West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(144 posts)

Incident at the Seattle Public Library

Started 3 months ago by julie.howe
Latest reply from jkw2039

12 3 Next »

julie.howe
Member Profile

Although this didn't happen in West Seattle, it could happen anywhere, and WSB's editors suggested I write about it here:

I was at the Lake City Library with my two daughters (7 & 10 years old) at 4:45 on Sunday, January 22, 2012. I left them in the children’s section and went to look through the movie section, where I noticed that a man was watching hard core pornography (including anal penetration & other adult content) on a computer where the screen was facing out into the library. I told the librarian and asked for help in having him move to a more discreet location. She could see the screen from the information desk where we were standing and was sympathetic, but said that the library doesn’t censor content and they can’t be in the business of monitoring what their patrons are doing at any given computer. I then asked the man to please move to another computer. He declined. In the process of this interaction, I didn’t notice that my daughters had wandered over looking for me and one of them saw what was playing on the screen.

I have had extensive conversations with the library about this incident as well as with the police and local representatives. The man's right to access constitutionally protected information is fully protected (which I’m not in argument with) but our right not to be inadvertent viewers is not. The library is apologetic, but devoted to its guiding principle of supporting intellectual freedom, and I detected no urgency to ensure that not one more child is exposed to pornography in a Seattle Public Library.

I told the library that I will do my best to get this in the public forum as people need to know what’s going on and the potential risks to them and their children of being exposed to adult content while visiting the library. Please help us have a public discussion on this issue as I am sure that the library can create a safer space for children (and adults) and not infringe on another adult’s right to information.

Sincerely,
Julie Howe
Seattle, WA 98125

Posted 3 months ago #
luckymom30
Member Profile

Wow! And here I thought what happened at the King County Library in Burien last week was bad. Libraries aren't what they use to be are they?

Posted 3 months ago #
jissy
Member Profile

luckymom30 - do tell.... I use the Burien library a great deal with my 2 toddlers, would be interested to know what you're referring to.

Posted 3 months ago #
WMO
Member Profile

Disturbing to say the least.
What would the Police Departments position be if the guy was sitting on a bench reading a pornographic magazine? OK behavior because the content is protected? I think I might risk an assault charge and drag him out of there by his neck.

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Wait til you find out what the NEA wants to put in the school curriculum! I am ok with the library carrying the content... but move the damn computer! BTY..., the Motion Picture Association rating system. Is it not illegal to allow under 17 to view such content? The rating system is voluntary... what would happen to a movie theater they let a 10 year old in to view Debbie Does Dallas?

Posted 3 months ago #
GAnative
Member Profile

Burien Library incident:
http://www.b-townblog.com/2012/01/26/breaking-fight-breaks-out-at-burien-library/

Posted 3 months ago #
Gina
Member Profile

I can't see what people are looking at on library computers unless I am standing still, directly behind them, and at the same eye level.

The kid's area at the West Seattle Library has no view of internet computers.
The kid's room at the Central downtown library has only filtered internet.

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I don't believe you, Julie. Or at least, I don't believe your version of this incident, in all details.

FWIW: Seattle Public Library's Internet policy use page is here:

http://tinyurl.com/SPL-Internet-policy

On that page, it says:

Library computers and wi-fi may not be used for any illegal activity including, but not limited to:

[ . . . ]

• Displaying, printing or sending any material that is obscene, libelous, threatening or harassing.

If there were kids walking back and forth within view of Internet porn, and you brought it to the librarian's attention, I feel pretty sure the librarian would have done something about it.

However, if you want to give us the librarian's first name and work phone number, I'll call the Lake City Library and check on this myself.

Sincerely,

David Preston
Seattle, WA 98106

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

julie.howe
Member since: January 31, 2012 (1 hour)

No other threads started.

Posted 3 months ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

I've never worked as a librarian in a public library. Because I work for a private institution, the rules are somewhat different. However, since I work for an academic institution and people may be looking at disturbing things for research purposes, the policy at my workplace is to find the researcher a secluded place to work so that others aren't disturbed (the working example that I can recall was a student who was researching hate groups for a class assignment. You can imagine what the websites of some of those groups are like).

STRANGELY enough, pornography in libraries has arisen as an issue before. So to speak. There's even been a Supreme Court case about it.

Kootch, the MPAA has sweet F.A. to do with libraries.

Libraries aren't what they used to be? Well, no, but the first time I was sexually harassed was while working in one in high school. Libraries may not be what they used to be, but people definitely are.

