Are you asking this question because you seriously cannot figure it out, or are you just lashing out because you got checked to the boards in Act I of this thread?
Obviously, we’ve established that what you’re attempting to define as ‘pornography’ is protected as free speech by the U.S. Supreme Court and that it IS legal to view not only in public libraries, but pretty much in public.
What this guy is charged with is called harassment. It could further be included in the definition of sexual harassment, both of which are illegal.
The legal definition of harassment is as follows:
Based on the allegations in the article, one would think that this guy would have realized that his behavior is unacceptable and therefore would amend such behaviors before they get him into more trouble; obviously that isn’t the case here.
I’m curious as to why you’re implying that these two examples are even remotely related. The implied corollary is that since pornography in public is protected as ‘free speech’, then what this guy is charged with should be protected as a demonstration of free speech. Unfortunately (at least for him) what he’s done is considered a criminal act, and there is no precedence of the U.S. constitution protecting criminal activities.
I have to agree, it's very tempting to deliver a 'Gibbs slap to the back of the head' just to get him to start thinking....(blatant and shameless NCIS plug)
1. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/