Operations Committee Report On Internet Use Policy To Full Board ...
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT ON INTERNET USE POLICY
TO FULL BOARD OF GREENVILLE COUNTY LIBRARY
(Adopted by Operations Committee July 17, 2000)
(Adopted by Full Board July 17, 2000)
I.
INTRODUCTION
During the past year, problems related to the Greenville County
Library’s Internet Use Policy have become apparent. Due to questions about
those problems and the Board’s full understanding of those problems, the
Operations Committee requested the opportunity to review the current
Internet Use Policy and look into the problems that have arisen under that
policy. As part of its review, the Committee looked into incidents related to
the Internet. The Committee interviewed Staff and patrons. The purpose
for the Committee’s review was to determine whether changes need to be
made and, if so, what changes need to be made.
It is clear that dramatic changes to the Internet Use Policy need to be
made. It is also clear that the Code of Conduct must be vigorously enforced,
and the Policy for Disruptive and Unattended Children must be reevaluated
and vigorously enforced. Finally, it is clear that the Board must accept
responsibility for a multitude of problems related to the Internet and must
do everything within its power to earn the trust and support of the
community, which has been eroded in part because of problems related to
the Internet.
II.
CURRENT INTERNET USE POLICY: APPLICATION AND
EVOLUTION
A.
FROM INCEPTION TO JANUARY 2000
The current Internet Use Policy was approved by the Board of
Trustees on June 22, 1998. Under that policy, patrons have faced few
limitations. For example, the policy does not provide time limits or limits
based on age. Although one provision provided that users could not “display
obscene materials, child pornography, and/or other materials prohibited
under applicable local, state, and federal laws”, that provision was not
enforced for approximately one and one-half (1 1/2) years. That lack of
enforcement was the result of instructions by former Executive Director,
Phil Ritter, who is no longer at the Greenville County Library. Staff state
that they were told by the Executive Director not to interfere regardless of
what patrons were displaying on their computer screens.
1 One branch
manager states that “Staff members were told by the Director to say
nothing to a patron regardless of what we saw.... The system-wide
1The Executive Director’s instructions were consistent with the American Library
Association’s position on Internet use in public libraries.
2
procedure was to ignore whatever was on the computer [screen].” Another
branch manager states that the Executive Director on at least two (2)
occasions said: “We will not interfere with what people view.” One Staff
understands the policy was “not to interfere unless another patron
complained about what was being displayed on a computer screen.”
The “non-interference” policy, especially when combined with a lack of
time limits and genuine support by the administration, resulted in an
offensive and frustrating atmosphere for Staff and patrons. Some Internet
patrons were rude and vulgar and boisterous, and Staff contend the
administration provided little support or direction in dealing with these
problem patrons. The Board knew nothing about the problems until
December 1999. On December 19, 1999 and December 21, 1999, the
Herald-Journal
published unflattering articles about the atmosphere in
Greenville County Library’s Main building (hereinafter “Main). The Executive
Director denied the truth of the articles. Staff state that the Executive
Director was less than forthright and that the
Herald-Journal
articles were
entirely truthful. The articles should be reviewed and deemed reliable.
B.
FROM JANUARY 2000 TO PRESENT
As a result of the
Herald-Journal
articles, the Board held a special
meeting in January 2000. At that meeting, reports of Internet-related
3
incidents were provided to Board members, who were surprised at the
seriousness of the incidents. From that point forward, the administration
was asked to report Internet-related incidents to the Board. The Executive
Director was subsequently separated from his employment for a variety of
reasons, the majority of which had nothing to do with Internet-related
problems.
In February 2000, the administration began implementing a “tap on the
shoulder” policy, pursuant to which Staff members were told they could
interrupt patrons and encourage them to move from “inappropriate” sites.
Also, “privacy” desks were installed around the majority of Internet-
accessible computers in Main. These measures continue to be in effect.
Even with these measures, the current Internet Use Policy is a failure for a
variety of reasons.
III.
PROBLEMS WITH APPLICATION OF CURRENT POLICY
A.
