children accessing porn; adults turning off filterware

[Shaken Angel]

On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Mark Wilden wrote:

> > 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?

Personally, I think the "time argument" vis a vis Internet access in a
public library situation is the *only* area in which it can be compared to
more traditional library resources.  Given that Internet access, once
purchased, does not require any extra space or money (unlike books, or
magazines, where the selection process is quite valid; a library can't buy
every book in the world but they *can* get every public Web site in the
world without incurring extra costs), the argument by the pro-censo^H^H^H
(okay, okay, I'll say "filtering" from now on :) filtering camp about
Internet resources being more or less equal to the selection process used
on traditional media is, in my opinion, moot. 

If one is to apply the argument that Internet access should be restricted
by time, then the only solution that makes sense is one that is
Web-content neutral.  If time is an issue at a given library, have folks
sign up for one-hour blocks.  What they *do* with this one hour should be
up to *them*; they're (theoretically) taxpayers, they should be able to
read what they want in the library without having a third party's morality
judgments forced upon them.

Case in point: David and Ronnie despise porn.  Someone else despises
religious rants.  I despise organized sports.  A lot.  I'm just about
paranoid enough to say that the mania over organized sports is going to be
the death of civilization.  However, if I'm walking around my library, and
I see someone using one of the public WWW stations to access ESPN's site,
am I going to grab them roughly by the collar and toss them out of their
library on their ear?  Am I going to yell, "OUT, you DAMNED SPORTS
ADDICTS?" as I quiver with my righteous wrath?  No, I'm not.  Because I
don't believe in forcing my morality upon others.

Here's the point.  Sports speech is protected by the First Amendment. 
Porn is protected by the First Amendment.  Religious rants are protected
by the First Amendment.  No library or librarian should actively try to
subvert the First Amendment.  Yes, I know, those nasty little Amendments,
that reprehensible Bill of Rights thing, really gets in the way of each of
us trying to force our specific personal beliefs on others, but what are
you gonna do?

-- john f., miami university library systems

opinions are mine.