FW: Staten Island Porn on the Internet

[Cindi Trainor]

In the second article on this subject, particularly this paragraph:
>We don't question the right to produce such material, including on the
>Internet. But there is no law that says children have a right to have
>access it.  In fact, the question as to why the libraries even permit
>anyone to access websites without any socially redeeming or educational
>value is legitimate, in view of the fact that libraries	don't stock
>printed or recorded pornography.

the author makes several erroneous assumptions, including:

Libraries judge potential library materials on content value only.
Librarians routinely impose their belief systems on patrons.
Librarians don't mind sitting back and watching kids view porn.
All teenagers are obsessed with sex and sexually explicit materials.

To which I respond:
Libraries have collection restrictions because of BUDGETARY concerns.
   Most material or content decisions or limitations also can be traced to
   money issues.  We would love to present all viewpoints, but can't always
   afford to.
Parents, and through "in loco parentis", teachers, are responsible for
   the actions of children, not librarians.  Parents of latchkey
   kids haven't objected when their unsupervised children ventured
   into the Silhouette Romance section.  (Not the same, I will admit,
   but I unequivocally say that *I* will see to it that MY kids 
   will not be allowed to have access to unprotected computers, including
   my own machine, without supervision.)
The fact that children should not be allowed to view porn is not under 
   dispute.  The act of denying access to information to others (adults) is 
   what we are loathe to enforce.
Teenagers, while curious, are on the whole responsible enough to know right
   from wrong.  (Go ahead, shoot me down, but I like to be optimistic.)

I will admit that the whole First Amendment issue is a touchy issue for
librarians--including me.  It's instinctive to react this way, and an easy 
way for us not to have to judge what others feel to be legitimate material.
That not only applies to porn, but, for me, to white supremacist literature, 
anti-gay and -lesbian literature, many other topics.  The point is, there 
should be no restrictions on what people can *put out there*.  Do we need to
consider, under guidance of our collection development policies, what can be
*gotten to* by anyone?

The second article brings up this question:
>Fine, then why not have some PCs for adults, and others, with the
>screening software, especially for kids?	

Sure, let's set up "kids only" computer rooms with the screening software
and "adults only" computer rooms without.  That won't cause a stir at all.

The internet's very nature requires *human* intervention.  Software won't
do it well enough; laws and mandates punishing organizations who
inadvertently provide lurid content to minors will do it too well.  There is
just no satisfactory way to keep objectionable content from children unless
those responsible for them are there to supervise.

OK, OK, *I* know that and *you* know that, but how can we get our communities
to believe that we *can* defend free speech and still protect our children?
We are being painted as the bad guys, here, folks.  We have to work with
our communities, boards, governments, etc., to ask them to do *their* part
in preventing children's access to online pornography, before a solution 
is imposed that is unacceptable to us and the First Amendment principles we
so stridently stand by.  We had better hurry, or we'll suddenly find ourselves
sputtering "Wha--??" while our beloved net access is cut off.

With the usual disclaimer about my opinions,
Cindi
--
 Cindi Trainor                          | cindi at pop.uky.edu | (606)257-6434 
 Electronic Resources Support Librarian |      404 King Library South     
 University of Kentucky Libraries       |     Lexington, KY  40506-0039