Pornography and/or obscenity
The percentage of Internet use directed toward pornography and/or
obscenity is somewhat difficult to determine. On November 23, 1999, a
patron reported: “A
large number, perhaps fifty percent (50%), of the
users on one afternoon were young men going to pornography sites.” The
December 19, 1999
Herald-Journal
article reported: “Five of the Library’s
4
nine Internet-accessible computers were being used to access pornographic
web sites or sexually-oriented chat rooms from 11:00 a.m. to noon
Thursday.” One Staff estimates that twenty to twenty-five (20-25%)
percent of patrons are using the Internet to access pornography and/or
obscenity. On June 27, 2000, a history was randomly taken from Computer
24 in Main, and the history revealed that at least twenty (20%) percent of
the sites visited were pornographic or obscene.
2 Regardless of the exact
percentage, it is apparent that library equipment is being misused.
Displays of pornographic and/or obscene materials on computer
screens is a problem far greater than previously realized. Beginning in
February 2000, the Board began receiving verbal reports on the number of
documented
incidents wherein patrons were asked to move from
“inappropriate” sites. In late May and early June 2000, Board members
received actual incident reports and Internet log entries which documented
some of these incidents. These materials, as well as Staff and patron
interviews, reveal that the euphemism “inappropriate” fails to adequately
convey the seriousness of the incidents that have occurred.
2The actual percentage of pornographic and/or obscene sites visited is likely higher.
When pornographic and/or obscene sites are accessed via a search engine, no history is
recorded.
5
Without specific reference to incident reports or Internet log entries,
Staff indicate that they have seen the following material displayed on
computer screens in Main:
n
Live video of people engaging in sex both heterosexual and
homosexual.
n
Live video of people engaging in sex with animals, including a “girl
dressed in leather with a strapped on [plastic penis] having sex
with a dog” and “a man having sex with a chicken.”
n
Live video of a woman spreading peanut butter on her vaginal
area and a dog licking it off.
n
Live video of men having oral sex with boys.
n
Threesomes.
n
Live video of a male ejaculating into the face of a woman.
n
Prepubescent naked girls.
n
People urinating on each other
n
Live video of naked women masturbating.
n
Live video of naked men masturbating.
n
Still shots of naked women and men and the subjects identified
above.
Within the last nine (9) months, more than 100 incidents have been
documented in which patrons have viewed/displayed pornographic and/or
6
obscene material. According to Staff, the incident reports and Internet log
entries describe merely a
fraction of the incidents that have occurred.
There are several reasons for that. First, the Internet log was not
maintained until mid to late February 2000. Second, Staff cannot possibly
identify every instance in which a patron displays pornographic and/or
obscene material. Staff have other responsibilities that divert their
attention from the Internet area. When Staff suspect that an incident is
occurring and approach patrons, the patrons often “click” to different web
sites. Third, some Staff simply are not willing in the first instance to
“confront” patrons who are viewing pornographic or obscene material. One
Staff estimates that less than half of Staff are willing to confront patrons
for reasons ranging from feelings of intimidation to indifference. Fourth,
some Staff state that they did not bother to write down a number of
incidents because doing so seemed like an utter waste of time. Such a
reaction is understandable, in light of the fact that the reports seem to have
been made for the purpose of counting the number of incidents. Actual
incident reports were not made available to the Board nor the existence of
the Internet log known to the Board until late May 2000 and early June 2000.
Staff had no reason to believe that documenting incidents would lead to any
action. Fifth, once the “tap on the shoulder” policy was implemented in early
7
2000, Staff were told to write explicit descriptions of what they observed on
computer screens. One Staff states that she did not care to write these
explicit descriptions.
Though incomplete, the incident reports and Internet log entries
document the seriousness of the problem with pornography and/or obscenity
at the Library.
3 The problems with pornography and/or obscenity are
addressed in the following broad categories, and excerpts from incident
reports and Internet log entries are provided as examples of the problems.
It is important to remember that examples are provided from only a portion
of the incident reports and Internet log entries.
1.
Patrons are inadvertently exposing other
patrons, including children, to pornography and/or
obscenity.
A.
