MSNBC Column on David Burt
filteringfacts
David_Burt at filteringfacts.org
Wed Aug 20 22:47:07 EDT 1997
Brock Meeks, cyber columnist for MSNBC, has written a column about me called "The Case of the "Radical" Librarian"
See http://www.msnbc.com/news/104439.asp
I'm finally starting to make some headway in my battle to counter ALA's views on filtering.
David Burt, Filtering Facts, www.filteringfacts.org
David_Burt at filteringfacts.org
The case of the 'radical' librarian
Why his colleagues in libraries are ganging up on David Burt
WASHINGTON - If David Burt were a man of the
cloth he might be labeled a heretic. Instead he
has been branded an "extremist" and
"unethical" by members of his own profession:
librarians. To sneak a peek at Burt's e-mail,
you'd think his colleagues had turned on him
because he advocates burning books.
BURT'S "CRIME" is that he advocates the use of
"filtering" software to keep kids from looking at Internet
pornography on their local library's computer. Opponents
of Burt's stance, and they are legion, call filtering software
"censor-ware" because it is notorious for hidden agendas
and actually censoring much more than obscene materials.
I know first-hand how devious these blocking software
packages are; Declan McCullagh of the Netly News and I
broke the story on their hidden agendas in a CyberWire
Dispatch article last year. These packages block political
views, educational sites and various other information based
solely on someone's notion of what is right or wrong for
children to view.
But here's another fact: Most of the software allows
the user to tweak the programs so that only pornographic
sites are blocked, thus providing a wide-open field of other
materials.
THE LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
In a recent column, I took the American Library
Association to task for its head-in-the-sand approach to the
heated debate within its own community - whether or not
blocking software should be used in libraries. According to
the Library Bill of Rights, anyone of any age has the "right"
to use all materials the library carries. That rule was written
for the print age and doesn't account for the era of the
Internet. Yet the library association has steadfastly refused
to engage in any meaningful dialogue about addressing the
problem of kids accessing porn on the Net.
The association, on the heels of the U.S. Supreme
Court decision that declared the federal Communications
Decency Act unconstitutional (as a plaintiff in that case, I
applauded that decision), issued a statement that said the
use of blocking software violates the Library Bill of Rights.
Yet the library association, as a plaintiff in the same
Supreme Court case, had its lawyers hold up blocking
software as an example of why legislation wasn't needed to
"protect kids."
Today the library association derides filtering software
and instead suggests that librarians create and "promote
library Web pages designed both for general use and for
use by children. These pages should point to sites that have
been reviewed by library staff." None of which are
pornographic, I guarantee you.
ENTER THE 'RADICAL'
So David Burt has embarked on his "radical" campaign
of advocating the intelligent use of blocking software
through an organization called "Filtering Facts" I say
"intelligent" because Burt preaches that librarians know how
to tweak the blocking software so it is set to only block
pornography.
Burt says he has a growing number of supporters, yet
many are afraid to speak out, fearing professional
retribution. Many libraries also are running scared because
of what Burt characterizes as "intimidation tactics" being
used by the American Civil Liberties Union. Burt says the
ACLU has threatened to sue several libraries for installing
blocking software.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
What about the "slippery slop" argument? That being, if
libraries start to censor pornography - and let's be clear,
this is a censorship issue - that other areas will quickly
follow. "We're not talking about banning books like " 'The
Diary of Anne Frank' or 'Huckleberry Finn,' " Burt says.
"Filtering software is just making the Internet look more
representative of what is in the stacks. If it's not something
(a library) would buy to put on the shelves, why object to
having it blocked online?"
Good question. A statement on blocking software, put
out by the library association's Intellectual Freedom
Committee, says: "Blocking Internet sites is antithetical to
library missions because it requires the library to limit
information access."
Small problem, Burt says. Libraries routinely limit
access to information as a matter of policy. Every library
has a "collection development policy" that determines what
types of materials are put on its shelves, Burt says.
"Libraries put a lot of thought into these policies," he says.
"But they are treating the Internet like a big switch and not
putting any thought into it at all."
Here's a little experiment for you. Ask to see your local
library's collection development policy. Note what the
library will and will not buy and see if you can walk over to
the nearest computer terminal and access any of the
unacceptable material on the Net. Then summon a librarian
and ask him or her to explain why it is that you - or your
child - are allowed to access this information via the
library's computer, but can't find it on the library's shelves.
NO LOCO PARENTS
Another favorite argument the library association likes
to toss out is: "librarians do not serve in loco parentis" or, in
English: They aren't supposed to baby-sit your kids. And to
some extent, the association is right. Libraries aren't
watchdogs for parents who use them as free depositories
for their kids. But it is also true, as Burt says, that "the
community entrusts its children to be safe in the library
because the community assumes that the library has some
minimum standards for what types of materials a child might
encounter."
And, like it or not, a library operates from tax revenue
paid by parents making those "safe library" assumptions.
Librarians are public servants first and free speech
absolutists second - or they should be. (That statement
will surely get me kicked off the library association's
Christmas, er? "holiday" greetings list.)
I'm not saying libraries must buckle to right-wing
fanatics who demand books be removed from shelves.
Spare me that drivel. I'm simply saying that it's not a huge
intellectual leap to have a library tailor its Internet access for
kids to conform with the material on the shelves.
People have accused Burt and his organization of being
a "front" for right-wing conservatives. I challenged him on
this. "I'm an atheist and a Democrat," he responds. "This
isn't a religious or liberal/conservative issue."
A PORN TOO FAR
Can a library take Burt's position too far? Certainly. If
libraries do install blocking software they must be diligent in
maintaining it, seeing that its databases are regularly updated
and that only the pornographic blocking categories are
used. Second, there must be a mechanism for allowing the
blocking software to be disabled at the request of parents.
This issue is too serious to be resolved overnight. There
must be a full, public debate on the issues before the
community and its library decide together what course to
take. Surely librarians aren't afraid of healthy debate. Or
are they?
Meeks out?
More information about the Web4lib
mailing list