Maywin’s S640 Blog Posting #3
First, unless filtering has undergone a miraculous change and can magically block all things deemed by everyone as pornographic, or at least the ones set down by CIPA, as far as I am concerned, there is no need for filtering.
I think Nancy Kranich makes a good point when she suggests we remember the core values of libraries:
Equity of access
Privacy
Democracy
Diversity
Education
Intellectual Freedom
Service
The author mentions that both pornography and swimming pools are hazardous (dangerous) for children. Teaching children to swim lessens their danger of drowning, but protecting children from pornography or dangerous websites is not quite as simple. However, I get that she is saying education is important in both situations.
Another aspect of filtering that concerns me is where and from whom do libraries get their filtering software?
For example, in the article, “Internet Filtering Companies with Religious Affiliations in the Context of Indiana Public Libraries,” author Rachel Radom talks about how 15.9% of Indiana Public libraries use filtering software provided by conservative religious organizations. (In 2005). This makes me wonder about the status of affiliations between public libraries and filtering in general. Does the acceptance of E-Rate funding mean that libraries have to take what software the government selects for them or do they choose their own?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have questioned this before, too. Working in the children's section, I have looked at materials that I thought more appropriate for adults and then had them placed upstairs. However, I don't think moving adult materials from adult materials (like in the Queer as Folk case) necessarilly counts as the same thing. I think it was a way to compromise: the patron's feels like his thoughts have been heard, and the library doesn't have to lose its material. I think as long as Queer of Folk could still be put on hold for the users of the branch library it would be all right. But, then again, maybe I am just used to Indianapolis' floating system, where I always have to put the materials that I want on hold.
ReplyDeleteI posted the former comment on Maywin's previous article.
ReplyDeleteNew Post: I am surprised that using filters on public computers from religious computers is approved by the government. I think that if this was widely known knowledge, then it would never happen. Citizens would want that seperation of church and state.
ReplyDeleteThe swimming pool analogy really rubbed me the wrong way when I was reading the article. I understand the educational aspect that is applied to both, but the argument that teaching children how to recognize safe sites on the web from sites that they should avoid makes filters unnecessary in no way corresponds to teaching children to swim. Teaching people how to swim does not mean that the fence, gates or locks will be removed. The fences will still be in place as a precaution and safety measure.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing that bothers me with filters is that without them, when people are able to view anything they want and cause viruses or pop-ups to necessitate a computer be shut off with an "Out of Order" sign (as we were told in class has happened), the computer is then taken out of service for someone who may need it to file for unemployment or do legitimate research instead of using it to get their jollies in public.
This is not to say that I am in favor of filters in their current state. I do not advocate or support the blocking of constitutionally protected speech. However, I also think that passing judgment on something as inappropriate and then allowing it to happen anyway makes as much sense as removing the fence around a swimming pool.
Finally, in response to Rachel's comment, just going to throw out that the phrase "separation of church and state" did not come from trying to keep religion out of government entities, but to keep government entities out of religion. The phrase originated in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut from Thomas Jefferson and cannot be found in the constitution. It is explained on this site: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Libraries, not the government, select their own filtering software if they choose to purchase it at all. As for the Jefferson take on religion and government, you may be interested in reading this article by the Chief of the Manuscripts Division at the Library of Congress.
ReplyDelete