Censorship absolutism: A contrarian position

[Paul Neff]

At 08:12 AM 3/23/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul Neff wrote:
>
>>It's also like searching the knapsacks of library patrons as they come
>>through the door, since it prevents patrons from choosing to access a
>>resource that may be objectionable.
>
>I hardly consider not offering access to Internet sites the invasion of
>privacy that conducting a physical search of a person is.

The point of the analogy is not the image of librarians rifling through
backpacks, but that the ability of patrons to choose what they view is being
denied when we filter sites without telling them.  

>>To make yet another analogy: while most public libraries wouldn't circulate
>Hustler >magazine, few would prevent a patron from carrying in his or
>her own copy and >reading it quietly in a corner. The point is that the
>questions of what it is appropriate >for the library to collect and
>what is appropriate for patrons to read in the library are >two
>different things.
>
>True, but then again, the library didn't pay for the copy of Hustler,
>like it did for the Internet, so a different standard applies, because
>you're talking about the use of public monies.

But the Library paid for the lighting to read it by with public monies.  In
most libraries, collection development issues have almost always been
separable from the existence of the Internet connection and public access to
it.  I think it's more useful to think of an Internet connection as part of
the facility rather than a collection, which is in fact how it's budgeted
and managed by libraries almost all of the time.  You aren't fully
addressing the issue of patron choice in the use of this facility.


Paul Neff
Manager, Technology Services :: Arlington Heights Memorial Library
pneff at nslsilus.org