While patrons are viewing pornography
and/or obscenity
Examples:
•
November 23, 1999–A patron wrote: “I am highly
offended that open pornography is allowed to be viewed by
3The problem with pornography and/or obscenity in public libraries is clearly not
limited to the Greenville County Library system. See “Dangerous Access, 2000 Edition:
Uncovering Internet Pornography in America’s Libraries” by David Burt and available at
<http://www.frc.org>.
8
minors–let alone anyone–in our public library...A
large
number, perhaps fifty (50%) percent, of the users on one
afternoon were young men going to pornography sites.
What has this Library become? A “virtual brothel?” The
patron who reported this incident was interviewed. He was
an adult male. According to the patron, several minors
were viewing pornography, and their screens were in open
view of anyone who was within the area. He stated that he
“grieved for little children walking around there.” The
patron described the atmosphere as “negative” and a
“sexually deviant atmosphere.” He further described the
atmosphere as “repulsive.”
•
December 1999–A patron wrote: “Please, please, please
cut out the porno watchers on the Internet! My kids saw it!
He was scary! Thanks!”
•
The December 19, 1999 the
Herald-Journal
article began:
“The man at Computer Number 5 typed explicit
instructions to the naked woman on his computer screen.
Though her words were audible only through the man’s
headphones, her physical response was visible to patrons
of the Reference section....”
•
February 26, 2000–“[Patron] said daughter between
two guys looking at “something they should not have...”
Patron who reported this incident was interviewed. She
was an adult female. According to the patron, her ninth
grade daughter was working on a poetry project at Main.
The patron came to check on her daughter and was very
disturbed by what she found. The ninth grade girl was the
only female in the whole row. Adult male patrons were on
either side of her. Both adult male patrons were viewing
pornography. One of the adult males had an erection. The
patron was extremely upset. The patron was agitated
even when recalling the situation. She described the
Internet area as an “unsafe environment” and a “primarily
9
male environment.” She further described the
environment as “degrading.”
•
March 30, 2000–“Minor patron complained that a person
at Number 15 was looking at pornography...”
•
April 1, 2000–“I saw [patron] looking at a site showing
exposed breasts and genital areas of females. He was
seated next to a young lady...”
•
April 6, 2000–“Patron called to complain that he and his
daughter were researching on Computer 22, and the patron
on the computer to their left was looking at pornography.
His twelve-year-old daughter viewed this and waited until
they were in the car to inform him...”
•
May 10, 2000–“Number 1...white male...mid-late
twenties...multiple naked lady sites open–asked to move on
to another site (
young teen boy next to him [looking] over
his shoulder). Said clicked on by accident–however 20-30
windows were open.” Staff checked what sites the adult
male had been viewing, and they were: “Wetcircle.com,
Free Animal Sex TV, Animal Fever, Hotel Fetish, Just
Beastiality, Free Beast, Sexy Pets, Beast Links, etc. One
site was showing a woman and a man engaging in oral
sex–very explicit.”
•
May 24, 2000–“[Patron] was looking at woman
performing [oral sex]. There were young boys in the
area–maybe nine or ten years old...”
B.
After patrons have viewed pornography
and/or obscenity and have left their terminals
Examples:
10
•
March 1, 2000–“Patron signed to use–at least thirty
(30) windows up in browser left open to porn sites (naked
women–body parts)...”
•
March 28, 2000–“[Patron]...left open a page full of links
to porn sites, e.g., “Ashley’s Naked Pics”, “Dutch P*****,
Revealing Hardcore Sluts”, “Blow*** Battle of the Day.”
•
April 10, 2000–“A little boy [patron] (eight years old)
asked to use Computer 7. He came back over to the desk
and told me that when he tried to close out the window
that was open, a “Playboy picture” came up on the screen.
I asked him to stay at the desk and I went to go over to
close it out. There were many layers of web sites
containing many pics of nude women...”
•
April 15, 2000–“Computer No. 2 was left with “Cu**TV”
and “Nastiest Site on the Web...”
•
April 15, 2000–“A female patron came up to me and
stated that a male patron who had been on Computer 7
prior to her had been viewing some inappropriate sites
which contained nudity and a lot of teen-age girls nude.
