Distribution of Playboy in libraries (was RE: Boston...)

[David L. King]

> Whether there is or is not a law, there is a difference.  Stores make
> money selling <<Playboy>>.  Libraries don't make money providing Internet
> access--at least they don't make money as a direct result of Internet
> access.

I noticed something about this comment - it distinguishes between format,
rather than by content. 

As far as content goes, well... if the web version of Playboy still has
pictures in it, it would legally fall under the same guidelines as the
paper version (until/unless there's a law that distinguishes between
format).

> Also, the important point is that if governments want to pass pornography
> laws, they can hire people to enforce them.  They should not require
> libraians or anybody else to act as unofficial deputies in the unwinable
> war on smut.

This is true - but it should count for any law - not just the "smut" laws.
For example, the same convenience store clerk who acts as an unofficial
deputy for "smut laws" also acts as an unofficial deputy for the alcohol
laws. My point is this - one law shouldn't be singled out as a "watch for
this" or a "don't police this" type of law. Under your point, either the
convenience store clerk should keep on doing what he/she is doing as
regards company policy for local laws, or each store/library/etc. offering
items not for sale to minors should hire a full-time policeman to check
IDs. 


		**************************************************
			David King
			Electronic Services Librarian
			University of Southern Mississippi
			dlking at ocean.st.usm.edu
			http://ocean.st.usm.edu/~dlking/
		**************************************************