Perkins, Matheny, Vaughan, Rakestraw Vote to Permit Porn Surfing at Greensboro Public Library

I am interrupting my break to report on a development at tonight's City Council meeting.

There was a prolonged discussion on the matter of filtering computers at the Greensboro Public Library.  Councilman Thompson offered a motion to filter the entire system.  (We learned tonight that the library systems in Charlotte and Raleigh do so.)

Thompson's motion failed 3-6.   Among those opposing his motion were Robbie Perkins, Zack Matheny, Nancy Vaughan, Mary Rakestraw, Jim Kee and T. Diane Bellamy-Small.  These six council members support allowing library patrons to continue to surf for pornographic sites.  That is very, very unfortunate.

There is much more to be said later; and we certainly will.

Update: In the lead paragraph of its above-the-fold story, the News and Record blatantly misrepresents the manner in which council members voted:

After two hours of debate, the City Council unanimously decided against adding pornography filters to library computers.

Unanimous!  In order to provide political cover for the six who voted in favor of internet access to porn, the paper blatantly misrepresented the vote.

Comments

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Chuckle. Joe, with everything that's gone down since you started your break, I'm amazed you've had the strength to hold back.

;)

[jaycee]

Another victory for Roch and his porn-lovin' ilk.
Sad, very sad.

[Joe Guarino]

Mary, I really tried to refrain from posting here. But this one took the cake.

Jaycee, it is, indeed, very sad. I am not sure, however, that this is primarily Roch's victory. There are apparently quite a number of moral relativists in Greensboro who had a part in this victory, and who will likely savor it.

[Bubba]

"There are apparently quite a number of moral relativists in Greensboro who had a part in this victory, and who will likely savor it."

This is what we get when certain people do not consider the ability to access porn in public libraries to be a problem.

Let's call this for what it actually is. The decision by city council, as well as the support by moral relativists, amounts to de facto financial and moral sanction for the public availability of porn.

[cheripickr]

While their at it, I hope the council finishes what it's started and gets rid of those frustrating throttles. I mean, why would you want to slow down that which you don't want to stop? Some patrons might not have the stamina to outlast them and may not be able to afford Cialis. Just seems sensible. Maybe they need more data. I guess I wasn't around for the fiasco/disaster/catastrophe which led to that one.

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, I agree. And they all act in complete ignorance of the deleterious effects of porn on kids, and even on adults. Moreover, they express no concern over the manner in which porn objectifies women.

What is relativism? According to a Princeton website:

The philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved.

That is precisely what Sandy Neerman advocated last night, and the six council members bought it-- hook, line and sinker. She said she was weighing the need to protect children against the need to provide unfettered access to information on the internet, even while she admitted she "filters" the selection of print materials at the library.

A moral society places primacy on the protection of children. It does not try to balance that consideration against other objectives, like providing free access to the internet. Neerman preached moral relativism.

[Joe Guarino]

Cheripickr, I appreciate very much your adeptness at pointing at the absurdity of some of the positions we have seen being taken recently.

One of the interesting factoids that came out last night is that the Charlotte and Raleigh library systems filter their internet access for patrons. Apparently, the yokels in those cities arrived at an unworkable solution that we would never be so foolish to consider in Greensboro, because we are obviously much more enlightened than they are.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Joe, you're cracking me up.

[Spag]

Imagine this after all of that grandstanding.

CP misses the point. If you slow it down, you get to enjoy it longer.

I'm waiting for some of the Dwarf's to appear and ask Joe questions about his post so I can rush in and answer for Joe and then accuse them of having a "Guarino" obsession for daring to ask him to defend his position.

[Joe Guarino]

Sam, most of the action today has been over at Ed's blog, where we have been engaging some of the usual personalities.

Some people never grow up, and assume the responsibilities of adulthood.

[Bubba]

"Some people never grow up, and assume the responsibilities of adulthood."

Those are characteristics of the Dwarfism native to the referenced blog. Behavior of that sort is encouraged and enabled there.

[Jim Langer]

Glad to see you back for the moment, Joe.

