Monday, March 05, 2007

Library Porn Challenge

Libraries are all about "access to information," librarians are always saying. The mission of the ALA, according to its own mission statement, "is to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all (my emphasis). So far as the ALA is concerned, the mission of libraries is to enhance learning and provide access to information.

Of course they throw in some vague statements as a sop to the SRRT folks, stuff about libraries having "broad social responsibilities" and contributing to "solving the critical problems of society," but even this is in the context of the educational role of the library "to help inform and educate the people of the United States on these problems and to encourage them to examine the many views on and the facts regarding each problem."

The ALA also says it "promotes the creation, maintenance, and enhancement of a learning society" and works to "provide lifelong learning services to all." This all sounds lovely. I'm all for a learning society and lifelong learning for everyone. I doubt it will ever happen, but isn't it pretty to think about. I can honestly say that I approve wholeheartedly of the ALA's mission to provide educational opportunities for people who might not otherwise have them. This is a necessary public good in a liberal democracy, and I'm all for it.

What I've never understood, however, is the way this mission to enhance learning and provide access to information gets applied to Internet pornography. LIS News links to this story about a county executive in Rochester, NY who is trying to halt 70% of a libraries funding because it provides Internet access to porn sites for those who request it. Of course we're all supposed to laugh at this poor witless county executive who objects to publicly subsidized porn. Of course we're all supposed to mock her along with the writer on LIS News when he notes that "she's doing it for the children." We certainly wouldn't want to do anything for the children! Oh, how benighted this person is! It's a good thing we're all sophisticated enough to know that some guy drooling on public computers and massaging himself with affection is the kind of thing the public should be subsidizing.

Are there any arguments at all for providing publicly subsidized porn? I can't think of any. The civil libertarians certainly can't argue that it's a free speech issue, because no one is stopping the porn merchants from speaking. I don't see how it can be an educational issue, because presumably the porn viewers in the library already know how to have sex (at least theoretically) and how to objectify women as automatons completely devoted to the sexual pleasure of frustrated perverts, even if they have a lot more practice at the latter. Are we supposed to support it because everything is "information" and "the people" have a right to access all information? That seems to be the ALA's line.

Even if everything is information, as the ALA porn mavens imply, then all information isn't equal. If it's so important for the public to have taxpayer subsidized porn, then why don't all these public libraries subscribe to Barely Legal, Hustler, Juggs, or Swank? (Lest you wonder at my wide-ranging knowledge of pornographic magazines, I should note that the Wikipedia is, as usual, a treasure house of knowledge you won't find in Britannica.) Libraries could join the Barely Legal website and increase public access to some of their recently added videos: Barely Legal School Girls and 2 in 1 Hole! Only $34.62/month! No, at over $400/year I guess that's pretty expensive for a lot of libraries. But they could try the $3.86 trial membership and see how the public responds. Put an ad in the local paper, and I'm betting user stats would rise dramatically and they could claim the increased usage justified more funding. If anyone complains, just tell them the public has a right to access all information!

Because, as we know, if someone has a right to something, then it's everyone else's duty to provide it. If a person has a right to legal representation, then it's everyone else's duty to pay for it if they can't afford it. Okay, so if everyone has a right to view porn, then it's everyone else's duty to fork over their tax dollars to subsidize that right.

Do the library porn mavens have any substantial argument? We're not talking about censorship, though I suppose according to the twisted logic of the "Banned Books" folks public libraries are "censoring" Barely Legal by not subscribing. We're talking about libraries providing publicly subsidized porn. The argument against Internet filters may have some technological weight, but it has no moral weight at all, which is why the ALA has done such a bad job of persuading Congress of the American right to salivate over Internet porn at the taxpayer's expense. An Internet filter for porn is just a technological version of the filter that librarians use when they don't subscribe to hard core porn magazines for their public library. It's called selection, and it requires judgment about what "information" is appropriate for a library. The ALA evades any debates about selection and judgment by classifying everything as "information" and then saying everyone should have access to all of it. That's a very convenient ploy for people incapable of reasoning, moral or otherwise. Nevertheless, there is no good argument for providing free access to porn. Libraries exist to serve the public good, and what argument can be made that free access to porn is a public good?

The news article claims this dispute "may inflame a national debate over First Amendment rights and access to Web sites at libraries." If that's a national debate, then it's a debate among illiterates. Here's the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution, for those who may not have read the thing in a while:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Where in this amendment is there anything about publicly subsidized access to any information? It's abundantly clear these days that most people have no idea what "establishment of religion" or the "free exercise thereof" mean, but everyone seems to have a good understanding of the freedoms of speech and of the press. These are the arguments used against government attempts to censor pornographic publications and websites. But what do these have to do with libraries and porn? Are we to understand that "the right of the people peacefully to assemble" means they have the right to peacefully assemble at the public library and watch porn videos at the public's expense? It's clear that porn publishers have a right to their free speech, but does anyone have a right to view porn and make someone else pay for it?

Presumably the librarians who argue against porn filters because they check our "right" to "access information" believe that people have a right to view porn and have the public pay for it. That's the only logical conclusion to their sad little argument. Here's my challenge to those librarians who think the public should subsidize access to pornography and who mock doing things "for the children": Subscribe to Penthouse for your library. C'mon, it's milder than Barely Legal. (At least I assume it is. I haven't seen any Penthouses since my brother left home, but I don't remember them being quite as raunchy as the BL website.) Here's the subscription information. A year's subscription is only $19.95, well within the reach of every library. Then, put it up in the children's section of the library. What? You won't do that? Why not? This is definitely your opportunity to put up or shut up.

56 comments:

Woeful said...

Who decides what constitutes porn? You? Me? As you indicated, the problem is really one of censorship. Would it be okay to allow someone to view snuff films instead of porn? Which is worse? Are they equally reprehensible? Maybe it's a foot fetish instead. Is it porn if a guy blows his load over a shoe instead of something more traditional?

How about a patron watching the all beheadings all the time network, or something similarly violent? Is it okay as long as only foreigners are shown dead, not Americans? TV news is pretty good at this. Do we restrict that? Where does it end? Who decides? You? Me? History has taught us that sooner or later censorship will affect something that actually matters to you... It's only a matter of time, so the door is best left closed.

