did you guys call the cops? -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:42 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Porn in the Library
Nothing to tell, really. There was a desk in a corner of the store with catalogs for ordering wedding invitations and other custom stationery. There was a guy sitting at the desk with his back to me and he was shaking in the chair. One of the women employees who worked in that area went up to him to make sure he was okay, and got to see more than she expected. -Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:26 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Porn in the Library > > > Office Supply store? Details....please?? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:23 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Porn in the Library > > > I honestly don't find it troubling. > > I fully support people viewing legal material, but having > seen some stuff that is pretty easy to stumble upon, I think > other people in a public environment shouldn't be forced to > see it as well, either through accident or because someone > else in the computer area is surfing porn. > > Also, having worked in places where people have publicly > masturbated, I don't have a problem with doing something to > curb that behavior and to help librarians not be put into a > situation of dealing with it. (BTW, the places were an office > supply store and a resturaunt.) Again, it's fine in your own > home but just don't do it in public. > > It's a given that the filters are crap. They just don't work > to block everything they probably should and they block > things they probably shouldn't. The important parts of the > ruling IMO, are 1.) the ability for the patron to request > their filter to be disabled allows for individuals to still > control what they want to see; and 2.) that it only applies > to federal funding. If a library chooses to not receive > federal funding, then they aren't impacted by the law. > > I don't see this so much of an anti-pornography law as it is > a means to help librarians and other patrons not to have to > deal with someone else's lack of basic social mores. If > anything about it is troubling, it's that things have gotten > to a point that a ruling like this even had to come up. > > -Kevin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 12:10 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Porn in the Library > > > > > > nobody commented on this. Too many other topics, or does > > nobody else find > > this slightly troubling? > > > > Dana > > > > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:46:41 -0400, Nick McClure > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > The supreme court upheld the law requiring public libraries > > to install > > > porn > > > filters on public computers. Claiming that if research is > > hampered the > > > filters can be turned off. > > > > > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?C21C62405 > > > > > > -- > > > Nick McClure > > > TransDigital > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
