June American Librarians/Electronic Brown Wrapper

cfkfb at eiu.edu cfkfb at eiu.edu
Thu Jun 5 05:14:11 EDT 1997


I guess the question I have is this:  Why isn't there a software solution
that allows libraries to block/allow access to web sites?  It seems a big part
of the heat in this issue is that some third party decides what's blocked --
often without giving a complete list and/or criteria.  
	The software would function like this:  In conjunction with a browser,
perhaps as a Netscape plugin, this software would have a list of sites that
are allowed.  Attempts to access a "forbidden" site would redirect that
browser to a predefined page that indicates this is blocked.  It could also
have a password feature so that adults/staff could bypass the block.
	This would serve two functions: (1) It would put collection development in
cyberspace back where it belonged -- in the library.  The collection
development specialist's job would be reviewing sites and adding appropriate
ones to the library "allowed" list.  (2) It would also allow the same computer
to be used by both adults and children since adult-oriented sites would
require a password that could be passed out at the reference desk or
maintained in a central database. 
    It seems to me that this makes everyone happy.  The Family Friendly
library people are assured that little Jimmy or Jane won't get to the naughty
stuff while adults not of a like bent can view what they want.  It also gives
the libraries control over their "collection" of web sites.  The ACLU is happy
since libraries are not "censoring" anyone's Internet access -- they're simply
putting some reasonable restrictions on usage of a limited resource.  I'd see
it as the electronic equal of selling Playboy in the grocery store -- it's
there, but in a brown wrapper behind the clerks desk where only those of legal
age can get to it. 






Millard Johnson wrote:
> 
> .David Burt quoted Marilyn Gell Mason:
> 
> On selection she says, "Nevertheless, there have always been material
> that most libraries don't buy.  (Much of what can be found in an adult
> bookstore falls into this category.)  When we make judgments we call it
> selection.  When we choose to exclude material we call it censorship.
> Evidence suggests that the distinction lacks meaning in an electronic
> environment."  She then goes on to compare a library installs a
> exclusive filter to one which sets up an inclusive list of permitted
> sites.  "Which library is providing access to more information?  The one
> that selects or the one that censors?  Is it any less valid to 'select
> out' material that it is to 'select in'".  Precisely!
> 
> If keeping out pornography is the ONLY objective then censoring may
> be "precisely" the solution.  But the big problem with censoring is that
> pornography is a precise activity only in the mind of the censor.  If
> the library is concerned about helping the user, then there are
> issues of quality, reliability, accuracy, presentation, etc.  In short, if
> the collection goal of the library is something other than: COLLECT
> EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION ANYONE EVER THOUGHT TO
> SPEW OUT, WITHOUT REGARD TO ACCURACY, RELIABILITY
> OR ANY CRITERIA EXCEPT - NOTHING THAT I CONSIDER
> PORNOGRAPHIC then censoring is probably not the precise tool
> to employ.


More information about the Web4lib mailing list