News

Owosso library moves to regulate porn viewing

By NATHAN BRUTTELL Argus-Press Staff Writer

Friday, July 3, 2009 10:04 AM EDT

OWOSSO - The Shiawassee District Library Board has begun the process toward regulating adult material at the Owosso branch.

The Board voted 7-1 during is June meeting to filter online content. Travis Senk cast the lone dissenting vote. Shiawassee District Library Director Steven Flayer said he is researching optional online filters and would present them to the Board at its July 22 meeting.

“The Board has also directed me to increase the physical barriers around the unfiltered computers, which we have been doing,” Flayer said, adding that the measures for changing the library's policy may continue.

“I think the Board will look at this matter again (at the next meeting) to determine whether it's meeting the needs of our patrons,” he said.

The Shiawassee District Library's adult content policies came under scrutiny in May when Owosso resident Catherine Loxen told the Board her granddaughter witnessed a man using a computer to view adult material earlier this year.

Senk said while he wasn't happy with what happened with Loxen, he didn't agree the library Board should be the authority.

“I don't think limiting what everyone else can do is a fair response. I feel that if we start trying to filter everything we're going to be in violation of library policy acts,” Senk said. “Once you start filtering, it leads into the free speech issue.”

Loxen's story also brought the attention of local Internet filtering company Covenant Eyes. Vice president Bill Spencer presented information to the Board at its June meeting.

“I went up to two of the unfiltered computers and did a history check,” Spencer said. “I was curious to see if people were seeing any type of pornography still on the computers.”

Spencer said the history search revealed that several Web sites may have been used for child pornography - which is illegal and against library policy.

“What I told the Board is basically that there isn't anybody that would believe these images were not of young people under the age of 18,” Spencer said.

Spencer added he asked the Board about the library's policy of not allowing access to child pornography.

“The library, in its policy, has defined what obscenity is, yet for some reason (the Board members) think it's wrong to filter the Internet content,” he said.

Flayer said to his recollection, the Board could not make changes because Spencer could not present facts that the subjects of the Web sites were underage.

“He was basing his findings, the way he presented it to the Board, that it was child pornography based on how old he though the models looked,” Flayer said. “Of course we're attempting to eliminate these things, but it's not going to be perfect.”

Flayer said the library has begun to filter content on most of the computers in the library using current software.

“(Covenant Eyes) states on its own Web site that no filter is going to be 100 percent effective,” Flayer said. “How can they complain that our filter is not getting everything after saying that? The effort is being made to limit it as much as possible.”

Adult Services Librarian and assistant director Margaret Bentley said while she understands the problem, it is out of her hands.

“Whatever the Board decides, I will have to follow,” Bentley said.

Durand Memorial branch librarian and assistant director Nancy Folaron said she has not seen issues with adult content at the Durand branch.

“We only have seven computers and all of them are fairly close to the desk, so we can keep an eye on them,” Folaron said. “It's not like the Owosso branch where the computers are in a separate area and out of view.”

Folaron also said the branch currently uses no filtering software, but would make appropriate changes based on the Board's July vote.

Senk said he believed the issue might be continue at the library for some time.

“We're not done working on it at the library,” Senk said. “It's a complex issue and it's not solved easily.”

- Contact Nathan Bruttell at 725-5136 extension 231 or nbruttellarguspress@gmail.com. Post comments about this story online at www.argus-press.com.

Comment on this Story

Anne wrote on Oct 19, 2009 9:58 AM:

" "Sam Green wrote- " There are greater ramifications at work here then just about pornography. There is a whole argument about rights and freedoms."

Actually, there is not. That decision on p*orn was already made... long ago. You have a right under the 1st Amendment to speak about it, you have a right to write about it... you do not, however, have a right to view said product in a public space. The attempt to obtain your 'right ' to view it in public on the www will have the same outcome.

My hope is that those of you who incorrectly continue with this arguement never force a federal vote on this... you can't win it... and you will have ensured that freedom in cyber space can be challenged. One of the few truly free spaces will be then attacked on all levels, legally. Something the feds have desperately tried to stay out of. "

Ben Franklin wrote on Sep 21, 2009 4:00 PM:

" They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither. "

Sam Green wrote on Jul 9, 2009 1:11 PM:

" There are greater ramifications at work here then just about pornography. There is a whole argument about rights and freedoms. The Christian rite does not have the moral authority, or for that matter any authority, to force others to see their view or live by it. The issue is being exploited as all about pornography, which is in no way the case. The library is being bullied by a small group who are over clouding the issue. "

Gary Glenn American Family Assn of Michigan wrote on Jul 5, 2009 11:50 PM:

" Salute to the library board for exercising common sense judgment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled (in 2003) that filtering public library computers paid for by taxpayers does not violate the First Amendment.