As a side note, why should librarians be policing this anyway? Are the people complaining about this library users? Do they have enough money for broadband at home? Does this then become a class issue? If citizens get to view porn at home, does someone who can't afford home access have the right to do the same at the library? Isn't this just another example of the digital divide?

Quite frankly, I don't want to know what anybody is doing online. It should be anonymous. That's their business and theirs alone. My job is to provide equitable access to information. I'm not a police officer, and I don't want to be. As far as buying porn in magazine form goes, some libraries actually already do subscribe to magazines like, "Playboy."

There was recently an interesting discussion about a library director who called the police on a guy who was using a library PC to access porn. If you're interested, read more about it here: http://community.livejournal.com/library_mofo/428832.html

Anonymous said...

I must admit to a certain reverence for "Swank" dating to those halcyon days of early puberty. You never forget your first...ummm...well this is a family blog...

--Taupey

Parttime librarian said...

I do not think it is a good trend for librarians to be held responsible for what the patron views. We do not have the time to be "big brother", nor do we want to have the legal responsibility.

I wouldn't mind so much if this was only a porn matter. However, the article mentions the policy of unblocking sites upon patron request. This assumes that the software accurately blocks only porn sites. However, this software often makes mistakes and blocks good sites - like breast cancer web sites. I do not think that they should take away the power of librarians to unblock such sites.

Degolar said...

I wouldn't argue for providing "publicly subsidized porn" and am not going to try to make a case for doing so, but I will attempt to poke a few holes in your argument (because, I have to admit, it can be fun :-)

There are certain values at the core of the American psyche. Sometimes they conflict, and we are forced to choose one at the expense of another. I think this is why issues such as this get people so passionate. Those of us who instinctively react "filters bad" before we even have a chance to apply any logical thought to the argument--and admit it, usually we have a gut reaction to emotional issues, then try to rationalize that reaction with an argument after the fact--worry about anything that smacks of Big Brother. It's that U.S. value of individual rights and freedoms coming into play. I don't ever want the government thinking for me, deciding what I can or cannot consider information. And I don't want to play the role of Big Brother deciding for others. I may not have your interests, but I will defend your right to have them . . .

That aside, my main problem with filters is technological. Just last week at work I tried to access the website of a local nature park to see what programs they offer for children and couldn't because it was blocked as "pornographic."

The selection argument - funds are always finite and we cannot ever afford to buy everything (otherwise I'd make an argument that we should), so it is necessary to decide which sources to purchase and which not to. Pornographic magazines are not purchased because the money is better spent elsewhere. With the world wide web, however, it is finanacially feasible to purchase "everything." It all comes in one package, so there is no necessity to select or deselect. Filters add to the financial burden, in fact. You can find Internet porn in libraries but not the print version primarily because of finances.

(This may make you question my character through those I choose to associate with, but) I've known people doing graduate level research on pornography. Heck, I believe there's a website that investigates the images of librarians in porn. So it is plausible that someone might have a legitimate educational purpose for viewing porn in the library.

Regardless of what people view, I believe every library has behavioral rules for patrons. Patrons may have the right to privately view what they want in the library, but they do not have the right to expose anyone else to the view of them rubbing themselves.

Just a strange thought out of curiousity - do you think we would react differently if it was primarily women viewing the porn and rubbing themselves instead of men? Would it still be "creepy?"

AL said...

Woeful, it sounds to me like you're ready to take the Porn Challenge! Only $19.95/year! "Some libraries subscribing to Playboy" won't do it. Your library needs to subscribe to Penthouse and display it in the children's section. If you won't do it, why not? And if not, why don't your reasons apply equally to viewing Internet porn in the library?

In answer to some of your questions:

Who decides what is porn? I do. On second thought, I don't want to see all that. I'll let Taupey decide.

Would snuff films be okay? Definitely. Whereas viewing Internet porn in the public library is just for perverts and losers, viewing snuff films is completely respectable. Are you serious with this one?

Regarding the guy and the shoe, if he does said action in the library, it's equally bad. Viewing shoes is okay, though, as long as he doesn't speak or touch.

Where does it end? Who knows. Who decides? I do.

"History has taught us that sooner or later censorship will affect something that actually matters to you... It's only a matter of time, so the door is best left closed."

History has taught us no such thing.

Are people complaining? Yes, they are. In this case, the county executive person is complaining. The difference between her and ordinary mortals is that she may be able to stop some library funding rather than be shushed by the librarians.

Does it become a class issue? Who cares. My main claim is that there is no right to have publicly subsidized porn. Can anyone deny that? If poor people can't afford Internet porn, that's just tough. Poor people also cannot afford yachts. Should we buy everyone a yacht? And maybe an island in the south Pacific to sail it to? There's no moral or political reason why porn must be provided from the public funds, so it does not become a class issue.

I think I read the blog discussion you mention. As I recall, the writer asked, "is it illegal to view porn?" The question seemed to be answered within the post itself, which noted that it was in fact illegal for the sex offender in question to be using a public computer or be within a thousand feet of a school or children, so, in fact, it was illegal for that particular person to be viewing porn on a public library computer.

AL said...

Degolar, welcome to the party! You left the comment while I was typing my last one. I'll begin with your last question of women viewing porn and rubbing themselves. The viewing porn in the public library would still be creepy. But the rubbing would probably be more subtle.

I'm not necessarily arguing for filters. I'm arguing that no one has a right to publicly subsidized porn, and that there are reasons why people should not watch Internet porn in public places. One of those reasons, that people like to mock, is indeed to keep both the public porn and the creepy people who view it out of the sight of children. My challenge for people who find that argument ridiculous is to subscribe to Penthouse and display it in the children's section of the library. $20/year isn't much to pay. Any library can afford it. If doing that seems absurd, then the argument that we do things to protect children isn't.

Librarians don't want to police Internet viewing and they claim that all information is equal and everyone has a right to view all of it at the library. It's that attitude that led to filtering in the first place. If librarians had ever made the argument that some things shouldn't be viewed at the public library and that librarians had some moral judgment and responsibility, then CIPA might not have become a reality. Librarians have only themselves to blame for filters, which by all accounts seem to be a technological pain. Librarians might think viewing porn at public library computers is fine. Problem is, a big chunk of the public, including democratically elected officials with powers to make laws and bar funding, don't share that view.

