Why do libraries sensor the internet when I can go pick up a book there that has a young retarded boy getting fucked in the ass?
Because nobody wants to watch your retard porn over your shoulder in public. Go find somewhere else to jerk it.
>>8225978
I think you missed my point.....why limit the internet when you can find anything in a book? Is it a matter of images?
Because that is basically admitting that images are more powerful than words.
>>8226003
>i wasn't trolled into reading physical books
>i'd totally be reading about retarded young boys getting fucked in the ass not watching live action 240p of the same thing if the internet worked
it's a library, dude, they want you to better yourself
>>8226051
Ahem.....
I read, a lot. I learned to read at 3.
A book I like very much, Everville, has a young retarded boy getting fucked in the ass.
That was just an example. My point is, books can contain literally anything....arguably more than any other medium, so why limit the internet but not limit books.
There is classic literature that depicts things that would never be allowed on screen.
>>8226003
You're not admitting an image is more powerful, you're admitting it would be easier for somebody to see an image in passing, perhaps by accident, than it would be for some kid to accidentally read an entire passage over your shoulder
>>8226003
>I think you missed my point
no, he didn't.
>>8226073
The history of, and the reaction to, banned books is long and interesting, but from your writing style and manner I doubt you would be interested. And by that I mean you seem retarded.
Craig, Alec. The Banned Books of England and Other Countries: A Study of the Conception of Literary Obscenity. London: Allen and Unwin, 1962.
This is a standard, although outdated, introduction to the subject. Included here because it is frequently cited.
Feather, John. A History of British Publishing. 2d ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2006.
Originally published in 1988. This is essential reading for anyone new to studies in censorship and the history of the book. The bibliography in the second edition is comprehensive and extensive, but on far more than censorship and literature.
Patterson, Annabel. “Censorship.” In Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism. Edited by Martin Coyle, Peter Garside, Malcolm Kelsall, and John Peck, 901–914. Routledge Companion Encyclopedias. London: Routledge, 1993.
Although international in its focus, this still offers an overview of the meaning of literary censorship and represents the most important occasions of British literary censorship.
>>8226102
Well, I assure you that I am not retarded. I just don't post here very often. I have been making a real effort to edit myself when I write for others to read because people have a very short attention span, and many won't even bother to read so much as a short paragraph anymore.
And yes, murrica here. Funny we're moving backward in the respect, with the extreme left wanting to ban Gone with the Wind and such.
But as far as I know, there have been books that were censored in the US. When I was 11, I got my legal guardian to go to the library and request a series of books for me, The Poor Man's James Bond, and other books of a subversive nature, and she was refused. She came back asking me what was in those books I asked for.
I think I would be more interested in reading about modern censorship.
>>8226073
>why would the people who want me to read books make me read books instead of watching internets?
they don't give a shit about porn, they want you to read books, nimrod.
>>8226120
Then they should restrict the internet completely.
>>8226119
You ARE retarded if you think librarys turning on web filters to stop perverts from masturbating in public is censorship, given the fact that in murrica most librays are daytime shelters for the homeless.
And censoring books in America is against the first Amendment, so long as it abides by public speech laws and obscenity laws, as discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law#Obscene_Texts, which is limited at this point to basically descriptions and discussion of child rape, which I know will ruffle feathers here.
>>8226003
Laocoon, Chapter 23. You should read it next time you go.
Lessing basically explains why certain things can be described in written form, but not depicted visually.
>>8226129
but then how would they draw you in? it's bait, man, you just fell for it. sneaky librarians, it's always the quiet ones.
>>8226149
That is hilarious because my library doesn't even have that fucking book. I tried to get it several times.
Been waiting a year for Infinite Jest.
>>8226129
>going to the library to use the internet
>sensor
>delusions of grandeur and persecution
Are you a grizzled mentally ill 50 year old woman that spends 4 hours every day on the library computer clicking clickbait articles and loudly talking to the librarian
>>8226149
Also, I just read it....it's about the Trojan horse.....
???
>>8226172
Ahem....
I will try this once more. /lit/ I used to come here some years ago, and I have always valued you as the smartest board. Come on, now.
