[WEB4LIB] intenet porn in library: hostile..

[Daniel Messer]

John Seery <John_Seery at asburyseminary.edu> said:

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> dan at riverofdata.com,Internet writes:
> >>Friday, May 25, 2001, 2:11:34 PM, you wrote:
> >>DM> I am in 100% agreement with you.
> 
> >>DM> I hate that "new age" EEOC term- "hostile work environment."
> >>DM> Let me tell you all something, that term is sanctimonious
> >>DM> bureaucratic nonsense.
> 
> etc..etc...
> 
> I see jaded and completely unsympathetic responses which in themselves
> reveal more about the respondent than treat the issue..
> 
> Who is being "hostile" here?
> 
> Anyone out there sympathetic to the Minn. librarians and who can discuss
> the real issues with sensible demeanor without dragging the reader through
> a cesspool infected string of merely politically correct thought?
> 
> I think some of us should re-read the "guidelines for appropriate list
> behavior"

To be honest, I think you're absolutly right. I might have come across as being completely unsympathetic to the Minn. librarians, and let me assure everybody, it's because I AM completely unsympathetic to their case. It's frivolous and takes advantage of a court system that is already plagued by other frivolous cases which have no merit other than a plantiff wanting to capitalize on a false hardship. 

So if people think that I'm "hostile" towards such cases, then their thoughts are absolutly correct. And last time I checked, the language I used was quite proper English for describing something I disagree with. There were no vulgarities in my response and the solilquy was on par with the standards of the "guidelines for appropriate list behavior." Finally, I was led to believe that this was a listserv where librarians could bring up and discuss issues and how they feel about said issues. From where I stand, an issue was brought up, someone discussed how they felt about it, and I replied in agreement with their statement and made additional comments of my own. I see no cesspool or infection here.

If it is to be said that the issue wasn't properly addressed, so be it. Here is my personal take on the issue. I feel that the Minn. librarians need to mature to the point that they can deal with things they don't agree with being on their library's computer monitors. I agree that the library is not the proper place to view pornography. However I also note that legal pornography (ie Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse, etc.) is still just that... LEGAL. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that it is illegal or wrong to view it. I'm not a big fan of smoking, but smoking is legal so I tolerate smokers and smoking on that basis. I don't go on moralistic crusades to stop smoking, I don't go on religious rampages to end the scourge of tobacco, and I don't judge people harshly because they smoke. Smokers are not breaking any laws as long as they do it in acceptable places. The same should be applied to internet terminals at public libraries. Just as there are smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants, there should be filtered and unfiltered areas in the library to access the internet. Does that mean I agree with filtering? NO! Filtering internet is just about as useful as filtering cigarettes, it only takes some of the bad stuff out.

So you filter SOME of the internet terminals, to keep half of the people happy and you place these terminals in another section totally removed from the unfiltered terminals which are making the other half happy. Then you interview librarians just like they do at video rental places that rent adult videos. My friend worked for one for years and one of the questions they asked him was "Would you have a problem renting, shelving, or stocking videos of a sexually explicit nature?" If the interviewee (if that's a word) said yes they did have a problem, then they would not be asked to work in that area of the store. If they replied in the negative, then they would be allowed to work in the adult section as needed. So you ask librarians, "Do you have a problem dealing with sexually explicit materials that may be left on a machine?" I was asked a variation of this question when I was interviewed for my job. And there's an understanding amongst the other librarians already working here: If you don't want to deal with it, you don't have to.

This doesn't seem to be the case in Minnesota. The article mentioned that negotiations were failing and that a lawsuit might be pressed. Well when reasonable people sit down and say "I'm sorry this happened, we'll see to it that you don't have to deal with it again." Other reasonable people tend to say things like "Okay, let's give it another shot." From the little bit the article mentioned, negotiations are failing, which means someone is being unreasonable. Logically, the library probably doesn't want or need the lawsuit; they have nothing to gain from one. They have at least made SOME consessions, whether they be good or bad. So who does that leave? Who has something to gain from this? There's my take on the issue, someone is being selfish. Someone is being unreasonable, and I think it's the librarians.

Dan


-- 
Mondai wa
The subject in question...
-------------
Daniel Messer
Technologies Instructor
Yakima Valley Regional Library
dmesser at yvrls.lib.wa.us
509-452-8541 ext 712
102 N 3rd St  Yakima, WA  98901
-----------
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
                                         -Hunter S. Thompson