Posted 3 months ago #
jissy
Member Profile

GAnative: Thank you for that... interesting, I was there with my kids early that afternoon and there were quite a few teenagers outside and in the lobby -- it had a very different feel to it then our morning story-time days.

Posted 3 months ago #
luckymom30
Member Profile

We were on our way to the Burien library that same day and around that time, we did see a crowd of kids hanging around the dollar tree store. After problems inside the library that the staff tried to handle we only go there rarely. As for anyone including these kids if they want respect they have to earn it and treat others with respect.

Posted 3 months ago #
celeste17
Member Profile

A few years ago I was at the downtown library and walked by the computers and observed a man watching pornography on a computer that was sitting out in the open where anyone could see it and I thought that was distasteful since anyone could walk by. I thought if you are going to view porno do it at a computer where you have a little bit of privacy.

Posted 3 months ago #
csw2119
Member Profile

I can't even believe it! I can't believe 1. anyone would watch porn in a library 2. that the library would permit it

Posted 3 months ago #
caliann
Member Profile

I can believe it. Libraries have always been at the forefront of intellectual freedom. They will not dictate what information people can access. It truly is a slippery slope. You can find the foundation of their guidelines here: http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom
They also will protest book bans and access to your library records-- not even your spouse can ask them what book you checked out with your card. This issue has come up in the news every few years. They do have privacy screens and try to design the library so not everyone can see you accessing what you want, from porn to your bank information. I appreciate the work libraries have done on both a local and national level to preserve my access to information, even though I may not agree with others may want to access.
On a side note, I do not leave my son in the kids toy section at target or the candy aisle in the store while I go grab something. I wouldn't do it at the library.

Posted 3 months ago #
csw2119
Member Profile

Thanks for the info Caliann.

Posted 3 months ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

The legal history on pornography and libraries is mixed. The case usually cited is U.S. v. ALA from 2003, where the Supreme Court upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act. This requires that libraries install filtering software--but only if they are received certain types of federal funding. The reason a lot of libraries DON'T use filtering software is that it is notoriously heavy handed in filtering out non-pornographic sites (such as awareness and support sites on breast cancer).

Pornography is not considered protected speech, but it's largely been left up to individual libraries to decide how to cope with that. Some have decided that since filtering software could violate the First Amendment, they aren't going to use it. A recent decision by the Washington State Supreme Court might change that, however, at least in this state.

Caliann: my mother remembers having to ask at the circulation desk for Lady Chatterley's Lover in the 1950s, and you couldn't check it out if you were under 18. Such policies are now the exception rather than the rule.

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

The real issue here is NOT whether SPL should allow porn viewing on their computers. (That may indeed be an issue, but it's not the one the OP raised.) The issue is whether the Lake City library took appropriate action to address julie.howe's concern.

Ms. Howe is asking us to get up in arms about this, but, as I said, I'm skeptical of her story. In fact, it sounds to me like a classically incendiary post. I don't believe that the librarians there would simply brush off a patron's complaint about intrusive porn by saying "we don't censor patrons." That just doesn't jibe with my long years of experience with librarians at SPL.

If Ms. Howe is willing to come back on here and tell us whom she talked to at the Lake City library, and give us a phone number to call, then I'll be happy to make that call and report back. If she's not willing to do at least that much work, however, or if she's not willint to expose her claims to scrutiny, then I shall consider her a fire-starter.

And so should you.

–David

Posted 3 months ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

It is interesting that it's her only post.

Posted 3 months ago #
HelperMonkey
Member Profile

OMG GRAB YOUR PITCHFORKS! SOMEONE DARED ONLY MAKE ONE POST ON THE WSB! WE CAN'T TRUST THEM!!!

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-library-lets-man-watch-porn-despite-2873692.php

Satisfied? she's a teacher. maybe the library is in the wrong here. I would guess after this response she certainly wont bother posting in this pack of wolves anymore. Everyone had to post for the first time once. It's not fair to vilify someone just because it's their first post - it might be their first post of many. Had I gotten this reception when I made my first post I would have never come back.

Posted 3 months ago #
metrognome
Member Profile

and it is only her side of the story with no comment from that library, so we still don't know both sides of what happened.

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

OMG GRAB YOUR PITCHFORKS! SOMEONE DARED ONLY MAKE ONE POST ON THE WSB! WE CAN'T TRUST THEM!!!

Interesting that you should use the term "pitchforks," HM. Isn't that exactly what the OP was asking us to do: grab our pitchforks?

And since we're on the topic, what was your first post?

—If it was about some moral outrage or other, AND you were complaining about something that happened outside of West Seattle, AND you were asking the rest of us to get up in arms over it then, yes, you would have been similarly trounced. And rightly so.

