No beer, no smokes but yes to porn

Des Moines Register, Nov. 21 - A homeless sex offender accused of molesting a toddler in a Des Moines library restroom last month told police he used library computers to view pornography many times.

Tobacco is a legal product but it is restricted by who can buy it and where it can be used. Even with these restrictions it is widely available and those who choose to smoke may under certain conditions.

Because of the dangers of second-hand smoke, laws were passed to remove smokers from non-smokers...period...end of discussion. The sight of smokers shivering in the cold or huddled together under umbrellas outside of office buildings is now common. We offer little to no sympathy because after all, they are the ones who choose to smoke and smokers have many options as to where they can indulge this habit.

Pornography is also a legal product. It is regulated by Federal, State and community standards and yet it is still widely available for those who wish to indulge. Viewing pornography is generally considered to be a private affair (no pun intended). Until now...

Consider the case of James Effler Jr.:

www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051121/NEWS01/511210330/1001&lead=1

Des Moines Register Nov. 21

A homeless sex offender accused of molesting a toddler in a Des Moines library restroom last month told police he used library computers to view pornography many times.Even if that's true, James Effler Jr. didn't violate any laws or break library rules.The Effler case gives fuel to groups that push for Internet filters intended to block pornographic Web sites at libraries - a position opposed by some librarian associations despite the risk of losing federal money.

Des Moines Police Detective Tom Follett said Effler told police he entered the library Oct. 4 planning to use a computer to look at porn but had not logged on before the 20-month-old girl was snatched from the floor near her baby sitter, who was using a computer. The child was taken into a restroom and assaulted.

Was the child a victim of “second-hand arousal”? Effler went to the library to look at porn. Sex was obviously already on his mind before he even saw the child and the temptation was too great. If the library didn’t offer access to porn, he probably would have been somewhere else that day.

Call me crazy but it seems a conflict of interest that a city or state government would set up buffer zones forcing convicted sexual predators to move themselves away from schools and playgrounds where children gather and then give free access to pornography in public libraries. Free meaning paid for by tax payers.

Government: As a convicted sexual predator, you may not live across the street from a playground but you can go to the library and look at porn next to the children’s reading room thanks to the tireless efforts of our librarian association.

Does this make sense to anyone?!?!? Let's review. I can not light up my cancer stick, crack open a cold beer or eat a candy bar in the library (all legal activities) because it might annoy or possibly be a hazard to others in the library; but I can view pornography and if I am a sex offender, become dangerously aroused to the point where I might commit an unspeakable crime.

The way I see it, we have several choices - we could ban sex offenders from entering the library. This would require a background check of everyone who applies for a library card as well as anyone entering the library. We could ban women and children from entering the library as they are most often the victims of sexual predators...much like we ban children from bars.

Or perhaps we could create a separate "arousal section" for those who wish to view pornography. Patrons would be carded at the door and then when they are ready to leave they would be subjected to an "arousal check" by a uniformed police office.

Officer: Excuse me, sir. Have you been viewing pornography?

Library Patron: Not much…just a couple Playboys.

If they are considered in a state of arousal beyond the "legal limit" they could be ticketed and/or arrested and their library card suspended. Of course this is completely absurd... Or perhaps just maybe we can put filters on the computers and lock out known pornography sites. What makes the most sense here?

Viewing porn is not a constitutional right. We are not violating anyone's "rights" if we ban porn from the library just as we have not violated anyone rights to smoke or drink. We've already established the fact that consumers have many options for viewing and buying pornography. The public libraries do not corner the retail porn market - they are not the Wal-Mart of porn.

So let's all take a deep breath and use some common sense. The purpose of porn is to arouse, to entice. By his own admission, Effler went to the library to look at porn. He hadn’t logged on to the computer yet when he kidnapped the child so I guess he saw the child as an easier and more satisfying target than simply viewing images online. If porn was not available at the library, I’m guessing he wouldn’t have been there at all.

There are many legal activities you can not do in the library; no one questions the need to have a smoke free or alcohol free environment in the library. Why does common sense fail us when it comes to pornography?