I would like to commend Kate Dixon on her thoughtful commentary. I believe
she is right on target. The issue is not filtering or not filtering. The
issue is whether the behavior of the patrons is inapprorpiate.
During the course of my career, I have worked in a public library, a law
library, and now an academic library. Recently I have also taught library
school classes as an adjunct professor, including a seminar class last fall on
"The library in society," which included a substantial discussion of
filtering, censorship, etc.
I would like to remind everybody that last fall the College of Du Page put on
a teleconference entitled "To filter or not to filter." In that
teleconference, it was the stated position of the ALA and several of the
participants that libraries should deal with the behavior of the patrons
rather than removing access to constitutionally-protected material.
What that means is that those who access inapropriate Websites should be asked
to leave. Those who masterbate in the library or view illegal material should
be reported to the proper authorities. (Twice during my previous career as a
public defender, I represented defendants who were accused of nudity or
masterbation in the public library.)
We had a list of about 12 rules that was posted at the New York Public
Library. Rule #9 was "No sex in the library." Violation of the rules led to
expulsion.
Just my opinion.
--Bryan M. Carson
Kate Dixon wrote:
>
> 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