Letters to the Editor:

Dear Editor,PORNOGRAPHY IS NOT SEXY WOMEN SELLING AUTOMOBILESIn response to the article by Steve Stajich in your Opinion section I would like to point out that the definition used of pornography in my Letter to the Editor is not mine, but rather, from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary:Pornography “…depicts erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement”Further, and more importantly, Mr. Stajich states that “You can’t filter the Internet for kids or anyone else because filters are triggered by key words…” and he continues to say “…we honestly can’t restrict Internet access based on how search engines work.”These statements are not true and, in fact, many libraries across the entire country can and do filter pornography. They must do so in order to receive Federal funds for Internet purposes, as explained to me by the City’s Head Librarian himself, Greg Mullen.Stajich’s statement: “…so that only leaves the option of no Internet access in public libraries” makes no sense.Then Stajich continues with a comparison of pornography to advertisements in a newspaper using “sexy women to sell automobiles and steak sandwiches”.Women in advertisements are not engaged with others or themselves in “explicit sexual activity” and are not being dehumanized. There certainly is no appropriate comparison to be found here. This seems only an attempt to dilute the issue at hand as is, likewise, the use of the word “unpleasant”. There is an issue of human dignity from which the word “unpleasant” is a distraction.I would like to point out, again, that the monitor screen covers he refers to, or privacy screens as referred to in the library, do not prevent others from viewing the screen’s content. In fact, sitting directly in front of a computer I am able to view five other screens which are two rows in front of and facing me. They are, the one directly lined up with the one at which I’m sitting and the two to its right and left. All this is without even having to move my head a bit – simply in facing forward.Mr. Stajich also goes on to quote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart as having written that “hard-core pornography” was hard to define…and my response to that is that evidently Stewart didn’t consult Webster and is satisfied with his own personal experience of “knowing it when I see it.”Likewise, Mr. Stajich, obviously completely misses the magnitude of one of the primary defects of pornography…objectifying all who take part in it; women, men and children alike.Jo KranitzSanta Monica