Closing the filtering debate?

[Steve Hooley!]

        Here's the whole debate in a nutshell, all over again. Should we
filter at all, as opposed to should we filter to make the public happy? The
second proposition seems to contain two branches: should we make a strong
attempt to filter, or a half-hearted one to appease the public? Anyone care
to summarize the debate/discussion/flame war so far?

>Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:31:53 -0700
>Errors-To: listchek at library.berkeley.edu
>Reply-To: RAGilbert at ems.jsc.nasa.gov
>Originator: web4lib at library.berkeley.edu
>Sender: web4lib at library.berkeley.edu
>From: "Gilbert, Richard A" <RAGilbert at ems.jsc.nasa.gov>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at library.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: RE: Closing the filtering debate?
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: Web4Lib Information - http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Web4Lib/
>
>I may have missed previous discussion on this topic, and if so forgive
>me.  But what I am wondering is: 
>	How do you propose that public libraries deal with outraged
>patrons/politicians/community leaders demanding an immediate solution to
>the perceived Internet "problem"?  Saying no is fine and dandy, but when
>the public refuses to take no for an answer, what does a library do
>then?
>
>Richard Gilbert
>>   
>>
>>     
>>
>
>
 
+=============================++============================+
 Stephen S. Hooley                "When the going gets                        
 Romulan Tech Support              weird, the weird

 Systems Group                     turn pro."

 Henderson Library                  -- Hunter S. Thompson

 Ga Southern Univ

 Statesboro, GA 30460     www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/hooleyss

+===========================================================+