filtering vs. public relations

[Paul Neff]

Ina Pour-el wrote:
> Before we get hot and bothered, perhaps we should consider if there is
> really a problem or just a perception of a problem.  No need to block a
> perception.

A solution I haven't heard proposed in this thread:  when the question of
filtering comes up in your community, work with your library's Internet
users (and potential Internet users) to determine what, if any, Internet
resources are unacceptable to all.  A lot of the heat in this debate appears
to me to have been generated by misperception, mistrust, misunderstanding
etc. that could probably have been avoided by bringing the real issues of
Internet provision in the library (as opposed to hysteria) before a broad
cross section of the public.  By doing so, my guess would be that several
things might be accomplished:

1. Objections to available content could be phrased in the form of
"community standards" understood by all;
2. Filtering proponents would have the opportunity to specify their
objections as well as the consequences of any proposed filtering solution;
3. Issues such as the nature of First Amendment rights could be tied to the
real needs of Internet-using patrons, who would hopefully be represented in
the discussion;
4. The Library could take a proactive role in the debate, something
libraries in general badly need to do;

I realize this may sound like a pretty naive idea, but I've seen little
evidence that libraries confronted with demands for Internet access
restrictions have actually tried to enter into public discourse to solve the
problems that some of their users perceive.

Has anyone out there tried this sort of thing, or met any success doing so?

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