Vexing issue. I have appreciated the honest deliberations of both sides, or all sides. Every person of goodwill wants to protect children and diminish these incidents, I hope. 100% elimination of all inappropriate content seems impossible, due to email and Facebook, etc, not to mention printed material. More on that later.

I have elsewhere agreed with a filter that could be easily turned off by request. I thought the current policy did something like that with the throttling and all. It certainly buys time for staff to determine if there's a violation of policy. However, I don't like the idea of librarians and security constantly peering over people's shoulders, so maybe a filter that can be de-activated easily when a patron finds it blocking legit sites is better, after all. I suppose security, et al, must already be pretty nosy about what patrons are reading, in case of potential smuggled contraband. Maybe all libraries are doomed to forever remain run like elementary school media centers.

Now, what a librarian thinks is legit and what an honestly researching patron finds so may become an issue. Probably already is, though. I am going to make a visit soon there and look through the stacks at art books I would expect have "questionable" imagery. I wonder what criteria library staff use to filter out books? I know the area college libraries have stuff that would curl your hair.

[Joe Guarino]

I largely agree with what you have to say here, Jim. I don't think the library system is making a good faith effort to prevent viewing of and exposure to porn, because it is not using a filter. While I acknowledge filters may not be 100% perfect, they would be a huge help.

[Brandon Burgess]

Did the council decide to never implement filters are do they plan on revisiting the issue at a later date? Is this case closed for the filters or any other proactive solutions to the porn problem?

[jaycee]

Use of a library is a privilege, not a right.
Therefore, libraries have the option of determining what can and can't be viewed, the same as they have the choice of what books line their shelves.
The real question here is: Who determines what is or isn't pornography?
No matter who makes the decision, there will always be those who disagree with whatever restrictions are put in place. The Roch's of the community believe nothing should be filtered in order to preserve the "right" of anyone to view anything, anytime, in any place. Others take the opposite view.
I would ask whether we want the library to be a porn palace or a place of learning and discovery for our children.
If I had to make the decision, I'd take the computers out altogether. With today's society there are many other venues for folks to get their online fix each day.

Just my $.02, and worth every penny you paid for it.

[Joe Guarino]

Brandon, the case was not closed completely. Council members voted down the filter, but they are also requesting additional data. The question is whether there will be a good faith effort to follow up on this matter; and whether the data presented will be a legitimate representation of what would ordinarily be happening at the libraries. Council members had ample reason and basis for requiring a filter, but chose not to do so. It is anyone's guess as to whether anything else will happen. The council might have merely kicked the ball further down the field with the intention of not doing anything more.

Jaycee, I agree with you that use of the library is a privilege, not a right. That is a great point. With respect to the question of who decides what is pornography, a systematic approach would be needed to provide guidance in making that decision on a case-by-case basis. But a place to start is with standard dictionary definitions of the word "pornography".

[jaycee]

Joe, the problem is that defining pornography is subjective.
SCOTUS Justice Stewart in 1964: "I shall not today attempt further to define [obscenity]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…."
So whoever makes the decision on what can and can't be viewed at the library will invoke the ire of one side or the other.
Wild claims of trampling on constitutional rights, blah blah, etc.
Damned if they do; damned if they don't.
As I said, if it were me, I'd take the computers out. End of controversy.

[Joe Guarino]

I agree, Jaycee, that some people will not agree with the decisions that might be made. Frankly, I am not unsympathetic with the idea of taking the computers out. It would solve the problem, as you suggest. People were able to prosper and succeed and thrive for many years without having internet access in libraries.

I don't think, however, that will happen. Folks will recite a litany of reasons why it is critical to keep it. If we are not able to get a simple filter installed-- and that should ordinarily be very easy, a no-brainer-- then it is very unlikely we can get the internet access itself removed.

[Jim Langer]

Until they see what can be found in the stacks.

[Brandon Burgess]

"People were able to prosper and succeed and thrive for many years without having internet access in libraries."

--Correct; when there was no internet or when it was not essential to a students success.

Today, access to the internet is more important than bringing your book to class, as the book can be read online.

Rarely are there any "handouts". Students are expected to have access to computers and internet in order to utilize supplemental learning materials.

Turning in handwritten papers is unacceptable and Microsoft has rendered the typewriter obsolete.