She stated that she was rather embarrassed trying to
close them out because every time she tried to close it a
new sex site came up.”
•
April 27, 2000–“Patron complained that he was unable to
use the computer... he signed up for. When I checked the
computer, it was locked on to a site featuring a full-
breasted nude female...”
•
May 3, 2000–“A very young boy viewing “Beastiality” web
site...The Bestiality web site was frozen and the more than
twenty (20) Netscape windows which were all open to the
Beastiality web site would not close.”
11
•
May 6, 2000–“I took a boy over to use Computer 4 and I
had to close out a window that had been left open. Beneath
it was a very explicit web site featuring full female nudity.”
•
May 7, 2000–“Number 7 system...was left open to porn
sites–about 10+ windows open when next person went to
use...”
•
May 8, 2000–“Number 4...open to multiple porn sites
when mother and child sat down.”
•
May 16, 2000–“While closing down Computers 1 and
8...there were pornographic advertisements left up
featuring nude women.”
2.
In some instances, adult patrons have
intentionally exposed children to pornography and/or obscenity.
•
November 10, 1999–Staff reported that an adult male
patron was looking at pornography and “two young boys,
about the ages of 10 to 14, sat down next to him. The
boys did not log onto their assigned computers but chose
to view pornography on Number 3.” The Staff who
reported this incident was interviewed. According to
Staff, the adult male patron said to the boys, “Check this
out, isn’t this cool?” The adult male patron was looking at
live sex sites, including Threesomes, sado-masochism, and
corpses of sexually assaulted and mutilated women. The
two boys viewed these sites with the adult male patron for
approximately thirty (30) minutes.
•
November 30, 1999–Staff reported that an adult male
patron grabbed a young boy and forced him to look at his
computer screen, upon which was displayed pornographic
material. The Staff who reported this incident was
interviewed. According to Staff, the adult male patron was
about twenty-eight (28) years old. A six or seven-year-old
12
boy was walking with his sister near the adult male patron,
who said “Goodbye” to the adult male patron. The adult
male patron grabbed the young boy by the arm and said,
“Hey buddy, take a look at this.” He pulled the boy over
and held him by the arm in front of the screen and forced
the little boy to look at the pornography. The little boy
immediately turned his head away. Upon being rebuked by
the Staff, the adult male patron said, “Ten years from
now he’ll be begging for it.”
•
February 24, 2000–An adult male patron was viewing
pornographic sites with three thirteen-year-old girls. “I
observed this as I walked to the area. I heard [patron]
saying “sex with snakes” and observed the word “F***ing”
in large red letters on the screen...”
•
March 16, 2000–“...I was seating a father and young son
nearby and so asked [patron] to move from that [porn]
site immediately. He completely disregarded my request
and as I walked by he smirked at me.”
3.
Without regard to whether other patrons are
being exposed, some patrons are viewing materials that clearly fit
within the scope of federal and state obscenity laws and the
“Miller Test”.
In Miller v. California,
413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973), the United States
Supreme Court provided “a few plain examples” of material that may be
deemed to be obscene. Those examples included “ultimate sexual acts,
normal or perverted, actual or simulated,...masturbation, excretory
13
functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.” The reports by Staff
provided previously, as well as documented incident reports and Internet log
entries, support the conclusion that patrons are regularly viewing and
displaying material that meets the Miller Test and is covered by federal and
state obscenity laws.
Examples:
•
February 18, 2000–“I saw [patron] on Computer Number
11 on the screen was a woman...she was inserting a finger
into her vagina...”
•
March 30, 2000–“...As I walked past [patron] on
Computer 14, I observed a woman lying on her back. A man
was above her and his penis was in her mouth....”
•
May 19, 2000–“...I saw the patron on Computer 18
looking at a site depicting nude males engaged in various
sexual acts and masturbation....”
4.
Some patrons are viewing child pornography.
