Library Juice 2:13 supplement 2
This supplement to Library Juice is composed of selections from a discussion on the list LIBREF-L in December and January, on the subject of the "tap on the shoulder" method of enforcing internet policies against viewing pornography in the library. At the end of the discussion, I pose some questions to consider in relation to what I think are the underlying issues. -Rory Litwin ___________________________________________________________________________ At 12:15 PM 12/13/98 EST, Sandra Rizzo wrote: ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- (This is a cross-post. I've also sent it to PUBLIB-L to reach the majority of those who have experience or opinion on this topic.) Something concerns me, and I've tapped the PUBLIB-L archive under the subject search "tap shoulder" (14 messages) to see what others are doing. My question is about the "tap on the shoulder" method of enforcing an Internet policy. Recently, I went to a conference where a speaker said the libraries she's affiliated with utilize this method (and seemed to indicate it was fine to use). Going through the archive, I even notice some librarians calling it a *policy* (whether that means an official or unofficial policy, I'm not sure, but I take the word "policy" to mean a "standard way of dealing with a situation"). Some talk has been generated regarding ACLU and this "policy": http://www.filteringfacts.org/acluhypo.htm, discussing it's acceptability or nonacceptability as an alternative or addition to filtering. I work in a medium-large sized public library that will embark on adding public Internet access in 1999. Policy is under development. I'm sure lots of things that come up that aren't mentioned in an official policy, so there may be some we need to think about. Whether or not our librarians are involved in creating the policy, we will need to enforce the decisions made. Certainly, since hearing the mention of use of the "tap on the shoulder" method at conference, I've been both curious and apprehensive. These feelings have raised questions: Just how do libraries enforce such a method or policy? How is the method used and how is it received by patrons? Do library patrons view this as an affront? And even if they quietly accept this interruption/intrusion (depending upon how it may be viewed or done), is it right and legal to for a librarian to do it? Do organizations that oppose filtering of adult public Internet terminals also oppose "tap on the shoulder"? How do libraries protect themselves if this method is challenged? Reading the site I've included above, I see that it's been used as a means of enforcing a public Internet policy designed to prevent viewing of sites considered "objectionable, obscene, lewd" or whatever term you'd like to use, but--in whose opinion is this determination made? Do librarians using the "tap on the shoulder" method feel comfortable acting as an informational watch-dog and with making judgement about what fits as "objectionable, obscene, lewd," and so on? I'm not trying to blow this up to be more than it is because I'm sure some librarians would write, "Oh, it's no big deal, we just tell them our policy is 'such-and-such' and this violates it," but at the same time, I think it needs to be examined. If I was on the patron side, I don't think I would want someone screening what I view or read, and there seems to be a general feeling of acceptance of this method (though I could be wrong about that) and I'm wondering how this acceptance got there. None of these questions are prompted by my library, and I'm still personally trying to remain as unbiased as possible til I've heard all sides. Simply, I would really, as a librarian on the brink of utilizing public Interenet access, appreciate a discussion of this "tap on the shoulder" method for the benefit of those who use it and for those who don't. I'd like a feeling for the kind of issues we might confront. Again, no views or feelings expressed are those of my library, and I will cross-post this message to another listserv (LIBREF-L) in hopes of reaching the majority of folks who use or have input on this method. Thank you very much. Sandra G. Rizzo Reference Librarian Mesa Public Library, Mesa, AZ sgrizzo[at]ix.netcom.com sandy_rizzo[at]ci.mesa.az.us - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (John Maxstadt) IMHO, it all depends on what is being enforced by this "tap on the shoulder" method. If it is used to enforce time limits, or rules against email and chat, well and good. We don't prohibit those activities here at TAMIU because we have plenty of workstations and the luxury of avoiding confrontations with patrons, but I am well aware of academic libraries that have to ration workstation access. However, if the "tap on the shoulder" method is being used to control information content or graphic images being accessed through the web, then it's censorship and therefore unacceptable. The ALA has made itself clear on this point: for example, see http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/filt_res.html and http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/electacc.html John Maxstadt Head of Public Services Killam Library, Texas A&M International University jmaxstadt[at]tamiu.edu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 