Filters and collection development

[Joe Schallan]

At 9:04 AM on 4/25/97, David Burt wrote:

>Here we go again...
>
>Point 1) You guys are all using the wrong selection model.
>The square peg model of selection/non-selection/censorship currently
>being rammed into the round hole of Internet "selection" is all wrong . . .

What is selection?  Does the definition matter?

To me, the distinction is one of inclusion vs. exclusion.  Selection
in the traditional sense is more an act of inclusion, whereas
filtering is an act of exclusion.  So there is a difference.  But
does it mean anything?  I believe our quibbling over these sort
of things is more distraction than elucidation.

Some have maintained that selection is high-minded inclusion
of resources, under a regime of limited money and space and
according to collection development policies.  They have
maintained that filtering is exclusion and therefore censorship.

This argument has a lot to it, but its first premise is highly
disingenuous, for librarians have always acted as censors.
An insistent patron with, shall we say, unpalatable tastes,
could reasonably argue that although he understands
money and space are limited, there surely must be money
and space for a least one copy each of the Turner Diaries,
the Holocaust Hoax, How to Maim Your Neighbors and
Coworkers with Booby Traps from Paladin Press, and
the Joy of Pedophilia.  These cost less than $100
all together, he might say, and occupy less than six inches of
shelf space, so surely you should be able to provide them
if you truly believe in balance and in his right as a free adult
to read whatever he wishes.  It is, he might say, a matter of
his tax dollars, too, and that his request involves relatively
little money or space.

But we have tended not to select such titles, following
policies developed in consort with scholars and colleagues,
and, dare I say it, because of our own common sense and
perception of appropriateness.

So go ahead and call it censorware.  It doesn't irritate me.
We have always censored.

The debate to me isn't about the definition of "selection" or
"collection development" but about us coming clean on our
tradition of acting as censors. In the past, librarians have not
had a great deal of difficulty with the notion of community
standards.  Many of us do now.  Whether this is right or
wrong will be the center of our dialogue with citizens over
this issue, not the interpretation of "selection."

The citizens will ask us whether we think this stuff belongs
in the library or not, and why.

I will tell the many academic
librarians on this list that were I to defend the accessibility
of the Pedophile's Connection Page in my library, the vast
majority of my patrons would think I had abdicated any
sense of responsibility and that I was out of my mind.
I can assure you I would make no headway with high-minded
arguments based on the First Amendment.  It's time for
a reality check, at least for us in public libraries.  Academicians
are protected from this, as they should be, and are not likely
to face an outraged public.

Filtering should be conducted by librarians

Filtering as it is currently done is unacceptable because
decisions to exclude sites have been removed from both
librarians and the local community of library users.  This will
have to change.  If we do decide that filtering, under
certain circumstances, fits the public library model, then we
will have to make sure we control it, not some vendor
possessing its own agenda.  At the least, if we are not
able to create our own filtering systems due to lack of
technical expertise in the profession, then we should
expect to be able to direct the vendors.

It's not about centerfolds

Much of the debate has assumed that the "objectionable"
material is at the level of Playboy centerfolds.  Were the
problem limited to airbrushed photos of naked ladies,
I would scarcely worry about it (leaving aside the sexual
politics of the Playboy world view, which bothers me a lot).
Let's not fool ourselves by thinking this is just about things
so tame as Playboy centerfolds.  Imagine the worst -- you'll
find it on the web.

Now imagine yourself in the atrium of my library, attempting
to tell a group of angry taxpayers that the very worst of our
culture, indeed of human nature, not only belongs in their
public library but should be protected on free-speech
grounds.

So what is the Web, after all?

In this debate, I still see confusion over whether the web
consitutes a resource we select, or a medium to which
we provide access in a telco-like way.  If we decide it
is the latter, then we had better *not* filter, especially
in light of court decisions such as the one in the Prodigy
case.

This debate

. . . should be conducted with at least a minimum of
civility.  I have attempted to keep an open mind about
what I shall call the "practical" view (my own) and
what I shall call the "strong" position (absolute defense
of free speech -- the public be damned).  I cannot
be equally open minded about being told that I
sicken people's stomachs or am a Nazi.  I also do
not appreciate receiving highly abusive, private
hate mail or threats.  If professional librarians cannot
rise above this level, then we hardly deserve to have 
a voice in the debate over these issues.

Please remember that I can be persuaded, that I keep
an open mind, and that I do not have to be screamed
at, ranted at, called names, or abused privately.  I do
appreciate that I could have it all wrong.

For your consideration, my thanks in advance.

Joe Schallan

---Opinions are my own of course, not those of my
library administration, which has struggled and
continues to struggle, in a most professional and
thoughtful manner, with these issues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joe Schallan, MLS                             jschall at glenpub.lib.az.us
Reference Librarian and Web Page Editor
Glendale (Arizona) Public Library                        (602) 930-3555