You say you don't want "Big Brother" thinking for you. Possibly. But "Big Brother" thinks for you all the time. Big Brother thinks you don't know how to spend your money wisely or save for retirement, so he takes a big chunk of it out of every paycheck. If you own a business, Big Brother thinks you don't have the right to hire or not hire people for any reason you like--for example, if you like or don't like their race or gender or religion. Would you advise eliminating anti-discrimination laws? Or are you comfortable having Big Brother do people's thinking for them because in this case you agree with the thinking. Is legislating morality okay as long as you agree with the morality being legislated?

I'm not making an argument against rights and freedoms. My argument is first that there is no right to, nor any good reason for, publicly subsidized porn; and second, that the argument that we do some things to protect children is a morally compelling one, except apparently with some librarians. The Porn Challenge is designed to sustain those two arguments.

Dances With Books said...

Ordinarily I could not care less, but woeful does make a point in asking who decides? I don't want anyone, be it the government, a librarian, or anyone else deciding what I can or not view. It's my business, and it should stay that way. And as much as I respect you, that includes you as well.

Having gotten that out of the way, it may not be as easy as an issue of "the library subsidizes porn." We provide access to the Internet. Regardless of how we view porn, the porn is on the Internet along with everything else. So unless you actually shut down all access to the Internet, and that certainly could be an option (as far as I know, there is nothing saying we have to provide Internet access), it will be there. Do I think people should be in the local public library watching the stuff? Heck no. Do I want to be in the position of policing it? Absolutely not. Put privacy screens if you have to, but what people do on the Internet is their own affair. As the other commenter said, let it be anonymous. And why worry over it anyways? That is one thing I always wonder about some of the people who complain. They seem to actively be looking for it, then complain when they find it (I could say something here about certain repressed types, but I won't).

Pervert does some indecent act in public in the library: haul him off to jail or whatever punishment the law has for indecent exposure and such. But the last thing I want is the police, the state, or my local librarian looking over my shoulder. Not that I would be caught dead, as the saying goes, looking at porn in the library.

At the end the catch is that the porn will be there. Filters are not perfect, and I don't really want a "human" filter either. As I said, do I want people doing that in the library, watching porn? No, but unless some librarians out there are going to be patrolling every computer terminal every time for anything they "decide" is porn, it really does not seem to be going away. And I am not about to play cop.

Sorry this was so long. Though I see others wrote a lot too, so clearly makes people think. Thanks for allowing me to comment.

Anonymous said...

Children should not view pornography. Agreed. Many public libraries install privacy screens over monitors, require minors - and only minors - to use computers in designated youth areas, and filter internet access for anyone under 18.

Adults should not touch themselves in public. Agreed. I believe this sort of behavior constitutes public indecency.

But, public libraries purchase Schwarzenegger movies. They buy horror DVDs. IMO, these items do not possess lasting cultural import; they function solely as entertainment. Entertainment is an accepted criterion for public library acquisitions. (Can anyone argue that the majority of bestsellers are purchased on other grounds?). Porn is sexual entertainment - nothing more, nothing less. It is no less objectionable than the desire to watch, in one patron's memorable request, a "movie where, like, people get killed and blowed up and sh--." In other words, remove popular entertainment as a selection critierion, and what are you left with? The Western Canon (which is itself subject to interminable debate)? As opposed as some members of the public are to pornography, methinks they would be even more opposed to the idea of reading a classic.

So, if children are prohibited from seeing pornography, and the adults who view it do not touch themselves...how is pornography worse than violent entertainment, or the vapid pleasure of a bestseller? Do away with entertainment, and you do away with public libraries (as an ambivalent public librarian, I'm not necessarily opposed to this solution). After all, why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize a working adult's or retiree's ability to watch _Predator_ or _Blade_?

Dances With Books said...

I hate to use a comment here for this, but I just saw Rettig's You Tube video for his ALA Presidency Campaign. I got there via a certain prominent biblogger (or whatever the heck they call themselves these days) who swears she is voting for him because he "gets it." I know you may have something to say on the matter.

If you type "Jim Rettig for ALA President" it comes up right away. Of course, to view it, you may need to put down the martini and to have an extra dose of caffeine instead (yes, it's soporific. . . zzzzz).

AL said...

I'm almost willing to concede that that libraries aren't subsidizing porn just by having Internet connections. Almost. There was a time when librarians took responsibility for the materials available in their libraries. With the age of the Internet, librarians have abdicated that responsibility. Because they have, others have tried to do something about it, as this county executive is trying to do.

What people do in private is indeed none of my business, but what people do in public is my business, because I share that public sphere. There is no privacy in a public place. A public library is a public place. Using public computers is not a private act.

Regarding who decides what's porn, I think this is a bogus scare question. Does anybody really have any difficulty knowing what's porn on the Internet and what isn't?

The thing that most irritates me about the national debate is the mockery and ridicule librarians and the ALA heap on anyone trying to protect children from objectionable materials, or as the moral relativists at the ALA put it, "objectionable" materials. I find that mockery and ridicule morally repugnant and indefensible. Whether we have children or not, we all have an interest in creating unpornified public spaces.

Some critics of public porn are called "prudes" or "repressed." I don't think I'm either, but I am disturbed by the pornified culture we seem to have created. It disturbs me, for example, when I see high school and college girls who seem to think dressing like prostitutes is a worthwhile way to express their sexuality. It doesn't disturb me because I don't like to see skin. It disturbs me because of the effect a pornified culture has had on their psyches. I'm also disturbed when I hear stories about boys asking their girlfriends if they can ejaculate on the girl's face because that's what they see on the Internet. The porn culture that degrades women and girls and objectifies the relations between the sexes disturbs me, and it has nothing to do with sex or repression or prudishness. I like sex just fine. Porn isn't sex.

What people do in private is different. I'm not arguing for censoring porn, though I do think an extensive fondness for Internet porn is probably a sign of emotional immaturity, which is why it seems to be especially popular with teenage boys. But that's neither here nor there.

I don't agree that porn is just "sexual entertainment." Entertainment is usually something done for its own sake, whether it's playing or watching sports or games, reading a book, watching a movie. I think porn is qualitatively different (though I might be wrong). Be honest, any of you porn addicts out there, after you've, er, "satisfied" yourselves, do you still want to look at the porn? That is, unless you're striving for another round of satisfaction?

