Kate,
I agree wholeheartedly. While I support the right to work in a non-hostile
environment, censorship should never be an alternative.
The technology is available to do what you suggest, and there really is no
problem asking disrespectful people to leave, or banning them from, a public
institution, if they have violated that institution's rules against
inappropriate behavior.
Make rules, post them and enforce them.
Brian
Brian L. Baker, JD, MLS
Director of the Law Library & Assistant Professor of Law
UDC David A. Clarke School of Law
bbaker@law.udc.edu www.law.udc.edu
202-274-7354 Fax: 202-274-7311
The secret of education is respecting the pupil.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
-----Original Message-----
From: Kate Dixon [mailto:KDixon@nysda.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:48 PM
To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Subject: inappropriate library behavior, was RE: EEOC Finding Regarding
Li brarians (apologies for the length)
This subject touches a nerve with me. What follows is only my opinion:
"When you read the newspaper articles about the Minneapolis librarians, you
see that there was constant viewing of child molestation, bestiality, etc.,
along with some patrons masturbating in front of the computer. It's too bad
those patrons couldn't buy a dirty magazine and do that at home! Sexual acts
in the library cross the line, in my book."
This almost echoes what I have been thinking. It sounds to me like most of
the objectionable behaviors cited in these articles are not inherently
linked to the Internet. Patrons could be masturbating to a website, Anais
Nin, or the nudes in an art book. -- They could be rude about not giving up
the computer, or not taking their feet off the desk. I don't see a problem
with ejecting patrons from a library if they are behaving in any of these
ways.
As far as leaving the material up on the screens, or locking a terminal in:
it seems to me that there should be technological ways of solving these
problems other than through filters. The Minneapolis Public Library's
current web policies include time limits, and at the end of your time, the
computer logs you out. Can't these terminals be set up to automatically exit
out after a period of inactivity?
People seem to have a desire to jump to filters as the answer, but these are
the same problems, at heart, that librarians have been dealing with for ages
(unruly patrons). Why not deal with them in the same way?
As a caveat, I do work in a private library; I have never worked in a public
library. In my previous (publicly accessible, special use) library, I did
have to ask patrons to leave for inappropriate computer use (which ranged
from using email or wordprocessing to pornography). In my experience, the
pornography was easy enough to recognize at such a distance that it is
possible to miss the details and yet deal with it as needed. Perhaps that is
no longer true, or perhaps I am just a lot harder to offend than many other
people (a *distinct* possibility, I acknowledge).
I've always been something of a First Amendment freak (got my first ALA/1st
Amendment tee shirt at about 14), and the idea that we, librarians - who
I've always seen as the sacred guardians of information - will be
instrumental in restricting access to information - however offensive or
useless we may personally find it to be - gives me chills to my core. As I
understand library selection: we select or *do not select* material
primarily because of fiscal or space constraints (we'd buy everything if we
could afford to keep it all), or because it is outdated or factually
incorrect, or because it does not fall in the scope of our collections. With
the internet, aside from subscription products, all of these concerns become
less viable. It's free; to have it takes no more space than to not have it
(provided we'd have the terminals anyway). As librarians, we are teaching
our patrons to be savvy consumers of information, with regard to probable
currency and accuracy. Whether or not it is in the scope of our collections
is probably the stickiest point; however, for public libraries, anything of
interest to the patrons should be within its scope. Ergo, unfiltered
Internet access.
Having said that, I certainly support the Minneapolis (and other) librarians
in their quest for a tolerable workplace. I just disagree about the
solutions I've seen proposed.
Kate
Kate Dixon, Law Librarian
New York State Defenders Association
kdixon@nysda.org <mailto:kdixon@nysda.org>
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Reinke [mailto:jreinke@law.miami.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 2:36 PM
To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: EEOC Finding Regarding Librarians
Dear Colleagues:
I can see both sides of this issue. I work at an academic library (but
one that is open to the public). On evenings and weekends, I work as a
librarian at a branch of the local public library. At the public
library, we have 6 computers which are available for members of the
public to use to surf the Internet.
I have never encountered as much pornography as the Minneapolis
librarians confronted, but I have had some experience with it. (We have
many children who come to the public library, and quite honestly, the
biggest irritation the library staff confront there is some of the games
the kids play on the computers. I never thought "Paul Bunyan" would
become such a part of my life!)
Bob Ryan is right, a computer screen is different from a book. And it
can be particularly tough for a librarian when it is her/his job to help
the patrons use the computers. In that case, the librarian has no escape
from pornography if that is what the patrons choose to view.
As librarians, we believe in free access to information. However,
perhaps this particular situation is a bit extreme. When you read the
newspaper articles about the Minneapolis librarians, you see that there
was constant viewing of child molestation, bestiality, etc., along with
some patrons masturbating in front of the computer. It's too bad those
patrons couldn't buy a dirty magazine and do that at home! Sexual acts
in the library cross the line, in my book.
'Just a few random thoughts...
Sincerely,
Janet Reinke
Reference Librarian
University of Miami Law School Library
Robert, Robert-
You are ever the Voice of Reason. Given to the dramatic as I am, I'd
say
that I'm appalled that the complaint was brought and also appalled that
the
library administration appeared unresponsive enough that the complaint
had
to be brought. More facts certainly are needed.
And, more viewpoints, please. Many of us on this listserv work in
exclusive (i.e. restricted access) firm environments, or protected
academic
settings. I would like to hear much more from the public librarians on
the
components of this issue.
Best,
Druet
Druet Cameron Klugh
Reference Librarian
University of Colorado Law Library
Fleming Law Building
2405 Kittredge Loop Drive S.
402 UCB
Boulder CO 80309-0402
Phone: 303-735-1867
Fax: 303-492-2707
E-mail: druet.klugh@colorado.edu
At 09:43 AM 6/19/01 -0700, Robert S. Ryan wrote:
>I think without more facts it's a little early to go with "ashamed". I
>haven't seen anything yet about anyone's motivations for bringing the EEOC
>action. Perhaps "concerned" would be more appropriate at this juncture.
>
>The case does raise some interesting questions - that fact that you have
>"Lady Chatterly" or "Tropic of Cancer" on the shelf doesn't mean that you
>personally have to read it. But if you go to turn off the computer at the
>end of the day and there's a photo of a three year old being molested on
>the screen, it's a little harder to avoid. Yet another example of new
>technologies presenting variations on old questions.
>
>Let's hear some more facts before we make any judgments.
>
>Bob Ryan
>Hill Farrer & Burrill
>Los Angeles
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:56:38 PST