CDA

[Burt, David]

Kristine Buchanan wrote:

> What you seem to be forgetting is that it is legal for adults to buy
>those magazines in those communities.  Your filters would disallow
adults
>from accessing materials that they may have a legal right to view.

As Ronnie and I have pointed out before, if you view websites as not
having been selected by the library, and filtering as non-selection,
questions over whether or not material are legal become irrelevant.

> Additionally, one of my strongest arguments against filters is that
they
>also filter out information that is valuable.  For instance,
information
>on breast cancer.

What examples can you give of this under typical library conditions?  By
that I mean keyword filtering off, and only porn filtering enabled.
Which filter currently in use in libraries under library conditions
blocks sites on breast cancer?


> Another problem with filters is that they are not
>foolproof.  When you tell your patrons that you are going to install a
>filter in order to limit what their children can view, should that
filter
>fail, you might have just opened yourself up to a lawsuit.

That's a matter of some legal disagreement.
True, Prodigy  was found liable in a court case because they exercised
some editorial control over the material they "published".  The
conference speakers love to site this example, but they somehow always
seem to forget to mention the Cox-Wyden amendment to the Communications
Act. The Cox-Wyden amendment establishes protection for 'Good Samaritan'
blocking and screening of offensive material.  Specifically, the bill
establishes that no provider or user of interactive computer services
will be held liable for: (1) actions taken voluntarily in good faith to
restrict access to material that the provider or user considers to be
obscene, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable; or (2) actions taken to provide the technical
means to restrict access to such material.
Also remember that Prodigy *advertised* that they screen content, and
that there has never been a case of a library being held responsible in
such a way.

> I realize that there is a fine line in what you believe is
pornagraphic
>and what is not.  The problem is that the line is different for every
>person.  When a community votes to set a standard for that community,
at
>least each member of the community has the opportunity to vote for
>whatever standard they deem best.  When a librarian sets the standard
for
>the community, no one has the opportunity to vote.

True, standards vary, but if pornography is so hard for librarians to
define, then why do no public libraries carry "Hustler" or "Deep
Throat"?


  ***********************************************************
          David Burt, Information Technology Librarian 
          The Lake Oswego Public Library 
          706 Fourth Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034
          URL:          http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/library/library.htm
          Phone:     (503) 675-2537 
          Fax:           (503) 635-4171 
          E-mail:      dburt at ci.oswego.or.us