Several Staff report seeing adult male patrons access child
pornography. One adult male patron so regularly accesses child pornography
that he is known by the nickname “The PetSmart guy”. He wears his work
uniform and hat to the Library. The PetSmart guy comes to the library
regularly and views pornography and/or obscenity involving prepubescent
females. The situation with the PetSmart guy underscores the fact that the
Internet log entries do not adequately document the number of incidents
14
involving pornography and/or obscenity. Despite the fact that several Staff
interviewed knew the PetSmart guy by sight and nickname and concurred
that he regularly views child pornography, only a few incidents are
documented.
•
April 10, 2000–“[Patron] looking at nude pictures of
young girls.”
•
June 13, 2000–“[Patron] on No. 8 looking at teen site
which included topless young girls....”
Main has even had a convicted sex offender on the premises. This
adult male patron was identified as a “regular” in the December 19, 1999
Herald-Journal
article. Staff confirm that the convicted sex offender was a
“regular.” Apparently, he no longer visits Main.
5.
Children are viewing pornography and/or
obscenity.
Examples:
•
One branch manager reported: “I watched a thirteen-year-
old female using the screen name “Sexy P****” type in a
line in a chat room asking if anyone would like to have sex
with her?”
•
April 15, 2000–“A minor [patron] was looking at a
pornographic site showing a woman with her hand on her
pubic area...”
•
April 17, 2000–“[Patron] “14-year-old minor” on Number
24 was observed viewing a site featuring full frontal male
nudity and masturbation...”
15
•
May 1, 2000–“[Patron] was on Number 11 looking at web
sites featuring nudity and intercourse...([Patron] is a
special education student at Greenville Middle School).”
•
May 3, 2000– “Very young boy viewing Beastiality web
site...The Beastiality web site was frozen and the more
than 20 Netscape windows which were all open to the
Beastiality web site would not close.”
•
May 19, 2000–“Parent flagged me down...her son had
been using Computer 1...she said that she walked up on him
and that he had been viewing “explicit pornography”...”
•
May 28, 2000–“A report of [patron] on Computer 1
looking at obscene material....It was a video of obscene
material. [Patron] was surrounded by four male minors
looking and watching.”
•
June 5, 2000–“Young black female looking at various X-
rated sites, e.g. www.f***ingdogs.com, www.sh**.com,
www.mommas.com, www.spiceboys.com....”
6.
Inappropriate Patron Activity
Examples:
•
November 29, 1999–“I saw [patron] sitting at Computer
14. Sitting on both sides of [patron] were two young
ladies. The reason why I noticed them was because of the
manner that they were sitting and because I thought the
girls looked so young. The young lady who was sitting on
[patron’s] left side was facing him with her feet on his
chair. What did not look appropriate to me was that her
legs were open and he was more or less between her legs.
The young lady who was sitting on his right side was sitting
with her legs facing the computers but the [patron] had his
right arm between her legs.”
16
•
One branch manager states that a young man was viewing
pornography and later got up from his terminal and kissed
a female patron. The young man did not know the female
patron. The branch manager also states that a female
patron complained that she was being “stalked” in the
branch by a young man whom the branch manager states
was viewing pornography.
•
June 2, 2000–“Patron...complained that patron...was
looking at pornography and listening to pornographic
sounds...”
•
One branch manager states: “We’ve had some grunting
and groaning.”
B.
No Time Limits
Staff who were interviewed and reports from focus groups reveal that
the lack of time limits is a
major problem to Staff and to other patrons.
“Regulars” who know how to work the system keep the Internet-accessible
computers occupied. The lack of time limits encourages patrons who may
have nothing else going on in their lives to spend all day on the Internet. The
December 19, 1999
Herald-Journal
article reported that the
“regulars...reappear daily”. The convicted sex offender stated: “I stay here
most of the day.”
Enforcing time limits is sometimes a problem for Staff. Some of the
patrons who use the Internet have been compared to “junkies”. Those
17
patrons are difficult when politely asked to limit their time or leave at the
end of the day. A software solution to enforcing time limits would be helpful
and appreciated by Staff.
C.
Chat Rooms
Virtually all Staff interviewed expressed the view that chat rooms
cause many problems. Chat rooms take up an inordinate amount of time for
useless activity and often lead to the display of pornographic and/or obscene
images.
