[WEB4LIB] Re: Blocking web-based chat

[Floyd Ingram]

AMEN!  It is these debates that confused people to the point where they
don't know the difference between abuse and discipline, positive comment and
sexual harassment, facts and fiction, and on-and-on!

*******************************************************************
Floyd Ingram
Columbia, South Carolina
Fax: (801) 327-3914 Home
E-mail: <mailto:fingram at mindspring.com>
Homepage: <http://fingram.home.mindspring.com>
"Relax... Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday."
*******************************************************************

>-----Original Message-----
>From: web4lib at webjunction.org
>[mailto:web4lib at webjunction.org]On Behalf Of Dan Lester
>Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 12:56 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: Blocking web-based chat
>
>At 09:15 AM 11/24/99 -0800, Christopher Jackson wrote:
>>How can using a blacklist of mail/chat URL's to deny access not be
>>considered censorship?
>
>I promise not to post on the censorship angle again.  That being said,
>let's think about it.
>
>If a library has a policy prohibiting yelling in the library, or
>using cell
>phones in the library, is that censorship?  If the library doesn't provide
>word processors, is that censorship?  Any of those are prohibiting
>specific
>means of communication in the library.  If those things are censorship to
>you, than there's no point in continuing this.
>
>>  You've decided to offer access to the World Wide
>>Web, but then deny access to certain "examined" addresses because their
>>functionality is considered objectionable.
>
>Is it censorship if the prohibition is done via signs on the machines
>stating the forbidden behavior?  What if the signs are followed up with  a
>staff member wandering around enforcing the policy when a violator is
>noted?  If those are censorship, again this is a pointless discussion.
>
>>   That's censorship.  It may be
>>justifiable. It may be laudable.  It's still censorship.
>
>q.v. supra
>
>>I'm sure we can quibble about the semantics of the word forever.  But in
>>keeping abreast of these issues, I notice that nearly all censors claim,
>>"What we're doing is not censorship."  I think it would be more helpful to
>>own up to it and justify it.
>
>As noted, I'm not going to continue a semantic discussion on this list.
>
>>Certain categories of speech are not appropriate in certain
>>settings--e.g., yelling "fire" in a theater, and "chatting" on scarce PC's
>>designated for research purposes.
>
>The old "fire in a theater" <roasted> chestnut isn't particularly
>useful or
>relevant here.  One is a public safety issue.  The other is a resource
>allocation issue.
>
>>   If you must censor, do so.  But do it
>>honestly, deliberately, and carefully.
>
>Whatever you choose to call it, that's up to you.  But don't expect many
>people to get all excited about your definition.  I've yet to hear of the
>ACLU fighting in court for the right to "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater."
>
>cheers
>
>dan
>
>--
>Good, Fast, and Cheap: Which two of the three would you like?
>Dan Lester, 3577 East Pecan, Boise, ID 83716 USA 208-383-0165
>dan at 84.com   http://www.84.com/  http://www.postcard.org/
>