solved in a week.

One assumes that anything that one can view on a PUBLIC computer can not be illegal.

And if it is NOT illegal, then really... what right does the library have to publically announce what people are viewing??

Does that mean the library has the right to publically announce what we are reading, too?

Like I said before, if I happen to get a licivous pleasure viewing pictures of GUNS or COWS, what right has the library to announce my interests to the public?

I thought youse guys were all about INDIVIDAL PRIVACY AND PERSONAL FREEDOMS?

Or, are you telling us that you think the GOVERNMENT has the right to invade your privacy if they don't LIKE what you are interested in?

Where do you draw the line, exactly?

First, I wonder why they don't just install filters to keep people from visiting porn sites, BUT as has been pointed out, you have no right to privacy on a government owned pc. IF they have a wireless connection and you are using your private latptop, you MIGHT have an argument, although they could still claim you are using their infrastructure.

As for books you are reading, I guarantee I could file a freedom of information act and obtain that information from a library if I for some reason wanted. Heck might not even have to file that.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Has anyone ever accidentally stumbled onto a porn site?

In a relative way, yes, but Gunny banned them real quick


.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is the AP photo of the library in question. Not much "privacy" here. Anyone walking by would be able to view the dirty deeds.

why not just block porn sites? is this unconstitutional? if it is unconstitutional to block this access then what makes you think listing private citizens names is not also, unconstitutional?

Do you bother to even read the threads you are responding to?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For the slow and stupid. One has no expectation of privacy on a Library computer.

 

[editec]

For the slow and stupid. One has no expectation of privacy on a Library computer.

Sure they do.

 

[kwc57]

QUINCY, Mass. (AP) - A city councilor in Massachusetts thinks he's come up with a way to stop people looking at pornography on public library computers — name them and shame them.

Quincy Councilor Daniel Raymondi has asked Mayor Thomas Koch to make public a list of people who have viewed pornography on library computers within the past year. The council unanimously approved a resolution on the idea last week.

Library director Ann McLaughlin tells The Patriot Ledger that using library computers to access porn is against policy, and violators are given two warnings before they are banned. She says she's not sure publicly naming violators would work.

Mass. official aims to shame library porn viewers

Good idea?

There's an app for that! Come on, filters have been around forever. I can't view porn, sports, shooping or entertainment from my computer at work. It is all filtered. If a city library wants to limit what can be seen on it's public computers, they have the means to do so.

 

[manifold]

It is a PUBLIC computer. There is no expectation of privacy. Porn viewing is forbidden and these creeps broke the rules.

I think shame is a very effective deterrent. A few examples and the problem would be solved in a week.

I agree it would be an effective deterrent, but that alone doesn't make it a good idea.

Convince me the problem is so serious and damaging that it warrants a solution so invasive?

 

[ConHog]

For the slow and stupid. One has no expectation of privacy on a Library computer.

Sure they do.

NO, you don't. Its a PUBLIC computer.


And I still don't understand why this library doesn't just install filters.

 

[Foxfyre]

that's just ridiculous....your library WILL NOT restrict the sites but WANTS TO LIST THE NAMES of those viewing it? Sheesh, what a MESSED UP Library and town govt.....imho

This is the heart of it. It is NOT illegal to view porn. If it was, Playboy, Hustler, half the movies made, et al, plus all the porn sites on the internet would be out of business.

It is illegal to post or view chlld porn which is a whole different thing.

But you don't want kids seeing that crap either inadvertently while the adults are watching or having the ability to log in themselves.

So simply lock out the objectionable sites from the library computers, and the problem is solved.

How difficult a concept is that?

 

[manifold]

I think it's pretty reasonable to accept that many people would have an expectation of privacy in this situation. The fact that it's a public computer doesn't change the expectation.

To publish the names of these people now would be an absolute violation of their privacy, no matter how you slice it. Perhaps not in any constitutionally protected sense, perhaps so, but if we're talking about the spirit of the act, there's no question it's a privacy violation.

And whether or not it should be a violation that we're legally protected against is of course the more philosophically interesting question. I'm kind of ambivalent on this one.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

For the slow and stupid. One has no expectation of privacy on a Library computer.

Sure they do.

NO, you don't. Its a PUBLIC computer.


And I still don't understand why this library doesn't just install filters.

Its irrelevant if its a PUBLIC or private computer. The 4th amendment applies to people not places. Katz v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Though the case involves PUBLIC phones and wiretapping I think that and its “reasonable expectation of privacy” doctrine can apply to the use of public computers.

I agree, they should just use filters. I see nothing wrong with limiting the content that can be viewed.