Censorship absolutism: A contrarian position

[Joe Schallan]

At 9:22 AM on 3/21/97, Chuck Munson wrote:

[snip]
> . . . we'll probably see more 
>calls by citizen groups, politicians, and other to install filtering 
>products in public locations like libraries.
[snip]

You bet we will.  In fact, it has already started -- note the
controversies not only in Boston but in the NYPL branch
system, Orlando, Austin, and San Francisco.  The issue is
most sensitive in public libraries.

Absolutism about censorship is a position we cannot defend;
fighting for raw, unfiltered Internet access in public libraries
is a war we cannot, and possibly should not want to, win.


Point:  Librarianship's dirty little secret is out -- we already
censor.  We call it "selection" but it is censorship.  We
do not stock Hustler magazine or the video of Tonya
Harding's wedding night;  we don't buy works by
Holocaust-deniers; most of us don't avail ourselves of
the selections provided in the Paladin Press catalog.
Editorial writers and commentators have picked up on this.
Why would we exercise our professional judgment for
print materials but not for electronic ones, they
rightfully ask.  The recent MSNBC editorial's headline
says it all:  "Librarians Need to Take a Reality Check."

Point:  Public libraries are subject to local control.  It is
local citizens, through their taxes, who buy the PCs and
the books and pay our salaries.  They count on us to
exercise our professional judgment.  They expect to
exercise control over the resources they own.  To
tell them that we, the information priesthood, know
what is better for them and their children than they do
will be perceived as arrogant and high-handed.  It
cannot be perceived any other way.  In the best
case, professional librarians will work with library
boards to achieve a reasonable result.  Lecturing
citizens on the First Amendment, however, will
ensure opposition.

Point:  The argument that filtering software isn't very
good and will block "innocent" sites won't wash.  The
press has already picked up on this.  "You're the
information professionals," the public and the press
say.  "You have the expertise to fix the software, so
do it."

Point:  The public is astonished that librarians would take
an absolutist position.  Information gatekeeping is what
the public thinks we do, and are supposed to do.  That
our profession has, over the last 20 to 30 years, developed
a strong distaste for acting as thought police has gone
unnoticed by the public.  They still think we *are* the
thought police.  And they don't necessarily have a 
problem with that.
     In a sense, this public perception is flattering.
They trust our professional judgment.  They want us to
use it.

Point:   The argument that monitoring of children's use of
the Internet is the responsibility of the parent or guardian
won't wash.  We may wish this to be so, but real-world
parents don't feel it is practical and reasonable to be
expected to follow their children, especially their teenage
children, wherever they might go.  They can't watch all
the time.  "It takes a village."  They expect teachers,
counselors, scoutmasters, ministers, priests, and librarians
to watch, too.  They also have the expectation that
libraries are safe places for children, and they expect us
to do all we can to make them so.  We may deeply wish
that we could abdicate this role, but the public's
expectation is otherwise.
    We are always complaining that we librarians do not
get respect.  In this case, citizens wish to entrust us with
their children.  That reflects a high level of respect and
trust.  We ought to be flattered.
    Why would we be surprised when citizens express
outrage when they find out that their local, tax-supported
library is no safer for children than the local porn shop?

Point:  Aside from the issues involving philosophy and
practicality, there's a public-relations issue.  I have already
talked about fighting battles we cannot possibly win, or
ever even hope to win, in the court of public opinion.
An absolutist position makes us look doctrinaire; it
makes us look unrealistic; it makes us look foolish.  (IMO,
it is no accident that an absolutist position makes us
look this way because, like other absolutist positions,
it *is* unrealistic and foolish.)

[snip]
> If this isn't resisted we will 
>see widespread censorship happen in our libraries. It won't just be porn 
>sites that will be banned. One only needs to look at the rise of Nazi 
>Germany to see how the slippery slope towards widespread censorship will 
>happen.
>
>First will be calls to ban porn sites. Next will be the Klan and Nazi 
>sites. After that, sites that contain erotica or profanity will be screened 
>out. After that sites with non-mainstream viewpoints will get filtered. 
>Where do we draw the line?
[snip]

The slippery-slope argument always seems to get trotted out,
doesn't it?  The problem with the slippery-slope argument is
its assumption that citizens cannot be trusted to make a
reasonable choice among alternatives.  Yes, sometimes they
can't, but that does not mean that we should have a dictatorship
by a self-appointed intellectual elite that thinks it knows what
is better for citizens than the citizens do.

We will have to trust our citizens to make wise choices.

Where do we draw the line?  We draw it where our professional
judgment, exercised in concert with the judgment of our boards,
tells us to.  We are being asked to demonstrate both
sensitivity and responsibility.  I suggest that perhaps we ought
to do just those things.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joe Schallan, MLS                             jschall at glenpub.lib.az.us
Reference Librarian and Web Page Editor
Glendale (Arizona) Public Library                        (602) 930-3555