[Joe Guarino]

Brandon, those are good points. However, providing access to technology is an expansion of the library's mission. Sometimes providing technology in public facilities can make the conditions you describe self-fulfilling: if it is widely available, these things will be expected of students. If it is not widely available, they cannot be expected of them.

[cheripickr]

I've read some most interesting perspectives about rights vs privileges and the library's obligations to its patrons here lately. Someone, I can't remember who, had such a traditionalist view of the mission of the public library that he even argued for blocking all dot-com sites , allowing only dot.edu and dot.govs, apparently were on the basis that popular, heavily used sources such as Wikipedia were of insufficient educational quality to be taken seriously as legitimate reference sources. On the opposite far extreme, someone else found it unacceptable that a porn filter used in a nearby city inadvertently blocked a "a legitimate educational" piece on "The six secrets of Gay Anal Sex-what you need to know" on About.com! The curious thing is, these same two people seem to agree on just about everything these days.

[Joe Guarino]

Cheri, you are right, I remember seeing these discussions.

I think we need to remember how the internet is used. It is primarily a source of entertainment for many people-- and not necessarily entertainment primarily derived from reading works of discernible value. Facebook is huge now; and many people primarily engage in the social networks. People use internet access for shopping and for e-mail.

I remember that, in the early days of the current central library, I went there on several occasions for its internet access-- before I had it at home. I remember one of my tasks in which I was interested was searching various websites for dog breeders. I was wanting to purchase a dog of a certain breed.

These uses, of course, are not why libraries exist-- but once internet access is provided, that is how it will be used. So when the usual folks make impassioned representations regarding the sacrosanct purpose of protecting legitimate research, or even substantive reading, or "access to information", that is likely only a fraction of what goes on.

[Jerry Bledsoe]

As a person who has been censored by Sandy Neerman, I can testify that she has zero credibility when it comes to censorship. Some years back, I was invited to participate in a round-robin novel by Greensboro authors sponsored by the library and the News & Record. My chapter, which poked fun at a fictional newspaper, was omitted because it was deemed offensive by Neerman and News & Record editor John Robinson. However, they had no qualms about stealing the character I created who solved the mystery. Porno and literary theft are fine with Neerman but satire is unacceptable.

[Joe Guarino]

Jerry, thanks for your comments. That is very interesting. It is fascinating that this is the first we have heard of this aspect of her profile.

Ms. Neerman is adored in certain quarters, and it is easy to see why. There are unmistakeable political/ideological dimensions that explain the following she has.

Any chief librarian who doubles as a sexual libertarian, in a highly public fashion, will be a hero to the local cultural left. She is a moral relativist, as they are also.

[Brandon Burgess]

Cheri, if you are referring to Roch Smith jr. and I then you must have missed our recent debates regarding bubba's anonymity, the power of the law enforcement officers to demand i.d. on the spot as it relates to gun rights along with the banning of individuals and their multimedia presentations at city council meetings. Besides, you argued that my suggestion was stupid but you have nothing to say about Jaycee's and Joe's suggestion to ban computers from the library? Anyway...

Joe, regarding your post at 4:57 pm, the same could be argued regarding roads/highways and public transportation. Also, I remember Caldwell Academy requiring me to own an $80.00 graphing calculator 13 years ago when I attended. To suggest that students just don't need access to current technology doesn't seem like a sensible position to take. Maybe if they have enough money they need access to it but if they are to poor to afford it, then they probably don't need it.

[Joe Guarino]

I am not arguing that students don't need access to current technology. I am merely pointing out that, if libraries did not make it available, educational institutions could not feel free to require it of students. (Caldwell is a private school, and has reason to expect that its families can afford calculators.)

[Bubba]

"Any chief librarian who doubles as a sexual libertarian, in a highly public fashion, will be a hero to the local cultural left. She is a moral relativist, as they are also."

It's also unacceptable attitude and unacceptable behavior from a city employee. The Greater Greensboro Business As Usual crowd (and its local Dwarf Nation Peanut Gallery) think this sort of thing is good for us.

The prime example of this cancerous scourge is the way Matt Brown is enabled and encouraged to run his own little Coliseum fiefdom. Sandy Neerman and her little Library fiefdom is a lesser but still obnoxious version of the Matt Brown syndrome.

