children accessing porn; adults turning off filterware

[Mark Wilden]

> From: Burt, David <DBurt at ci.oswego.or.us>
> 
> First, the argument assumes that
> use of the Internet is an unlimited resource. Use of the Internet in a
> public library is a finite resource.  Just as a library only has so many
> books, a library only has so many blocks of Internet time to allocate to
> its patrons.

Actually, this is the first good argument for filters I've heard. Hypothetically, would you
support a system that turned off the filter if no one else was waiting?

> Second, the argument assumes that there is no opportunity
> cost to including each additional resource.  The opportunity cost of one
> person looking at pornography is that someone else can't do their
> homework, or look up a sports statistic.

This is simply the first argument, restated. But the last part raises an interesting point. Is
looking up sports statistics more "appropriate" than viewing pornography? By whose judgement? Is
it more "appropriate" than a mother getting information about diabetes? Should librarians define a
ranking system (possibly by assigning weights to DDC or LOC classes?).

Of course not.

> Third, the
> argument ignores the issue of appropriateness.  It is not simply for
> economic reasons that libraries do not collect everything.  Public
> libraries don't carry Hustler or Deep Throat.  This isn't because of
> economics, it's because it isn't considered appropriate.

If a library could have every publication ever written, with no cost, why wouldn't they want Deep
Throat?

Librarians _have_ to select physical acquisitions, and in so doing, they must weigh economics and
"appropriateness" to make their choices. They do not have to select Web sites.