Bottom line: no one has a "right" -- constitutional or otherwise -- to access p*rnographic or obscene inappropriate material at taxpayers' expense in a public library used by children.

Second issue: In Minneapolis, a dozen female librarians successfully sued over having to monitor library computers for p*rn use, since that responsibility forced them to actually witness the material themselves, then personally confront the male p*rn user. The city's public library was ordered to pay over $400,000 in damages to the librarians, plus pay their attorney fees. Who had to foot that bill? The taxpayers.

Thus, requiring Owosso's libraries to filter also helps protect city taxpayers from liability for a similar harrassment or hostile work environment lawsuit by Owosso librarians.

Brittany's post above about being able to search the word "breast" was a relevant point ten years ago, but is no longer a concern with current filtering software which can in fact distinguish between a recipe for chicken breast versus the image of a woman's breast.

Under a federal statute signed into law by President Clinton, any public library that receives federal funding for Internet acess or computers must place filters on all computers, and that law has since been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Thus, federally-subsidized libraries in Michigan filter all computers.

The Legislature should require the same of all libraries, federally subsidized or not.

Children should not be forced to share the public library or its restrooms with adult men who come to the library solely to look at obscene material at taxpayers expense.

Children and families and all citizens should have the same protection from exposure to p*rnographic material in all libraries that they currently do in libraries subsidized by the federal government. "

John wrote on Jul 5, 2009 11:00 PM:

" I have an idea that would be the perfect solution. Create a login system to the computer that creates a separate user profile for each user that uses the computer. In order to use the computer they would need to registrar with the library. This way the people viewing the inappropriate adult content could be held responsible and banned from the computers. I am a computer science major and know this could be done and likely cheaply with interns from baker college. Just an idea "

Brittany wrote on Jul 4, 2009 8:29 PM:

" While I agree they should find a way to filter the computers and what sites can be brought up I know from working at a library that it's harder than you think. Because it's a public place they need to keep multiple forms of a word (like breast) open to search because you never know when a young girl might have found a lump in her breast and wants to look up what it might mean. But if you block it completely from her only public search engine she might never tell anyone and get the problem figured out. "

John wrote on Jul 4, 2009 2:06 PM:

" The problem resides in the fact that the filter may pick up some things it shouldn't be. The computer is not able to judge an image or movie to decide whether it is adult content. The filter typically looks at the web address and the text on the webpage. Take for instance a child is doing a report on sexually transmitted diseases. Suddenley they are blocked out for adult content because of the supporting text! This can be good and bad! "

Lolatyou wrote on Jul 4, 2009 5:37 AM:

" Nice title to your article Nathan, kudos on that. I hope to God that a ninja strike team doesn't hit up any computer out of the line of sight of that Durand librarian. "

J wrote on Jul 3, 2009 7:41 PM:

" The Library is not a private building - it is a public institution. It is not the Library's place to tell people what they can look at. Adults can make those choices for themselves. Children should be supervised by a parent or guardian. Every Library member is a part owner of that building. The computers, just like the books, belong to them. "

ohno wrote on Jul 3, 2009 7:11 PM:

" Who decides what is to be censored and what is to be allowed?

If censoring internet content begins when and where would it end?

Would the white supremacy activist insist that all sites showing people of color be censored, as it offends him/her?

Would the pacifist insist that all sites showing violence be censored, as it offends him/her?

Would the avowed atheist insist that all religious content be censored, as it offends him/her?

Would the conservative Muslim insist that all sites showing females w/o hijabs and buhrkas be censored, as it offends him/her?

I state again--who decides what is to be censored? Does censoring content have an end?

And then there will be the issue of certain books, movies, or music that is available...

This is a slippery slope, imho. "

Sara wrote on Jul 3, 2009 3:33 PM:

" I don't see why they can't filter the computers. If someone wants to complain about "freedom of speech", they can go home and look at that garbage. A private/city building or company should be allowed to make rules according to their own discretion. The laws of this country are getting far too lax just to make people happy - when the law was there to protect us all to begin with. Imagine doing it with your kids, making them happy instead of setting down rules. You end up with kids who get away with everything and expect to be handed anything they want. You are asking for trouble. "