I give the greatest amount of creedance to bloggers whom I've heard from before (or whom I've met personally) and who have established a modicum of credibility on this Blog.

I give the least amount of creedance to first-timers who try to push our panic buttons.

This doesn't mean I always disbelieve the OP's claims out of hand. It just means that I'm going to be very skeptical of them.

Posted 3 months ago #
WSB
Member Profile

Guys, I invited her to post here. If you want this forum to die, go ahead and be hostile to new people who post. We point people here from a variety of venues where they reach us - Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, phone - because we would like to see this continue to be a vibrant place of discussion, with new people coming in and joining or starting conversations.

She e-mailed every neighborhood site in the city, saying that she had taken this as far as she could in the SPL system and wanted to make sure people knew about it, even though she didn't expect SPL to change its position.

I e-mailed to ask her some followups and to tell her that since it didn't happen here, I wasn't going to write a story but I invited her to post here AND TO PREFACE WITH THE FACT I HAD EXTENDED THE INVITATION.

She is on the radio this hour talking with KUOW about it.

http://www.kuow.org/conversation/

The Stranger also has written about it. I was kind of hoping that it would be discussed here, NOT that she would be insulted. I have deleted one post flat out calling her a troll.

There are some first-time posters that are obviously not legit, like spam, and I appreciate those flags. But if someone goes so far as to even note they've conferred with us, will you at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or flag me so I can evaluate? - Tracy

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Tracy:

More details = More Benefit of Doubt

Lack of same = Healthy Skepticism

But thanks for telling us that you "invited" this person to post. That's useful info.

Posted 3 months ago #
karen
Member Profile

This was just being discussed on KUOW, too.
http://www.kuow.org/

Posted 3 months ago #
cwit
Member Profile

I don't see a problem with the original post. It didn't happen in West Seattle, but we certainly have SPL branches here that would follow the same policies.

Always better to know about this kind of thing - regardless of your opinions on them - than be completely oblivious about it. Especially if you take your kids to the library - at least you know that it could happen and make decisions based on knowing that ahead of time.

I also wouldn't equate asking for a public discussion about it to a call to grab our pitchforks.

Oh, did I mention that awesome new diet class I've been taking? ;)

Posted 3 months ago #
roundthesound
Member Profile

So your kids would not have seen what this guy was looking at on the computer if you had not been there scolding him and they had to come looking for you? Spend more time supervising your kids instead of what an adult is doing on a computer. There is tons of adult content for children to find in a library, if you were truly concerned you would be supervising your children.

Posted 3 months ago #
roundthesound
Member Profile

And mention of "hardcore pornography" would have sufficed. Did you need to really clarify that it was anal penetration? I don't remember ever seeing that phrase used on this blog but in this case it's okay I guess.

Posted 3 months ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

I didn't think I had a pitchfork, but perhaps I gave that impression. If so, I apologize as that was not my intent. I'd have liked to see her come back and give a bit more information, particularly whether she'd escalated beyond the branch level.

My other comments were intended to provide some context for how incidents like this occur, not question whether the incident happened.

:(

Posted 3 months ago #
mirabile
Member Profile

"All users are asked to respect the privacy of other users and not attempt to censor or comment upon what others are viewing."

- Public Use of the Internet Policy - Rules Governing Use

...and yet...

"Because computers are located in public areas of the library, what is displayed on the monitor is not confidential."

- Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources

I know that confidentiality is not perfectly synonymous with privacy. It still sounds like what is on the monitor is not subject to the confidentiality and privacy protection, right?

Posted 3 months ago #
sam-c
Member Profile

so, does the library no longer have those computer monitor privacy screens? they darken the screen from viewing if you are viewing them from any angle except straight on like the computer user themselves. I've found those to be effective, but maybe they all got stolen ?
I'd be shocked to see porn when randomly looking around. I think last time I walked behind the computer section at the central library, I averted my eyes so I wouldn't happen to see something like that.

Posted 3 months ago #
365Stairs
Member Profile

If the SPL network security, firewall, etc. "allows"* this type of content to be displayed...they are not only inviting patron concerns to be voice but many viruses (of the technology kind) will also cause serious damage to the local PC - and potentially to those who use the library's PC for more...um... P.C. needs.

By "allows", I refer to lack of warning filters or outright blocking of adult content where users of any tech savvyness should not be able to get around.