This begs the question: Who runs our city?

It's obviously NOT the City Council on behalf of the public and the our best societal interests. That particular nasty reality is becoming increasingly clear with each passing day.

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, there was enormous cultural meaning attached to Danny Thompson's motion by some of the usual parties-- the N&R, the "library community", Cone and his minions, and of course many of our esteemed council members. They perceived that it was a "religious righty" issue he was raising, and as such, it needed to be stamped out. We can't have Bible Thumpers setting policy in the Politically Virtuous City. That simply cannot be tolerated here in Greensboro. The usual type of First Presbyterian/ Temple Emanuel/ Melderec con Simkins axis that we often see here in Greensboro prevailed.

And so there was somewhat of a drumbeat building and also some synergistic effort to defeat his motion between the last two council meetings.

[Kathy Hartsell]

Joe,
I posted this at Ed Cone's regarding the capabilities of the bandwidth shaping device:

Without getting into a lot of detail, I can assure you that the device currently in place on the GPL network is fully capable of doing more than shaping bandwidth. This device has the capability of blocking sites, shaping bandwidth, creating reports (real time and historical) with the ability to save the report in a pdf format – just to name a few.

A customizable dashboard displays at-a-glance recent activity, including a summary of application traffic, bandwidth by user and blocked malware and Web requests.

My reference to hacking refers to keeping hackers out of the network. Based on the discussion at the Council Meeting, it appears that there are limited controls in place.

There are sites on the internet that are inappropriate for children and young adults which do not include porn. This of course would require selecting more than the porn category in the content filter. At this point I would be happy if they would activate the content filter and block porn.

This would eliminate the need to shape the bandwidth and free up the bandwidth that is being wasted on shaping the pages from porn sites.

The other issue is the wifi access that was also asked about at Ed Cone's:

The wifi device needs to be plugged into the switch on the network. This will put the wifi behind the cymphonix device that is being used to shape the band width.

All web requests accessed via wifi will pass through the cymphonix device before the page is downloaded to the computer. As you know, this is currently not the way it is setup and the shaping does not apply to wifi access.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Kathy, for your great comments. They are very helpful in demonstrating to the naysayers how achievable this is, and how some of the drawbacks they cite can be overcome.

And I think you did a great job at the meeting Tuesday night also, BTW. I appreciate all the civic-minded efforts you make on behalf of our city and its citizens.

[Kathy Hartsell]

Thank you for the nice compliments.

[cheripickr]

Not so fast Kathy. "She is probably like a very nice person. But her prescriptions are odious -- and ominous". ;)

Odious :arousing or deserving hatred or loathing; disgusting; offensive

Be careful or your proposal may become "abject" as well.

[Kathy Hartsell]

Odious and ominous. Wow! We need to remove the emotions from the debate.

I am merely presenting data that is relevant, which is something the Council did not receive during the last council meeting.

1. The hardware and software is already in place to accomplish the task, no additional purchase should be necessary. As for filtering, the shaping software is selecting pages to “shape/slow down” based on a software category setting. Technically the pages are filtered, but the bandwidth is being wasted because the page is being downloaded onto the computers.
The rules applied to the category that the shaping software uses to throttle the delivery of the page must be working pretty well. Otherwise, the librarians would have reported that they are receiving numerous complaints from people who are unable to do research because of the bandwidth shaping.
If you can shape it, you can block it. Breast Cancer Research would not be a problem.

2. Legal presented a document (Attachment for item 25 of the City Council Agenda) that stated in paraphrase… the City may block porn from websites in the library and the librarian is not legally required to allow adults to view porn in the library. You can download this document from the City of Greensboro website - Council Meetings Agendas and Attachments.

3. Greensboro Tax Payers are providing internet access to porn in the libraries and this should be eliminated.

Your rights to view porn in your home on your computer using your internet service provider are not the issue here. This conversation is about using the same principles and safeguards that the librarians use when selecting books and placing them on the shelves in a manner that provides a safe learning environment for patrons in the library.

