Every now and then an online back-and-forth comes up that is compelling. So it is with the Library Porn Debate, which started with the subject of children seeing some adult images that adults were viewing online at the Pacific Branch Library in Boerum Hill. The public library does not filter adult content on First Amendment grounds, but the subject has lit up the Park Slope Parents list for days, producing a lot of forwarded emails in our GL Inbox. We’re going to go back to it again for those that haven’t tired of it yet, as we find the debate quite interesting. Here’s another view on the topic:

I’ve stood at the check-out line at 9th St. (Park Slope) branch library, from which the adult section computer monitors are easily viewed. And I’ve certainly seen people surfing sites that would, under most classifications, be called “hard-core”. We’re not talking about a glimpse of a nekkid lady or the nudie magazines you see at the deli. We’re talking moving images of multiple partners, positions, extreme close-ups, and . . . er . . . props.

There is this take on the First Amendment:

* I* as the parent of *MY CHILD *should be allowed to visit a publicly funded space, i.e. library, without the concern that *MY CHILD *may see porn or anything that the public has deemed inappropriate for children under 17 yrs. Every library has a children’s section that is separate from the “adult” section. And as the BPL employee stated the Internet at the library has filters for children under 17 yrs. The point is that as a parent *I* should be able to choose when, how, and how much of anything *MY CHILD* views. You may that a brief second exposure to a pornographic image is fine for your child (which I am not judging whether is right or wrong, it is *YOUR CHOICE*) but if *I *do not, that is *MY CHOICE *and constitutional right. I am not telling anyone what they should allow their children to view or not to view however, allowing pornography to be easily viewed by a child (no matter how short or long) which is the viewpoint I feel many people are taking invoking 1st amendment rights. What about my 1st amendment rights.

Which drew this response:

…under our laws, as I understand them, an individual may be allowed his/her opinions, but such individual is not entitled to be free from all things that affront his/her sensibilities when in a public space. Where society has deemed it necessary/appropriate, laws have been created to regulate what does (and does not) constitute acceptable public conduct. So,
in this case, for example, passive viewing of pornography by an adult is accepted, but masturbating would not be. If your point is that you wish there were legislation in place that would keep adults from viewing material that is inappropriate for children in public spaces, well, that’s one thing. But, those laws have not yet been written. And my position is that they shouldn’t be– because of the subjective nature of the assessment, and because of my position against most forms of censorship.