| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
Library Lechers Livin’ Large
Was I seeing things or did I really read the following
paragraph in an article in the Washington Post entitled
"Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description":
"At most public libraries in the Washington area, an
adult can view pornography on a library computer more or less
unfettered. Montgomery [County] asks customers to be
considerate of others when viewing Web sites. If others are put
off, librarians will provide the viewer of the offending material
with a 'privacy screen.'"
Nope, I wasn’t seeing things. Holy cow! Talk about some
accommodating librarians. I already knew -- er, that is, I’ve
read -- that the American Library Association’s recommended
policies on dealing with the viewing of pornography were lax,
but this is ridiculous. Privacy screens? Well then, how about a
box of Kleenex for that messy, porn-consuming library patron
after he gets the “information” he was seeking? And how about
a cigarette for afterwards?
Okay, my bad. Now I’m sinking into the realm of absurdity.
Everybody knows public libraries are smoke-free
environments. If somebody wants to do something filthy and
immoral like smoking tobacco, he'll have to go somewhere else.
But wile away the hours looking at femalebodyparts.com? No
problem. Your public library is there to serve!
It's not your father's public library, that's for sure. When I
was coming up it seemed like most librarians were stodgy,
frumpish women with names like "Mildred," who wore their
hair up in buns and went around admonishing people not to
talk too loud. Now, they don't even admonish people for using
government property to look at pictures of naked women, but
instead hand out privacy screens and, on occasion, give stern
lectures on First Amendment rights to those who complain too
vociferously about such astonishing accommodation.
Which leads us to the actual main topic of the Washington
Post article, and guess what? All that stuff about libidinous
library lotharios and the lenient librarians who enable them
was merely incidental to the real outrage. Here’s how the
article began:
“Two uniformed men strolled into the main room of the
Little Falls library in Bethesda one day last week and
demanded the attention of all patrons using the computers.
Then they made their announcement: The viewing of Internet
pornography was forbidden. The men looked stern and wore
baseball caps emblazoned with the words ‘Homeland Security.’”
Are you beginning to get the picture? Those “stern”-looking
men are the bad guys in this library, not the cyberspace
sensualists. The article continued:
“The bizarre scene unfolded . . . leaving some residents
confused and forcing county officials to explain how employees
assigned to protect county buildings against terrorists came to
see it as their job to police the viewing of pornography.”
Notice how from the perspective of the writer of the article,
what made the scene “bizarre” was the Homeland Security
agents’ behavior, not that of anyone who might have been using
the facilities of a public library as his own personal
government-funded peep show. The article continued:
“After the two men made their announcement, one of them
challenged an Internet user’s choice of viewing material and
asked him to step outside . . . A librarian intervened [my
italics], and the two men went into the library’s work area to
discuss the matter. A police officer arrived. In the end, no one
had to step outside except the uniformed men.”
Wow! An intrepid librarian intervened and the end result
was that a couple of rogue Homeland Security officers who got
their kicks pushing around innocent library patrons were
banished from that lofty bastion of First Amendment freedom.
Fight the power!
The article continued: “Later that afternoon, Montgomery
County’s chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, issued a
statement calling the incident ‘unfortunate’ and ‘regrettable.’”
You know, the behavior of the officers, not the fact that a
public library got outed as a safe haven for pornography-lovers.
By now, you probably realize that the title of the Post article,
"Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description,” wasn’t referring
to the librarians’ job description, but rather that of Homeland
Security agents. The essence of the article is that
it’s none of their business and why don’t they go find some
terrorists or other real bad guys to pick on.
So what are the official rules regarding this sort of thing at
the Little Falls library? If you go to their website and look at
their rules for the use of the Internet, you’ll see that only
“materials that are obscene or constitute child pornography”
are prohibited. But the funny thing is that most garden variety
pornography is not considered obscene under the law.
What that means is, if you happen to be some stodgy,
uptight killjoy who gets offended by the sight of a little skin and
maybe some heavy breathing from the Internet station next to
yours, you‘re the one with the problem. But just because you
feel icky sitting next to some guy while he indulges his carnal
desires via computer isn’t a good enough reason to deprive him
of his intellectual freedom.
And anyway, how big of a problem is this, really? Leslie
Burger, president-elect of the ALA, said, in what was obviously
meant to be a reassuring way, that "libraries are not the hotbed
of looking at porn sites." In other words, no big deal, rarely
happens, don’t sweat it.
Really? They seem to be hotbed enough that somebody
decided an official policy was necessary, which is to pass out
privacy screens to lecherous patrons. What’s next, privacy
rooms with soundproof walls and locks on the doors for those
lusty citizens who just can’t find any other place to exercise
their constitutional rights?
Last paragraph in the Post article: “Still, Montgomery
[County] plans to train its Homeland Security officers ‘so they
fully understand library policy and its consistency with
residents’ First Amendment rights under the Constitution,’
Romer said in his statement.”
Great. The terrorists may not have won, but the porn
fetishists certainly have.