13:37:41 EST From: Steven Dunlap <sad[at]crl.com> Subject: Re: "tap on the shoulder" method MIME-Version: 1.0 ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- The ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom list had a lengthy discussion about this topic last March. You can read the archive at http://internet.ggu.edu/university_library/if/tap_shoulder.html If you are interested in the various related discussions, articles, etc about filtering software in publicly funded libraries you can look at http://internet.ggu.edu/university_library/if/ifweb.html#d Steven Dunlap Golden Gate University Regional Campus University Library Services Librarian 536 Mission Street sad[at]crl.com San Francisco, CA 94105 Regional Campus Nomad's page: http://internet.ggu.edu/university_library/reg/ 2+2=4 Intellectual Freedom page http://internet.ggu.edu/university_library/if/ "If you accept his assumptions, even a madman sounds reasonable." ---Russian Proverb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:34:38 EST From: "Paul J. Taylor" <ptaylor[at]tln.lib.mi.us> Subject: Re: "Tap on the Shoulder" MIME-Version: 1.0 Ok.. here's my commentary.... Read on! On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, PETERSON Jenny wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > Sandy -- > We're a medium-size public library and have had internet access for the > public since Oct. 1 of this year. We spent many months getting our policy > in place prior to that time, and we decided to approach the question of the > viewing/displaying of inappropriate web sites as a behavioral one in the > context of a public setting. > > Relative to that point, our policy simply states: "Because the Library is a > public place, staff has the authority to end an Internet session if material > which is inappropriate is displayed." Does your library do the same with books and videos? If not, why is there special treatment for internet users? > It is certainly not our intent or > practice to look over shoulders or otherwise monitor what people are > viewing, but if we happen to walk by and see that something that we judge to > be inappropriate --- for a public place --- is being displayed, or certainly > if we receive a complaint to that effect from another patron, we will simply > speak to the "offender" and let them know that their behavior is not > acceptable. Acceptable to who? Does everyone in your community share the same view, and I mean EVERYBODY? > So it's not a literal "tap on the shoulder," but simply > speaking to the patron. Scientists now refer to this phenomenon as "censorship." > However, I must add that in the almost three months > we've been up, we haven't yet found it necessary to do so. > Could it be that people are afraid to use the library now? > In case you're interested, the Q & A support material that we prepared for > our staff contained the following: > Q. WHAT IF I SEE INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL BEING DISPLAYED, OR A PATRON > COMPLAINS ABOUT THE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT SITE THAT ANOTHER PATRON IS VIEWING? > A. You should approach the patron viewing the explicit material and let them > know that what they are displaying is inappropriate in a public setting, > that there has been a complaint (if that is the case), and that they need to > switch to more appropriate sites or they will be asked to end their Internet > session altogether. This is supported by our Internet Use Policy which > states: "Because the Library is a public place, staff has the authority to > end an Internet session if material which is inappropriate is displayed." > > > Q. WHAT IF A PATRON COMPLAINS ABOUT THE SITE THAT ANOTHER PATRON IS VIEWING, > AND I DON'T NECESSARILY CONSIDER IT OFFENSIVE? > A. You should deal with it the same way you would any other complaint one > patron has about another+s behavior and use your judgment. What if a patron complains about a book someone is reading? > Generally > speaking, if one patron+s behavior is enough out of line to cause another to > complain, then you should let the first person know there has been a > complaint and ask them to exhibit more appropriate behavior or they will be > asked to leave. > What if the internet user finds the behavior of reading over his/her shoulder to be offensive or in some way injurious to his/her free exercise thereof? What would the library's position be if someone complained that another patron was hindering their viewing of material (and didn't tell you it was offensive, because obviously that person would not think it so). Does the library encourage people to report adults reading Hardy Boy novels, or do your clerks advise teenagers that the Lethal Weapon series is inappropriate for them to view? 1. It has been upheld by the courts that what is not legally ruled "obscene" is NOT illegal. 2. If the library prevents, or in some other way hinders, a patron's access to information on the internet, is not the library exercising a limitation on the free speech of the content provider? 