Pornography belongs in the library

[Steven Benson]

As we debate filtering and the CDA, it seems that publications like
"Hustler" get used as examples of undesirable materials.  But it isn't the
extremes like this that cause us problems.

Once we decide to remove or not to select objectionable material the
question becomes "where do we draw the line?" Whose value judgement do we
use?  There is no nice neat line that separates art, litererature, erotica,
pornography, and obscenity.

I fully appreciate Ronnie Morgan's wish for a safe environment for children
in the library.  A recent message to the Web4Lib listserv  (Ronnie Morgan.
"Re: CDA". June 27, 1997) expressed that position in a very calm and
reasoned manner.  But, I still can't support that position.  Libraries are
not just for children and we shouldn't base our decisions solely on what is
best for them.  I believe that the Supreme Court's CDA ruling explicitly
made this point - that we can't base our standards on what is appropriate
for children when it infringes upon adult rights to protected information.
And more generally, libraries are very public places and as such are never
safe for unsupervised children.  Pedophiles, thieves, murderers look just
like you and me.  They are at our playgrounds, shopping malls and our
libraries.  If you want your child to be safe(r) then you, as parent, need
to stay with that child - and then, you have the best of all possible
filters and one that doesn't impinge upon other folks rights.  I think that
as a child matures, incorporates your family's values, learns good
judgement, and then can be trusted to be in a public place alone, then there
is no need to protect them from disturbing images or writings.

But, let's return to the statement I made in my subject line.  There is no
way that any of us can agree upon what we term erotica, pornography and
obscenity.  So if we decide to filter, who and how will we decide?  On June
25th a district judge in Oklahoma City decided that the Academy Award
winning (Best foreign film, 1979) film "Tin Drum" was obscene.  The judge
was acting upon a complaint by a local anti-pornography group.  Police
confiscated copies from video stores, from the home of at least one
individual who had rented it, and from the public library.  The group wants
the library director and library board prosecuted for distributing child
pornography.  Is it art or is it pornography?  Who are we willing to empower
to make this decision for us?  This judge from Oklahoma City?  What about
books or art prints in our collections that include nudes by Matisse, Rodin,
Gauguin ; writings by Nin, D.H Lawrence, Nabokov, Alex Comfort, Howard Stern
; nude photographs of Georgia O'Keeffe by Stieglitz, Maplethorpe's photos,
or Nick Ut's 1972 photo of the nude, young girl fleeing in terror down a
Vietnamese highway?  All of these will be objectionable and pornographic to
somebody.  And all could be censored, filtered, or non-selected depending on
who is making the decision.

I see several philosophical schisms in this debate that define the positions
we take.  The questions I ask in the following paragraphs are intended to
illustrate these divisions.

What is the role of selection?  Is selection directed only toward inclusion
or does it also encompass exclusion?  
My belief is that it is directed toward getting the best resources available
with the finite budget you have to work with.  As such you don't reject
something except in the context of spending your funds on something better.
And, once you have the Internet you have it all.  I costs you no more to
limit access to 10 bookmarked sites than it does to have unfettered access.

Is is appropriate for a government entity (eg. a library) to be involved in
blocking access to information protected by the 1st amendment?  Is it
appropriate for a library to decline to fill an interlibrary loan request
because we don't like the material being requested even if it's available?

What is our role in protecting children in our buildings?  Are we expensive
babysitters?  Do we limit our attempts at protection to their physical
safety?  Do we expand our role to try to oversee their intellectual
activities too?  

Is it appropriate to erect barriers between the public and the use of our
resources? 
Any design that forces our public to request access is a barrier whether
it's closed stacks, books on too-tall shelves, sex books behind the desk, or
software filters that can be disabled on request.  Some people just will not
ask for help and the barriers we put in place do effectively deny access to
these people.

It's apparent from the Web4Lib discussion that we have two very different
philosophies and that the opposing factions will not sway each other with
argument.  Both sides are true believers.  My hope is simply that those in
the middle will see fit to style their solution in a way that is both
acceptible to their community and also as unobtrusive and undraconian as
possible.

Regards,
Steve Benson
Supervisor, Technical Services
Richardson Public Library   
Richardson, TX  75080
sbenson at onramp.net
http://www.cor.net/library
http://rampages.onramp.net/~sbenson (Filtering debate bibliography)