Pull the plug -- libraries aren't common carriers

[Nick Arnett]

The library censorship discussion assumes that because a personal computer
connected to the Internet can retrieve any resource without incremental
cost, any restriction of that ability constitutes censorship.  This is
contrary to the value proposition of the library.  Offering unlimited
Internet access to the public is inappropriate for libraries and devalues
their role to that of a common carrier, rather than an institution of
intellectual value that has related technical skills.  I'm going to suggest
that libraries pull the plug on the Internet until there is a technical
solution that allows them to apply their intellectual skills, which is their
primary value to the community.  Librarians who oppose censorship have
chosen the wrong enemy; they should oppose the implicit view of the
librarian as mere technician.

If physical resources (books, videos, etc.) were free, would the patrons be
allowed to choose which books were obtained?  Is every book donated to a
library available on a shelf?  Do libraries keep every book forever.  No,
that would be impractical, because of the remaining the costs of organizing,
storing and retrieving the resources.  The Internet only addresses storage
and retrieval technologies for digital resources; it has done little for the
organizational problem.  More correctly, the Internet creates myriad
opportunities for organizing resources.

"Censorship" is the negative view of the primary value libraries offer --
organization of information resources so that they can be found when wanted,
and so that people can browse and explore, finding useful and valuable
resources serendipitiously, instead of completely randomly.  Viewing the
present problem as censorship devalues librarians to mere enablers of
storage and retrieval, technicians who know how to efficiently put things
away and get them back.  Viewed in this narrow-minded way, libraries are
just common carriers of the Internet.  Censorship by common carriers is
utterly wrong; for example, telephone companies are free of liability for
the harm that might be done by information that crosses their wires.  This
is fundamental to free speech; courts have seen the chilling effect that
would result otherwise.  But this argument is inappropriate to libraries.

The question isn't whether or not libraries should provide unlimited access
to the Internet, it is what should be included in the library's virtual
collections, in which Internet resources are organized so that they can be
used effectively by patrons.  Resources that aren't thus organized aren't
part of the library and there is no justification for the library to provide
access to them.  The patrons who ask why Hustler isn't available shouldn't
be told, "It isn't appropriate," they should be told, "We haven't cataloged
it yet, we're still working on environmental information (or whatever else
is on the table)."  If the patrons are unhappy with that, let them lobby the
library funders to change the priorities.

The library's Internet collection is something that should start small and
grow; not as a wide-open connection that needs to be pruned, either for
reasons of organization or morals.

This implies that until technology supports virtual collections, the plug
should be pulled on library Internet collections.  Although that might be
frustrating to those in the community who have no other access, nothing
would more clearly demonstrate to the public that libraries and librarians
are more that just technicians.

Nick Arnett

---------------------------------------
Verity Inc. -- Connecting People with Information

Product Manager, Categorization and Visualization
408-542-2164; fax 408-541-1600; home office 408-733-7613
http://www.verity.com

Verity Inc.
894 Ross Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94089