Of course you’ve heard some version of this tale: George Bernard Shaw says to a woman at a party, “Madam, would you sleep with me for 5 million pounds?”
The woman stammers: “My goodness, Mr. Shaw. Well, yes, I suppose . . .”
Shaw interrupts: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
The woman responds immediately: “What? Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!”
To which he replies: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”
The story comes to mind upon hearing the news that the New York Public Library has gotten into the porn business. “With adults, anything that you can get on the Internet, you can legally get on a computer in the library,” explained an official. “It’s difficult, but we err on the side of free and open access.”
What does this have to do with the Shaw story? Imagine you went to your local library in, say, 1989 — or some other year before the Internet.
Then imagine going up to the librarian and asking him, “Do you carry Hustler?”
The shocked librarian answers, “No.”
“Back issues of Swank? High Society? Penthouse?”
“No, no and no,” quoth the librarian.
“OK, OK. I get it. Do you have movies?”
Librarian answers: “Yes, of course.”
“Great!” you reply. “I’d like to sign out ‘Debby Does Dallas.’ ”
Finally, the librarian explodes: “Sir, we do not carry any pornography. What do you think we do here?”
The answer to that question is suddenly in doubt. Because up until recently, the idea that public libraries should (nay, must!) give unfettered access to hard-core porn would’ve baffled almost everyone.
The list of reasons why libraries didn’t (and shouldn’t) carry porn is vast. The two most obvious reasons are moralistic and budgetary: A) “It’s wrong,” and B) “We have limited resources and we must choose what we think is worthwhile and what has no redeeming value.”
Now, the moralistic bias against porn has been eroding for generations. But until the Internet, it didn’t matter. Sure, Playboy might make it through, “for the articles.” But not even the most radical or deranged librarians could ever justify subscribing to Juggs over National Geographic, because in a world of limited resources, prudential editing is not merely valuable, it’s unavoidable.
The ‘Net changed all that. The marginal cost of obtaining pornographic materials in libraries, once prohibitively high, is now nearly nonexistent. In fact, it’s actually cheaper just to let it all flood in. Who wants to deal with the filters, blockers and monitors? Just proclaim that the First Amendment requires unfettered access to porn.
But, again, just imagine there was no Internet, and all smut was still on paper, celluloid or magnetic tape. Now imagine trying to argue that the cash-strapped local public library must not only provide some porn — free of charge! — to the public, but that it must provide mountains of it free to the public, all because the First Amendment says so.
You’d be laughed out of the room.
Did the First Amendment change with the invention of the Internet? Of course not. What changed is that librarians have lost both the “scarce resources” excuse and the backbone to invoke any other rationale — decency, child welfare, hygiene, safety — for barring it from public libraries.
Technological progress poses such challenges: Technology makes life easier, and when life is easier, it’s harder to stick to the rules that were once essential to getting by.
The list of customs and values that were formed or informed by material necessity is too long to contemplate because it includes nearly all of them. Cultures, like cuisines, are formed as much by what isn’t available as what is. Scarcity of meat is the mother of good seasoning.
The ‘Net doesn’t eliminate scarcity of porn (or of hilarious kitten videos), but it gets us closer than humanity has ever been. When scarcity drops, so does the price. And it seems that for the NYPL, like the lady in the Shaw story, price was always the issue.
JonahsColumn@aol.com