Closing the filtering debate?

[CMUNSON]

Ronnie Morgan  wrote:
     
>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?
     
     We could start by answering Richard Gilbert's quetion:
     "How do you propose that public libraries deal with outraged
     patrons/politicians/community leaders demanding an immediate solution 
to the perceived Internet 'problem'?" I'm not going to answer that 
     question, because I think it would be more interesting if public 
     librarians answered it. The fact that such a question comes up 
     indicates that discussion on this topic is far from over.
     
     
>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...

Patron records and the FBI DO have something to do with this debate, because it 
is a case example of the clash between the state and the ethics and philosophies
of not just the library profession, but the entire public library concept. I 
don't find it amusing that a professional would joke about patron privacy, but I
guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm not sure what we are talking about here. Are we debating open access for 
kid, adults, or both. I thought the pro-censorware folks were still saying that 
filtering was OKk for adult users? Am I correct?
     
>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.

I have no interest in trying save face. Maybe the librarian profession 
should worry about losing face, if it refuses to stand up to this stupid 
hysteria. The real losers in this debate, if censorware wins the day, 
will be the library users.

Again, Ronnie's response is another attempt to stifle debate, with talk 
of "losing face," disclaimers on messages, and attempts to get the 
anti-censorware camp to accept the legitimacy of filtering software.
     
>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.
     
     Well, I think many of would like to talk about "how to" stop 
     censorware from being installed in public libraries. I know that some 
     find this thread annoying, but I also know from the personal messages 
     I've gotten that other find it important to continue with this debate.
     
     Chuck