Closing the filtering debate?

[Ronnie Morgan]

At 06:28 AM 6/11/97 -0700, CMUNSON wrote:
>     Gee Ronnie, you haven't even seen the opposing forces but you've 
>     decided to start waving the white flag? There is no reason why this 
>     has to become an eventuality, in fact, I'm offended that a 
>     professional would think that filtering in libraries is a fait 
>     accompli. Have you ever heard of advocacy? Have you ever heard about 
>     ethics and the professional's responsibility to sat NO?

I don't recall raising the white flag.  Just trying to help people like you
save face by trying to end this endless discussion.  If you want to keep on
talking about it, that's fine with me, but what else could be said about it
anyway?
     
>     I think we should have a little discussion of the history of the FBI 
>     and public libraries. If I remember correctly, there were some 
>     courageous bunheads who said NO to this powerful agency when it came 
>     around asking to snoop into patron records. Any historians here?
>     
>     I know that this isn't quite the same thing as the filtering 
>     phenomenon, but I think we should advocate for ideas such as open 
>     access to all, BEFORE we are coerced into installing censorware by 
>     some law.

Patron records and the FBI have nothing to do with this debate.  I see
where you are going with it, but it's irrelevant.  Besides, if you really
are for "open access", why doesn't the FBI have access to those patron
records?  ;) And yes, please do advocate for ideas such as open access.  I
don't have a problem with that, for adults.  But for children, open access
isn't such a good idea.  Again, this has been hashed out before...

>     Because those of you who favor filtering want those of us who oppose 
>     it to shut up. You want to close off debate so that it would appear 
>     that consensus has been reached in the library community. You are free 
>     to discuss, thanks to Roy, anything you want on this list (relating to 
>     web for libraries), but don't expect us to shut up. You talk about 
>     ways of implementing and we'll talk about ways of not implementing.

Again, just trying to help you save face.  You can keep on talking, if you
want.  Besides, talking about not implementing is a dead-end subject.  I
can say "I'm not implementing", but that's it, nothing more can be said.
How can you talk about *how* you are not implementing?  But for those of us
who are interested in implementing, we have lots to talk about.  Assuming
you leave out the "why" from this discussion (since that part of the
subject has been gone over extensively already) what is there to say about
not implementing?  Why can't you just put a disclaimer on your message
(when talking about how to implement) stating, "I don't agree with
filtering, but if I did, here's what I would do to implement it"?  You can
take part of the how to discussion and still make your views known.  I know
most people won't do that, and that's fine, it's just a suggestion.

>     Representatives from the censorware companies do monitor this list -- 
>     I've received email from them in the past. I'm sure they are very 
>     interested, not only because libraries are such a good market, but 
>     because libraries are a litmus test for how well filtering will be 
>     received in society as a whole.

I figured there would be, and you are right, libraries will be a good
portion of thier market.

I think for the most part, people would love for this discussion to go
away, myself being one of them.  But I would like to talk about the "how
to" aspect of this discussion.  A lot of progress could be made in that area.

Ronnie