Librarians and Educators alike are by profession the most educated, dedicated, nurturing and helpful group of people you would ever want to have in your corner. The librarians are working hard to provide patrons access to information, but in this instance they should take advantage of the information provided by legal and use the existing Cymphonix device to block out the websites they are shaping. And while they are it, the wi-fi access point should be moved behind the Cymphonix device.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Kathy, for further sharing your technical expertise.

When the opposition uses words like odious and ominous, they are engaging in hyperbole in order to scare people way out of proportion to any real risk. It is an old political tactic that is shopworn by now.

[cheripickr]

It is amazingly revealing the motivations of those who claim not to want porn in our public library, yet demand near-perfection from any new proposals to block porn, while either assuming without question such standard for the current system which merely slows it., or else are fine with accepting a lower standard for it. I have made this point several times and it has been roundly ignored by the “fiasco” coalition.

Here are the various, often shifting reasons I’ve heard from the the Fiascites for not installing filters. Somebody PLEASE tell me, enforcement being equal, how any of these considerations make throttling such an acceptable solution, while making filters a fiasco, catastrophe, disaster, odious, ominous or what have you.

1.) You can’t adequately define porn: That argument is equally valid or invalid with both.
2.) It’s really not that big a problem to warrant blocking it: See 1.)
3.) We need to hear “expert” analysis, not those stack-waving, knee-jerk councilmen.: Fiascites, meet Ms Hartsell. Ms Hartsell, meet Fiascites
4.) Filters won’t detect all porn sites (inadequate sensitivity)
5.) Filters will block too many non-porn sites (inadequate specificity): Does anyone have data that somehow the discriminatory capability for identifying sites for slowing is somehow less problematic than for blocking? Our resident computer expert Sue didn’t , when I asked her in an earlier thread. Maybe Ms Hartsell could enlighten us on that.
6.) It will cost too much money: Says who? “The hardware and software is already in place to accomplish the task, no additional purchase should be necessary-Mrs Hartsell”
7.) Corollary: Instead, we should just ramp up the enforcement of our current system: With volunteer monitors, I assume? And might not there be less need for policing if sites were blocked altogether instead of just having to wait longer? HELLO!
8.) Adults have the right to surf the web as they choose: Without it being deliberately and frustratingly held out in front of them like a carrot, like a waiting period for gun ownership, and to what end or purpose again?

Having tried to distance himself from the initial Thompson-bashing in favor of fact-finding and rational problem-solving, what is Ed’s response to this nonpolitical expert opinion he repeatedly expressed a need for to address this problem in an open-minded pragmatic way? What is his specific take-home message after taking the time to provide us with her much-needed detailed education and analysis?

“Depending on the scope of that abuse and the range of options at hand, maybe it makes more sense to enforce standards in some manner other than blocking content, which is itself an imperfect solution in more ways than one.” Based on WHAT? maybes and seems?

So much for my hope that attitudes toward local governance would be less of a partisan team sport than national or world issues. This is so easy to see through, it’s not
funny.

Ed, you should be truly embarrassed, professionally speaking. Roch, you’re way too far gone for that.

Odious :arousing or deserving hatred or loathing; disgusting; offensive

Indeed.

[Brandon Burgess]

I'm not convinced that further action to control the viewing of porn in the library won't be taken after the nature of the problem and the various methods handle the problem are more carefully considered.

This kind of "do it now" attitude is what brought us the wonderful, recent health care reform.

[Brandon Burgess]

Also, have we learned the nature of the 21 incidences of inappropriate behavior at a computer? What exactly happened?

[Joe Guarino]

Brandon, I think this is a lot less complicated than health care reform-- by at least several orders of magnitude. The only reason it seems complicated is the extent to which the naysayers will go to advance their relativistic worldview.

I don't know how many of the 21 incidences involved public masturbation in the library while viewing porn-- but that is an activity that can tend to, er, accompany viewing porn, especially in men.

Cheri, you have the enviable capability of making one laugh, even when you are dead serious, and when you are scoring multiple serial points. Great post.

[Jim Langer]

In a very quick inventory of the Central Library stacks, I found several examples of what I think many here would find offensive imagery that crossed the line into near obscenity. All were by acknowledged masters, ranging from the early 19th century to a living master. Full frontal, spread legs, missionary...

