selection vs. filtering

[Maureen Shepard]

The assumption in all the anti-filtering messages is that ALL libraries are
public libraries intended to provide access to all branches of knowledge.
In fact, there are many special libraries, both public and non-public,
whose purpose is to provide information on a subject or group of
subjects. Just as our law library would be misusing its funds to buy
novels, we would be misusing our funds to provide workstations on
which all Internet sites could be searched. The effect would be to
supplement the Internet workstations offered by the public library a block
away. Our workstations would be tied up with use from the general
public while those with legal information needs would be left with their
questions unanswered or waiting in a long line for Internet access.

This is why I would very much like to see a product (other than the
Library Channel which is out of our price range) that would allow us to
designate which sites could be searched. We would be "selecting" legal
information sites rather than filtering specific unwanted sites. I have
often seen the argument that selection makes sense only when
resources are limited, but that access to Internet sites is unlimited by
price. However, in our situation, we are limited to the number of
workstations we can afford to provide and the amount of space we
have to house them.  We do not have the resources to supplement the
public library without decreasing service to our patrons, i.e. those
persons with legal information needs.

This does not make me an enemy of intellectual freedom and our
American way of life. Let's remember that situations vary and that not all
libraries are general public libraries, so any blanket statement on this
issue may not apply to everyone.

Maureen Shepard                           voice: 916-440-5625 
Systems Librarian                           fax: 916-440-5691
Sacramento County Law Library
MShepard at saclaw.lib.ca.us