Censorship absolutism: A contrarian position

[Jerry Kuntz]

Burt, David wrote:
 
> Therefore, I think it's time for the focus of ALA to shift from absolute
> opposition to filters to insuring that filters do the best job they can
> of meeting the needs of librarians.
> 
A few days ago on the PUBLIB listserv, I posted the following list of
desired features for better filters:

A couple of weeks ago I posted to PUBLIB suggesting that some of the
arguments against filter products could be ameliorated if they could be
made more flexible for library settings. Several people responded
privately offering encouragement to this pro-active approach, but no one
offered any additional functional characterisics. Here's the list of
features as it stands now:
I. Filtering by site lists
  A. Access to the vendor's list of screened sites
  B. The ability to add or subtract sites from the vendor-supplied list.
  C. Inclusive filtering, i.e. the ability to give access only to a
given list of sites.
II. Filtering by sites that are defined using subject/content categories
  A. Access to the vendor's thesaurus of subject/content categories
  B. The ability to add or subtract categories from the vendor's list.
  C. The ability to add or subtract sites listed within the categories.
III. Filtering based on keywords
  A. Access to the vendor's list of keywords
  B. The ability to add or subtract words from the list.
  C. Boolean modifier support that could be used to allow properly
modified search terms that include blocked words.
IV. Filtering based on site-defined rating systems (eg PICS)
  A. Ability to totally block or give warnings when unrated sites are
accessed.
  B. Ability to totally block, give warnings, or allow access according
to the rating system codes could be defined by the library.
V. Combination filtering
  If the product uses more than one of the above filtering methods, make
the application of each method configurable, i.e. one could be turned on
while the other could be turned off.
VI. Activation by verification
  A. Entire filtering product can be activated or deactivated based on a
verification method that doesn't require staff intervention. This could
be a library card barcode number. Would require access to the patron
database; or would require the library to adopt different barcode
sequencing for open access vs. filtered access.
  B. As part of the verification process, the ability to display the
library's internet access policy; a disclaimer about the efficacy of
censoring technology; and the library's filtering policy.

The idea is to take this list, research it according to the vendor's own
product descriptions (and other published reviews), and also present it
to each vendor for their reaction: do they have these features, are they
planning them, would they never implement them, etc.

There are about a dozen vendors out there, so if anyone wants to help,
send a message directly to me.

BTW, my personal view, and the advice I give to our member libraries, is
that sound policies can prevent the use of these heavy-handed and
imperfect products; but I can also observe that some libraries caught
blind-sided, or with particularly reactive communities, may be forced to
adopt one of these products. Why not work towards getting these products
to be as flexible as possible?

                Jerry Kuntz
                Ramapo Catskill Library System
                jkuntz at rcls.org