I'm a Writer, Not a Child Pornographer

I heard Facebook removed an obscene picture of a breastfeeding woman, and Craigslist tightened the reins on their erotic services section. However, like many people, I wasn't overly-concerned with electronic censorship -- that is, until it directly affected me.

Typing in isolation with my tush snuggled against my living room couch's cushions can be alienating; therefore, I prefer to pack my computer inside my red shoulder-strap bag and scout the city. To do my work, I need privacy, space to spread out and a powerful electrical source for my laptop. My partner in crime is old; he usually runs out of juice after an hour or two.

I go to the library because the threesome that includes my work, laptop and little brown me are welcome there. At least I thought we were until we were thrown into the lot with child pornographers.

Settling in for a long day's work at the Mid-Manhattan branch located on 40th Street and 5th Avenue, I ride the elevator to the second floor, set my personal laptop on the docking station table, tap into the free wifi and pull my chair to the table's edge. Creativity, like all living sources, requires feeding; therefore, I write regular entries on my blog, www.funkybrownchick.com, to keep the momentum going.

"The site you are trying to access has been blocked by the New York Public Library," the warning screen shouted. Sites containing visual depictions of obscenity, child pornography, and materials that are "harmful to minors" trigger the block.

I'd been banned, tagged as a "sex" website. Not surprising, I guess. I'm a dating, sex and relationships writer. I scribble articles about men who wear thongs, technology and sex, how to enhance consensual adult play with toys and other juicy topics that (I hope!) bring pleasure to people who read my work.

I've written for Lifetime, New York Press, Nerve, Gen Art, Fast Company, a Turner Broadcasting Company website called The Frisky and elsewhere. NPR, Sirius Satellite radio and Canadian national public radio (CBC) have interviewed me about my dating commentary. I mention some of my writing street cred to alert you I'm not the "oh-I'm-a-I-writer-but-I-never-put-in-the-hard-work-to-actually-get-my-stuff-published" kind. I sincerely care about my work.

I am neither obscene, a child pornographer nor harmful to minors. Hell, I receive more graphic and (adult) pornographic content via emails from friends than I do on my blog. So, when my site was banned, I got pissed off and the square keys on my laptop took the beating.

I mouthed off on Twitter, blasting my complaint to more than 1,400 of my followers. Dishing about the incident on my high-traffic blog -- Funky Brown Chick, the same one that NYPL banned -- I typed, "Book burning = bad. Banning sex ed websites = good. Okay. Got it."

To be clear, I don't expect NYPL to give underage patrons access to images of porn.

Where's the line and who decides what's on the wrong side of it?

Even if the ban on my site hadn't been lifted, web-savvy young library patrons could still access it via RSS feeds or anonymous browsing. (I was loath to mention that in my blog post because, more often than not, discussions about censorship workarounds trigger tête-à-têtes about how to fix these "loopholes" rather than constructive conversations about whether bans are necessary.)

In the end, an amazing person who identified himself as Gary says he successfully submitted a request to unblock my site. Hallelujah! Let there be sex.

"[NYPL internet access management systems] are automated, and look for sites that have heavy use of words like [explicative], sex, etc., and/or images related to similar words. But automated=lots of mistakes [...]" he notes in a comment on my blog, going further to mention filters are probably the most ethical way to meet organizational requirements for government cash. In other words, buildings that store our nation's literary documents need money, and they aren't going to risk access to federal funds over a blocked website or two.

I love the New York Public Library. "The very existence of libraries," T.S. Elliot tells us, "affords the best evidence that we may yet have hope for the future of man." For now, even in times of financial hardship, our cities make it a financial priority to provide adults unfettered access to information. I hope that never changes.

For the record, I've owed overdue library fines for years. After this incident, I paid them. The fees are gone; however, questions about electronic censorship remain. Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.

Comments

[olddad]

I think that we as a country needs to get a life!!I am so sick of the conservative groups crying about porn. It seems that games that are incredibly violent,i.e. decapitati­on,spurtin­g blood etc are ok.However ,if our sweet and innocent children see a breast or nipple they will be "scarred for life".

[whiteboyblues]

Big Brother is ALWAYS watching, freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

[beaupritchard]

"with my tush snuggled against my living room couch's cushions " ... great visual.

[geezer33]

I feel for you. This country has a negative sex fetish: consider that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex -- and G.W. Bush wasn't for lying about a disastrous war (among other things).
We have become so focused on condemning anything sexual outside of marital, procreational sex as bad that we are criminalizing normal human behavior. A friend, barely 18, downloaded some marginally questionable material from the internet, got arrested for child porn possession, and now faces a felony conviction and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender, i.e., a ruined life. This intelligent, caring woman is no danger to children, but she will be barred from being within a quarter mile from a minor forever.
Indeed, I feel for you.

[PaulLev]

Thanks for posting this, Twanna - I'm using it in my latest book as an example of the slowness of some older media to understand and come to terms with blogging and its possibilities. http://newnewmediabook.com

[ExpatDane]

Facebook and Myspace risk losing their European users to future competition with there American aversion to sex, sexuality and adult behavior. The application of puritan rules is a turn off. Just a warning.

[zombie fairy]

I get the filter on a public computer owned by the library, but when using your own personal computer with the library's wifi, that seems like a different scenario entirely.

[amdezurik]

still has to go through the firewall

[JasText]

I can relate. I'm a painter, and I put a slideshow of some paintings on myspace using photobucket.

A couple of days in, I found a huge band across one of the paintings that said THIS PHOTO HAS BEEN REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE OR OBSCENE CONTENT.