Was I seeing things or did I really read the following
paragraph in an article in the Washington Post entitled
"Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description":
"At most public libraries in the Washington area, an
adult can view pornography on a library computer more or less
unfettered. Montgomery [County] asks customers to be
considerate of others when viewing Web sites. If others are put
off, librarians will provide the viewer of the offending material
with a 'privacy screen.'"
Nope, I wasn’t seeing things. Holy cow! Talk about some
accommodating librarians. I already knew -- er, that is, I’ve
read -- that the American Library Association’s recommended
policies on dealing with the viewing of pornography were lax,
but this is ridiculous. Privacy screens? Well then, how about a
box of Kleenex for that messy, porn-consuming library patron
after he gets the “information” he was seeking? And how about
a cigarette for afterwards?
Okay, my bad. Now I’m sinking into the realm of absurdity.
Everybody knows public libraries are smoke-free
environments. If somebody wants to do something filthy and
immoral like smoking tobacco, he'll have to go somewhere else.
But wile away the hours looking at femalebodyparts.com? No
problem. Your public library is there to serve!
It's not your father's public library, that's for sure. When I
was coming up it seemed like most librarians were stodgy,
frumpish women with names like "Mildred," who wore their
hair up in buns and went around admonishing people not to
talk too loud. Now, they don't even admonish people for using
government property to look at pictures of naked women, but
instead hand out privacy screens and, on occasion, give stern
lectures on First Amendment rights to those who complain too
vociferously about such astonishing accommodation.
Which leads us to the actual main topic of the Washington
Post article, and guess what? All that stuff about libidinous
library lotharios and the lenient librarians who enable them
was merely incidental to the real outrage. Here’s how the
article began:
“Two uniformed men strolled into the main room of the
Little Falls library in Bethesda one day last week and
demanded the attention of all patrons using the computers.
Then they made their announcement: The viewing of Internet
pornography was forbidden. The men looked stern and wore
baseball caps emblazoned with the words ‘Homeland Security.’”
Are you beginning to get the picture? Those “stern”-looking
men are the bad guys in this library, not the cyberspace
sensualists. The article continued:
“The bizarre scene unfolded . . . leaving some residents
confused and forcing county officials to explain how employees
assigned to protect county buildings against terrorists came to
see it as their job to police the viewing of pornography.”
Notice how from the perspective of the writer of the article,
what made the scene “bizarre” was the Homeland Security
agents’ behavior, not that of anyone who might have been using
the facilities of a public library as his own personal
government-funded peep show. The article continued:
“After the two men made their announcement, one of them
challenged an Internet user’s choice of viewing material and
asked him to step outside . . . A librarian intervened [my
italics], and the two men went into the library’s work area to
discuss the matter. A police officer arrived. In the end, no one
had to step outside except the uniformed men.”
Wow! An intrepid librarian intervened and the end result
was that a couple of rogue Homeland Security officers who got
their kicks pushing around innocent library patrons were
banished from that lofty bastion of First Amendment freedom.
Fight the power!
The article continued: “Later that afternoon, Montgomery
County’s chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, issued a
statement calling the incident ‘unfortunate’ and ‘regrettable.’”
You know, the behavior of the officers, not the fact that a
public library got outed as a safe haven for pornography-lovers.
By now, you probably realize that the title of the Post article,
"Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description,” wasn’t referring
to the librarians’ job description, but rather that of Homeland
Security agents. The essence of the article is that
it’s none of their business and why don’t they go find some
terrorists or other real bad guys to pick on.
So what are the official rules regarding this sort of thing at
the Little Falls library? If you go to their website and look at
their rules for the use of the Internet, you’ll see that only
“materials that are obscene or constitute child pornography”
are prohibited. But the funny thing is that most garden variety
pornography is not considered obscene under the law.
What that means is, if you happen to be some stodgy,
uptight killjoy who gets offended by the sight of a little skin and
maybe some heavy breathing from the Internet station next to
yours, you‘re the one with the problem. But just because you
feel icky sitting next to some guy while he indulges his carnal
desires via computer isn’t a good enough reason to deprive him
of his intellectual freedom.
And anyway, how big of a problem is this, really? Leslie
Burger, president-elect of the ALA, said, in what was obviously
meant to be a reassuring way, that "libraries are not the hotbed
of looking at porn sites." In other words, no big deal, rarely
happens, don’t sweat it.
Really? They seem to be hotbed enough that somebody
decided an official policy was necessary, which is to pass out
privacy screens to lecherous patrons. What’s next, privacy
rooms with soundproof walls and locks on the doors for those
lusty citizens who just can’t find any other place to exercise
their constitutional rights?
Last paragraph in the Post article: “Still, Montgomery
[County] plans to train its Homeland Security officers ‘so they
fully understand library policy and its consistency with
residents’ First Amendment rights under the Constitution,’
Romer said in his statement.”
Great. The terrorists may not have won, but the porn
fetishists certainly have.