Library Juice 2:13 supplement 1
After the March 12 Filtering Summit (ALA Council Discussion) ___________________________________________________________________________ This matter was brought to my attention by Chuck Munson whose posting you will find below. PLEASE give it some serious attention. It involves the preparations being made for a retreat on intellectual freedom principles especially with regard to filtering. There is talk of revisiting the 1997 resolution against filtering under pressure from the filter vendors, timid librarians, as well as the organized puritan Right. A newly-tailored-fo-the-millenium (and for the millenialists) version of the Library Bill of Rights seems a possibility. Eternal vigilance is, unfortunately, still the price of liberty. Mark Rosenzweig Councilor at large -------------------------------------------------- While I hate to give David Burt any undue attention, this post from him highlights an ugly direction that ALA is heading. Instead of standing up for children's rights to use the Internet freely, some of the more timid and cowardly ALA members may opt to scuttle parts of the Library Bill of Rights in order to satisfy a few puritan loudmouths. Stay tuned. Chuck0 -------------------------------------------------- Subject: After Filter Summit, ALA May Revisit 1997 Resolution Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 12:00:48 -0800 (PST) From: Filtering Facts <burt[at]northwest.com> To: ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom List <alaoif[at]ala1.ala.org> After Filter Summit, ALA May Revisit 1997 Resolution, Children's Access Library Journal, Mar 16, 1999 http://www.bookwire.com/ljdigital/leadnews.article$27656 By the end of a first-ever meeting Friday with representatives of Internet filtering companies, American Library Association representatives seemed ready to revisit the 1997 resolution in which the ALA Council staunchly opposed any library use of filtering software. Also, the special case of the Internet may push ALA to reconsider longtime interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights that guarantee all users, including children, equal access to library materials. No, it wasn't that the filter makers pressured ALA, but the act of stating their positions to outsiders pushed ALA leaders to acknowledge the awkwardness of the policies. "Given where we were, this [the 1997 resolution] was the right decision at the right time," ALA President Ann Symons told LJ, after the all-day meeting in Chicago. "I think it's time to send it back to IFC (Intellectual Freedom Committee)." She said she'd like to see ALA affirm what has been the organization's lobbying statement: Internet policies should be local decisions; individual users -- not the library -- should be able to control Internet access; and every library should have an Internet access policy. The simple fact of the meeting -- which Symons called "one of the highlights of my year [as ALA president]" -- suggested that ALA has recognized it can't ignore the diversity of positions on filtering within ALA. Indeed, one participant, Seattle Public Library Director Deborah Jacobs, said she felt the 1997 resolution "harmed our credibility." Friday's meeting, she told LJ, "gave me hopefulness about ALA, as opposed to some frustration that practicing librarians were in conflict with ALA." Added Karen Schneider, the filtering expert on ALA Council, "Library-land had its head in the sand for a long time. It's a really good sign to see us reestablishing ourselves on the cutting edge, not trailing edge." The awkwardness of ALA's position emerged when Steve Herb, Chair of the IFC, listed possible features ALA might want from filtering systems. "Can you give advice about something you're recommending against?" he told the group, with a touch of jocularity. "We have this little conflict." Herb said that librarians "don't spend quite enough time acknowledging the differences between children. Sometimes, with the Internet, we treat the two- and the 17-year-olds the same." Asked later to clarify, whether that meant different access levels for different ages, he said, "We need to explore that." Judith Krug, director of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, seconded Herb's general point. "The old ways are really different from what's going on today. We have to create new models." Asked by LJ to expand on that, she said, "I do think IFC must look at the issue of children." The age distinctions for children and youths established in ALA divisions such as ALSC and YALSA "may have been true 50 years ago, but it's not true today." Filtering Summit Leads to Some Accord, But No Guarantees Library Journal, Mar 16, 1999 http://www.bookwire.com/ljdigital/leadnews.article$27657 For the 25 librarians and filtering vendors who met all day Friday in the Carnegie Room at ALA headquarters, Ann Symons' filtering summit provided a chance for cordial exchange of information. Everyone said the process was useful. But it doesn't mean that the filter makers will necessarily tune their products to library specifications. The meeting provided an opportunity for librarians to explain their values and to discuss how filtering might be compatible with them. Filtering, they noted, might not only eliminate inappropriate sites but to better focus a search. What might they want? User control of a filter, the capacity