Censorship absolutism: A contrarian position

[Joel Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Joe Schallan wrote:

 [snip]
> 
> 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.
> 
Joe, you have me utterly confused. First you tell me that the public
will not accept libraries acting like an information priesthood and if we
claim to know what is better for them and their children than they do we
will be perceived as arrogant. Then you tell me in the strongest terms
that we should filter out the bad stuff if that is what the public wants
us to do. What can be more arrogant and high-handed than shutting out what
someone else decides the public and the public's children should not see?
Your "arrogant priesthood" doesn't sound very high handed when they say
people should have the right to decided for themselves what they want to
read, see, and hear.

Am I mistaking your meaning?