It was a painting of a nude man, part of a diptych of two fat nude studies. I guess they exed it because you could sort of see his little widdy. They did not censor the female painting.

I do believe there should be controls on internet porn, particularly child porn and/or stalking sites, but who decides, and how? Did someone denounce my innocent painting to some invisible authority, or what? It wasn't obscene at all, just a figure study done in a sort of renaissance style/colours... was I supposed to have painted in a fig leaf? I think this is going to be a huge issue in the near future, and we all have to be vigilant to protect the freedom of the internet... hell we just won an election with it, but if some board of censors of the reactionary flavour get the power to censor or control content, we're all in big trouble.

To the electronic barricades!

[fltnsplr]

Twanna, you have written an excellent article, complete with accurate punctuation, except for the following statement:

"However, like many people, I wasn't overly-concerned with electronic censorship -- that is, until it directly affected me."

Unless the rules have been changed since I went to school, there is no need for any kind of symbol between "overly" and "concerned". The adverb already handles that task by modifying the participle.

I realize that many people have adopted this style of writing, perhaps fearing that they'll be incorrect if they don't follow the latest trend, but in my opinion, it is not necessary to employ the modest and overworked hyphen in such a manner.

[mheister]

I will come your linguistic defense Twanna. fltnslplr may be correct from the perspective of the prescriptivists, but descriptivists will totally defend your conversational - and hence more intimate - use of the language.

In short, i wouldn't be overly concerned about this.

[Pyfagorus]

You're correct in this case because "concerned" is being used as a predicative adjective (i.e., it follows the modified noun and a linking verb). However, if it had been used as an attributive adjective preceding the modified noun, the hyphen would be necessary, e.g., "an overly-concerned parent."

[streetkid5]

My son was ten when he introduced me to Twisty's, asking for explanations of certain of that website's features. We had Norton as our electronic babysitter then, and for several years afterward. I knew from my work with little geniuses at a summer remediation academy that there is a will and several ways to access erotic stimuli, through the tightest of filters. The prudes know it, too; they are just up for the game.
Modesty and discretion are most often in our best interests as a society, but nowhere does that mean government, at any level, needs to define those terms for all individuals. Have your idea of fun behind your door. I need never know.

[ramblingjohnny]

It done on the pretext of protecting children and the ironic part is that it failing completely at doing just that! It really always to satisfy those family advocacy groups of constipated and repressed peoples! Most of the time they install the damn thing just so they can say to anybody who asking that they did something to filter! I would not be shock to learn that in most of these libraries the software filter was not updated since Y2K.
Their is dozen of way to go around words based software filter and the kids know all of them. IP blocking is also completely useless against things like TOR and other proxy. You want to protect children stop them from using computers unsupervised. The funny part is that kids don't access porn at the libraries where they risk getting cough they access it at home on the family computer right under the noses of Mom and Dad who are none the wiser.

[hosshoss777]

This free Internet isn't free in the most basic of considerations, namely the free exchange of ideas.
That's what worries me about this new idea to auction off the old analog TV waves some of it to be used for "free" wireless Internet. I fear that though free, there will be quite a trade off in the freedom of information.

I actually understand the libraries position on this, they supply the Internet for free, take it, or leave it and go buy your own. When I first got on the Internet I too went to my local Public Library run by my County. Yes, it too was totally controlled and quite censored. It motivated me to, instead of protesting and making a scene, to just go get my own ISP connection.

We bristle at them sometimes, but the reality is, there is a such thing as public standards and when you use or access public facilities, these standards come with it.

[txkayrose]

I am no fan of censoring, but i have to agree with the libraries use of a filter, given that they are (apparently) willing to unblock sites that 1) patrons request & 2) offer something meaningful for the general public.
Unlike printed texts, that usually have to be acquired and catalogued (i.e. a human being has to participate) material on the internet comes at us like a waterfall.
Unless the library is able to provide specific terminals for minors that are filtered, and other, unfiltered, terminals for the rest, they have an obligation to shield kids from content they are simply not old enough to process.
I don't mind my tax dollars paying for a subscription to Playboy for the library, but as great as the articles may be, I wouldn't want it left on a table or counter for my 8-yr old to pick up - I would expect the staff to keep tabs on it.

[Computer Geek]

So what is the final answer? - there are people who can't get enough of Famous Footwear due to their foot fetish (sorry - not my cup of tea, but hey, if it does something for them, who am I to judge...)! Given that, should we ban all pictures or references of feet? And then what do we say about those people who like looking at children's feet (they are cute you know...)?

Don't let anyone read Peter Blatty, for God's sake! The book 'The Exorcist' would probably destroy society as we know it in a heartbeat (I read it when I was 17 - haven't been arrested for any crucifix fornication ... yet ...)

I don't care to look at breastfeeding Moms either (feels like I'm intruding on someone else's meal and seems wrong at that point - have these women considered their child's right to privacy while eating? - or my right to not have to view that?). Would it be alright with them to show their child having a BM or some other bodily function? Is it really fundamentally different? Just another body function...

It all comes down to people not being able to mind their own business, take care of their own kids, it's always someone else's responsibility and someone else's problem or in this case someone else's decision of what is right and wrong. What a society we have become...

[johnb3950]

I once sent an email to my wife from the company's email system about some harmless domestic thing to do - forget what it was - but made the mistake of ending affectionately with kisses - "Love, John, xxx" Next thing there was this huge automated notice in my in box about inappropriate content, etc. I knew the guy in charge so I asked him what was up? Yes, you guessed it - the software hit on the "xxx". . .