to over-ride a blocked site, and better knowledge of what's being blocked. "You have proprietary data," acknowledged Karen Schneider. "It's not a problem that can be solved this afternoon." Indeed, said Terry Stuart of Net Partners (makers of Web Sense), "My biggest budget is 18-20 students from the University of San Diego surfing the net [for inappropriate sites]. I'm not going to give it [list of sites blocked] to my competitors." None of the filter companies argued that filters worked perfectly, statements that pleased ALA representatives weary of political rhetoric about the products. "None of us can block 100 percent," Stuart acknowledged. Added Richard Chapin of Smartstuff Software (affiliated with Web Chaperone), "If you want 100 percent blocking, you'll have proportionally more overblocking." Indeed, Schneider said public libraries are worried more about overblocking than underblocking. Filtering is being redefined by some as web management, as software may be used for more than filtering: to direct users to specific search engines or sites, to provide portable personal "bookmarks," and to ensure that previous searches -- an individual's web trail -- are wiped out. One filter representative, Jim O'Halloran of N2H2 (maker of the Bess filter), said, "You're a tough audience. You have incredible pressure on you. Yet you're not a big market." Indeed, ALA President Ann Symons reminded the group that only a minority of libraries use filters, and even if a perfect product were developed, it wouldn't necessarily be used. While some at the meeting said the features desired by ALA are available on different products, filter makers are aiming instead at the home, business, and school markets, none of which have the same level of free speech concerns. "What if I get sued," Stuart said, of a filter used in public libraries. "Or if my product is voted out?" At the end of the meeting, OIF Director Judith Krug, veteran of numerous censorship battles, pronounced the meeting "better than I had anticipated, and as good as I hoped." She noted that because libraries are a small market, "I was concerned that they would blow off our concerns. At least, they were listening." *********************************************************** David Burt President, Filtering Facts Website: http://www.filteringfacts.org E-Mail: David_Burt[at]filteringfacts.org Phone/Fax: 503 635-7048 ___________________________________________________________________________ Response to the above from Ann Symons, ALA President: Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 15:35:28 -0900 To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> From: "Ann K. Symons" <symons[at]alaska.net> Subject: Re: Has the bugle sounded for a retreat on filtering? Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: symons[at]alaska.net Sender: owner-alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org My answer is No! The bugle has not sounded! It is not my intention to cause the filtering resolution to come back to Council, nor do I believe that IFC will be bringing it back. The American Library Association is under no pressure from filter vendors, nor would I call the librarians who attended the meeting timid. The American Library Association has been under pressure from the organized rights for as long as I have been a member. Below is a copy of the press release which went out from ALA on Monday. NEWS For Immediate Release Contact: Joyce Kelly or Linda Wallace March 15, 1999 312-280-5043/5042 pio[at]ala.org ALA hosts meeting with filtering vendors (CHICAGO)--The president of the American Library Association (ALA) says she hopes that a meeting of librarians and vendors of Internet filtering companies will lead to development of Web management software that protects both children and free speech. The meeting, held March 12 at the association's headquarters in Chicago, was attended by representatives of a dozen filtering firms, including Security Software Systems, Smartstuff Software, Net Nanny and Log-on Data Corp. "The American Library Association continues to support full public access to constitutionally protected material in libraries," said ALA President Ann K. Symons. "We encourage and respect the right of local libraries to adopt Internet access policies for their communities." Symons said she called the meeting to provide a forum for librarians to share their concerns directly with software vendors, to learn more about state-of-the-art Web management technologies and to help shape the development of future technology in a way that protects both children and free speech. Most of the discussion focused on public libraries, which have been the center of debate over whether filters should be used to block access to pornographic material on the Internet. "Upholding people's right to information is a core value for our profession," Symons explained. "The Internet has raised complex issues. Some people, especially politicians, see filtering as a quick fix but there are no easy answers. We owe it to the public to find the best possible answers." ALA adopted a policy two years ago opposing the use of filters because they also block access to constitutionally protected material of value to children and adults. ALA urges all libraries to adopt Internet use policies, to encourage parental supervision of children's Internet use and to offer public education