facebook twitter

Public library security lacks practicality

Posted on Sep 06, 2010 in Opinion

Share|

Birmingham Public Library employee Barbara Wilson filed a lawsuit against the downtown library last Thursday, Sept. 2, for not acting to amend her hostile work environment.

According to Wilson, some people make use of the library’s free internet access to watch pornography, some of which is blatantly illicit. These patrons offend other patrons and parents, who feel uncomfortable about bringing their children to the library.

After writing up multiple reports to prevent the situation and seeing no change, Wilson decided to sue the library for not providing appropriate security.

Under the Birmingham Public Library’s Internet access policy, a filter service is installed on all computers in the library, but adult users can choose to turn off the filter.

The filter’s switching off-feature is the library’s way of giving patrons the freedom to use public resources yet maintain an undisruptive atmosphere for other patrons.

However, based on Wilson’s account, this policy – which seems to clearly outline the limits of library internet access and Alabama state regulations – fails due to a lack of security or regulation when patrons take advantage of the Internet service to openly watch porn and disturb others at the library.

This issue raises a number of questions concerning the efficacy of the library’s policy. If the filter can be turned off easily, does that not defeat the purpose of implementing a filter to begin with?

Based on Wilson’s account, it seems like adult users turn off the filter or find a way around the filter, watch pornography, and make others feel uncomfortable with their openly sexual displays.

Also, where do you draw the line between what is considered pornography and what is not?

Would looking up a painting by Matisse that happens to feature nudity for an art assignment be considered inappropriate for viewing at the library if a parent deems it too explicit for his/her children?

Such a painting may be viewed by an employee as too provocative and would probably be blocked by an Internet filter, but it could possibly hold educational value for a student. Could the library employee then call security to remove the student from the premises?

Issues like those of the Birmingham Public Library have sparked at other libraries. Earlier in May, the Washington Supreme Court ruled in the Bradburn vs. North Central Regional Library case that a library can filter internet usage for all visitors without violating any rights laid out by the Washington state constitution.

The Court stated, “just as a public library has discretion to make content-based decisions about which magazines and books to include in its collection, it has discretion to make decisions about Internet content.”

Rather than focus on implementing an Internet filter that can be removed or relying on an ineffective Internet filter that patrons can easily bypass, it might be more practical to focus on enforcing security measures, as Wilson’s lawsuit points out.

Security guards who actually remove individuals violating federal and state laws should be hired to improve the environment of the Birmingham Public Library.

Email: mechang@uab.edu




Tags: , , , ,