Posted 3 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

I can absolutly see this happening. I don't know how I would have reacted but I would think something as simple as saying in a really loud voice "dude why are you watching pornography in a public library with kids around" would have been enough to get him off. I would have also taken his picture and told him I was going to post it on seattle blogs.

Posted 3 months ago #
SJoy
Member Profile

Geeze, some of you guys are just plain mean. This woman just explained what happened and how she wants to make the public aware. I for one am glad I read this. I just never thought about someone watching porn at the library. Now that I know this, I would keep the children I'm with away from the computer area. I think the library should be somewhat responsible to have the monitors out of view from everyone else so that someone walking by doesn't have to be subjected to things like this.
I don't have a problem with the guy watching the porn, it's great that the library is concerned about people's freedoms, etc... but I can completely see why she would be upset.
This forum is for people to rant and rave and discuss topics important to them... Some of the posters have been downright mean and rude about this. Her discussing this issue is no different than any other issue on this forum. If people don't stop being so hypocritical and rude only those that like to cut people down to their knees will continue to visit this blog.

Posted 3 months ago #
herongrrrl
Member Profile

Bostonman said: "I don't know how I would have reacted but I would think something as simple as saying in a really loud voice "dude why are you watching pornography in a public library with kids around" would have been enough to get him off."

Um, that might just have been EXACTLY enough to get him off, if you know what I mean. Hard for me to imagine that someone watching porn on a public computer screen like that wasn't doing it for the thrill of potentially making someone else uncomfortable. And yes, yelling at him and attracting the attention of kids (and others) present might have been an extremely rewarding experience for someone seeking that type of highly questionable reward.

Posted 3 months ago #
dhg
Member Profile

At first I was shocked at this story but then I decided to re-think it. I am very tired of the prudery we all grew up with. A guy watching porn in a library IS inappropriate but better that than watching ANY episode of CSI. How do you explain THAT to your kids? Oh honey, when you put a body into a barrel with lye you get saponification.

*****365Stairs: It is possible to let the porn through and block the viruses. A good firewall will do that for you.*****

Posted 3 months ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

Besides, correct me if I'm wrong dhg, but you wouldn't use a firewall to block content, just malware, broadly speaking.

Some libraries do use filtering software. As I mentioned previously, it's a requirement for getting certain kinds of funding. But a lot of libraries don't like it because the criteria the software uses or even its block list aren't knowable. I think the rule now is that it has to be possible for the library to unblock a site or disable the software as needed. (We don't use filtering software where I work, so I'm less familiar with the particulars. Our policy is similar to what's on SPL's website, which it sounds like wasn't followed in this specific case.)

Posted 3 months ago #
Ken
Member Profile

"where users of any tech savvyness should not be able to get around"

ummm.

No such critter. It was tried in the early 90's (I have a copy of the source code since I knew the developers) The internet grew too big too fast for non heuristic (ie flat file or DB black/grey/white list of sites) filters to work even with thousands of volunteer censors. The ability to bypass standard firewalls (which don't filter content anyway though they may filter by file or mime type or deeper network layer packet inspection)is trivial from the inside of a network and the attempt to block porn with heuristic filters quickly makes the network damn near unusable for legitimate purposes.

I have had the job of locking down a network of public and school system computers and I would never use such a system voluntarily.

I support the libraries policies not to be the arm of those who want to undermine the first amendment. I am pretty sure I have seen filters in use at small branches where the kids section is adjacent to the computers.

Polarizing Privacy filters (patented seemingly until the end of time)by 3M are available for about 60.00 per screen. If you want to raise money to buy these for your local library then go for it.

I can probably make these cheaper:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Privacy-monitor-made-from-an-old-LCD-Monitor/

As I get older and lose more teeth, I have a tiny bit more sympathy for those who want to ban steak because babies can't eat it.

But not enough to feel the SPL should change their policies.

Posted 3 months ago #
Ken
Member Profile

I may change my mind about content filtering when I can protect my family from the hatemongers of the American Family Association, the Catholic church and Fox news.

Posted 3 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

I completely support Julie, in part because I had almost EXACTLY the same experience at the Southwest Branch here in West Seattle. The computers there back up to the young adult section, and the screens are completely visible to anyone passing by. I stopped by to pick up a Harry Potter CD one day, and as I turned around was confronted with a spread-eagled woman on the computer screen. The guy had leered at me as I initially walked by facing him, and then leaned over to make the screen more visible as I passed from behind.

