A Thorny, Porn-y Issue for N.Y. Public Library

· Friday, April 29, 2011

Of course you've heard some version of this tale before. Winston Churchill says to a woman at a party, "Madam, would you sleep with me for 5 million pounds?"

The woman stammers: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill. Well, yes, I suppose ...

Churchill interrupts: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

The woman responds immediately: "What? Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!"

To which the British bulldog replied: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."

The story comes to mind upon hearing the news that the New York Public Library has gotten into the porn business. "With adults, anything that you can get on the Internet, you can legally get on a computer in the library," explained an official. "It's difficult, but we err on the side of free and open access."

What does this have to do with the Churchill story? Well, imagine you went to your local library in, say, 1989 -- or some other year before Al Gore invented the Internet.

Then imagine going up to the librarian and asking him, "Do you carry Hustler?"

The shocked librarian answers, "No."

"Back issues of Swank? High Society? Penthouse?"

"No, no and no," quoth the librarian.

"OK, OK. I get it. Do you have movies?"

Librarian answers: "Yes, of course."

"Great!" you reply. "I'd like to sign out 'Debby Does Dallas.'"

"What? No!"

"How about the VHS of 'On Golden Blonde'?"

Finally, the librarian explodes: "Sir, we do not carry any pornography. What do you think we do here?"

Well, the answer to that question is suddenly in doubt. Because up until very, very recently, the idea that public libraries should -- nay, must! -- peddle unfettered access to hardcore porn would have baffled almost everyone.

I'm hardly an anti-porn crusader, but the list of reasons why libraries didn't -- and shouldn't -- carry porn is vast. The two most obvious and mutually reinforcing reasons are moralistic and budgetary: A) "It's wrong," and B) "We have very limited resources and we must choose what we think is worthwhile and what has no redeeming value."

The problem is that the legs have been knocked out from under both answers. Of course, the moralistic -- or "judgmental" -- bias against porn has been eroding for generations. How bad or good a development that is depends on your point of view.

But until the Internet, it didn't matter. Sure, Playboy might make it through, "for the articles." But not even the most radical or deranged librarians could ever justify subscribing to Juggs over National Geographic, because in a world of limited resources, prudential editing is not merely valuable, it's unavoidable.

But the Internet changed all that. The marginal cost of obtaining pornographic materials in libraries, once prohibitively high, is now nearly nonexistent. In fact, it's actually cheaper just to let it all flood in. Who wants to deal with the filters, blockers and monitors? Just proclaim that the First Amendment requires unfettered access to porn.

But, again, just imagine there was no Internet, and all two-dimensional smut was still on paper, celluloid or magnetic tape. Now imagine trying to argue before a cash-strapped city council that the local public library must not only provide some porn -- free of charge! -- to the public, but that it must provide mountains of it free of charge to the public, all because the First Amendment says so.

You'd be laughed out of the room.

Did the First Amendment change with the invention of the Internet? Of course not. What changed is that librarians lost both the "scarce resources" excuse and the backbone to invoke any other rationale -- decency, child welfare, hygiene, safety, etc. -- for barring it from public libraries.

Technological progress poses such challenges. Don't get me wrong: I love technological progress. But technology makes life easier, and when life is easier, it's harder to stick to the rules that were once essential to getting by in life.

The list of customs and values that were formed or informed by material necessity is too long to contemplate because it includes nearly all of them. Cultures, like cuisines, are formed as much by what isn't available as what is. Scarcity of meat is the mother of good seasoning.

The Internet doesn't completely eliminate scarcity of porn (or of hilarious kitten videos), but it gets us closer than humanity has ever been before. When scarcity drops, so does the price. And it seems that for the New York Public Library, like the lady in the Churchill story, price was always the issue.

(C) 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Richard M. Langworth

That's an amusing story, but entirely untrue: no occurrences in Churchill's 15 million published words--books, articles, speeches, papers. As his daughter says, Sir Winston tended to treat women with Victorian gallantry.

=======

Richard M. Langworth CBE

richardlangworth.com

Editor, Churchill by Himself

Posted April 29, 2011 at 4:40:00 PM


Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries.org

I have been writing about the Brooklyn Public Library for years, starting with the guy who sent me pictures of people viewing porn because the library would not help him. And notice how the "privacy screens" are useless, even when viewed from an angle. I even think the library director quit over this issue.

See:

http://tinyurl.com/BrooklynPublicLibrary

Posted April 30, 2011 at 9:37:44 AM


C. E. Palmer

The story is true--the protagonist is false. The

story comes from an elegant ball staged by British

royalty before WWII. The man was a knighted,high-

profile Brit famous for novels and philosophy. The

woman was a fringe member of the royal family. The

monetary amounts were much lower(factor of five),

but then, the Pound Sterling has lost much value.

Smearing Churchill is more than unkind; the true

author/originator bragged about the event and I

will not give him heightened notoriety here. Rest

in Peace, Sir Winston.

Posted April 30, 2011 at 1:07:47 PM


Scott

Another discussion we shouldn't even be having. Moralizing over what should and shouldn't be present in a 'public' library. After reading the Constitution: it should be obvious. Government has no proper role in libraries. This reflects what happens to republics devolving ever deeper into democracies: tyranny, subterfuge, and stupidity of elites, purchased with stolen funds from the unwilling masses, for the 'benefit' of those same masses.

Posted May 1, 2011 at 2:12:23 PM


pete

I've heard that same story with almost everybody from Julius Ceaser to barack obama in the staring role. Doug MacAutor, David Duke, George Clooney, Jackie Gleason, Jackie Mason, Jack Benny, Fatty Arbuckle, Charlie Chaplin, both Laural AND Hardy.

So much for slander.

Posted May 1, 2011 at 9:08:12 PM


JAC

The point is not whether it was Churchill or anyone else! It's merely a story that illustrates the point of the article. It would be just as good an example if it was "Joe Smith."

Posted May 2, 2011 at 3:15:41 PM


Cylar

I don't understand what's so prohibitively expensive about installing filtering software on library computers.

Sure, you'll run into the periodic problem of some kid not being to finish his paper on breast cancer research (because the search contains a prohibited word) but that's the breaks. My biggest concern is that children could more easily access this material in libraries than before.

Moralizing or not, surely it's beyond debate that kids should be kept away from adult materials.

Posted May 5, 2011 at 3:48:11 AM


Nathaniel

Actually, Cylar, it's not beyond debate. The idea that sexual material is not appropriate for anyone old enough to be interested in it is relatively modern, and rooted in Judeo-Christian morality.

Nearly all people in the country agree that sex plays an important role in a healthy adult life, so why shouldn't adolescents learn about it in the safe environment of a public library?

Posted July 5, 2011 at 3:35:10 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund