Censorship absolutism: A contrarian position

[Christopher Jackson]

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Joe Schallan wrote:

> Point:  Librarianship's dirty little secret is out -- we already
> censor.  We call it "selection" but it is censorship.  

Counterpoint:  Yes, we do censor, but "selection" is not censorship.  At
my library we keep Playboy, Madonna's "Sex", and "The Advocate" behind the
desk.  This is censorship, but we do it to prevent the materials from
being vandalized.  We do, however, make these materials available to all
patrons regardless of age.  We also ask patrons to keep their voices down. 
This may be censorship too.  I agree that taking an absolutist stance is
not helpful.  But lumping 'Net filters with selection is an equally
unhelpful stance.  The two processes are fundamentally different.  Let me
know if you'd like me to elaborate here. 

If you are trying to limit the availability of hardcore pornography in the
Children's section, I understand your concerns, even if your efforts
amount to censorship.  But if you intend to censor beyond that, I urge you
to reconsider.

> Point:  Public libraries are subject to local control.  It is
> local citizens, through their taxes, who buy the PCs and
> the books and pay our salaries.  They count on us to
> exercise our professional judgment.  They expect to
> exercise control over the resources they own.  To
> tell them that we, the information priesthood, know
> what is better for them and their children than they do
> will be perceived as arrogant and high-handed.  It
> cannot be perceived any other way.  In the best
> case, professional librarians will work with library
> boards to achieve a reasonable result.  Lecturing
> citizens on the First Amendment, however, will
> ensure opposition.

Counterpoint: Again, I agree that First Amendment lectures are not going
to be the most useful aproach.  But filters do exactly what you condemn: 
They send the message that we know what is best for our patrons and their
children, and that we do not trust them to use the library in ways which
we find appropriate.  It's their library and it's their money: they should
be able to use the Internet in whatever way they find want, provided it's
legal. I find it "arrogant and high-handed" to think otherwise. 
 
> Point:  The argument that filtering software isn't very
> good and will block "innocent" sites won't wash.  The
> press has already picked up on this.  "You're the
> information professionals," the public and the press
> say.  "You have the expertise to fix the software, so
> do it."

Counterpoint: Since filters are being employed, I applaud my colleagues
who are trying to fix the software, and I intend to stay abreast of their
efforts.  But the software is currently broken and may well not be
fixable, though it can certainly be made more palatable.  At my
institution we are trying to promote the positive uses of the web rather
than trying to limit access to what we find acceptable.  Educating users
about the good and the bad is the best use of our limited time.  In the
long run, it's an important service that they can take with them when they
leave the building. 
 
> Point:  The public is astonished that librarians would take
> an absolutist position.  Information gatekeeping is what
> the public thinks we do, and are supposed to do.  That
> our profession has, over the last 20 to 30 years, developed
> a strong distaste for acting as thought police has gone
> unnoticed by the public.  They still think we *are* the
> thought police.  And they don't necessarily have a 
> problem with that.
>      In a sense, this public perception is flattering.
> They trust our professional judgment.  They want us to
> use it.

Counterpoint: (Here's one you'll love:) We must be very wary of succumbing
to public opinion. In the long run, it's in the public interest to
keep access to all ideas open, even when those ideas are unpopular.  While
I don't recommend we "hide" behind the First Amendment, we do not have
the luxury of ignoring a Constitutional mandate that ensures the
availability of even controversial information.  If the public
misperceives our role, let's educate the public rather than adopt a
"gatekeeper" mentality.  In a free society, someone's got to keep the the
gate open so that all ideas get through.  I'm sure we can convince SOME
people THAT's the role they need us to provide.  Kinda wish it wasn't so
hard to convince fellow librarians.
 
> Point:   The argument that monitoring of children's use of
> the Internet is the responsibility of the parent or guardian
> won't wash.  We may wish this to be so, but real-world
> parents don't feel it is practical and reasonable to be
> expected to follow their children, especially their teenage
> children, wherever they might go.  They can't watch all
> the time.  "It takes a village."  They expect teachers,
> counselors, scoutmasters, ministers, priests, and librarians
> to watch, too.  They also have the expectation that
> libraries are safe places for children, and they expect us
> to do all we can to make them so.  We may deeply wish
> that we could abdicate this role, but the public's
> expectation is otherwise.

Counterpoint: We do not monitor children's use of other library materials. 
At my institution, children may access any material we own, and as
mentioned above, this includes Playboy, and "Sex," as well as our entire
video collection for viewing in the library.  This material is often not
age appropriate, but making it available doesn't mean promoting it, and it
doesn't have to lead to political problems.  

>     Why would we be surprised when citizens express
> outrage when they find out that their local, tax-supported
> library is no safer for children than the local porn shop?

I think the safety issue of making all the Internet available needs a
little more research before you start making analogies to porn shops.  I
think that a library which blocks access to ANY safe sex information is
the one guilty of compromising safety. 

> Point:  Aside from the issues involving philosophy and
> practicality, there's a public-relations issue.  I have already
> talked about fighting battles we cannot possibly win, or
> ever even hope to win, in the court of public opinion.
> An absolutist position makes us look doctrinaire; it
> makes us look unrealistic; it makes us look foolish.  (IMO,
> it is no accident that an absolutist position makes us
> look this way because, like other absolutist positions,
> it *is* unrealistic and foolish.)

Counterpoint: So let's not be absolutist: Let's say that patrons cannot
access materials proscribed by law.  Then leave the rest up to them. 
The PR component is signficant, so let's proactively assert the rights of
individuals, and the benefits of unrestricted access.

> 
> The slippery-slope argument always seems to get trotted out,
> doesn't it?  The problem with the slippery-slope argument is
> its assumption that citizens cannot be trusted to make a
> reasonable choice among alternatives.  Yes, sometimes they
> can't, but that does not mean that we should have a dictatorship
> by a self-appointed intellectual elite that thinks it knows what
> is better for citizens than the citizens do.
 
> We will have to trust our citizens to make wise choices.

I'm not the first to point this out, but the above is not at all in line
we your prior arguments.  I say those advocating filters are the ones
afraid to trust their citizens.

> Where do we draw the line?  We draw it where our professional
> judgment, exercised in concert with the judgment of our boards,
> tells us to.  We are being asked to demonstrate both
> sensitivity and responsibility.  I suggest that perhaps we ought
> to do just those things.

And here I agree entirely, though we obviously have different opinions of
sensitivity and responsibility.  As a whole, I think you're approach is
overly concerned with politics and public opinion; you seem to feel that
we should do what's expected of us, rather than challenge those
expectations. 

Providing access to controversial materials is nothing new for libraries.
Spending staff time and money to deny access IS new.  Let's be sensitive
to EVERYONE'S concerns, but let's behave responsibly by not limiting the
range of available materials, even though some of them may be
controversial.

    Christopher Jackson                      cjackson at monroe.lib.in.us	
    Reference Librarian                      voice: (812) 876-1272
    Monroe County Public Library             fax: (812) 876-2515
    Ellettsville, IN  47429                  http://www.monroe.lib.in.us/