As far as other kinds of entertainment, regular readers will know I don't particularly like spending my tax dollars so somebody can get their fill of romance novels and Schwarzenegger movies. I think it's much harder to justify libraries spending money for non-educational purposes. I also know this battle has existed since the beginning of the public library, and that I'm on the losing side. However, one difference between Internet porn and having violent videos is that libraries don't set up viewing stations in the middle of the reference area and let people watch [insert graphically violent video of choice].

AL said...

DWB, I just checked out the Rettig video. I saw the link, I think on whatever blog says he "gets it," but had avoided it until your stirring recommendation. He's no Bob Dylan, that's for sure. He seems like a decent chap, but he does have a soporific speaking voice, and if you cut the sound this is just a 5 minute video of a guy standing still.

Woeful said...

Nazi Germany is a great example of how seemingly innocuous censorship runs amok. In fact, I distinctly remember the Nazi example used back in Library School by my mentor to illustrate why it is so important to fight any kind of censorship. Things start slowly, and then mushroom out of control. Sure, it can’t happen here right? That’s just what most Germans thought at the end of the Weimar Republic. Then they were put in ovens. http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/propag.htm

My library has run into all types of problems, with all kinds of freaky people. The shoe thing isn’t fictional. The guy wasn’t playing with himself (none of our pervs ever go that far) but he would come in and get visibly worked-up and that coupled with the bizarre stuff he was simply viewing (pix below the knee) was enough to make patrons extremely uneasy to say the least. Should we kick him out for that? There wasn’t any nudity whatsoever. Is it porn? And yes, I am serious about the casual viewing of violence. Should we eject someone for watching executions? Surely that would also be disturbing to many people… I certainly hope it would be anyway. However, many people seem to be more concerned about an orgasm than a gruesome crime scene… We have an Eastern European guy who comes in who watches some violent stuff. Should he be banned? Who and what should we ban next? Where does it end?

All that said, my point isn’t that porn should be allowed in libraries. Indeed, I despise cleaning smut off our PCs in the vile wake of someone we dubbed, “Porn Man.” My point is that we really shouldn’t know what people are doing on the Internet at all. Those of us who are public librarians, do our best to protect the privacy of patrons. Clearly we haven’t done enough, if we had this wouldn’t be an issue at all since nobody would know about it. This is what bothers me.

Purposefully Anonymous said...

Go ahead and put the Playboy up in the children's section! Kids have been looking at sex for thousands of years and it's only been the last couple of hundred where people got scared of it. How do you think Laura Ingalls Wilder (or insert more applicable one room sod house dweller if I'm mis-remembering the Wilder story) got all of her siblings while everybody went to bed early in a one room house? Kids seeing naked people having sex isn't going to hurt anybody.

. . . on the other hand there's some pretty disgusting porn out there that probably shouldn't be viewed by anyone. Well here's the answer! Let's legislate all porn to be non-misogynistic. We can get to that as soon as we legislate that non-naked films also need to be non-misogynistic. That day is right around the corner, I'm sure.

So that's my rambling porn discussion . . . which of course has nothing to do with paying for porn in public libraries. The main argument in favor of paying for public library porn is just that there is no effective way to block just the nasty porn that most people find upsetting. The argument is that we don't want to give up collection development to the filtering companies. There have been far too many times when filters automatically assume gay and lesbian awareness websites need to be filtered, or the breast cancer site needs to be blocked, or (my favorite) that sites critical of filtering software need to be blocked.

All in all, the main argument isn't that we really want Coprophiliacs having their way with library computers so much as we would like to continue to have access to Thomas Swift's Scatological poetry.

Purposefully Anonymous said...

. . . um, Jonathan Swift, I mean. Damn! Tried too hard to flaunt that unused literature degree.

The Compleat Librarian said...

I would have to agree with Annoyed, who decides...I do. It is my job.
Does what comes through adhere to my philosophy of librarianship, now come on, all librarians have a philosophy.
If it passes mine, then it goes up, if not...then the person can either go home and view it online, or go to Borders, BnN, or elsewhere.

"The true essence of librarianship is the maximization of the effective use of graphic records for any purpose that contributes to the Dignity, Beauty, and Strength of the human endeavor."

Does porn portray the dignity of humnaity..No, a woman being ravaged in not very dignified. Does it portray Beauty...NO! Does it strengthen the human endeavor..No!
Porn does none of this, actually it is the exact opposite.

Who decides...I DO.

AL said...

Nazi Germany? C'mon, Woeful. False analogy. The United States is not like the Weimar Republic or like Nazi Germany in any relevant aspects. If you library school professor had to go that far afield for a relevant example the argument was dead in the water. Besides, we're not talking about censorship. Another false analogy. Libraries not buying porn is not censorship. Libraries blocking access to porn is not censorship.

And purposefully, I said Penthouse, not Playboy. Seeing naked family members having sex may not have damaged Laura Wilder, if indeed it was orgy time every night out on the prairie. My question is, why distinguish. Ban it all from public libraries. And I don't want legislating banning porn or regulating its production. I just want it kept out of public spaces like libraries, and I don't think I'm in the minority on this issue among normal people (i.e. non-librarians. Not that some librarians aren't normal, but you know what I mean.)

Perhaps I should put the issue another way. IF filtering worked perfectly, and I know it doesn't, but IF, then should libraries activate porn filters? I would say yes. Regarding violence and executions and such, I'm tempted to say yes to that as well. I would object just as much to violent images adorning the public sphere as I would to porn images.

And we're always talking about images, aren't we. One would think that librarians would insist that if someone was going to view porn in the library, they should at least view it in its most perfect form--erotic prose.

Anonymous said...

Parents need to be responsible for what their child does/views at the library. There are sex books, and the parent is responsible for ensuring that they do/do not read those.

AL said...

That's a very pithy response that ends the entire debate. No wait, I guess it doesn't. First, "sex books" is an ambiguous phrase. Are we talking sex ed manuals or pornography? If we're talking pornography, are we talking the romance novel variety, or hard core stuff with lots of pictures? And if we're talking about the latter, does your library actually have any of those? And if it does, do the librarians open them up and put them on display in the reference room?

If it's okay to view porn in the library, just subscribe to Penthouse and put it up in the children's section. If there are reasons not to do that, then those reasons may also apply to Internet pornography in the library. It's a question of where to draw the line, not of whether the line should be drawn, and saying the "parents" are responsible just evades the issue.

