Censorship absolutism: A contrarian position

[Dspp at aol.com]

In a message dated 97-03-21 16:07:48 EST, jschall at glenpub.lib.az.us (Joe
Schallan) writes:

>>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...  Why would we exercise our >>professional judgment
for print materials but not for electronic ones, they  rightfully ask.  

The economic factor certainly is a major influence. While the cost of
internet service is the same whether you censor or not, carrying every single
title certainly is not a consideration. The electronic medium allows us to
step back from the de facto censorship that occurs in the title selection
process.

>>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.

You present the argument for unfettered access to internet materials well
here. Allowing the individual to make up his or her mind is the "best case."
You may look at it as lecturing the public, but I view it as reminding people
to exercise and stand up for their rights. In the end, the censoring of
material will affect the public at large, not just librarians. 

>> 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.
 
Doesn't this position once again lead us back to unfiltered access? We must
trust the patrons with the decision on what materials they should access. The
software that blocks selected sites is unnecessary if we allow the patrons
make up their own minds. Besides, we then run into that familiar censoring
issue when it comes to blocking software: what sites get blocked? As usual,
freedom of choice provides the best answer.

>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.
 
And advocating for the right of citizens to have unfettered access to
materials so they can assess material based on their own philosophy is
unsensitive and irresponsible? I am more than willing to be considered
"doctrinaire" when it comes to protecting speech.

DSP Popeck