3. "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric." Justice John M. Harlan, Cohen v. California (1971) 4. The use of filtering software is being challenged as "prior restraint." Stepping in to prevent a third party from inadvertantly (or purposely) viewing offensive materials sounds like prior restraint to me. When I read about such things, I am reminded of Oscar Wilde's landlady who, it is said, told him she did not care what he and his guests did in his room, so long as they did not wake their neighbors. I think your library has placed itself in the target area of a lawsuit by taking this stance for censorship. Paul Taylor Computer Coordinator Salem-South Lyon District Library - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 15:53:26 EST From: Bob Boyce <rboyce[at]rand.lcl.lib.ne.us> Subject: Censorship--was "Tap on the Shoulder" MIME-Version: 1.0 I suggest every public librarian--and other librarians as well--read the report of the ACLU titled "Censorship In A Box; Why Filtering Software is Wrong For Public Libraries." This is available on the ACLU website at www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/box.html/ The ACLU would probably be happy to send you a paper copy if you want it. Although this report deals with the Internet and filters, it also deals with the subject we've been discussing--censoring what people look at. Material from the Bible to "Nappy Hair" to "Huckleberry Finn" to witches to abortion to fairy tales offends people--I personally am offended by the fact that in the 1950s the United States set off nuclear explosions day after day after day after day after day after day after day--and by a lot of other things as well. "Each to his own taste, said the old lady, as she kissed the cow!" I think we have to be very careful of what we do in restricting people in accessing material, as Paul Taylor said. Bob Boyce Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employers! Lincoln NE City Libraries rboyce[at]rand.lcl.lib.ne.us - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Elizabeth L. Burton) It would seem that viewing pornography could be classified more as a behavioral problem than a freedom of information issue. If a patron is exposing himself in the quiet reading room, we (at least at my library) would ask him to stop/leave. And we did have a case where it was ambiguous in that another patron could see right up the man's shorts and wasn't sure if it was intentional or not, but was very disturbed by it and felt that she had to leave the quiet area. So it does come down to judgment even in those cases. I have no problem letting someone know that their behavior is inappropriate, and actually illegal when it comes to minors viewing pornography. Elizabeth L. Burton eburton[at]crrl.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If the patron was disturbed, he/she could have stopped looking up the person's pant leg. Privacy filters work wonders, too. If someone goes out of their way (as I ahve seen happen) to see what someone else is viewing, then shouldn't they be held responsible for their own actions? And insomuch as this involves children, my questions is the eternal one: where are the parents? -Paul Taylor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Peter Jorgensen) On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Paul Taylor wrote: > If someone goes out of their way (as I ahve > seen happen) to see what someone else is viewing, then shouldn't they > be held responsible for their own actions? And when someone goes out of their way to make sure that other patrons view material that is likely to be considered offensive? This I have also seen happen -- patrons removing the privacy screens (in spite of posted notices to leave them in place), or leaving the computer at questionable sites for the next users to find when they start. The former problem is fairly easy to solve, provided we notice the situation (not always easy in our library, given the physical arrangement of the desk and computers), but the latter problem (analogous, perhaps, to someone surreptitiously slipping pages from _Hustler_ into the pages of a book for someone else to find) is more difficult. I am NOT advocating filtering or censorship-by-tap (or by any other method, for that matter). But I AM suggesting that in this discussion we need to be sensitive to the fact that some users will go out of their way to offend others, that our attempts to prevent this can be difficult to enforce, and that if those offended feel strongly enough about it, we will lose their support. This raises the question of whether patrons have a right to a reasonable expectation of using the library without being exposed against their will to material they find offensive. Perhaps they do not have such a right -- but if that is the case, then we in turn have no right to complain when these people come to feel that the library is not where they want to spend their time -- or tax dollars. (Usual disclaimers apply.) Peter Jorgensen Reference Department, Lincoln City Libraries peterj[at]rand.lcl.lib.ne.us "I think I'd like some tea myself." - F. H. Burnett, _The Secret Garden_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:37:21 EST From: Robert Sullivan <SCP_SULLI[at]sals.edu> Subject: Re: Censorship--was "Tap on the Shoulder" I am forwarding this response for Karen Schneider, as she is not on this list. Bob Boyce is correct that librarians should not monitor what people are reading. Furthermore, librarians need to spend more time worrying about protecting