Filtering is a Collection Development Issue

Brian says:

Nicely written, but wrong
If tomeboy were proposing that public libraries use whitelist filters (either off-the-shelf or librarian-developed), allowing patrons to pull up only pre-approved sites, I’d agree that’s a collection development issue. And I think whitelist filtering as an extension of the traditional role and responsibility of librarians is a subject which has generally been ignored. (I suspect because we don’t want to deal with endless complaints from patrons.)

However, the blacklist filtering which tomeboy seems to be addressing is another matter, and tomeboy bases his argument on a faulty assumption. Both the U.S. Supreme Court plurality in the CIPA case and tomeboy err in saying that libraries provide or acquire Web content. We don’t (except for whitelist-only libraries, that is). We provide patrons with facilities to access Web content, but we don’t supply the content itself. As they used to say on Square Pegs, “totally different head.”

Every item on the library shelves is there because someone on staff approved it in some way; we’re not even aware of the existence of most of the websites patrons view. It’s kinda like the library’s study rooms: We let patrons use the rooms, but we have no idea what the patrons are carrying in their backpacks and briefcases. The patrons are deciding what to bring in.

Of course, when we find that a patron is using an Internet computer (or a study room) in a way that violates library policy or the law, we ought to take appropriate disciplinary measures — including calling the police.

Brian says:

Re:do Supreme Court pluralities lack legitimacy?
It’s accurate labeling, not emphasis. I started to type “majority,” but I remembered that the text I was referencing isn’t from a majority opinion. So I backspaced and typed “plurality,” because that’s what it is.