Censorship absolutism: A contrarian position

[Dspp at aol.com]

In a message dated 97-03-22 14:09:06 EST, DBurt at ci.oswego.or.us (Burt, David)
writes:
<<  Like most people who argue against filtering, you duck what's really the
 central issue here:  Appropriateness.  You guys act like appropriateness
 isn't a cosideration in public library selection criteria (nice of you
 to tell us what it is we do ;->).  That just flat-out isn't true.  You
 dodge the fact that pornography in a public library is just grossly
 inappropriate. 
<< You further obscure things by confusing hard-core pornography with
 R-rated Movies.  These are clearly different animals.  You can certainly
 make a convincing case that "Blue Velvet"  belongs in a public library,
 but you cannot that "Debbie Does Dallas" does.

When the issue comes down to what someone can access on screen that only he
or she can view, then blocking sites clearly is censorship. Your concern with
"appropriateness" is really a concern over what ideas people will harbor
since the material is limited to a screen containing material that someone
actively sought.
 
The "R" rated movie analogy was brought up to show the changing face of
libraries, and that what is "appropriate" is a concept that is dynamic and
subjective. For example, I am confident that I could come up with many people
who would consider Blue Velvet a grossly inappropriate title to carry at a
public library (I do not consider it an inappropriate title). Though I do not
personally think that pornography should be carried in general circulation, I
do not feel that we should censor material from the internet when full access
is offered.

<< First, you assume that access to the Internet is unlimited and free.  It
 isn't.  It costs money and the ability of patrons to use it is limited.
 If some guy is looking at  sex pictures, somebody else can't do their
 homework, find a recipe or sports statistic, etc. There's nothing wrong
 with limiting use of the Internet to sources which are more in keeping
 with a library's mission.  >>

I know the internet costs money, but the cost to us is the same regardless of
what sites are accessed. Please define the libraries mission. Does this
include romance novels that are quite popular? How about Goosebumps?
Stereogram books? In my view, there is little value to these materials, but I
would not prevent a patron from viewing them. Are you suggesting that we tell
the patrons what they must view? And that the material must meet the
library's standard of educational value?

 Is viewing a picture of baseball player Randy Johnson more in tune with the
library's mission than a nude picture of a Playboy model? What if the model
wore a bikini? 
What is wrong with letting patrons make the decision of what is appropriate
for themselves? Are books written by Henry Miller appropriate?

<<If say, a Biology library had only one Internet workstation, and wanted to
dedicate it to only use for surfing  Biology related sites, what's wrong with
that?  You call it censorship,  I call responsible use of resources.>>

I would call it limited access that is not censorship. My comments expressly
referred to full access to the internet. Once you offer full access, blocking
sites would be censoring.

<<Second, no, ideally a public library would not "carry everything".  Again,
this is the issue of appropriateness.  Pornography is just one  criterion.
 Currency, authority, and popularity are others.  Again, an  Internet
workstation in a library is *not* an unlimited resource.>>

Ideally, we would carry all titles at our library; I would rather leave the
issue of appropriateness to the public who already make an appropriateness
decision based on what is on our shelves.
 
<< Once again, here we have the old slippery slope.  But these same
 selection criteria have been in place for years.  What makes you think  that
the judgment of public librarians with regard to electronic  resources will
suddenly become much worse that it is with print resources?>>

I don't, but our judgment is not needed when it comes to the internet;
patrons can decide for themselves since the materials, unlike a limited
number of titles, are there for assessment. 

DSP Popeck
Lakewood Public Library