/r/seattle debates the pros and cons of viewing porn at the library

Libraries are not compelled to block adults from accessing content.

Yes, actually, they are, depending on the law that created the libraries. Libraries are created by law for a certain purpose. "Anything goes" is usually not part of that purpose. Libraries are only allowed to do what they are created by law to do. That libraries act outside the law by misleading people about the law and allowing "anything goes" instead of adhering to the purpose for which the library was created, well that does not make the law suddenly invalid.

As a general rule, there is no liability for negligence when third parties commit intentional torts, such as a rape.

Perhaps. But negligence is not the issue. Libraries know or should know that they are acting outside the law in a manner that is partly the cause for the very problems that may result in liability. In some cases libraries intentionally act outside the law.

If any liability would occur, it would be based on the child's custody and failure to monitor the child's activity.

Perhaps. But perhaps not. That said, it is completely wrong to use librarians as free babysitters. Children should be monitored as all times. Sometimes, however, harm can be done while the child is being properly supervised.

It would not prevail on a theory of liability that the library failed to actively prevent adults from accessing pornography.

We'll see. If the library is violating the law, the library is violating the law and may have thereby contributed to the issue at hand.

Of course this is all hypothetical.

Cool that you found that Washington State subsequent remedial measure law. Thanks.

And thanks for this conversation.

/r/SubredditDrama Thread Parent Link - np.reddit.com