privacy in the online environment. People have a right to read and view in peace. They do not need to justify this need--the right to privacy is part of the Bill of Rights. Furthermore--and failure to understand this point is at the root of many if not most controversies surrounding this issue--people have a right not to read what other people are reading. The person who is sitting at a computer, and the person walking by, both have very valid rights to be left alone. Our challenge is not to censor or restrict, or to ignore complaints about what people see when they come to the library, but to find ways to enhance privacy for both the reader and the passer-by. I call this developing a Fourth Amendment Buffer Zone. Furthermore, for fairly obvious reasons, it's good political sense. If a naked tree falls in a forest, I can't see it. But if you arrange things so I'm forced to look at that naked tree... then you have removed that buffer zone, and we have a conflict that in the wrong hands might end up being resolved through a serious abridgement of our right to privacy. And we don't want that! Computer positioning, privacy screens, privacy desks, "web rooms" and similar tools are just a few ways to enhance reader privacy. Imho, technology caused the problem... technology, and can help solve it. Think "privacy" instead of "censorship," and you will be doing everyone a favor. _________________________________________________________________ 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! Garfield on the Web: http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/garfield/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Dan Lester) At 01:34 PM 12/28/98 -0500, Peter Jorgensen wrote: >And when someone goes out of their way to make sure that other patrons >view material that is likely to be considered offensive? The easiest thing to do is to nail them for sexual harassment. This works well in academic environments, and could probably work in public libraries as well. Certainly if there is a library policy on it, it is covered. Then you can follow the appropriate procedures to remove them from library if necessary. If you don't have a policy on such behavior, you should. This is NOT the same as the censorship issue discussed, but really a different topic, one often called "problem patrons". What would you do with someone who harassed others in some other way? cheers dan -- Dan Lester, 3577 East Pecan, Boise, ID 83716-7115 USA 208-383-0165 dan[at]84.com http://www.84.com/ http://www.idaholibraries.org/ http://library.boisestate.edu/ http://cyclops.boisestate.edu/ http://www.lili.org/ http://www.postcard.org/ Sent me a postcard of a library yet? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Peter Jorgensen) On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Dan Lester wrote: > At 01:34 PM 12/28/98 -0500, Peter Jorgensen wrote: > >And when someone goes out of their way to make sure that other patrons > >view material that is likely to be considered offensive? > > The easiest thing to do is to nail them for sexual harassment. This works > well in academic environments, and could probably work in public libraries > as well. Certainly if there is a library policy on it, it is covered.... > .... What would you do with someone who harassed others in some other way? In theory, this should work, but as a practical matter it would be difficult to enforce in our library (and, I imagine, in many others as well). We simply can't monitor that closely who is using the public Internet computers -- and remember, because the problem is images left on the screen _after_ the person who downloaded them has left, the people responsible are no longer around when the situation occurs. Another aspect of this that should probably be considered is that this is often probably NOT deliberate, despite appearances. Many of the sites involved are set up using Javascript to spawn multiple windows displaying additional pages whenever you try to close a window -- trying to get rid of the offending pages after the patron has left just makes the situation worse. And if this is a frustration for those of us who work with and troubleshoot computers every day, it probably causes panic in "newbies" who come into the library to look at a site recommended by a friend: it's not surprising that they would simply abandon the machine and leave the problem for someone else to take care of. (In spite of this, I don't think the suggestion I read recently in one article that libraries should disable Javascript on their Internet PCs is realistic. There are too many sites out there using scripting for very useful purposes.) Peter Jorgensen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:45:26 EST From: Barbara Balas <bab1[at]lex.lccc.edu> Subject: Re: Tap on the Shoulder MIME-Version: 1.0 "...I think we have to be very careful of what we do in restricting people in accessing material..." "...Our challenge is not to censor or restrict..." My only involvement with public library collection development was in grad courses around 150 years ago. May I have a refresher from the experts? How would you respond to a patron's request for a paid subscription to hard core pornography? How would this compare to your response to a patron's request for an uncontroversial subscription to something in another subject area? What if you receive three requests for the controversial publication and only one for the uncontrovsial title, but your budget only permits one subscription? Do public library selection policies tend to have explicit reference to pornography or other controversial topics? (I suppose not; I think this is where we were cautioned to keep them vague.