filtering vs. public relations (long)

Robert Terry rhterry at RBSE.Mountain.Net
Sun Mar 30 20:05:20 EST 1997


  He is right !  riff ?

I and my Master(2. Booklyn, Indo, and India.

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Paul Neff wrote:

> >Maybe not.  A very good article in the Chronicle of Higher Education
> >recently made the case that the idea that most problems are problems of
> >miscommunication, is overstated.  When a problem is really a problem, a
> >disagreement - not a miscommunication -- more communication only 
> >aggravates the problem.
> 
> Yeah, I read this article too.  Indubitably there's a strong element of
> miscommunication in this debate, but there may very well be irreconcilable
> elements to it as well.  But this is an issue that needs to be resolved
> locally, library by library, as well as in the national arena, and I am
> wondering if the climates aren't different.
> 
> >If we invite the public into the library we can only make things better if we
> >can make one of these cases:
> >1.  There is no pornography on the net
> >2.  Kids can not get to it
> >3.  It is not bad for kids
> >4.  Although it may be bad, it would be worse to eliminate it
> 
> Of those four, I think (4) is the only viable choice.  None of these,
> however, really represents a mutually-agreed-upon solution.  What I'm
> interested in is:
> 
> 5.  We can work to minimalize, and maybe eliminate, the impact of
> pornography if you as a community can work with us to do so.
> 
> >The public will certainly want us to show them what there is out there and
> >how easy it is to get to.  
> 
> I'd also expect that task to be incumbent upon the library's critics (to
> demonstrate what specific problems exist), and I would want to get all
> participants, including heavy Internet users, non-Internet users, kids,
> seniors, whoever, to contribute to a definition of pornography that everyone
> can agree on.  It would also be important to identify and involve Internet
> users that don't want any kind of Internet blocking at all.
> 
> >Then they will want to see our collection development 
> >policy.  Was the intention of the policy to include pornography?  Does the
> >librarian actually want pornography in the library, or is it just too much
> work >to keep it out?  
> 
> Personally, I think it'd be nice if more libraries felt they were able to
> answer these questions.  Very few libraries that provide Internet access to
> the public address it in their collection development policies, and very few
> of those who do actually implement them with any effectiveness.  We can't go
> crying that unfettered Internet access is a necessity if we haven't defined
> its value in our policies.  Moreover, patrons have every right to know how
> how the resources they pay for are managed.  One good thing that might come
> out of a public discussion of Internet access/collection development
> practices might be that the Library could create and implement more
> effective policies to that end.
> 
> I don't want to get flamed here, because I don't know if it makes sense to
> say this, but don't many libraries, in their collection development
> policies, attempt to comply with something called "community standards",
> which define stuff like where and how smutty magazines can be displayed in a
> convenience store rack, etc.?  How are community standards defined?  Could
> this idea be used to define what complaintants are really concerned about?
> It may be that the middle ground here is that the Internet resources that
> filtering proponents are so concerned about are identifiably undesirable to
> the library on that basis.  My suspicion is that a lot of libraries would
> filter if filtering solutions could be implemented that could be shown
> conclusively not to negatively impact their collection development policies
> or public services goals.  I'd be interested in knowing the answers to these
> questions.
> 
> >In this case, I think the best path for librarians who want to 
> >defend access to pornography in the library is to hope that those who do not 
> >want their kids to see pornography will not find out the opportunity afforded 
> >by the library.
> 
> I don't agree.   Obviously some of these parents are going to find out the
> hard way anyway.  Besides, there's a role for dialogue here.  Angry,
> confrontational patrons are often simply patrons who feel marginalized,
> ignored or unheard by their institution.  Apart from members of lobbying
> organizations such as Enough is Enough, I think most filtering proponents
> out there are upset because they have been given a highly distorted view of
> the Internet's perils and don't understand why the library doesn't seem to
> care, and in fact appears to them to be in collusion with the pornographers.
> Well, most of us on this list know that's not the case, but how many of us
> are actively communicating why it isn't, or pulling together our user
> communities to work it out together?  
> 
> Paul Neff
> Manager, Technology Services :: Arlington Heights Memorial Library
> pneff at nslsilus.org
> 
> 


More information about the Web4lib mailing list