programs for children and adults about the Internet. Librarians' concerns voiced at the meeting include: --Freedom of choice. Web management software should allow individuals to choose for themselves and with their children what they wish to view. --Guided search. Web management software should focus on guiding users to quality sites. Librarians should know criteria for site selection and who is doing the selection. --Data quality. If a library chooses to use filters, Web management software should allow librarians to review blocked sites and provide a mechanism to notify the company when sites are blocked inappropriately. --Privacy. Web software should clear the screen after each use so users do not know what previous users have viewed, health information being of particular concern. -Ease of use. Web management software should be multi-functional, easy to administer and integrate well with existing products. he software manufacturers acknowledged that while filtering technology has evolved, "overblocking" can happen. They also said filters are not 100 percent effective in blocking pornography, that children can circumvent them and that parents need to be advised of this. Several vendors said they found the meeting helpful in better understanding librarians' concerns and the pressures they are under. They agreed that existing technology addresses some of these concerns and that all could be addressed if money were to be invested in new product development. They warned such customized systems could be expensive and more complex to administer. In presenting their concerns, the vendors said they needed more specific criteria for software that would work in a public library setting, a better definition of terms and an ongoing dialogue with librarians about their concerns. Several also said they found ALA's position on children and intellectual freedom not well defined. Vendors and librarians agreed with one software representative who said, "The press has done an incredible job of publicizing the negative side of the Internet." While good for business, the vendors agreed that problems with the Internet have been greatly exaggerated. Most said they do not target public libraries for sales. One sales representative said he has been contacted by a few librarians, not because of Internet use problems, but because of pressure from politicians or community groups. According to a 1998 ALA survey, about 15 percent of public libraries use filters on at least one computer. Almost all libraries report having Internet use policies. Following the meeting, Symons said she plans to explore several next steps including: -Discussion of "best practice" guidelines to help librarians make decisions about how to manage the Internet. -How ALA can play a role in developing industry standards for Web management technology in libraries. -An expanded role for ALA in reviewing and recommending quality Web sites for the public. -Ongoing dialogue about Web management to help shape new technologies that address library needs. ALA participants included Steven Herb, chair of the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee; Nancy Kranich, chair of the ALA Legislation Committee; Candace Morgan, president of the Freedom to Read Foundation; Margo Crist, University of Massachusetts, W.E.B. Dubious Library; Carrie Gardener, Milton Hershey School, Hershey, Penn.; Deborah Jacobs, director of the Seattle Public Library; Karen Schneider, author of "Practical Guide to Internet Filters" and director of the Garfield Library of Brunswick, N.Y.; William Gordon, executive director of ALA: Carol Henderson, executive director, ALA Washington Office; and Judith Krug, director, ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom. Vendor representatives included Donna Bastian, Security Software Systems, Inc.; Stephen Boyles, One Place, LLC; Richard Chapin, Smartstuff Software; Howard Cooper, SafeNet; Jim Goulka, EdView; Amy Meyer, Winnebago Software Co.; Jim O'Halloran, N2H2; Phil Ortega, Pearl Software, Inc.; Gordon Ross, Net Nanny Software Int., Inc.; George Shih, Log-On Data Corp.; Terry Stuart, Net Partners Internet Solutions, Inc.; and Gary Warren, URL Labs, Inc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X-Sender: mgolrick[at]smtp.connix.com Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:57:06 -0500 To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> From: "Michael A. Golrick" <mgolrick[at]sclc.org> Subject: Re: Has the bugle sounded for a retreat on filtering? Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: mgolrick[at]sclc.org Sender: owner-alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org Good evening - Ann, you responded well to Mark's question. I have to admit, however, that the ALA press release and the LJ story seem to be somewhat different in their assessments of the meeting. As I think about it, I do remember hearing that it had been scheduled. The group of library folks was most impressive. [As an aside, I hope that some one caught the typo in Margo Crist's insititution: W.E.B. Dubious Library] ^^^^ I know that LJ probably selected the quotes from participants, but those leading quotes are the opposite of what Ann has assured us. The second article in some ways painted the filter folks with almost as broad a brush as is possible. How much better than to tell a legislator that a filter vendor says: "None of us can block 100 percent," Stuart [Terry Stuart of Net Partners (makers of Web Sense)] acknowledged. So thanks Ann for letting us know. Michael Michael A. Golrick mgolrick[at]sclc.org Connecticut Chapter Councilor President-Elect, Connecticut Library Association - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X-Sender: kgs[at]panix.com Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:58:04 -0500 To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> From: "Karen G. Schneider" <kgs[at]bluehighways.com> Subject: Re: Has the bugle sounded for a retreat on filtering? Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: kgs[at]bluehighways.com Sender: owner-alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org As one of those "timid" librarians who attended the filtering meeting... I have many observations and thoughts. It was a good meeting, and some of the thinking that went on after the vendors left was some of the best librarian-think I have been privileged to share in. I wish all of us could take sabbaticals every year to spend a couple of days thinking and talking about librarianship. As for "rethinking" the resolution--balderdash. The great thing about that resolution is that you could substitute any other mechanism for the term "filtering software" and it would still be valid. *Anything* that blocks protected speech is a violation of the LBOR. That was emphasized to librarians AND to vendors. My sense about filtering software was that despite all the talk about "new developments," I haven't seen anything really new on the filter horizon, and this meeting confirmed my impressions. In that sense, it strengthened everything I have said all along--and demonstrates why it was so good to have that meeting. Bells and whistles aside, filters still have inherent limitations that mean they ultimately block protected speech and remove decision-making and local control, and they are still mechanical tools wrapped around subjective judgment. If you do not offer unfiltered access to your patrons, you are violating the LBOR, and furthermore (this is very much my own opinion, but I am sure many of you share it) you are doing a disservice to both librarians and to the community at large and abrogating your responsibility to uphold free speech and the free flow of information. We librarians have a very special responsibility as guardians of the First Amendment, and the Internet is no exception. I will say that if you poll a room of librarians on how to interpret the Council resolution in real life, you will get a room full of different opinions, ranging from thou shalt never filter, thou should only filter at gunpoint and then as minimally as possible (what I call the Vichy Internet solution), thou shalt never filter adult access... etc. ALA has come out with various "q & a's" but they tend to pose questions which are then not explicitly answered. And let's not single out Steve Herb for his comments about children and access. Line me up and shoot me--but you'll need to reload your gun a few times, methinks, since I am not alone: I think that when we fall on our sword to advocate open access to the Internet for children, without including any distinction between toddlers and teens, and without allowing for the role of the parent in decision-making about information access, we are making a mistake. If I have to choose (the Vichy Internet decision matrix at play), I would prefer to place limits and restrictions on what children access long, long, long before I would offer filtered access for adults, even as a [sic] "choice." Full disclosure, since we all tend to rationalize our decisions by winning converts to our cause: I *did* have to choose. Coming in to a library in a conservative area with a tradition of parental permission for use of books, I was able to persuade trustees that unfiltered access was desirable, and that parental permission for Internet use was in line with everything else we do. To my mind, it is much worse to rationalize filtering by claiming that it is possible to offer patrons "informed choice" when filters depend upon hidden, subjective decision-making by companies making false claims about their ability to filter "porn" (as if they were capable of defining porn--and as if it were illegal to view it) than to insist on open access and include parents in the decision-making matrix. I do not offer my patrons a dumbed-down, skewed, Precious Moments Internet. If they get the Internet, they get it all, and I do not stand in their way. And yes, we discriminate against young people, and I wish there were guidelines that pionted out that 5-year-olds are not 14-year-olds. What if my trustees wanted to filter children's computers, at parental request? I don't know where I would be. Filters are inherently flawed; so do we prevent children from seeing the Internet until their age of emancipation, or do we offer the privatized world of filtered access? Many, many, many libraries have struggled with these decisions. I respect Jack's opinion, and I particularly think we need to argue for local control. No government OR VENDOR can tell my patrons what they can see, and my funding should not be predicated on local decisions. The real elephant in the living room, however, is the issue of children and Internet access, and where we as an association stand on this issue. I will also say that I believe my comfort