MSNBC Column on David Burt

Jean P. Gordon gordonjp at dominican.dominican.edu
Fri Aug 22 13:00:31 EDT 1997


I heard on PRI that many of the pornographic sites require the 
use of a credit card number to access their material.  Is there 
any way to build a patron barcode into a filter which would 
allow full access to adult patrons and limit access to children?

I am normally against censorship in libraries, although I  
recognize that collection development is a form of censorship, 
but do have some real reservations about having my grandchildren 
search out pornography on the Internet.  It is not an easy 
question!

Jean Gordon

filteringfacts wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 

-- 
*************************************************************
Jean P. Gordon				  Phone: 415-257-0196
Archbishop Alemany Library		  Fax:   415-459-2309
Dominican College
50 Acacia Avenue	       E-mail: gordonjp at dominican.edu
San Rafael, CA 94901	   Web page: http://www.dominican.edu
*************************************************************


More information about the Web4lib mailing list