Mom Sounds Alert about Unfiltered Library Computers

tomeboy says:

It ain’t da money
Slash. I disagree (respectfully).

Any thoughts if say, you and I, took our snow shoveling money and purchased subscriptions to some of these porn publications for the Hanover Library? “Ms. Welch, Slash and tomeboy would like to present you with 5 year subscriptions to Bear, Hustler, Playgirl and Watersports.� “Oh, and our mutual friend Bibliophile would like to donate this new (not used) copy of The Art of Auto Fellatio�. No way would she or 99.99% of public libraries take these. Just as they won’t take pops old Playboys as a donation. Try this at your local public library.

It’s not money Slash. It’s about standards that seem only to apply to print material. It’s also a double standard that I don’t understand.

I assume you have a collection development policy in your library? I have one as well. Like it or not, these are tools to preclude the purchase of material. Yes censor. My question, why doesn’t a CD policy apply to the Internet? Make sense? If patrons are utilizing “accessedâ€? material via the Web rather than “ownedâ€? material purchased, why have a policy that only applies to a fraction of what people use? If community standards are a part of a CD policy, why doesn’t that apply to the Internet? I don’t think patrons care if a library purchased pornography, its presence is the issue. This is part of the myth of “Free and Openâ€? access that drives me mad. Libraries have always censored. And still do though those still in denial call this a “selection” issue. Fine. Then I say filters are simply “selecting” what can be seen. The result is still the same.

Compare what sex books are available on Barnes and Noble for example, (fellatio) and then try finding holding libraries in WorldCat. We already censor. And for good reason many times. I don’t want “Libido� in my public library any more than Ms. Welch. But Ms. Welch is disingenuous, and is misleading folks, when she speaks of her philosophical quarrels with censoring on her web workstations.

You mentioned >> Basically, all you get in those mags are so called “dirty” pictures.

Slash this is exactly my point! This is a personal bias that affects your collection development. You would censor this as I happen to agree with you. But dirty old men have rights too. At least on public libraries with “free” Internet.

Let’s try being honest with our patrons. They may actually agree with us contrary to what ALA says.

tomeboy says:

Re:It ain’t da money
>>You might want to just discount this as a bunch of librarian rhetoric, but here goes…

Anon – No I don’t. But we must be honest with our patrons. We haven’t been with the filtering debate. I am concerned that unless our profession, particularly ALA, doesn’t begin honest dialogue now, libraries will face an uncertain future.

>>First, unlike filters, librarians are skilled people who use various criteria and knowledge to select books.

I tend to agree. But just in this thread, Slash and myself, both acknowledge our personal bias against smut in collection development. We are human, unlike those web filters, with biases and baggage. We shouldn’t be naive to think that many librarians do the same. Standards are nothing to be ashamed of.

>>There’s a difference between selecting something for inclusion in a collection and naming classes or characteristics of items for exclusion.

I don’t agree. The results are identical. Both involve judgement. And bias. Collection development is not a perfect science. Why is this difficult to accept?? So as a librarian I make collection development decisions partly based upon community standards. But I ignore these same standards with the Internet?

>>Most collection development policies I have seen do not say anything about items they WON’T select, but do give parameters for things they WILL.

This is not accurate. I speak from personal experience with both public and academic libraries. Do a google search on CD policies. I did and found the following examples in a recent post (re. Censorship vs. Selection?) in roughly 5 minutes. Remember too that many smaller libraries don’t have CD policies. This certainly gives more latitude for arbitrary censoring, selecting, picking, choosing, etc..

>>This is basically because filters by nature exclude material while the process of selection and acquisition includes material.

Why can’t it be said that filters “select” what they will allow in? Why can’t it be said that librarians censor material based upon their CD policy? This is wordplay by librarians for public consumption. Spin.

>>Unless a library is willing to allow patrons access only to the websites that they personally have pre-selected, we need to look at this issue differently.

Well now you are getting warm. You are now applying your CD policy to the web. Filters, aside from librarians, are the only option to do this.

>>Is it like an encyclopedia set? (Once you get it you’ve got it all) Or is it more like individual items? (pick and choose from the best)

I don’t agree with your analogy. 26 volumes of World Book, though big, is finite. Nothing, past or present, has come close to the Internet with respect to libraries. You are comparing apples with planets. Hence my contention that the paradigm of libraries changed with the web, from “ownership” to “access”. With ownership we served as gatekeepers to our little, or not so little, fiefdoms by, as you say, looking at everything we purchased. “Access” via the web has changed this. This is why we are discussing CD policies. They are outdated if only applying to print. And if they only apply to print why have one?

>>It’s not all about the money, but you’ve got to admit that a library with an unlimited budget and unlimited space would be more willing to select edgier, less general use material.

Respectully speaking, this is an excuse. Public librarians can put their CIPA money where there mouths are. One subscription to Watersports or Bear won’t break the budget.

>>How do most librarians select their materials? From review journals. When was the last time Booklist reviewed a book on fellatio techniques?

You are making my point. You are assuming Booklist, Choice, LJ, et al don’t censor/select as well. (They do. I was a reviewer with LJ) Someone/committee at LJ makes the decision as to what books will be reviewed. Furthermore, are librarians really this orchestrated with collection development? Only purchasing books/periodicals from 4 or 5 trade journals? Now this is frightening for me. As for fellation books, check out Barnes and Noble, Amazon, heck the thousands of specialized publishing houses on the web. It’s there if you want it. But why limit it to something non smutty? You wouldn’t, I assume, on your public terminals.