Nearly every weekday, a man comes into the Secaucus public library, stops at the desk, requests use of a computer, and then, immediately, dials into a pornographic web site, according to library staff members.
In Secaucus – where the library is small – nearly all the screens look out onto the open space of the main room, so that nearly everyone passing can see images of naked women. Often, this gentleman leaves the screen on while he goes to the toilet, returning to continue his browsing of pornographic sites, library staff members say.
As of November 1998, Family PC Magazine estimated that the Internet contained as many as 60,000 such sites. Documents submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in several cases over the last decade claimed hundreds of new sites are added to the Internet each week – or about a 40 percent growth rate each year since 1997.
As recently as the late 1980s, if you wanted to view pornographic images, you had to go to a theater – generally in a seedy section of a city, or ease into the back room of a sleazy magazine store. Even in the early 1990s, mainstream magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse were kept behind the counter in convenience stores, most often with covers hidden in brown paper wrappings.
Now, because of Supreme Court rulings defending people’s rights to free speech, people can often just go to their local library to get pornography. But in Secaucus, if you turn on the wrong station, the staff might just shut you down.
"The Secaucus Public Library neither monitors nor controls the information available on the Internet," says a written Internet policy that the library posts at the front desk. "Since the Internet may contain materials unsuited to a public library setting, the Secaucus Public Library staff reserves the right to end an Internet session when such material displays on the screen."
The Secaucus Library in fact has two regular patrons who use library computers to view these sites, the staff members say. They say the men are not sexual deviants, and that the staff knows them by name. They say the men have "white collar jobs."
Steffens said the library has received at least two complaints from other patrons about screen visibly displaying pornography – although staff members say other people have asked for places to sit out of sight of the computers.
"One teacher asked us to make some effort to control the behavior," Steffens said.
In response to the complaints, Steffens has ordered the computer turned off at times.
Supreme Court protects them
Although anti-pornography activists promote the use of filters to prevent access to these sites, Secaucus and numerous other libraries throughout the nation have resisted using them. In Secaucus, only computers designed for children’s use have such filters.
In several significant and sweeping rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against putting filters on computers, claiming they violate Constitutional protections of free speech. In 1997, the Court struck down a federal Communications Decency Act on the grounds that it would chill speech and reduce International communication to the level of what was "fit for children."
"The Court," according to the Yale Political Quarterly, "reasoned that the library board has not been forced to provide Internet access. But once the board has chosen to provide such a service, it may not selectively restrict disfavored categories of speech disregarding Constitutional provisions."
The Supreme Court has held libraries to a higher standard than other possible Internet access providers because libraries are a branch of government and the Constitutional protections are more vigorous when it comes to government agencies.
The New Jersey Library Association has taken side with open access. In a statement issued in late 1999, NJLA affirmed the right of all users to have unrestricted access to the Internet, but also allowed libraries to use filtering software on a library-by-library basis. Since then, state law mandated filtering on library computers used primarily by children.
Although the Supreme Court will not allow filters on adult computers, in one 1997 ruling, it has allowed libraries to set policies restricting what is acceptable images. In Secaucus, the library policy is on display at the counter where patrons sign in.
Secaucus currently has five adult computers with Internet access and three children’s computers. Steffens said the issue will become less critical in the new library where the many additional computers will have privacy screens – restricting the field of vision for people not using the individual computer.
"We have a policy in place and this is the reason, if we see it, we’ll turn the computer off," Steffens said.
Complaints from other patrons prompted action
Evelyn Benyo, a resident of Harmon Cove, said she was particularly disturbed by the images and wondered why she could not do something about it.
Pornography is defined legally as any sexually oriented material primarily designed to arouse the reader or viewer.
"How can you let someone just use the computer like that in a public space?" she said.
While most children’s activities occur in the children’s room in the basement of the library, Benyo correctly pointed out that children often pass through the main area on their way to events in the meeting room just off the adult area, where they can easily witness visuals displayed on the computers.
According to statistics from a Stanford University study, children’s access to the Internet has grown from 3.1 percent in 1996 to 38 percent this year. Family PC Magazine’s survey of its readership showed that 68 percent of parents responding were concerned about children’s access to pornography.
"Children under 16 not allowed to use unfiltered computers unless parents give us written permission," said Library Director Katherine Steffens. "If a parent hasn’t signed, a child won’t get access."
Filters for adults cause problems, though.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other anti-censorship groups say the filters would block out legitimate sites as well as those containing pornography.
"You won’t be able to do research on breast cancer," said a library director from Morris County, who wished not to be named in his article. His library is about the size of Secaucus’ with a similar building arrangement. But he added: "If I catch someone looking at pornography where kids can see it, I toss that person out of the library."
Builder sues town over loss of library construction contract
In a move that town officials are calling "a normal procedure," Emara Contracting Co. Inc. of Colts Neck has filed suit against the town of Secaucus, claiming the company was wrongfully removed from construction the new Secaucus Public Library.
In a complaint filed with state Superior Court in Jersey City, Emara said delays were due to "errors and omissions" made by the town-hired architect, Rivardo, Schnitzer & Capazzi of Cliffside Park, which allegedly changed plans at critical points, making delays unavoidable.
Emara, which is represented by Richard Wenger, of Hedinger & Lawless of Florham Park, claimed the architect failed to provide for water service and to properly investigate water connections as well as other items necessary for the construction company to complete the project on time. Construction was supposed to be complete by Nov. 15, but nothing but the foundation has been installed so far. Emara claims it asked for extensions, but that the town denied them.
Town officials, however, said the Emara’s own bonding company canceled the contract, after town-employed inspectors pointed to several mistakes in connections necessary for putting up the steel frame.
Emara’s suit was filed after Lumberman’s Mutual Bonding Co. and Universal Bonding of Lyndhurst hired WB Construction Co. of South Hackensack to complete the project.
Mayor Dennis Elwell said the lawsuit will not halt the project and said the town has a new projected completion date of July 1.
"One of the things that concerned us when we called in the bond was that the bonding company would bring Emara back in to complete the project," Elwell said. "But the bonding company agreed with us. We documented everything. Engineers from the architectural firm were on site constantly – which is how we caught the errors."
Town Administrator Anthony Iacono said suits of this kind are common whenever a firm is removed from a project.
"But it wasn’t the town that removed Emara; it was the company’s own bonding company," Iacono said. "The company has to sue us if it ever expects to get another project somewhere else in the state."