Seth Finkelstein writes “A recent state bill has generated reports about
Kansas
libraries and mandatory censorware. Quoth one library director:
“This was supposed to be the [state] Children’s Internet Protection Act,” she said. “Number one, they took it into adults and number two, they’ve added videos. That has nothing to do with the Internet. For me, where do we stop? Are we going to have to start looking at every single book on the shelf? We just can not be responsible for this type of thing.”
[Note from Seth: This is a reason why I doubt, on the most purely pragmatic and utlitarian grounds, that any compromise with censors would be possible.]”
Question
Seth, I couldn’t resist your parting tag line bit about compromising with censors.
Question. Does your definition of “censorship� preclude librarian bias? Please, no intent of coyness here. Just curious.
Censorship vs. Selection?
Direct answer: At the level I am using the word here, I consider the issue of librarian bias to be irrelevant. That is, I’m not beholded to a magic word. I’m trying to convey concepts.
If someone wants to discuss the effect of librarian bias on collection policies, I’m not overly concerned with ruling whether it “is” or “is not”
the super-special magic word “*censorship*”.
The usage would be a marginal definition anyway, so I hardly think it worth
getting worked-up either way for the word.
If someone want to try to equivalence that potential bias to unaccountable secret blacklisters, I’ll argue that’s wrong and disingenuous.
In my tag line, i’m trying to convey that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE – not principle, not ideology, but case studies – show it won’t work to think that you can keep the censors in a box. They won’t stay there.
Seth Finkelstein
Re:Censorship vs. Selection?
Thanks Seth for your “direct� answer.
First. Please don’t confuse my hope for a dialectic conversation with your inference to my being “worked upâ€?. If my question, or questions bother you, then don’t respond. No harm there. FWIW I wasn’t looking for a puerile game of semantics. Rather, I was trying to set some boundaries on a working definition. “Censorshipâ€? as it applies to libraries, is rarely defined or agreed upon. Your ipso facto for the “potential” of collection bias illustrates my point. I disagree with this.
Regardless, your answer did provide some insight to your rationale.
I would suggest that collection bias is real. Its effect is censorship. And just because its nature is subjective and difficult to identify, it should not be dismissed as inconsequential.
University of Memphis Libraries
Statement of Freedom of Inquiry
….Libraries take very seriously its efforts to assure patrons that no form of censorship, whether based on personal or ideological bias, will be allowed to influence the development of the collection.
Moving on to empirical evidence.
Take a peek at these collection development policies I found with a five minute Google search. (Nearly all libraries have a CD policy) Question. Does this codified censorship represent a compromise with librarians that censor?
Downers Grove Public Library>
Regardless of selection criteria, the Library recognizes its obligation to abide by Illinois Criminal Statutes and so will not purchase or retain in the collection material found to be obscene or harmful to minors by an Illinois court of law.
Orange County Library System
Obscene materials are not purchased; and in determining what is disqualified under the above, the latest court proceedings and definitions will be used.
Barrie Public Library
The Barrie Public Library complies with laws enacted at all levels of government. Therefore it does not collect material which has been designated obscene or pornographic under the Criminal Code of Canada or has been banned by the courts.
Johnson County Library
Guidelines for material selection
Any material may be considered for inclusion in the collection except that which has the dominant purpose of appealing to the prurient interest or is legally obscene.
Seth, this is from your web site.
Extreme/Obscence/Violence (ex)
The extreme category includes URLs that may fall into other
categories, but push the limits of acceptability. These URLs are
typically extremely violent, gory, or horrific in nature and may be
related to sex, bodily functions, obscenity, or perverse activities.
^^^^^^^^^
By having a category they claim contains “obscenity”, but also has a vague, elastic definition (“push the limits of acceptability”), they have free reign here…
We agree, “obscenity� is a nebulous term. My point. It is equally nebulous for librarians responsible for collection development. Hence your illation of cyber-censorship as more insidious is not completely accurate.
Also, CIPA is not mandatory. I could have missed this but I didn’t see this mentioned on your above page.
Re:Censorship vs. Selection?
First, the law here is a state law, different from the Federal law – in fact, I did put a clarification about that.
I’m not worked-up myself. But my thinking, my viewpoint, is that the following sentence:
“I would suggest that collection bias is real. Its effect is censorship”
Is not useful in itself. It only appears useful, but that is a mistake in thinking. It is only “I am putting this label on that phenomena”. It’s the phenomena which has meaning,
not the label. And critically, this is what I mean by not getting worked-up over it. The label can be helpful or not depending on whether it communicates effectively wtih other people.
But that label is not in itself, of much significance in my view.
Some people get very concerned with working out according to some schema, whether a label is proper.
I’m saying, in general, this is not something to which
I devote much thought, except as a kind of theoretical
exercise.
That is, of course people disagree over marginal
applications of a concept. So what? By definition,
those disagreements are over marginal applications, thus
why accord such imprecision much importance?
Focusing on this leads to what I call a “category confusion”, considering things as equivalent because they
bear some connection to the same label.
No, collection development is not equally nebulous with secret blacklisters, no more than
swatting a fly is equally kllling with pre-meditated murder. This shows the problem of
over-emphasis on categorical reasoning.
Seth Finkelstein
Re:Censorship vs. Selection?
Last post. Ignorance is a civil liberty too.
>>First, the law here is a state law, different from the Federal law – in fact, I did put a clarification about that.
Yes, thank you Seth. You missed my point. My reference was to CIPA, as mentioned on your web page that I noted, not your story regarding Kansas libraries.
>>(tomeboy)”I would suggest that collection bias is real. Its effect is censorship” (Seth) Is not useful in itself.
Ehh?? I’m sorry you have no utility for my statement. That doesn’t change its truth. If it is any consolation, I have little “use� for others who remind me that my beloved Detroit Tigers are no better than their Toledo farm team. It’s a painful reminder, but nonetheless true. As for “useful appearance�. Are we discussing censorship or lipstick? I suspect you’re muddling here to discredit my point of fact that some libraries (via CD policies) and some librarians (collection bias) censor.
Back to my original point with this thread.
Your comment: “This is a reason why I doubt, on the most purely pragmatic and utlitarian (sp) grounds, that any compromise with censors would be possible.�
My response: You have already compromised, assuming you have enjoyed the services of a public library. Any notion to the contrary is denial. This is fact.
If interested:
Author: Hielsberg, Amy Source: American libraries. 25, no. 8,
(September 1994): 768 Libraries Worldwide: 3846
Development in Ohio Libraries.
Author: Hupp, Stephen L. Source: Collection management. 14,
no. 1-2, (1991): 139
Author: Buschman, John Source: College and research libraries.
55, no. 3, (May 1994): 221-228
Controversial Topic in California
Author: Harmeyer, D. Source: College and research libraries.
56, no. 2, (1995):
Author: Pankake, M. Source: College and research libraries.
56, no. 2, (1995):
Author: Wittenborg, K. Source: College and research libraries.
56, no. 2, (1995):
of Corporate Control in Journal Holdings
Author: Dilevko, Juris; Grewal, Kalina Source: Library &
information science research. 19, no. 4, (1997): 359 (28 pages)