This is a topic close to my heart. I adored browsing in libraries when I was a child, and it killed me to conclude, by the time I had children of my own, that libraries had become inappropriate places for children to browse. I can remember when the arguments merely concerned whether this or that book belonged on the shelves and who should make that determination. Now everything is available, so even the physical space in the library doesn't provide any constraints.

In my opinion, the only solution is to return to Ben Franklin's subscription libraries. People could pay for the kind of library they want, and if private charities didn't pick up the tab for the poor, the government might do so, as long as it wouldn't start dictating content (a forlorn "as long as" if there ever was one). I have actually long fantasized about starting a chain of private lending libraries of the classics (books only) in church basements.

The internet made the library obsolete.

Ellen, it's not clear to me whether you are describing what is or what should be. Locals should indeed be allowed to decide what to pay for in their own libraries; unfortunately, the American Library Association decided some time back that it gets to decide. What it has decided is that the locals have to fund anything and everything, and it has cast that decision as a dictate of the First Amendment. Implausible, but some courts have bought it.

"the obligatory joke about how James Madison tried to write the name of an adult movie into the U.S. Constitution"

Who says he didn't?

Art. I Sec. 8 cl. 1: "The Power to Lay and Collect Taxes"

Art. II Sec. 3: "He Shall Receive Ambassadors"

Art. VI cl. 1: "Engagements entered into"

etc., etc...

If I weren't still nursing my happy hour drink (west coast) at a place with free WiFi, then I'd step across the street to the public library (which also has free WiFi, but no booze) and reply from there.

This place still bans naughty stuff at its public library terminals. Maybe in an ultra-progressive town like this, they need to get with the NYC plan? Or, they could meter the naughty terminals at 10 cents per minute, and pay off the library deficit rather quickly.

Indeed, adjacent to the central public library, an "adult" store opened a few years ago. The store was previously occupied by a place that sold educational toys for yuppie kids, but that one went out of business. The adult store is still there. Most families pass it on the way to the library. It's very low-key. Outside, its window ad shows six photos of people having fun, presumably using their products. Three are same-gender couples, one is a same-gender triplet, one is an elderly mixed-gender couple, and one is solo.

I don't think the library will allow naughty stuff just yet. My observation is that its power structure consists of old-school progressives, by which I mean folks who think that Jesus might have existed (and was a progressive), as opposed to the newer generation, who are sure that Jesus did not exist (but would have been a progressive, had he existed).

Is the ACLU in on this, somewhere? Or don't its members read books anymore?

I disagree. Certainly one can take issue with much of what is in public libraries, but I have not been to any that do not still have classic literature, good modern literature, and a huge array of non-fiction in science, art, biography, etc. It's this kind of argument that makes conservatives look like clueless old fuddy-duddies. No doubt, "Harold and Kumar" go anywhere is useless, but do you really want to weigh in on, say, "Yankee Doodle Dandy" or "The Sixth Sense", or Beatles CDs, or the Left Behind novels, or Chelsea Handler books? It's short-sighted to pick and choose a few bad examples here. I have always found public libraries to be a very good use of public money, in that we conservatives can still say: "Look, due to circumstances we can't easily change, you live in a crummy neighborhood with a crummy school. We'll work on that (vouchers, e.g.) but if you REALLY want to learn, all you need is a library card. If a kid in an inner city crummy school just went to the library and read decent non-fiction books for 3 hrs every afternoon after school instead of playing basketball or, heaven forbid, joining a gang, we would have no problem. Public libraries are pretty cheap, I'll bet, and the return is big, even if not always in reality, at least in opportunity--which after all, is what we conservatives should seek to be equal for everyone.

I gave up on our local library system after my under aged son rented the unrated cut of Requiem For A Dream. When I complained to the library management, I was accused of being a fascist book burner. I wasn't saying that they should ban anything, just that it all shouldn't be available for kids to check out.

While complaining about that, my oldest son pointed out that they had exactly one copy of Liberal Fascism. For the entire library system!

Limiting access to conservative publications while fighting against any reasonable limitations to keep adult material away from children is their business but I haven't been back and haven't voted for any levies since.

It seems there should be a pretty easy way to stop this. Just have your child walk up behind the guy, and then look at the screen and start screaming "pervert".

I'm betting that most states have laws against showing pornography to minors.

"There is nothing in the First Amendment, properly understood, that would prohibit the Brooklyn Public Library from using a pornography filter in its library computers."

I wonder how long it will take before someone sues over the presents of pornography promoting a hostile work environment for women. That would certainly happen with any other employer.

P.S. THe stupid content filter strikes again. I can say pornography but not "p orn'. Welcome to the NRO Nanny state.