Woeful said...

AL wrote: “The United States is not like the Weimar Republic or like Nazi Germany in any relevant aspects.”

OK, let’s see what civil liberties have been desecrated over the last six years:

1) Our government has been holding people for years without any charges levied against them at Guantanamo Bay.

2) Our government participates in extraordinary rendition by sending unindicted individuals beyond the confines of the US for, “interrogation.”

3) Our government is using State sponsored torture to elicit confessions from prisoners.

4) Our government is using mercenaries to operate outside of military law (i.e., Halliburton, etc…).

5) Our government is now able to secretly search property, and confiscate personal information without probable cause, and without any notification that any search was even conducted via the Patriot Act.

6) Our government is warrantlessly wiretapping its own citizens, using both the NSA and the FBI (TALON).

7) Our government is temporarily holding protesters who participate in anti-Administration rallies against their will.

8) Our government is reclassifying previously declassified documents in order to prevent them from being accessed via FOI requests.

9) Our government is profiling people based on their race.

10) Our government is now strip searching people at airports via backscatter X-Ray.

Are you serious?

public librarian said...

"However, one difference between Internet porn and having violent videos is that libraries don't set up viewing stations in the middle of the reference area and let people watch [insert graphically violent video of choice]."

Actually, there are libraries with viewing stations. We've got a TV with VCR/DVD player combo hooked up to it, and patrons can sign up for a time slot. We don't allow porn viewing on it, though, just as we don't allow porn viewing on the Internet computers. It violates our policy: "Sending, receiving, or displaying text or graphics which may reasonably be
construed by library staff as offensive to the public and inappropriate in a library
setting." Patrons get a warning, then get kicked out if they do it again. Do we librarians have to make a judgement call on what's considered porn? Yeah, but it's usually pretty damn obvious. And 90% of the patrons we have to warn/kick out are KIDS who wouldn't legally be able to buy a porno mag.

Bottom line: it's a public place. Is it really reasonable to expect privacy when you are displaying pornographic images/text in the presence of others? We don't filter any of our computers, but patrons still need to abide by our policy.

AL said...

That seems entirely reasonable to me.

Silas said...

Me too.

Degolar said...

Enough with the serious debate. I think it's time to combine recent topics and take action. Everyone should start doing google image searches for "scrotum" in their public libraries. :-P

IL Library Student said...

I had to dig out my mass media law book. In 1973, the Supreme Court set a standard that is now known as the Miller Test. The test was created to identify "obscene" materials (including porn):

1. An average person, applying contemporary local community standards, finds that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests.

2. The works depict in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law.

3. The work in question lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

The book goes into further depth about each of these areas. What I think is important is that local community standards need to be applied. What flies in New York isn't going to fly in, say, rural Alabama, and what right does an authority from one area have to force or belittle an authority in another area that wants/does not want certain material?

Anonymous said...

Geez Woeful, your 10 points on combating Islamic Fascism sound perfectly reasonable to me, and in no way argue for an analogy with Nazi Germany.

I think you lack intellect and and education. But then again, some low-rent Bachelors and an MLS don't much add up to an education of any seriousness, do they.

AL said...

Just out of courtesy, let's try to avoid ad hominem attacks. For the record, I may disagree with many of you, and some of you, like Degolar, I've disagreed amicably with on a number of occasions. But my disagreement with people on particular issues doesn't mean I think they're stupid. I try, though I don't always succeed, to focus on ideas and not personalities. Of course that could be because I don't have a personality.

AL said...

Oh, and Degolar, post the scrotum pictures on your own blog! If we're talking about prurient interest, I can't think of anything less sexy than the scrotum, at least not on the human body, and if we exclude excessive back hair.

Privateer6 said...

I have to agree with IL Library student and AL what amount of privacy can you reasonably expect in a public setting?

Filters, while not perfect, are a good idea, esp. if they can be lifted. Personally I couldn't use them in my medical library as probably 3/4 of the information that people come in for would be blocked.

As for privacy screens, while they do a good job of preventing people looking at the screen peripherally, if someone is passing directly behind you, they see what you see.

Now for the comparison of NAZI Germany to the USA, while there may be some superficial similarities, i.e. abortion, movement to euthanize people, etc. overall there is no comparison.

In reference to Gitmo, 1)the detainees are not US citizens, legal aliens, or even illegal aliens that have been detained in the US and thus given Constitutional rights. The are classified by the Fourth Geneva Protocol, AKA the Geneva Convention, as unlawful combatants as actually can be summarily executed like spies. Even if they are given POW status, they would be detained until hostilities ceased by a formal agreement, either armistice or peace treaty. So that argument is not valid comparison between Nazi Germany and the USA


In reference to "interrogation, you complained in your first comparison about Gitmo, a detention facility that is truly "Club Gitmo" when compared to how the terrorists treat prisoners, or Communists in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam for that matter, but when we return the detainees to there home country, which mostly have stricter standards of behavior and punishment, you also complain. Please make up your mind, either you don't want them at Gitmo and thus returned to their home country
or keep them at Gitmo to prevent them from being tortured by their home governments, you can't have it both ways. Thus this argument, like the first is not a valid comparison. Let's face it Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, and other "unacceptables," were arrested, imprisoned, tortured via work programs, severe hunger, medical experiments, etc by the Nazis. The USA is either holding them at Gitmo, or releasing them to their home country. If the home country arrests them it's that is a separate issue.

As for your third argument, It is a repeat of the second, so I will not repost my reply. If there is other examples of torture, please enlighten me.

While the US is indeed using private security forces, mercenaries as you described them, they are fully subject to the local laws and the law as of the US. That's why a contractor was arrested d and imprisoned in the USA, and several were imprisoned in Afghanistan.

In reference to Nazi Germany, while the SS did accept non-Germans into their ranks as long as they maintained the SS racial guideline, ie Swedes, Danes, White Russians, French, and Bosnians were part of the SS, the SS was originally a Nazi Party internal police force. It was only as Himmler, Heidrich, etc gained power and expanded their powers did the SS expand their original mandate. So that comparison is null.

This may be the closest comparison, and I admit I am a little weak on TPA. However 1) this was voted in by our democratically elected leaders AND 2) wasrenewed by them, with 3)a definitive time limit to their power unless voted on again. Hitler, once the Enabling Act was approved by the Reichstag, kept extending the emergency powers by person fiat, with the Reichstag not having anymore say. You stuck out again

Ok more later.