•
One branch manager stated: “We must clearly do
something about chat rooms. I saw an eight-year-old male
in a chat room where someone had asked how he was
“equipped”. I watched a thirteen-year-old female using the
screen name “Sexy P****” type in a line in a chat room
asking if anyone would like to have sex with her....You would
not believe some of the things that we see. Unescorted
children in chat rooms doing who knows what; a mother who
brings in her children and sits for hours in chat rooms,
then leaves her children at the library with another family
member who is also in a chat room. Five to eight year old
children should not be in the library for five to six hours a
day....These people are like junkies–totally out of control
and they use thousands of dollars worth of County
equipment to accomplish nothing.”
•
One Staff who attended a focus group stated: “Block chat
rooms–pictures pop up on them–so it is not simply words.
Chat rooms have no intellectual value.”
•
Another Staff stated: “I am opposed to chat rooms–they
are the predator’s best friend.”
18
D.
Groups of People/Clusters
Staff state that patrons sometimes cluster around computer
terminals. The “clustering” is disruptive to other patrons and encourages
unruly activity.
•
August 2, 1999–“I was told that this group of six boys
was using two computers. They moved my desk, used my
chair, and moved other furniture as well. A patron using
another computer asked the boys to settle down and be
quiet. One of the boys called him a “C***sucker”...This
matter with the group of children must be resolved.”
•
March 13, 2000–“Three Hispanic men clustered around
Computer 4 looking at pictures of nude women–lots of
boobs! I asked them to move to another web site and they
just smiled. As soon as I walked away, they went back to
“clustering” so I went back telling them “No clustering”
and asked them to get their own computers....”
•
One branch manager reported that a number of young
teenagers listen to rap music as a group and act unruly and
loud. They arrange themselves sometimes around one
terminal. These children are the primary problem at this
particular branch.
•
May 28, 2000–“A report of [patron] on Computer 1
looking at obscene material....It was a video of obscene
material. [Patron] was surrounded by four male minors
looking and watching.”
19
E.
Lack of Consequences for Violators/Lack of Support by
Administration
Staff interviewed state that administration failed to support the
original Internet Use Policy and gave staff no backup. A number of patrons
regularly viewed pornographic and/or obscene material and disregarded Staff
instructions and harassed Staff. Yet these patrons continued to maintain
their Library privileges and never experienced any real consequences for
their behavior. Some of the problem rests with the policy itself, but clearly
the former Executive Director provided no leadership to Staff and allowed
the environment to deteriorate with no communication of this fact to the
Board. Training programs provided the following comments:
•
“I really think [the training session] was a waste of time. I
don’t think the administration has enough compassion for
our situation.”
•
“...No one has the authority to do anything...”
•
“We don’t need future sessions; we need to put
teeth into
our conduct policy.”
•
“...We eagerly await the arrival of the new Internet policy.
I hope the new policy will be more assertive.”
•
“...The people in charge at the Main branch don’t care
about our difficulties. They are in denial.”
F.
Effect on Staff
20
The combination of a lack of time limits, exposure to pornography
and/or obscenity, lack of administrative support, and requiring Staff to “tap
on the shoulder” and monitor the Internet area has contributed to a high
level of frustration and burnout for Staff. In short, the current Internet Use
Policy requires too high a level of Staff involvement and puts Staff in
uncomfortable positions.
Staff is weary of having to deal with unruly and rude patrons. Many
Staff state that some Internet patrons are entirely different from
traditional library patrons, e.g., more demanding and aggressive and less
responsive.
The effect of pornography and/or obscenity on Staff is a serious
issue. While we must encourage the availability of information consistent
with the Library’s selection criteria, we clearly have a moral and legal
obligation to provide a positive and non-hostile environment for Staff. Under
the current policy, that has simply not occurred. One male Staff notes that
“female Staff...are intimidated by this activity.” One female Staff reports:
“I felt dirty coming home at the end of the day.” Another female Staff
states: “I take a very dim view of working in a place where this stuff is
abundant.” One Staff states that Staff “feel uncomfortable asking patrons
to move or seeing the material themselves–what are we
requiring
of them?”
