Press "Enter" to skip to content

Rapid City Alderman Attacks Library for Citizens’ Porn Habits

Last updated on 2012.12.09

Rapid City Alderman Chad Lewis is attacking his public library system for the actions of public porn viewers:

When Alderman Chad Lewis learned from a constituent that someone was viewing pornography in the city library, he was shocked to find out that the public facility had no filters on many computers that would prohibit access to adult sites.

Now, he is demanding that action be taken to prohibit those websites from appearing on computer screens on the main floor of the library. Computers in the children's section do have filters that block porn sites.

"Until this action is rectified by the library, I will not vote to give one cent to the library," he said this week.

...the library acknowledges it has no filters that block pornography websites in its main area, which means there is nothing to stop someone from looking at pornography while children and others are within viewing distance.

Lewis said he finds that stunning.

"There is no way that should even be remotely a possibility," he said. "The taxpayers should not be paying for that type of thing. There are children in that area. It comes to the safety of children, and I will not negotiate on that" [Aaron Orlowski, "Alderman Takes on Library Porn," Rapid City Journal, 2012.12.07].

Chill out, Alderman Lewis. The library you as a city official are in charge of is not the enemy. The horndogs who can't leave their porn habit at home are. And your library is already taking steps to boot those bozos while maximizing everyone's First Amendment rights:

Librarians everywhere are working to protect their patrons from pornography while still protecting First Amendment rights. The Rapid City Public Libraries have published policies to that effect.... The Rapid City Public Libraries locate the public computers so that they are visible to the general public and staff. In addition, filters are used in the youth areas of our libraries to block sites that have inappropriate content.

In the last two years 907,655 people used the Rapid City Public Libraries, logging 256,050 hours on public internet computers. During that same time period there have been 38 incidents of individuals viewing inappropriate websites that have been addressed by staff and resulted in loss of library services. Our staff are present and prepared to address policy violations, we also appreciate it when the public can assist by informing staff their concerns [Greta Chapman, library director, "Access and Filtering in Libraries," Rapid City Public Library Digital Pressroom, 2012.12.07].

I work in an Internet-filtered environment, a public high school classroom. Filters do more to restrict access to useful information than they do to keep kids out of sites they shouldn't be viewing on school time. Filters are not nearly as effective at protecting children from inappropriate content as having adults in the room keeping an eye on the screens and calling out users when they misuse the computers.

Forget the techno-authoritarian fix. Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on filtering software, Alderman Lewis, try the communitarian fix. Encourage all taxpayers to keep an eye on their public computers. Encourage them to speak up when they see others exposing children to smut. And make it clear to your librarians that you support them 100%, so they will feel confident in following up on citizen complaints and enforcing their sensible policies.

We're all on the same team here, Alderman Lewis. You, your librarians, we library users—if we work as a team, we'll keep our kids safer than any software or grandstanding no-more-funding rhetoric will.

Update 2012.12.09 10:20 MST: Dave Davis, the alderman Chad Lewis replaced, says the real issue is that the offending library user wasn't just looking at smut but masturbating to it at the library computer station. "[T]his isn’t about access or filters or even porn," says Davis. "It’s an issue of management doing their job."

9 Comments

  1. Taunia 2012.12.08

    Gaw. The stupid. It burns.

    Defund the library for everyone so no one can access porn.

    Lewis better hold the same philosophy for funding roads because someone may drive to a porn shop. Or funding the fire department because it may respond to a house filled with porn- or worse - a whorehouse.

  2. grudznick 2012.12.08

    Very well put, Mr. H. I couldn't agree more.

  3. Douglas Wiken 2012.12.08

    Ironic that SDPB-TV just re-ran a program titled something like "How the Beatles Rocked the USSR". The Communist authoritarian thugs were terribly afraid of the incendiary rock music threatening teenage morals and undermining boss's authority.

    Personally, Faux News is more of a threat to logic, morals, and reality than any porn site. The councilman might want to add to his list of banned sites or forget the whole idea. Rightwing consistency is rather rare.

  4. Rorschach 2012.12.08

    Well said Mr. Heidelberger.

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.12.09

    It's a tricky issue, because I'm still advocating kicking these people off the computers and not letting them access certain information. The big difference between my approach and Alderman Lewis's is that I'm trying to focus the authoritarian action on the people doing something wrong instead of exercising blanket restrictions on all citizens.

  6. Rorschach 2012.12.09

    Using a fly swatter rather than a bazooka to kill a fly. Right on!

  7. John 2012.12.11

    The problem with filters is that they, at best, have a 60-70% success rate meaning 30-40% of the time the filter is actually blocking legitimate content or possibly letting questionable content through. The filters rely on proprietary algorithms through an expensive vendor that may or may not actually filter out the material the library (or the politicians that bully them) wish to be filtered. These filters are also horrible at multimedia (images, video, feeds, Facebook, YouTube, Vimio, whatever) so in order for them to work they need to blanket ban the entire site or focus on how people tag them. Either way, legitimate material will get blocked while porn will still get through...

    So what good is the filter? It is simply money thrown away for the illusion of safety. Which is what Mr. Lewis is advocating for. I am sure the tagline of "Bringing Safety to the Good People of Rapid City" would make him feel delightful and help his future political career. Of course this illusion of safety comes at a cost. By limiting access to the web you limit people's access to information and communication.

    What is worse is that even defining "porn" is problematic. Do nudes count? Would they be blocked? How about photo-blogs?

    What happens when information of a sensitive nature but not questionable by the definition of the library's policy gets blocked. Do we expect patrons to ask to have sensitive material unblocked. It seems an unnecessary hurdle to jump.

    What happens with wi-fi access? Does that get filtered as well? Your iPhone? Kindle Fire?

    When a library decides not to use a filtering device it is to protect the person's right to view material rather than a blatant disregard for public safety or gross mismanagement.

    The bottom-line is that filtering content online through ineffective measures is not ethically in line with a library's mission. I can't imagine a Mr. Lewis' "blanket-block" of the library's funding would do much either.

    Full Disclosure: I've worked for the Rapid City Public Library and know for a fact that the staff and management look to preserve the first amendment rights of all library users (as well as their freedom to view and read as defined by the ALA) with a healthy concern for public safety.

  8. Concerned citizen. 2012.12.14

    Viewing of porn at RCPL is nothing new and people come in DAILY for the sole purpose of viewing porn. People are sitting in their cars viewing porn outside of the library because it's a 24 hour wifi hotspot. The only solution there is an administrative shakedown. Period.

Comments are closed.