Now, if such stuff is getting past the "filters" for choosing books, will the requests for unblocking sites with them on be honored? If not, would that not be a double-standard: one for books, one for computers? Or should a single policy remove such books from the stacks?

[Joe Guarino]

Good questions, Jim. I am not sure if what you found would truly be regarded as pornographic in nature; but with Sandy Neerman at the helm, one never knows.

[Jim Langer]

Ah, but pornographic is not necessarily obscene according to the law, and artists have known this a long time. Ms. Neerman and her associates are likely to have trusted the experts who write and compile the art in these books. I mean, it is Rodin, right? He's in the NC Museum! But checkout "Iris, the Messenger".
I won't put the link on your blog, out of deference.

[Brandon Burgess]

"I don't know how many of the 21 incidences involved public masturbation in the library while viewing porn"

--Do we know how many instances actually involved the viewing of porn? I'm not "naysaying", I'm just curious. Were these folks looking at women in bikinis? Naked women? Actual videos? Personals websites that contained text that might be deemed immoral? Maybe they were looking at UFC fights or boxing matches on the computers. Did Danny Thompson know before he made a motion to address the problem?

[Joe Guarino]

Jim, if Sandy Neerman tolerates obscenity on her library computers, it only makes sense she might tolerate it in the stacks as well. The world of internet porn, of course, is much larger, and more widely known than whatever is found in the stacks-- so patrons might tend more to seek it out there. And some latitude is ordinarily granted to legitimate art work, as opposed to depictions that appeal to prurient interests, and that are obviously intended to stimulate arousal.

Brandon, I think it would be good to have your questions answered. But I think if there have been instances of public masturbation in the libraries, I think it was likely in response to the porn.

[Brandon Burgess]

Joe you are right but I would be shocked to learn that folks who were caught doing that were not arrested. If they were than I'm not sure there is much else to be done. It has been related by others in other threads that such behavior in a library was not unheard of before the internet.

I wonder if it is more of a problem today since we have computers/internet or if the presence of security officers has actually brought the number of such incidents down.

[Brandon Burgess]

I think it is also worth noting that folks who are disturbed enough to act like that in public would probably be doing it with or without computers in the library or even if computers only offered access to educational material.

[cheripickr]

Joe, I watched the entire city council meeting last night, courtesy of Michelle on Facebook (exciting weekend, huh?). I am afraid I have finally lost my innocence on local politics, much to your delight I'm sure. It was a chosen naievety I had really wanted to preserve, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube. Damn you!

[michele]

If anyone else would like to have an exciting weekend, here's a link to Council's 8/17/2010 discussion of filters. This is just the two-hour discussion, not the entire meeting, and the recess has been cut out, too: http://vimeo.com/14306842

[cheripickr]

The segment from 1:19:20 to 1:21:14 makes the exact point I had already made, without knowing he had made it as well. Couldn't help but notice the pause before she answers his question.

[Kathy Hartsell]

Joe, the question regarding how much money it will cost to implement the content filter has been asked over at Ed Cone's.
Answer:
If you can shape it, you can block it. The content filtering feature is built into the device. The taxpayers did not pay $8,000.00 for a device that "only" shapes bandwidth.

Bandwidth shaping is only one of many features that this device ships with. Remember the category to block porn has already been selected to "shape" the sites that qualify as porn based on the category selection in the software. Blocking the sites that are being shaped will save bandwidth and allow other pages to download quicker.

This bandwidth shaping software is also capable of shaping other internet bandwidth hogs. No additional money is needed to make this device function in this capacity.

There is another issue regarding internet access. The GPL offers wireless access to patrons with their personal laptops. If you have a laptop, you can access the library wireless network inside the library, in the library parking lot and beyond. If a library is located across the street from a school, you can sit in the parking lot of the school and access the library wireless network.

Educational Institutions and Libraries are now struggling with how to manage the internet in the 21st Century classrooms and libraries. For the most part, there are no expectations regarding content filters when you sit in a coffee shop or in an outside location that offers wireless access. There is however an expectation that filters are in place in a classroom and a library. The discussion at the last council meeting regarding porn in the library has engaged many people.

I have heard many times over the past few days... "I thought the filters were in place."