Electronic Brown Wrappers in special libraries

[Gina A. Emory]

Dare I put my two cents into this rather heated "discussion"?  I am a
Christian and have very strong views about pornography.  BUT, I am also
a librarian now (not by education, mind you, but by employment) and have
come to learn the value of free access.  Personally, I would LOVE to see
parents have the option of having the library stop their children from
checking out R rated videos, using the Internet, etc. As a librarian, I
understand why that option is not available in our library.  It is the
parent's responsibility to monitor what their child is doing, not the
librarian's.  If the parent doesn't want their child to see porn on the
'Net, then the parent had better accompany their child to the library or
trust their child to follow the guidelines under which he/she has been
raised.

I have a very curious 11 year old son.  We have Internet at home and at
the library.  He primarily uses the Internet at home to access game and
sports sites.  But he is a normal kid - he admitted to me that he once
typed in http://www.sex.com to see if anything came up (it did).  He was
so embarrassed that he quickly left the site (he's at the age where
things of a sexual nature are still "yucky" to him).  We had a long talk
about sex, pornography, etc.  Fortunately, I didn't go off the deep end
and read him the riot act so we could have an honest, open discussion.
Some day when he's older he may want to explore sites of this nature
again.  Hopefully, his upbringing will cause him to view them with as
much disdain as do his father and I.  BUT, why should MY conservative
viewpoint impact others who don't feel likewise?  What is pornographic
to me may not be to a lot of other people.  What right do I have to
dictate what others may or may not access from an institution that is
supported by tax dollars - theirs and mine?  I wasn't too pleased when
our library got Madonna's "Sex", but it was viewed by MANY patrons
(including myself), even given the fact that it was an in-library use
book only and had to be signed out at the circ desk.

I may not always agree with the library's "liberal" policies, but I can
see their value in this diverse society.  I have very strong personal
feelings about many issues that are not commonly shared by librarians
and at times, it goes against my nature, beliefs, and convictions to
have to uphold the library's stance on those issues, but again, I can
see the reasons for the decisions.  I would not want anyone to censor my
ability to access information that is in accordance with my beliefs so
why would I want to censor other people's ability to access information
that is in accordance with their beliefs?  That goes to the very heart
of what happened in Nazi Germany.

There have been many analogies trying to find a way to compare Internet
access to ILL's etc.  It's difficult to find an acceptable analogy.  One
thing we can consider is this, when someone comes in and uses a word
processor in the library, do we review what they have typed to make sure
it is not profane, pornographic, or immoral?  Of course not.  If someone
wants to write a pornographic letter on our word processor, we don't
deny them that opportunity.  If someone wants to write a letter
detailing the making of a bomb or even the plans for a murder, we don't
deny them that opportunity.  Why then, should we deny them the
opportunity to access whatever information they choose to access via the
Internet?  Do we have that right?  As for ILL-ing Hustler, Mr. Burt
stated that libraries have the right to "not ILL" anything they deem
inappropriate based on their mission statement.  I do think you could
end up in court over that.  Not filling an ILL because of costs is a
legitimate option.  But I think a library should pass along the cost
information to the patron and allow them the opportunity to pick up the
cost, not just deny the request without allowing that option.

Now, in our library, we do have an "acceptable conduct" policy that
states that patrons are not to access "unacceptable" sites but that is
primarily because our Internet computers are in plain view of the
circulation desk and the patrons in our library and doing so could be
offensive to others, including children, who could easily see what is
being accessed.  We do not limit access to chat rooms where a great deal
of the conversation is of a very sexual nature.  In order for someone to
be offended by that, they would have to read over the shoulder of the
patron on the Internet.  If we should ever get a new building, we might
have Internet stations that are more private and would then not make any
limitations as to what the public could access.  None of us in this
library want to have the Internet stations turn into peep show booths,
but we also realize that we have no right to force our views as to
what's pornographic and what isn't on others.  The library is, and
should remain, the icon for free and full access to information.  What
people do with that information is not, never has been, and never should
be, our concern.

The opinions expressed herein are entirely my own and not necessarily
those of my employer.
--
Gina A. Emory
Information Technology Manager
East Bonner County Library District
Sandpoint, Idaho  83864
gina at ebcl.lib.id.us
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gina_Emory
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vcard.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 533 bytes
Desc: Card for Gina A. Emory
Url : http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/attachments/19970609/bb56f906/vcard.vcf