level with parental permission and children's access is a minority opinion very likely not shared by Council at large *or* by most of the attendees at the meeting. However, I do believe it is the unspoken, confounding variable that makes this entire issue so complicated, and is also such common practice in public libraries that it needs addressing. At 08:29 AM 3/19/99 -0800, jforman[at]SDCCD.CC.CA.US wrote: > > I agree with Ann. > > It seems to me that the most important things to consider > about the issue of Internet filters in libraries are: > > (1) Preserving the right of any library user (regardless of > age) to access an unfiltered Internet. > > (2) Preserving the right of local libraries to institute > their own policies regarding access to the Internet as long > the policies meet the standard set forth in (1). > > Whatever else a local library wants to do regarding > filtering is their own matter, but it's essential that ALA > insist that any Internet Access policy meet both of the > above standards. > > We need to emphasize that ALA strongly opposes the > possibility that state and federal officials can impose > restrictive user guidelines on local libraries as a > prerequisite for special telecommunication discounts. And we > need to stand firm on the right of any child, teenager or > adult to access an unfiltered Internet in any library where > access to the Internet is available. > > Jack Forman > Councilor-At-Large > _________________________________________________________________ Karen G. Schneider | kgs[at]bluehighways.com http://www.bluehighways.com Author: A Practical Guide to Internet Filters, Neal Schuman, 1997 Director, Garfield Library of Brunswick, NY... Soon: Brunswick Community Library! ICQ 33028281 Garfield on the Web: http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/garfield/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (James Casey) Karen's observations regarding the danger of local library boards being bullied or forced by Federal, State or County governments to filter are points well taken. I would certainly agree with Karen and Jack Forman as to the value of ALA creating a resolution which supports the right of local library boards (and school boards) to make their own decisions relative to filtering. Efforts to attach filtering mandates onto the E-Rate and other funding measures have been a clear enough danger. That filtering manufacturers might benefit significantly from such mandates being passed down is also clear and could constitute a conflict of interest. Filtering mandates should be repugnant to all libraries, whether they filter or not. Alliances between filtering and non-filtering libraries have turned back filtering mandates in State Legislatures. However .... If ALA passes a resolution affirming the right of local boards to make their own decisions regarding the filtering issue would that not be contradictory to the 1997 Resolution? What if a local board decides (totally on its own volition) to filter on some or all stations? What would happen if the political tides turned to the extent that Federal and/or some state governments prohibited the use of filters and refused to grant funding to libraries which filtered? Would ALA support the right of local boards to make their own decisions in that case? Of course, if ALA insists that decisions to filter are inherently irresponsible and in violation of the Library Bill of Rights, the argument ends. According to ALA, there is only one "right" decision. It is possible that filtering requirements might soon be tied to E-Rate discount eligibility. Will ALA still continue to support the E-Rate and encourage libraries to apply if that unpleasant mandate comes to pass? James B. Casey -- Councilor-at-Large - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:13:13 -0500 From: "Maurice J. Freedman" <freedman[at]wls.lib.ny.us> Organization: Westchester Library System X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SRRT Action Council <srrtac-l[at]ala.org> CC: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org&> jimcasey[at]megsinet.net Subject: Filtering & Local Decision Making Reply-To: srrtac-l[at]ala.org Sender: owner-srrtac-l[at]ala.org Dear Councillors: Rather than respond point-by-point to the statements made by Jim Casey, I'd like to make the following comments on ALA's filtering policy and to the overall role of ALA and its policymaking responsibilities. 1. ALA can never take away the right of any library to act in accord with its own decisions. ALA is a professional association and does not charter or license libraries in the U.S. If libraries want to follow or not follow ALA policies, it is their free choice. 2. ALA has a vital leadership role to play. ALA must continue to assert through the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read (and to View), and all of the ALA policies that prescribe the right and proper path of the Association, America's libraries, librarians, and (in the case of accreditation) its library schools. 3. ALA should not water down any of its principled stands to accommodate local decisions--which, indeed, are always within the purview of those local institutions. ALA must continue to stand as the beacon for what libraries and librarians "ought to be doing", i.e. defining for all of us and our institutions our professional imperatives. I see that as the most important role of any professional society. Of course we always are free to observe ALA's policies or not, either for ourselves or for our institutions. 