children accessing porn; adults turning off filterwar

[Chuck Bearden]

My thanks to Earl for doing more justice to the range and complexity of
the issues in the filtering debate than anyone else I've read.  The pro-
and anti-filtering camps seem to me to truncate the issues to the few
things that matter to them.  For instance, no one else seems inclined to
recognize that taxpayers don't owe it to us or to anyone else to fund
libraries, and that they ought to expect to have a say in how that money
is spent.  If public librarians are going to oppose filtering, then we'd
better find a way to explain our decisions in a way that is respectful of
our citizens' various views on the topic, both as an ethical and a
practical matter.  As Earl has said, we are very vulnerable on this 
point.  

Also, I don't see anyone else mention the possibility of liability to 
librarians for permitting the display of potentially pornographic 
material in the library.  As I understand it, this was the consideration 
that prompted Austin Public Library to institute filtering, not pressure 
from community groups.  

Chuck
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Bearden			email: cbearden at hpl.lib.tx.us
Network Services Librarian
Automation Department		voice: 713/247-2264
Houston Public Library		fax:   713/247-1182
500 McKinney Ave.
Houston, TX  77002		-=> NOT SPEAKING FOR HPL <=- 
				 (least of all this time!)
-------------------------------------------------------------
      -=>HPL's Homepage: http://www.hpl.lib.tx.us<=-

On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, earl young wrote:

> Your local B. Dalton is a commercial enterprise, not a
> taxpayer-subsidized government activity.  It's not uncommon in these
> threads to see people take various cheap shots at mayors and city
> council members, and such an attitude of disrespect to the process
> (political) that pays the salaries strikes me as unsettling in
> government employees.  It is very common in private firms to have rigid
> policies against using the Web to view "suggestive" material if for no
> other reason than the firm can be sued because such material contributes
> to the creation of a hostile environment. Miller Beer is being sued as
> this is written because an employee claims that talk about the Seinfeld
> masturbation episode caused emotional distress.  So your argument in
> favor of absolute free speech is not the law of the land, and is in fact
> becoming less instead of more prevelant as various competing "rights"
> wind their way through the courts.  Such rights not only can be
> narrowed, it's happening literally every week.