5) Our government is now able to secretly search property, and confiscate personal information without probable cause, and without any notification that any search was even conducted via the Patriot Act.

6) Our government is warrantlessly wiretapping its own citizens, using both the NSA and the FBI (TALON).

7) Our government is temporarily holding protesters who participate in anti-Administration rallies against their will.

8) Our government is reclassifying previously declassified documents in order to prevent them from being accessed via FOI requests.

9) Our government is profiling people based on their race.

10) Our government is now strip searching people at airports via backscatter X-Ray.

AL said...

Yes, Woeful, I am serious. Does the US have several armed political parties fighting in the streets to take over a shaky government? Does the US have a long history of authoritarian government with a fragile liberal democracy put in place after being defeated in a devastating war? Is the US undergoing a severe depression with skyrocketing inflation? Does the US have rising dictator manques ready to take over by force and a population that would welcome stability at almost any cost? Does the US control all news outlets and shut down opposition presses? Do you really consider racial profiling to be similar to the Final Solution? Regardless of whether your allegations are true, the social and political conditions in Weimar or Nazi Germany and the contemporary US are radically different.

Woeful said...

I stand by the comments I made during my first two posts. I made the the points I intended to. Even though AL opened this discussion to something entirely different by making blithe remarks about my observations, I don't think that this is the proper forum to continue this discussion as it has become an entirely new topic.

As a courtesy to AL, if anyone wants to continue discussing how the Bush regime is systematically destroying our civil liberties (making any censorship concessions we now make all the more egregious), contributing to human rights violations, and committing other atrocities in incredibly fascist ways, I invite you to visit my blog, @ the Library located at http://librarianwoes.wordpress.com/

AL said...

I'm not sure that I'm the one that moved this conversation off track, but I'll happily let the discussion move to another blog. Regardless, I probably won't comment on it anymore, as I'm working on my next blog post designed to irritate people and evoke discussion.

Dances With Books said...

I liked the comment made stating the library rule about what is appropriate in a library space. In the end, much of this does boil down to a public space issue. While I still stand by the notion that what someone views/reads, etc. is their affair and no one else's, I am seeing that it is the idea of a public space that brings it home. It seems there is a loss of that concept. Not just the porn; look at how many people carry on cell phone conversations in public (I could tell tales of horrifying conversations I have been forced to overhear). I get the impression we can all agree (or most can agree, as AL points out, some librarians are not normal) that certain things should not be done in a public space. It's a matter of civility, basic decency and consideration for others. Sure, get all the porn you want (I have nothing against it, there, I said it. If you don't like it, don't view it. If you do, go for it.), just don't do it in the public library (or other open place). Just a thought. And I will await the next post from AL.

AL said...

Okay, one more comment since it's back on track. I agree with DWB's summation. My problem isn't necessarily with porn (though I do think SOME porn has unfortunate ripple effects on others and isn't always just an issue of harmless self-indulgence. Depends on the porn, depends on its effects). This is a public space issue. I like the example of cell phones, since I think they have contributed to a decline in the civlity of the public sphere necessary for a peaceful society. Ipods cut people off from others, but cell phone use in public actively projects you onto others. I also disagree with some of the library bloggers who make fun of libraries having "no cell phone usage" signs, but haven't bothered to address that one.

Anonymous said...

Without a logical connection for each step down teh stair, slippery slope arguments are the refuge of a weak argument. The shrill cry of "we'll wind up just like Nazi Germany" is not worthy of response, though AL did provide a thoughtful and civil list.

I am again shocked, shocked I tell you to see the discourse again plummet to base discussions of foot fetishim. Seriously. I am super serial here.


--Taupey

AL said...

It was NOT ME who brought up shoes this time! I am not obsessed with shoes or feet! I'll keep repeating that for a while.

Zillah said...

"Does anybody really have any difficulty knowing what's porn on the Internet and what isn't?"

But exactly. We _can_ argue this. I think that foot fetish example is a great one. For this guy, it is clearly porn although for another it could be shoe shopping. No genitals, no public masturbation. What makes it porn?

There is a nude statue in my local public park. I don’t’ find it pornographic as a subjective (am I turned on) or subjective (would anyone reasonable find this pornographic) matter. So, here is a morality teaser: If I sit in my local park and look for a long time at the nude statue does it become porn? Is it any different than my casual glance as I walk by?

I don’t think that there is so much disagreement, over what would be considered “hardcore” pornography. Penetration, ejaculation, BDSM, genitals (outside of a medical/anatomical website…but that even has its fetishists.) Then again, gay/lesbian matter of all types is thought of as "pornographic" in some communities. As is women showing their elbows. Or people dancing.

I am interested in historical costuming. Is my viewing of women wearing corsets porn? Given that for a sizable part of the adult population corsets are part of sexual fantasy, does that then make my viewing pornographic?

I think that the issue here is socially acceptable behavior. If my viewing of the statue in the park or the viewing of the corsets online makes someone else uncomfortable, than maybe I should be asked to move along to a different computer/time of day. (I am out of luck with the statue – too heavy to take with me.) If people believed in a social contract, they would restrict themselves from performing public actions (such as viewing “questionable” material) that they know would make other people uncomfortable. I argue with myself here when I then think about the gay/lesbian examples. My reading about Gertrude Stien might make someone uncomfortable. Oh my god, her arm is around Alice B. Toklas! Stop! And it is difficult to define what a "Reasonable" person might find offensive. Am I reasonable? Is the AL reasonable? Is Jerry Falwell reasonable?

I do think that filters in the children’s area are A-Okay. In the adult area, not so much. But we do get into the issue about if websites such as GoAskAlice are acceptable to filter in the children’s area. I would have to say I think it depends on the policies about if young adults are made to use the children’s computers or if they can use any computer.

I cannot understand people that want to restrict all sexual knowledge from teenagers. Believe me as former overly-sheltered child, they find it anyway. I never had sex-ed and my parents never talked to me because like most parents they avoided it until they figured I already knew and still did not bring it up. I learned about all things related to sex in high school from 1) My friends – who thank God were responsible and talked about things like birth control and STDs and saying no and 2) Books in the non-fiction section of my local library (thank you Nancy Friday). I did have to hunt out those books. Not everyone knows to look for porn in the 300’s.

