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

[Mary Martin]

We don't currently have any filters installed in our library, but it is illegal
in Arkansas to view material that could be considered as pornographic in a
public place. So what we have done is place most of the Internet computers in
line-of-sight of the service desks. We also included something in our computer &
Internet policy (http://www.fspl.lib.ar.us/irpolicy.html) stating that it is
illegal in Arkansas to view pornography in a public place. Knowing that the
reference staff could glance over and see what they are doing tends to keep most
people from viewing the hard-core stuff.

If reference staff notice that someone's viewing something inappropriate, or if
someone passing by complains that a person is viewing something pornographic,
the staff has the right to kick the person off the computer. In fact, we are
working on procedures now that ban a person from using the Internet, at any
branch, for two weeks if they violate our computer & Internet policy. They must
read a copy of the policy and sign something saying they agree to abide by our
rules in order to regain access.

If they then violate the policy a second time, they are suspended for one month.
Third time, and they are barred from using public computers indefinitely. Of
course, this is difficult to enforce, and we are still working on the best way
to do that. But we thought that enumerating the law within our policy would back
the staff up when they had to ask patrons not to view pornography in a public
place (where children could walk by at any time).

Mary
--
Mary C. Martin, Computer/Technical Services Librarian
Fort Smith Public Library
61 South 8th Street, Fort Smith, AR  72901
501-783-0229 (phone)   501-782-8571 (fax)
http://www.fspl.lib.ar.us


James Cayz wrote:

> 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 |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+