Censorship absolutism: A contrarian position

[Burt, David]

DSP Popeck wrote:

>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.

First off you imply that  I have a "concern over what ideas people will
harbor".  Suggesting that I want to become the thought police isn't
really fair, DSP.
But to the point, even though "the material is limited to a screen",
that doesn't change the fact that it is paid for with public monies, and
that because someone is using it someone can't.

>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.

When did anything I said imply that the concept of appropriateness was
static and unchangeable?  I'll certainly agree that the concept of
"appropriateness" is *sometimes* highly subjective.  But certain things,
like hard-core porn, really aren't all that subjective or controversial.
 Of course, 100 years from now librarians may laugh at the thought of
not giving "Debbie Does Dallas" to a child.

>I know the internet costs money, but the cost to us is the same regardless
>of what sites are accessed.

My point about the Internet costing money is that we have a
responsibility to spend it wisely.  If you have 1 terminal and no time
limits and the same person sits on it all day long, every day, is that a
responsible use of limited taxpayer monies?  Same is true of using it to
view porn.

>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.

My public library, like most collects romance novels and goosebumps.
But you're  confusing the issues of appropriateness and value, which is
much more subjective.  What's valuable to one reader certainly isn't
going to be valuable to every reader, and I think you would have a very
hard time setting one specific standard for value.  But almost everyone
agrees that porn is not appropriate.

>Are you suggesting that we  tell the patrons what they must view?

To a point, yes I am suggesting that we tell patrons what they can and
can't view.  To a point, there's nothing wrong with that.

> And that the material must meet the library's standard of educational value?

To a point, materials should meet some minimum standards.  Does your
library have the Globe or the Enquirer?  Does it buy many vanity press
books?  Does it subscribe to one-man-marching band conspircy-buff
newsletters?  If Bill Gates donated $100 Million dollars to your
library, would you really consider buying these things?

>What is wrong with letting patrons make the decision of what is appropriate
>for themselves?

Nothing, on there dime.  But when it comes to allocating scarce
resources, we have to have some standards.

> Once you offer full access, blocking sites would be censoring.

Why?  Why does access to the Internet have to be an "everything or
nothing" proposition?  Why can't there be gradations in between?  What
you are arguing for is really a false dichotomy.