And all of my rant does not even touch on the issues about viewing hate-speech in the library.

AL, I have to vehemently disagree with your stance on the role of public libraries vis-à-vis collecting for the public good. Reading a little trash now and again keeps me sane. Those who are serious all the time tend to blow up things eventually.

On another front of this agruement, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez is 1) considered canon, 2) an absolutely astounding master of the well-crafted sentence, 3) quite steamy. Is that in or out at the AL library?

contrarian said...

Sounds like woeful is part of an SRRT plot. But I digress.

Anonymous said...

Zilla--It is difficult to comment on the corsets unless we know if you are wearing seamed stockings and stilettos or are barefoot. It's all science from there on.

--Taupey, Still Super Serial

Anonymous said...

Does it have to be done at the Library? Just go to Borders and lounge in the cafe and see all you want in the magazine section.

Anonymous said...

I do as well, determine what is and what is not. There.

Anonymous said...

Until there is a filter that only removes content that is ILLEGAL, they should not be used in a public library. Filters are flawed technology right now. AL - as my Director said just today "academic librarians just don't get public libraries" ... boy, do you exemplify that!

AL said...

You definitely sound like you're ready to take the Porn Challenge! Penthouse in the children's section, that's all you have to do. There's nothing ILLEGAL about Penthouse, so why don't you take the plunge! Since if something is legal, then it's just fine, because there's no such thing as extralegal social norms that regulate our behavior and allow for the civility that makes peaceful communal life possible. As an academic librarian, I may not "get" public libraries, but you know what, I don't have to. Unlike my academic library, your library is answerable to the public, and while you may not know the first thing about scholarship and academic research, it just so happens that I am a member of the public. Have I mentioned that my taxes help pay your salary? So if citizens defund public libraries because of public librarians who are incapable of even basic civility and moral reasoning, we'll see how you feel then.

janitorx said...

I am not a big fan of this relativistic interpretation of what constitutes porn. How about whatever "literature" and "films" that are sold in buildings with darkened windows, with the patron-friendly sign of "couples welcome", and have a tawdry place of business name? Anyway, I'm with the AL on this--and I don't mind porn--I just don't think it belongs in the public library. Perhaps, these adult entertainment companies should create porn libraries. I am not being facetious, but as they say in the South, "I'm serious as a heart attack".

I used to work in a public library where patrons could view soft-core porn. I had more incidents of sexual harrassment than my former bartender/barback days which was in close proximity to a giant state university, well-known for drunken buffoonery! The presence of this stuff does influence how patrons treat female staff.

Flame away!

Greg said...

Zilla its easy to get into the grey area but speaking as someone who works in a public library I can safely say corsets haven't been a problem. Images of women's faces covered in a milky white substance while looking 'hungrily' at male appendages has been, is, and continues to be the problem. Are you capable of conceding that a building staffed and used by a large number of women might find that offensive, if not outright threatening?

Anonymous said...

Sorry to come so late to this discussion (hey, I was reading books for the last few days!)

Anyhow, while I think the debate about social contracts, public spaces, and controlling (in)appropriate behavior is a fruitful discussion, the stuff about "publically subsidized porn" carries far less weight.

The Internet,and all that is published on it, good, bad, and indifferent, comes at a single cost: the monthly fee to the ISP. A library obtains access to the Internet. Period. It costs the taxpayer no more and no less if someone accesses CNN or accesses nude bodies.

Getting rid of porn actually costs the library. So what, in fact, is being subsidized to the detriment of the public purse? If one grants the utility of Internet access (I know, not something one can assume, but grant the argument nevertheless)it's the filter and/or censorship, take your choice.

Anonymous said...

I work in a major urban public library that refuses to deal with the issue of pornography unless it creates a "hostile environment" for other patrons.

I just began working in this system about 8 months ago after previously working in academic libraries. When I asked my manager about what to do when seeing a patron viewing porn, he gave this answer:

"Just the fact that they are viewing pornography is not a violation of our Library Standards. However, we do limit this just to the unfiltered computers. If a person is viewing this on any other computer, they can be asked to leave that site or move to the unfiltered computer. The unfiltered computer has the privacy screen so that it will be harder for others to see what is on that screen. If the patron is causing a disruption while viewing the pornography or being 'deliberately offensive' or creating 'a hostile or intimidating environment,' then steps can be taken to stop those actions. This is the same as any other disruptive behavior. However, if you or another patron happens to see the pornography on the screen passing by, that does not constitute creating 'a hostile or intimidating environment' or being 'deliberately offensive.' Think of the patron who is quietly looking at a photography book or magazine that has erotic images in it. Other people may be able to see what he/she is looking at it and consider it pornography and be offended by it, but you wouldn't take it out of their hands. "

Wishy-washy eh? In library school, I was all against Internet filters in libraries. Now that I've been out in the field for awhile, I've come to believe that libraries should not tolerate patrons viewing pornography. Period. End of story. I know of other public libraries that take a tough stance on it. They see patrons viewing porn, and boom, they're asked to leave.

SafeLibraries.org said...

AL,

I am amazed to see the responses to your "Library Porn Challenge." Responses like this: "Nazi Germany is a great example of how seemingly innocuous censorship runs amok. In fact, I distinctly remember the Nazi example used back in Library School by my mentor to illustrate why it is so important to fight any kind of censorship."

This page of yours including the responses is a microcosm of the objuscation and propaganda used by the ALA. And the personal attacks are here as well--they are a leading method of rationalizing unfiltered computers in public libraries.

I'm going to have to add you to my Good Librarians page. Your article here is outstanding. I have been trying to say this but you say it so much better.

"The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others." By Dan Gerstein, an independent consultant, former communications director for Joe Lieberman and a senior strategist for his presidential campaign.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with you, Annoyed Librarian. There is inherent censorship in collection development. There is a reason why libraries don't subscribe to Hustler and Barely Legal. I don't understand how this does not apply to the Internet. My coworkers and fellow patrons should not be subjected to other people openly viewing porn in a public place. It creates a hostile work environment and let's face it, working with the public is already hostile enough.

There is a huge difference between owning objectionable books and Internet porn. With the former, I don't have to see it as I attempt to make my way to the stacks. If I find Friday the 13th part 20 offensive, I don't watch it. I can't help but notice what someone is viewing on a public Internet tereminal while I do my job.

