[WEB4LIB] Bad things on the Internet, Censorship, and Technology.

[John Hubbard]

Hello,

I guess I'm in the 10% here.  It seems the point of this message is not
based on the stated "simple problem" but rather argues that the blocking of
pornography should be the responsibility of librarians.  As with other
library materials, any restriction of children’s access to the Internet
should be the responsibility of the parent or legal guardian.  Would you buy
an encyclopedia for your library and read over patron's shoulders to make
sure they don't look at certain entries?

John Hubbard
Assistant Chemistry Librarian
University of Pennsylvania
(215) 898-2177

(The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of anyone else but
me.)

-----Original Message-----
From: James Cayz <cayz at lib.de.us>
To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at sunsite.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 2:47 PM
Subject: [WEB4LIB] Bad things on the Internet, Censorship, and Technology.


>All,
>
>The subject line says it all.  Its a real mixed bag.
>
>Several other people have recently stated things along the same lines as I
>will, in that, at least to me, this debate is getting way too much out of
>hand.
>
>It started out as a simple problem:
>"Block Pornography from reaching children at libraries."
>
>I think that 90+% of the people on both sides of the debate would agree to
>the above, given that we use the legal definition of Pornography, etc.,
>etc. based upon what magazine stores use.  No?  Maybe?  Hopefully?
>
>But, the problem has gotten too focused on "details" to the point of
>ignoring alternatives.  Point in fact.  We don't talk about "blocking
>Porn", we talk about "filters", as in a technological (software) means to
>provide the blocking.  So, we've moved the debate from the original
>premise to a sub-topic, the efficiency and usefulness of filters.
>
>But, has anyone *recently* thought about alternatives to filters to reach
>the original goal?
>
>How about "The Library and the Community support and fund staff to
>identify users and monitor their activity.  Inappropriate activity will be
>terminated.  Repeated terminations will be grounds for access suspension."
>No technology needed (other than the computer and GUI browser).  Just the
>expense of hiring a HUMAN to do the ID check and monitor the activity.
>It can be as easy as walking behind the screens.  Or as complex as having
>the screens daisychained to a single monitor with a timed rollover
>display.
>
>I will contend that a HUMAN can make a better value judgement on what is
>appropriate for the local community than a piece of software.  Perhaps it
>isn't as efficient as software, nor is it as cheap as software, but it
>will be better.
>
>And, if this is the case, are both sides of the debate willing to support
>this as a solution until another solution that both sides agree "works"
>comes along?  And when I say support - taxpayers would have to support the
>funds for additional staff at the libraries, and libraries would have to
>provide the training to the specific staff to be fair, objective, and
>discrete.
>
>And I know there are people who will say "I thinks filters work well
>enough."  That's OK with me.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion. BUT,
>if you had to leave a plane because 1 of 16 tires was flat, you would
>respect the pilot's choice.  Same for wearing safety glasses in a factory.
>Someone else, who is in the position of responsibility, has made a
>decision, and you have to abide by it.  So, my question is, when did this
>stop for librarians?  If a librarian (or, if you want to generalize and
>say "The ALA") says that Filters "don't work for them", why can't everyone
>understand the position, and look for another solution?
>
>I'm sure my "Human" alternative to filters isn't the only one.  So, can
>we, as a group, simply & collectively say, "Look, we agree to disagree,
>for now, on filters.  Lets look for another solution to the problem" ?
>
>I only hope I haven't stepped so far back from the problem that I'm on the
>edge of a cliff just waiting to be pushed over backwards.
>
>James
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
>| James Cayz  #  cayz at lib.de.us #  DelAWARE homepage: http://www.lib.de.us
|
>| Network Processing Administrator #  302-739-4748 x130 # Fax 302-739-6948
|
>| Delaware Division of Libraries # 43 S. DuPont Hwy / Dover, DE 19901-7430
|
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
>