When I complained - first to the branch manager, then the regional manager - my concerns were dismissed in the same way Julie describes. I will say that the branch manager was at least sympathetic, even confiding that several porn patrons had been escorted out by police for their obvious attempts to flaunt their activity, and encouraging me to complain up the chain (which I did). The 'official' response was that the screens are very difficult for anyone else to see unless you're somehow deliberately invading the privacy of the porn viewer. In other words, it was my problem for allegedly being some kind of busybody. This is absolute BULL. The screens are large, elevated, and completely visible to anyone passing by. Nor should I have to navigate the library while staring at my shoes for fear of witnessing something straight out of a 1st Avenue sex shop. The placement of these computers next to the young adult section is also mind-boggling; this is an ideal setup for voyeurs and sexual predators.

Just to clarify, I am not pro-censorship. However, this content/activity should not be visible to other patrons, whether child or adult. If I go into a video store (where they still exist) porn is not displayed alongside other DVD's - it is segregated in a restricted, over 18 area. I really don't get why the library is exempt from isolating this material.

I'm also shocked at the responses from several usually intelligent beings who post regularly on the WSB, especially a librarian. I cannot believe that anyone who works in the library system would not be aware of this problem and the MANY complaints (verified by other librarians) that have arisen as a result of this unfettered access to pornography. I have written several raves about libraries and librarians on this blog, but the stance of Seattle Public Libraries on this issue is literally obscene.

Posted 3 months ago #
dtown
Member Profile

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-library-lets-man-watch-porn-despite-2873692.php

Seattle PI Article.

Posted 3 months ago #
yeah-me
Member Profile

It is also on komonews.com. From that article, I think this is interesting and valid:

"A public library has traditionally and historically enjoyed broad discretion to select materials to add to its collection of printed materials for its patrons' use," the court wrote.

"We conclude that the same discretion must be afforded a public library to choose what materials from millions of Internet sites it will add to its collection and make available to its patrons."

"A public library has never been required to include all constitutionally protected speech in its collection and has traditionally had the authority, for example, to legitimately decline to include adult-oriented material such as pornography in its collection. This same discretion continues to exist with respect to Internet materials."

Seems like our Public Library should reevaluate what it chooses to allow on its computers.

Posted 3 months ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

anonyme, I honestly can't speak for what SPL does or doesn't do--I don't work for them. I can say that the rationale for not filtering content strikes me as valid, based on what Ken said and on the court decisions I've read on the subject, a couple of which I cited above. I'm all too aware that the problem exists, though it's not something that has come up frequently where I work (the one instance I'm aware of, the offender was ejected--but as a private institution, we can do that).

What do you suggest that public libraries do? I don't ask that to be snarky--I'm genuinely curious. Should staff look over people's shoulders to police what they're looking at? Should filtering software be used, in the full knowledge that it blocks access to sites that no one would call pornographic? Do you agree with the recent Washington State Supreme Court decision that declared that filtering Internet content is a form of collection development, and not censorship at all? Is censorship ever justified?

You kinda see where these questions go.

Posted 3 months ago #
critter
Member Profile

The person was watching porn. I don't really understand WHY in a public place but he did, there are much worse things people can do in public. If the kids see it and ask questions then TALK to them. Can't protect kids from everything and might lead to a wonderful conversation. It is good that Julie bought this to the attention to all so that those concern are aware but really I don't really see the big deal. Why does the library have to police what people are viewing?

Posted 3 months ago #
Gina
Member Profile

http://www.spl.org/about-the-library/libraries-for-all/lfa-plan/share-your-thoughts

Why not share your thoughts with the Seattle Public Library? A library bond is coming up for a vote, and opinions are wanted.

Posted 3 months ago #
dhg
Member Profile

Thank you, critter. Yes please, before we get all high-horsey and indignant, let's ban the ultra violence first.

Posted 3 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

datamuse, I don't think you're being snarky at all, and my solution is really very simple. I've already stated that I don't believe in censorship, but I don't think that hard-core pornography needs to be available on every single computer at the library, completely visible to all. The computers on which that content would be made available could be screened off so that the monitors would not be visible to everyone using the library. As I said in my post above, I don't see why the library - like any other business that sells or distributes this type of material - cannot segregate it, nor do I understand why they are not required to do so.

And no, I don't expect librarians to be looking over people's shoulders (actually, that question was a bit snarky). However, if libraries choose to allow free porn, they must also be both aware of (and responsible for) the kinds of problems - some of them potentially very serious - that this policy will attract.

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Right-on, anon.

Posted 3 months ago #
WMO
Member Profile

Channel 7 news just teased the story, it will follow the commercial break.

Posted 3 months ago #
MrJT
Member Profile

If the OP hadn't made a scene, the kid would have never seen it.

Posted 3 months ago #