Boston situation -Reply -Reply

[Earl Young]

     The city - or some government agency - is paying for the library.  The 
     building, the computers, the electricity - you name it.  The golden 
     rule - those with the gold make the rules - applies here.  No smart 
     politician wants to be in the position of providing access to 
     something that many will find objectionable - given that their 
     constituents are footing at least part of the bill.
     
     The statement that blocking software doesn't work is not correct.  You 
     may state that it is not 100% effective - but many of the major 
     "adult" sites are onboard the movement to filter - since kids don't 
     have credit cards, and the sites don't want traffic from people who 
     aren't potential customers - and it's relatively safe to zap some of 
     the "alt" newsgroups.
     
     dejanews is one way around the alt. filters, and there are lots of 
     ways around most of the other software, but there is a difference 
     between doing nothing and making life a little more difficult for 
     people seeking "adult" material.  The screening software is mostly 
     effective - not completely effective.
     
     As far as First Amendment - the Constitution is silent as to whether 
     government has a duty to provide me access to material. It merely says 
     the government cannot deny access (absent a "crowded theater") to free 
     speech.  That is why I do not see a big First Amendment issue over 
     whether libraries need to provide access.  Whether the material should 
     be banned from the Internet - that is THE First Amendment issue in my 
     opinion.
     
     Earl Young
     
     
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Boston situation -Reply -Reply
Author:  DLESTER at bsu.idbsu.edu at INTERNET
Date:    2/25/97 4:30 PM


>>> Earl Young <eayoung at bna.com> 02/25/97 01:23pm 
>>>
There does not seem to be any significant Constitutional 
issues.  The city is  not attempting to block access - only to
avoid paying for access.  There are -  to be sure - lots of stuff 
--------
HUH?   First, it has First Amendment written all over it.  Just 
ask the folks at ACLU....who're probably all over it already.  
     
And what do you mean about "avoid paying for access"? 
How is the city going to pay for something that a user 
accesses?  I'm not suggesting that people should set up
accounts with Suzy's Porn Palace from PL stations....but if
they do, it isn't the library's fiscal liability.....unless they give 
out their mastercard number to the patrons.  o-)  
     
Of course the issue of exposure (for the library) to all sorts of 
charges and lawsuits is there, and is probably what the
mayor is worried about....that and the political fallout.  (gee, 
imagine that, a pol who think he can avoid being seen as a 
sleazy SOB   yeah, sure.... )   
     
=====================
on the Web that children ought not see.  I do not  subscribe
to the idea that seeing objectionable stuff automatically scars 
you  for life, but parents ought to be in control of such things 
-----------------------------------
I agree with the first sentence...that there are many things 
inappropriate for children in all sorts of places in the world. 
But, libraries seem to have established quite clearly that they 
are NOT in loco parentis.  Yeah, these days everyone wants 
someone else to take care of all their problems....but the
kids are the parents' problems, not the library's.  What next, 
and armed guard stationed in the 612.6s or the 700s?? 
================================
and the state ought  not be subsidizing access to material 
that "community standards" find  objectionable. 
-------------------------------
Well, the state isn't doing that.  Or the city.  The workstation 
is there and hooked up to the net, whether used or not,
whether used for "good" or "evil" or something else.  In a 
small place where dialup was required, this is theoretically an 
issue, but I assume they have better access in Boston. If
not, they have a different, and larger, problem. 
============================= 
particular reason to put themselves at risk by  failing to block 
sites where there is a probability of material that would 
otherwise not be in the library.  I suppose that's my litmus test 
- if it would  be on the shelves, it should be available on the 
net. Otherwise, what's the  problem? 
------------------------------------------------
The problem is blocking software doesn't work.  Some work 
even less than others, but none of them are as effective as a 
person looking at books.  And thus it will always be, by the 
nature of the beast.  Plus, we know that even when "real 
librarians" select books that there are always some
taxpayers who'll not like the selections anyway....
     
the antiquated cyclopean
     
     
Dan Lester, Network Information Coordinator
Boise State University Library, Boise, Idaho, 83725 USA 
voice: 208-385-1235   fax:  208-385-1394 
dlester at bsu.idbsu.edu     OR    alileste at idbsu.idbsu.edu 
Cyclops' Internet Toolbox:    http://cyclops.idbsu.edu 
"How can one fool make another wise?"   Kansas, 1979.