I can't wait to get out of public librarianship. It is absolute hell.

martin said...

As Seth Finkelstein's work on web filtering and censorship has shown, along with what we might all agree is 'real' porn, what is also likely to be excluded is information about STDs, gay rights, even anatomy. Given what vocabulary is used in modern literature, any simple filter will have problems, because it cannot use the Miller test which is all about context and intent.

If ALA admitted that part of the function of libraries was to entertain people, then they would have a much stronger case; it seesm odd that the 'novel question' raised when Botosn opened it's first public library in the 19th century should still be causing trouble.

spinetingler said...

> ..."Swank" dating to those halcyon days of early puberty. You never forget your first...

Swank-off?

spinetingler said...

>Does anybody really have any difficulty knowing what's porn on the Internet and what isn't?

Sure. Many people think the SI swimsuit issue is porn. (Hi Mom! RIP!).

spinetingler said...

>Penthouse in the children's section, that's all you have to do. There's nothing ILLEGAL about Penthouse, so why don't you take the plunge!

Er, Penthouse in the children's section is absolutely illegal, and your continuing use of this straw man (or, I guess straw women, really) perplexes me.

spinetingler said...

>Penthouse in the children's section, that's all you have to do. There's nothing ILLEGAL about Penthouse, so why don't you take the plunge!

Er, Penthouse in the children's section is absolutely illegal, and your continuing use of this straw man (or, I guess straw women, really) perplexes me.

Anonymous said...

Most of these arguments are stupid..does looking at corsets or shoes constitute porn??? There are people who, because of damage to the temporal lobes find safety pins arousing, so what...giving out far-fetched things some people might be aroused by and asking if they will be banned too is reducing the argument to the ridiculous. We are discussing images that 99.9% of humans agree are sexually arousing, not shoes, corsets, feet and Victorian table legs that only a small minority might find so.

Who decides what constitutes porn?...and what ought to be funded? ...or banned? The society and people who have to live with the consequences of it, that's who! Why should we feel perfectly righteous about curtailing people's right to smoke when and where they choose, and impose high taxes on it?...because we now know the costs to our society and to vulnerable individuals, that's why. Why do many hospitals and workplaces ban perfumes?...because the "right" to smell pretty causes just a few people with allergies and migraines sufficient misery to justify that. As the drawbacks to a pornified society become clearer every year, and the damage to individuals racks up...well, our society will have the same right to curtail it as it does all other activities that cause harm...and that begins with allowing the people seeing the harm and experiencing the harm to speak up freely about it to the same degree the civil libertarians are allowed to speak up...without people asking "who are you to decide what constitutes porn?"

Who am I?
I'm someone who was harmed by exposure to porn, oh sorry, pictures of women and men in various states of undress, kissing, touching each other's genitals, having coitus and oral sex, women tied up, women being whipped....from my early childhood on. I was addicted to these images by the time I was 7. Were my parents pedophiles?..no...they did what was recommended in the 70s for enlightened parenting. They removed the stigma and shame of sex by not hiding it in an effort to raise "sex-positive" children. The effect was not quite what they were told it would be.

I am a woman whose husband "read" a lot those p...opps, can't call it porn...nudie mags, and surfed the net for images and films constantly...who demanded the same degrading behaviour of me and had multiple affairs before I left. He is still struggling with his addiction to what I don't have the right to define as porn.

If I had emphysema from my mother smoking all through the 70's and 80's I would not only get to speak out, I would get to sue the tobacco companies. Have I been damaged enough to get to have an opinion on this?...or am I just obviously a screwed up sex-negative person who wants to cover table legs?

But please, if you are fine with your tax-payer dollars funding people's surrogate sex-lives...I'm sure you'll be just as fine subsidising adult sex-addict clinics, intervention programmes and recovery programmes in schools...special classrooms to seperate children who act out sexually against other children, with teacher aides...

Anonymous said...

Most of these arguments are stupid..does looking at corsets or shoes constitute porn??? There are people who, because of damage to the temporal lobes find safety pins arousing, so what...giving out far-fetched things some people might be aroused by and asking if they will be banned too is reducing the argument to the ridiculous. We are discussing images that 99.9% of humans agree are sexually arousing, not shoes, corsets, feet and Victorian table legs that only a small minority might find so.

Who decides what constitutes porn?...and what ought to be funded? ...or banned? The society and people who have to live with the consequences of it, that's who! Why should we feel perfectly righteous about curtailing people's right to smoke when and where they choose, and impose high taxes on it?...because we now know the costs to our society and to vulnerable individuals, that's why. Why do many hospitals and workplaces ban perfumes?...because the "right" to smell pretty causes just a few people with allergies and migraines sufficient misery to justify that. As the drawbacks to a pornified society become clearer every year, and the damage to individuals racks up...well, our society will have the same right to curtail it as it does all other activities that cause harm...and that begins with allowing the people seeing the harm and experiencing the harm to speak up freely about it to the same degree the civil libertarians are allowed to speak up...without people asking "who are you to decide what constitutes porn?"

Who am I?
I'm someone who was harmed by exposure to porn, oh sorry, pictures of women and men in various states of undress, kissing, touching each other's genitals, having coitus and oral sex, women tied up, women being whipped....from my early childhood on. I was addicted to these images by the time I was 7. Were my parents pedophiles?..no...they did what was recommended in the 70s for enlightened parenting. They removed the stigma and shame of sex by not hiding it in an effort to raise "sex-positive" children. The effect was not quite what they were told it would be.

I am a woman whose husband "read" a lot those p...opps, can't call it porn...nudie mags, and surfed the net for images and films constantly...who demanded the same degrading behaviour of me and had multiple affairs before I left. He is still struggling with his addiction to what I don't have the right to define as porn.

If I had emphysema from my mother smoking all through the 70's and 80's I would not only get to speak out, I would get to sue the tobacco companies. Have I been damaged enough to get to have an opinion on this?...or am I just obviously a screwed up sex-negative person who wants to cover table legs?

But please, if you are fine with your tax-payer dollars funding people's surrogate sex-lives...I'm sure you'll be just as fine subsidising adult sex-addict clinics, intervention programmes and recovery programmes in schools...special classrooms to seperate children who act out sexually against other children, with teacher aides...

Paul said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.