4. I will oppose any efforts by the Council to dilute ALA's stands on filtering, or for that matter, fees. If those libraries and their management believe that ALA is wrong or that they cannot be in complete accord with ALA's policies in these two areas, let them depart as they deem appropriate. 5. It makes no sense to tailor ALA's policies to the lowest common denominator of desirable observance. The results of such diminution would hardly be policies. Instead we should continue to support strenuously the leadership role played by the Association in guiding libraries to "do the right thing". ALA must continue to provide those standards to which local libraries throughout the country can lean on for support when the slings and arrows start coming, and, best case, help us prevent those slings and arrows from ever being launched. On a personal note, don't get me wrong. The last thing I want is a fight on filtering, either on the Council floor, or in the county where I work. But I do feel it is extremely helpful to have a clear policy on filtering to hold up to the community as a support for the policy position that has kept filters off 250 Westchester public libraries' Web PCs to date. Each of the directors of the independent and autonomous public libraries in the Westchester Library System implements this policy according to her/his best judgement. Be it the tap on the shoulder to cut out the objectionable behavior or the scrupulous observance of, and non-interference with, the privacy of every PC user. The implementation may vary, but there is no doubt about the policy. And I am grateful to ALA for having provided such unequivocal prescriptive standards and guides on filtering and a host of other policies. And to Ann Symons, please stay strong in your support of the ALA filtering policy. As President, you are the Association's elected spokesperson and many people look to you for leadership on this issue. mitch Dr. Maurice J. Freedman, Director Westchester Library System (914) 674-3600 x223 410 Saw Mill River Road fax: 914-674-4185 Ardsley, New York 10502 freedman[at]wls.lib.ny.us http://www.wls.lib.ny.us ********************************************************** "I'll be seeing you, in all the old familiar places..." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:29:17 -0500 To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> From: "Karen G. Schneider" <kgs[at]bluehighways.com> Subject: Re: Local Decision Making Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: kgs[at]bluehighways.com Sender: owner-alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org At 06:16 PM 3/20/99 -0500, Maurice J. Freedman wrote: >I don't understand why ALA has to pass a resolution "affirming the right of >local boards to make their own decisions". Every local board knows that they >have that right. In no one's wildest imagination would anyone suggest that >any library board would act or not act in a given way because ALA in some way >attempted to constrain the board's actions or right to decide its own destiny. > >Why is this an issue? It isn't about interference from ALA--far from it--it's about fears about interference from the government, such as the constant threats to mandate filtering. However, Jim and Peter have pointed out that the flip side of attemtping to reaffirm the "local control" issue is that out-of-control boards could use that as a rationale for enforcing practices that violate the LBOR. This is exactly what went on in Loudoun--the board claimed it had the right to filter all adult workstations, any one else be damned. (The courts felt otherwise.) In fact, as a bit of library history (which I may have shared before), I recall reading somewhere--I believe in Pillar of Fire--that the day that St. Petersberg integrated, the local public library closed rather than serve African-Americans. Certainly that was an exercise of "local control," government be damned... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: Carolyn Caywood <carolyn[at]infi.net> Subject: Re: Has the bugle sounded for a retreat on filtering? (fwd) To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 21:27:09 -0500 (EST) Cc: carolyn[at]sl001.infi.net (Carolyn Caywood) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: carolyn[at]infi.net Sender: owner-alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org Karen said: The great thing about that resolution is that you could substitute any other mechanism for the term "filtering software" and it would still be valid. *Anything* that blocks protected speech is a violation of the LBOR. I notice there's still a tendency to drop this critical clause when discussing the resolution we passed. It is critical because the word "protected" recognizes the primacy of the United States Constitution over all governing bodies, from Congress discussing the e-rate to a library board implementing "local control." Granted, it takes a while for the Constitution's application in specific situations to become clear. Its application to the Internet is certainly progressing much faster than its application to Civil Rights did. It seems to me that our responsibility is to continue to help the process of clarification, as we did with the CDA. This doesn't