(Fwd) RE: Electronic Brown Wrappers

[Jan Heckman]

The following is some of thread of the discussion about "filtering" 
software on internet terminals in libraries.  Following that is my 
response to David Burt. 

Jennifer Reiswig wrote:

>I was opposed to the idea of filtering for a while, but after
>I started looking at the global history files on our public
>Internet PCs, I'm starting to change my mind.
>(Thanks to this list for the hint on using about:global in Netscape.)
>Fully half the sites visited are totally recreational without question.

I was wondering when someone in a very specialized library was going to
say that!
Why in the world should a biomedical library feel obligated to use its
scarce resources to  provide recreational information?

The anti-filtering activists argue that one size of Internet access must
fit every library.
Who thinks that's fair?

My hunch is that the anti-filterers will oppose this too, since it might
set off a dreaded "slippery slope", and would make you into one of those
evil censors.  So I guess you'd better get used to your new mission(s) ;
>


  ***********************************************************
          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 


David,
You're getting rather strident about this issue, aren't you?  

A quick list of  thoughts (don't flame these, they are only ideas 
for consideration and I'm not implying any judgement on your part by 
raising such issues).

The intent of the patron should not be questioned.

If a reference librarian  could provide the address of a highly 
controversial goup (NAMBLA,, if that's the right acroynm), but not an 
ILL document, would/should you?

The FACT that librarians didn't collected certain material in the 
past doesn't mean they should have made those choices.  The whole 
impact of the internet means maybe material not collected in the past 
can now be accessed.

Perhaps "smart cards" will be the future of children's library cards. 
 Parents can program into the card the restrictions they choose and 
the library will honor those restrictions.  ??? What about children's 
rights to learn more than their  parents?  

Obviously the subject of "filtering" or "blocking" software on public 
internet terminals is contentious, but despite the use of such an 
issue as a wedge argument (which results in defenders of free access 
being labeled as deviants) the high ground, free access to the 
thoughts and actions (history of pop culture in a primary form) of 
human  behavior should be defended with as few compromises as 
possible.

I understand parent's objections to material that portrays sex before 
marriage, but I personally don't agree.  Sex viewed by a young adult 
may make them horny.  Most sex viewed by very young children 
is "yucky" or makes them curious, at which point a resonable 
adult can help explain. Violence viewed may make them think that is 
an answer, at least the way violence is portrayed in the 20th 
century.  Sex and violence combined  is anethema.

Violence and the acceptance of same as an answer or response to human 
conditions has caused much more grief than pornography.  Should the 
(fictional titles) "The History of War", "Serial Killers of the 20th 
Century",  "The Art of Boxing", etc. and all internet access to same 
be restricted?  Do the parents who object to sexual material equally 
object to violent material?

My personal philosophy on many issues runs along the lines of the 
Kantian prime directive, Don't treat others as a means.  
Which means that all business's, religions, and politicians 
are suspect, but librarians are in the position of providing 
information to both those who seek to use the 
rest of us and those who wish to enlighten.

My suggestion is that librarians step back, take a long look with as 
much perspective as possible, make as few compromises as possible, 
and provide the most open access to the internet as possible.