Censorship absolutism: A contrarian position

[Dspp at aol.com]

In a message dated 97-03-23 12:21:35 EST, DBurt at ci.oswego.or.us (Burt, David)
writes:

>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.

Below are your own words.

>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.

Why should you resist this self-imposed label? You don't want to allow people
to use the internet unless they look up sites and think ideas that you find
appropriate. Since the discussion is about internet access, how can you not
see yourself as a thought policeman when you want to prevent people from
accessing sites based on your own idea of what is appropriate? Since the
patron will be the only one viewing this material, then you are indeed only
concerned with what they think.

 >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.

Why? Let the patrons decide! What are you afraid of? You speak of "there"
(sic) dime, but you also said that they shouldn't be allowed to make the
decision on their own (see above). 

> 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.

We have time use rules that apply to all patrons. The content accessed should
be irrelevant. A person looking up baseball player information or music
lyrics all day is no less of a resource hog  than a person viewing adult
images.

>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?  

Once full access is offered, banning sites is impermissable censorship.

DSP Popeck
Lakewood Library