I do not go to the library to use the internet. I did when I was a teenager, but that was because no one I knew had the internet in 1997, and they used to let you print shit for free.
I am not arguing because of my personal experience. If they want to disallow pornography, that's fine. However, just because something is for adults doesn't mean that it should be censored.
>>8226181
Are we talking about the same thing here?
Ahem...
As has already been stated in this thread, but which you cannot seem to wrap your head around: the filters libraries place on their networks are not there to 'censor' any given content, but to prevent anti-social behavior (browsing pornography/masturbating in public) and illegal activity (accessing darknet trading sites to purchase drugs and firearms).
>>8226073
>books can contain...arugably more than any other medium
nah. i just can't imagine the pores on that kid's asshole without electronic visual representation. also, you're retarded.
>>8226347
Oh, I see....when I googled it, it brought up the Aeneid by Virgil....
>>8226462
both of those are known to cut into time spent on antisocial behaviour like reading kant, you cunt.
>>8226462
yes, but /lit/ is blocked.
Library computers are intended for research. Authentic, real research and are only there for things that they don't have in the form of a book.
I'm glad they are meant for research too. I could list plenty of reason why.
1.Free unfiltered internet access attracts the lowest levels of filthy fucks, deadbeats, morons, poor people (who only use it to check the lottery or look up their incarcerated friends). The library is not the place for Facebook fags and internet culture monsters to fuck around on deviant art.
2. Every once in a while, someone gains a lot from the fact that the computers are censored. They can focus and get a lot of information.
3. A book featuring a retarded boy getting fucked in the ass has so much more merit than all of /Lit/
Ahem…
I suck multiple cocks a day.
>>8226857
Every time I go to the library, everyone is playing games, FB, or youtube....so, nah...
>>8226857
As if anyone does any actual research at a public library.
Ahem...
>>8226073
>I learned to read at 3.
And it's been a wild 10 years since then. No ones going to care, it's in a public library
>>8225970
>sensor
>>8226887
Your library is just a sink of taxpayer money and people's time then. Mine is too, but it's small. Live in more of an outpost than a town.
I'd like a library that people stay away from because its so boring and the internet is restricted. That's a beautiful place to focus.
>>8226922
It's awfully sad that you can't comprehend people being intelligent on a computer, but I don't blame you because it's a rare sight to see.
>>8226973
Nice try you jackass. I may have made a typo, but that's a censer, not a sensor.
>>8226974
>It's awfully sad that you can't comprehend people being intelligent on a computer, but I don't blame you because it's a rare sight to see.
Being intelligent or not, unless you're at a university library or just have some damn fantastic public libraries, they don't have access to journals so what exactly are people "researching"? Wikipedia?
In general public library computers are sued solely by hobos checking email, or as catalogues for the library itself.
Who that has their own computer would rather use some outdated and restricted piece of shit public computer?
>>8227001
Do you not know how to do research on a computer?
>>8226802
4chan is on just about every productivity or family values based block list.
I used to work at a school that filtered it and facebook, but I wasnt retarded enough to call it censorship.
>>8226073
>I learned to read at 3
dennisnedrynobodycares.jpg
>>8226974
Libraries censor the internet because they don't want to lose public funding.
>>8226191
It's not some grand debate, it's just practical. Censoring websites known for inappropriate images protects others from seeing it over your shoulder, which is much easier and bigger deal than somebody reading something over your shoulder. A person can accidentally see an image of loli porn they didn't want to see, but a book with that content has to be sought out. A book cannot be forced on people by it's mere presence, they just see the spine or the cover, it must be actively read. An image you can't help but see if it's on a computer screen.
>>8226802
4chan is an 18+ website, with boards dedicated to porn. They aren't going to go through board by board and allow and disallow different boards, they'll block the entire site that is known for the content. Still, different than censoring a book because the information is easily accessible elsewhere.
>>8226003
This post just reminds me of how little we live up to our full potential every day. Here you are arguing about whether a public library should allow you to look at porn when I'm sure you could be doing so much more.
>>8226996
CENSOR you fucking teenage piece of shit
>>8225970
That's a cool monster
>>8226996
And you're an asshole, by which I mean a scent sore.