make things as easy as pat answers would, but we do claim to be a principled profession and difficult times are the price of principles. Carolyn Caywood % Save the time of the Reader % carolyn[at]infi.net % --Ranganathan's 4th Law % http://www6.pilot.infi.net/~carolyn/ FAX:757-464-6741 936 Independence Blvd. Virginia Beach, VA 23455 757-460-7519 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:01:26 -0600 (CST) From: Sandy Berman <sberman[at]sun.hennepin.lib.mn.us> To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> cc: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Subject: Re: Local Decision Making -- and its dangers MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: sberman[at]sun.hennepin.lib.mn.us Sender: owner-alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org Notably absent from most "filtering" debates is hard, empirical evidence of harm suffered by children from viewing nudity or explicit sex. According to a fairly recent NCAC newsletter, there just isn't any. Everyone, whether pro or anti-filtering, appears to accept the premise that graphic erotica is BAD and dangerous for kids. Maybe it's time to reexamine the premise & consider whether the "controversy" isn't REALLY about ADULT hangups & politics & morality... sandy b. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanford Berman sberman[at]sun.hennepin.lib.mn.us Hennepin County Library phone: 612-694-8570 12601 Ridgedale Drive fax: 612-541-8600 Minnetonka, MN 55305 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:16:32 -0500 To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> From: Mark Rosenzweig <iskra[at]earthlink.net> Subject: Is internet sex dangerous to your health? Sez who? Reply-To: iskra[at]earthlink.net Sender: owner-alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org I am so glad that Sandy Berman has jumped in here with his wise and incisive observations about the questionable premise of much of the discussion of internet blocking: that sexual images are a priori dangerous for - or deleterious to - children and adolescents and even, perhaps, adults. I hope this opens up some discussion which I thought would have been provoked by my earlier posting making a similar point as Sandy's (see below). Or are we afraid to even entertain the idea that children and others need not necessarily be protected from sexual images,or that librarians can adopt a sex-positive point of view which is consistent with their Code of Ethics and constructively conducive to the eradication of the heavy burdens of guilt and opprobrium which still attach themselves to persons' normal sexual curiosity. We can, through concerning ourselves first and foremost with access rather than blocking, contribute to actually lifting the weight of sexual guilt which still weighs heavy on so many in our over-stimulated/under-satisfied culture and society with such negative effects. Mark C. Rosenzweig Councilor at large - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:07:52 -0500 (EST) From: Frederick W Stoss <fstoss[at]acsu.buffalo.edu> To: SRRT Action Council <srrtac-l[at]ala.org> cc: SRRT Action Council <srrtac-l[at]ala.org> Subject: Re: ALA Council reopens filtering issue MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: srrtac-l[at]ala.org Sender: owner-srrtac-l[at]ala.org In August of 1979 residents in the Buffalo/Niagara Falls suburban neighborhood of Love Canal were required to evacuate their homes. This was in response to state and federal action that deemed chemical contamination as being potentially life threatening. The legacy of Love Canal stimulated much controversy and action leading to the passage of legislation, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), more affectionately called Superfund. A comprehensive 300,000+ page archive of letters, newspaper clippings, photographs, maps, testimonies, reports, and other ephemeral information about the controversies leading up to the evacuation of Love Canal residents, the clean up activities of this blue-collar neighborhood, the battles fought in seeking compensation for damages, and impacts to the citizens of Love Canal and beyond are found in the University at Buffalo Archives. Our library assembled an exhibit to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the first evacuation at Love Canal -- an exhibit that received considerable attention, including a very nice description in the September issue of American Libraries. The exhibit has been preserved as an ongoing Cyber-exhibit and receives about 500 visitors per month. Nearly all filtering software would find access to the scores of scientific, policy, and information resources via the Internet objectionable. Students, teachers, local community officials, researchers, and others would be denied access to a tremendous collection of important information. I give this as an example of the dangers of filtering. Fred Stoss SRRT Member Frederick W. Stoss, M.S. (zoology-aquatic ecology), M.L.S. Associate Librarian -- Biological Sciences Science and Engineering Library SUNY University at Buffalo Buffalo, NY 14260-2200 716/645-2946 ext. 224 -- 716/645-3710 FAX fstoss[at]acsu.buffalo.edu SEL URL: http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/sel/ <IX0YE>< ___________________________________________________________________________
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 08:36 AM