filtering vs. public relations (long)

[Paul Neff]

>Maybe not.  A very good article in the Chronicle of Higher Education
>recently made the case that the idea that most problems are problems of
>miscommunication, is overstated.  When a problem is really a problem, a
>disagreement - not a miscommunication -- more communication only 
>aggravates the problem.

Yeah, I read this article too.  Indubitably there's a strong element of
miscommunication in this debate, but there may very well be irreconcilable
elements to it as well.  But this is an issue that needs to be resolved
locally, library by library, as well as in the national arena, and I am
wondering if the climates aren't different.

>If we invite the public into the library we can only make things better if we
>can make one of these cases:
>1.  There is no pornography on the net
>2.  Kids can not get to it
>3.  It is not bad for kids
>4.  Although it may be bad, it would be worse to eliminate it

Of those four, I think (4) is the only viable choice.  None of these,
however, really represents a mutually-agreed-upon solution.  What I'm
interested in is:

5.  We can work to minimalize, and maybe eliminate, the impact of
pornography if you as a community can work with us to do so.

>The public will certainly want us to show them what there is out there and
>how easy it is to get to.  

I'd also expect that task to be incumbent upon the library's critics (to
demonstrate what specific problems exist), and I would want to get all
participants, including heavy Internet users, non-Internet users, kids,
seniors, whoever, to contribute to a definition of pornography that everyone
can agree on.  It would also be important to identify and involve Internet
users that don't want any kind of Internet blocking at all.

>Then they will want to see our collection development 
>policy.  Was the intention of the policy to include pornography?  Does the
>librarian actually want pornography in the library, or is it just too much
work >to keep it out?  

Personally, I think it'd be nice if more libraries felt they were able to
answer these questions.  Very few libraries that provide Internet access to
the public address it in their collection development policies, and very few
of those who do actually implement them with any effectiveness.  We can't go
crying that unfettered Internet access is a necessity if we haven't defined
its value in our policies.  Moreover, patrons have every right to know how
how the resources they pay for are managed.  One good thing that might come
out of a public discussion of Internet access/collection development
practices might be that the Library could create and implement more
effective policies to that end.

I don't want to get flamed here, because I don't know if it makes sense to
say this, but don't many libraries, in their collection development
policies, attempt to comply with something called "community standards",
which define stuff like where and how smutty magazines can be displayed in a
convenience store rack, etc.?  How are community standards defined?  Could
this idea be used to define what complaintants are really concerned about?
It may be that the middle ground here is that the Internet resources that
filtering proponents are so concerned about are identifiably undesirable to
the library on that basis.  My suspicion is that a lot of libraries would
filter if filtering solutions could be implemented that could be shown
conclusively not to negatively impact their collection development policies
or public services goals.  I'd be interested in knowing the answers to these
questions.

>In this case, I think the best path for librarians who want to 
>defend access to pornography in the library is to hope that those who do not 
>want their kids to see pornography will not find out the opportunity afforded 
>by the library.

I don't agree.   Obviously some of these parents are going to find out the
hard way anyway.  Besides, there's a role for dialogue here.  Angry,
confrontational patrons are often simply patrons who feel marginalized,
ignored or unheard by their institution.  Apart from members of lobbying
organizations such as Enough is Enough, I think most filtering proponents
out there are upset because they have been given a highly distorted view of
the Internet's perils and don't understand why the library doesn't seem to
care, and in fact appears to them to be in collusion with the pornographers.
Well, most of us on this list know that's not the case, but how many of us
are actively communicating why it isn't, or pulling together our user
communities to work it out together?  

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