Child Pornography, the Greensboro Public Library and Sandy Neerman

One of the regrettable aspects of the internet is that it enables the easy circulation of child pornography. 

We learn from Cara Michele that an incident took place at the Greensboro Public Library last year during which a "patron" was viewing child porn.  This person was summarily arrested.  It was reported on television at that time:

Undoubtedly, this was one of the factors that led the Greensboro Public Library to develop its "throttle" or Cymphonix capability to slow the browsing of porn sites.  But as one views the video, Library Director Sandy Neerman's relativism once again becomes apparent.  We are worshipping the idol of unrestricted access to "library information", and placing that at a greater level of importance than protecting minors. 

Note how she said the problem was "inappropriate use" that infringes on the rights of other customers.  Blame the customer for accessing the product you peddle.  Ignore the moral content of the situation, and your own role.

But here is the irony.  If any bookstore or video store locally was engaged in the distribution of child pornography, the owners would likely be arrested.  But when the city of Greensboro and its library system are engaged in the distribution of child pornography, it is the customer who is arrested.  The library is therefore absolved of responsibility.

Perhaps someone with the city should have been arrested for allowing this to happen.  We need to remember that, for approximately ten years prior to that date, Ms. Neerman resisted the use of filters at the library even though she knew fully the nature of some of the content on the internet.

And in fact, she is still resisting the use of filters even though her domain has been engaged in the distribution of child pornography.

Comments

[Karen]

Does that also mean that companies that build computers r also liable for their customers being able to access child porn? What about alcohol or crystal meth? These products KILL people and ruin lives at a far greater rate perhaps. Do we arrest those producers too? Help me better understand why u suggest sandy neerman, city council, and city manager should be treated like those who make a choice to misuse the computers. Also, has anyone specifically defined obscinity? I'm not sure I can even spell it.

[Doc Alexander]

Well Karen, this case is pretty obvious that the images that dirtbag was viewing were "obscene." A man and a child having sex? Would that fit your definition of obscene?

BTW Sandy Neerman comes across as a simpering lefty.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Uh, yeah Karen. We arrest people who produce crystal meth.

Well, maybe not in Greensboro.

While I try to wrap my head around your "argument" regarding those who "make a choice to misuse the computers" and view child porn (I've not jumped into this fray until now, but it does seems to me that Ms. Neeman & company are making a choice to make it easier for irresponsible/sick/warped adults to make "the choice"), I'm kind wondering what "u" are doing at the library, Karen?

[cheripickr]

I am against alcohol, crystal meth AND obscinity in our library. But that's just me trying to impose my morality on everybody else.

[Joe Guarino]

In some respects, it is amazing they continue to expect that no filters be required in view of the child porn arrest that took place at the library. Chutzpah!

[preradstudent]

...as much as I want to lol all over your logic, there is a slight bit of truth to it

When someone makes an internet-connected computer available for public use and in the public view (whether it be a school, or a library, a hotel lobby, or a retailer such as Best Buy), they are responsible for whatever content is being viewed and displayed on it.

If they can't or won't control that content, then the computers should in the very least be removed from public view.

[Sue]

I'm not sure that's a legal conclusion, prer. For example, ISPs (companies that own servers that host websites) can't be held liable for the information on the servers unless they knew about it specifically and didn't stop it. (e.g. XYZ company hosts your website and you're sharing music illegally. If XYZ doesn't know about it, it's not responsible.)

Perhaps the blame should be on the sites serving up the child porn? Or the ISPs that knowingly allow those sites to continue doing so? Or the credit card company that does the monthly transaction for hosting costs?

No, this is HARDLY the library distributing child porn and I believe that Joe's charge that Sandy Neerman is doing so is absolutely outrageous and shouldn't be tolerated. Taken farther, Joe's charge means that anyone with an unfiltered computer is "guilty" of the same distribution crime. Military commanders and other government officials have been charged with viewing/downloading child porn so that makes the Pentagon a kiddie porn distributor? (And they probably have filters.)

Joe has way overblown the problem and is really out in the cornfield with his accusation. Walk it back a little, Joe. Really.

[Stormy]

I am amazed at how far our society has descended when there are people who argue in favor of and defend the right of tax-supported institutions being permitted to allow child porn to be viewed in a public forum. It's extremely amazing. But, then, in a society that strongly advocates for the rights of people to abort those children, it's a short step to child porn being acceptable. What's next?

[Bubba]

"No, this is HARDLY the library distributing child porn and I believe that Joe's charge that Sandy Neerman is doing so is absolutely outrageous and shouldn't be tolerated."

I find it outrageous the certain people, including Sandy Neerman, six city council memebers, and any number of local Usual Suspects sanction internet access to porn in our public libraries under ANY circumstances.

These people have consistently rationalized the clearly unacceptable status quo.

Perverts of the world, come to Greensboro NC and its public libraries. There's lots of folks who think you should be able to get your jollies, as long as you just watch but don't react to what you see, and don't let anyone know what you're doing.

[Joe Guarino]

Sue, I think the critical determinant we need to consider with respect to the distribution of child porn is the act of making it publicly available to others without making a good faith effort to prevent it.

Bubba, "rationalize" is a great word to keep in mind with respect to the entire discussion of porn in the libraries.

[bubba]

Joe, in addition to the arrests of proprietors and clerks, the physical premises of stores offering child porn would soon be closed down as a public nuisances.

Yet when the "proprietors" of public libraries sanction this sort of thing through their lack of action, they're hailed by some as "principled people".

Our social priorities in this town are totally screwed up.

But we knew that already, didn't we?

[Joe Guarino]

Yes, we did.