21
In addition to being exposed to pornography, Staff have been the
subject of unwanted attention on several occasions.
•
November 10, 1999–A female Staff observed a man
viewing pornography, which included naked and mutilated
female bodies. As female Staff were leaving for the
evening, the male patron was waiting outside the doorway
and made a remark to the female Staff. The combination
of what the man was viewing and the way he made his
remark was very disturbing to the female Staff.
•
December 11, 1999–A female Staff received a sexually
oriented and aggressive email from a patron. She was
upset by receiving the email but also disturbed by the way
the matter was handled by administration, who referred
her to the Greenville City Police.
•
Female Staff state that they are occasionally called over
to a terminal by male patrons who claim to be “stuck” in a
pornographic site. These male patrons appear to be
seeking some sort of reaction from female Staff.
V.
DISCUSSION
The majority of the problems identified above can be addressed
without any real consideration of legal issues. A limitation on the flow of
material into the Library via the Internet is more thorny. But the Board
cannot allow the continued existence of an offensive and frustrating
atmosphere for Staff and patrons and the resulting deterioration of the
Library’s reputation and standing in the community.
22
Concern about intellectual freedom must be tempered by a
countervailing concern about the effects of viewing and displaying
pornography and/or obscenity in a public place. These effects include the
exposure of children and other unwilling patrons to pornography and/or
obscenity, both inadvertent and intentional; the viewing and display of child
pornography; inappropriate activity; rude and vulgar and boisterous activity;
and the creation of a sexually hostile and extremely frustrating atmosphere
for Staff and patrons. Much of the material described in the incident
reports and Internet log entries does not enjoy constitutional protection.
Moreover, material which is not otherwise obscene may, when displayed to
minors, violate state and federal law.
The “tap on the shoulder” policy and the use of “privacy” desks have
not solved the problem. The majority of reported incidents have occurred
since these measures were implemented. Children and other unwilling
patrons and Staff are still being exposed to pornography and/or obscenity.
Even absent the problem of exposing children and other unwilling patrons and
Staff, the Library has a responsibility and obligation to not provide obscene
material and child pornography or, in the context of minors, material that is
harmful to minors.
23
Not only has the “tap on the shoulder” policy not solved the problem
but also it is no less a form of “censorship” than a software solution,
although it is certainly more awkward and inconsistent. Staff are essentially
asked to harass patrons away from material provided by the Library. Some
Staff may apply different standards of judgment than others. Some Staff
don’t tap on the shoulder at all. So some patrons may be allowed to access
certain material in peace while others are tapped on the shoulder and asked
to move to different sites.
Much of the material available on the Internet would fail to meet the
Library’s selection criteria in the first instance. The Library should not be
put in the position of having to accept everything that is available on the
Internet, especially considering that much of the material is useless,
disruptive, and illegal. The Library must offer material through the Internet
which is consistent with its purpose and in a manner that is suitable to the
public atmosphere that exists in its buildings.
V.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
Vigorously enforce all policies, including Internet Use Policy, Code
of Conduct Policy, and Disruptive and Unattended Children Policy.
2.
Require Library cards for Internet patrons.
24
3.
Apply two hour daily time limits with one hour increments.
Eventually these time limits should be enforced by the
employment of software.
4.
Place public terminals in full view of Staff.
5.
Employ State-of-the-art software or network control
mechanisms on public terminals designated to limit or restrict
information or images which may be deemed to be obscene, child
pornography, and material harmful to minors as that term is
used in federal (47 U.S.C. §231 (e)(6)) and similar state laws.
Otherwise allow Selection Librarian to use state-of-the-art
software or control mechanisms to apply selection criteria to
Internet to the extent possible.
6.
In Main, make available terminals near Reference desk which do
not employ state-of-the-art software or network control
mechanisms. In branches, make available at least one terminal
near Staff desk which does not employ state-of-the-art
software or network control mechanisms.
7.
Eliminate Chat Rooms.
8.
Make clear to the community that the Board accepts
responsibility for the conditions that have resulted
under the current Internet Use Policy and will ensure
that the Library environment is pleasant and safe in the
future.
25
