CDA

[Kristine Buchanan]

On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Burt, David wrote:

> 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.
> 
  Actually, I have seen the discussion revolve around the fact that it is 
illegal in communities for minor to purchase pornography. Please, pick a 
stance and stick to it.  If the legality of the material is not the 
issue, then this is purely a moral issue and has no business in our 
libraries.  If the legality of the material is the issue, then filtering 
infringes upon the rights of adults and has no business in our libraries.

Either way, filtering is should not be implemented in a public library 
setting.  




> > 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?
> 

 I am sorry to not be able to cite examples to you about this.  I do not 
work in a public library.  I work in a university library in which there 
are no filters.  I am curious as to how "pornography" is filtered without 
using keywords.  My understanding of filters is that a select list of 
keywords is blocked by the program.


> 
> > 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.
> 
  Since the CDA was stuck down as unconstitutional this piont is moot.



> > 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"?
> 
> 
 I work in a state supported law library that is open to the public.  In 
our litigated literature section we do hve "Hustler", "Playboy", 
Mapplethorpes works and other "pornographic" materials.

 So far, none of your arguments impress me has having any valid basis 
beyond the fact that a large segment of our population is uncomfortable 
with sexuality and sees any open discourse on it as a threat.  Children 
have been viewing pornographic materials for ages.  It is healthy for 
children to be curious about their bodies and about bodies of the 
opposite sex.  Instead of viewing their accidental discovery of 
pornography as "harmful", I would hope that we, as parents, would view it 
as a platform upon which to base a discussion concerning sexuality and 
the responsibilities of that sexuality.




>   ***********************************************************
>           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
> 
>