An Anonymous Patron writes “dailypress.com reports
Some of the battles in democracy’s continuing war against autocratic thinking take place in unexpected corners, and some of the heroes come from unexpected ranks.
That was the case when the state’s archives, normally a peaceful, quiet place, turned into a battleground for a conflict that dragged on for most of 2002; the fight may not have grabbed much attention, but it was significant. It involved the librarian of Virginia, Nolan Yelich, going toe to toe with former Gov. Jim Gilmore, who was refusing to hand over to the archives many of the records of his administration.”
Librarians = Autocrats
Some of the most rabid examples have already been recorded… librarians who think THEY should be the gatekeepers of what the public should or should not read.
[*] “interesting” — another word for disingenuous, politically motivated, acting with hidden agenda
Re:Librarians = Autocrats
Dragging filters into this is a lovely red herring–is it your belief that Governor Gilmore’s official papers are likely to contain pornography, which would corrupt the good citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia if they had access to them? Those papers are public property, not Jim Gilmore’s private property, and they properly belong in the state archives. Some of them may well need to be sealed for some number of years for legitimate reasons of the personal privacy of some individuals, but state law and basic principles of government in a democratic republic say that he doesn’t get to take them with him into retirement, or destroy them.
(An admittedly quick perusal of the website you link to shows stories of non-librarians wanting to restrict access, with the librarians wanting to keep information available. How exactly letting individuals make their own choices for themselves, while opposing attempts of some individuals to make decisions on what _other_ _people_ should be able to have access to, constitutes “autocratic” behavior, is not clear to me.)
Now who’s throwing red herrings?
“How exactly letting individuals make their own choices for themselves, while opposing attempts of some individuals to make decisions on what _other_ _people_ should be able to have access to, constitutes “autocratic” behavior, is not clear to me.)”
It should be clear because the filter issue is not about responsible individuals making decisions for themselves but librarians interfering with responsible adults who understand the concept that a child does not constitute a responsible individual.
That a governor doesn’t want all their records available is not a new issue and tends to be bi-partisan in its history. That anyone feels comfortable with any and all records pertaining to their job history to be made available, even if it was after they died, is hardly surprising. So many decisions and actions can look quite different with time or with a bit of biased manipulation. I consider it the risks run of being in political office but I refuse to be shocked by those who attempt to suppress it or impressed by activist librarians who refuse to even try and understand it.
Re:Librarians = Autocrats
Actually, “filters” has nothing to do with this discussion, but allowing the public to control “public libraries” rather than autocratic directors or librarians IS the issue.