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Paul Kauppila) I find myself in an unusual position. I have generally supported the viewpoints of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom and tend to be what you might call a "First Amendment absolutist". However, I am slowly becoming convinced that in some circumstances, Internet filtering is not necessarily unconstitutional. First of all, I question the way that the word "censorship" is thrown around on this listserv. Censorship to me has always implied prior restraint of published or recorded material by an agency with the power to impose sanctions (i.e., the government). If the government tells me that I cannot publish or record certain materials, that is censorship. If the public library in my neighborhood chooses to not buy a certain book, or to block certain SPECIFIC websites, that is not censorship. These materials are still legally available in many other places. Granted, it is a restriction of access, which may be a very bad thing and the effects of which may be tantamount to censorship in some cases, but it still falls far short of de facto censorship. It dismays me to see the word used so cavalierly. In the long run, it downgrades the impact of the word. I do agree that word-blocking filtering software is unconstitutional, for the same reasons that it would be unconstitutional for a library to institute a policy of not buying any books with the word "masturbate" in the title or text. However, most modern filtering software has moved well beyond these early, primitive versions (something most anti-filtering arguments conveniently overlook). I believe that SITE-SPECIFIC (sites are blocked individually, not by keyword) filtering could be constitutional in the same way that a library's selection policy is constitutional. This argument has been attacked before, using the ALA's example of "pages torn out of Time magazine", or, from this very listserv, Mr. Taylor's rather sarcastic example, "Who blacks out the offensive encyclopedia entries?" Anyone who knows anything about the Internet should be able to see how ridiculous these analogies are. The ENTIRE Internet (or WWW, if we want to be more specific) is not comparable to a single issue of Time magazine, or to a single set of encyclopedias. It is more comparable to the entire selection of published books or magazines. A single website is a much better analogy to a single book (or set of books). After all, websites, like books, can contain many pages. I have a question for Mr. Taylor, Does your library subscribe to Hustler magazine? If not, why not? After all, it's very popular (undoubtedly more so than many of the other periodicals you do subscribe to). You probably don't carry much material similar to it, so it can't be the "duplication" angle. And given the news events of recent weeks, it even passes the "Miller test" (i.e., it does have redeeming social, political, or literary value)! So, once again I ask: Why no Hustler? Well, you know why and I know why. It is because the graphic and sexually explicit nature of much of the material has been found to be inappropriate for a public library! For too long, public libraries have cloaked themselves in the mantle of "impartiality", claiming that they only buy what their readers want and what they have space for. This is an illusion and always has been. Libraries have always made value judgements, though they are loath to admit it. The problem of sexually explicit material on the Internet simply exposes this hypocrisy for what it is. I submit to you that whatever criteria is used to justify NOT purchasing certain materials for the library can be also used to justify blocking certain SPECIFIC websites. Then there is the sticky problem of public exposure (no pun intended). Mr. Taylor writes: "What if a patron complains about a book someone is reading?" This is a possible problem, but one that strikes me as highly unlikely. It also ignores what I would argue is the INHERENTLY public nature of a computer screen. "Accidentally" seeing what someone is reading as you walk by seems almost impossible. "Accidentally" viewing an image on a computer screen is far more likely. As Ms. Weigand points out: I imagine most or all of us would say something to a patron if they rented a hardcore pornographic video from a store and brought it into the library to watch on the library's equipment in a public area. What if I buy a copy of Hustler and unfold the pages to view on a table in your periodicals area? (emphasis mine) I can't help but notice that Mr. Taylor did not address this question directly. "Today it might be pornographic material, but tomorrow it might be political writings." I believe this is an unnecessary attempt to scare people. Public libraries generally do not carry graphic, sexually explicit mass-marketed magazines. Democracy seems to be surviving. Mr. Taylor writes: 1. It has been upheld by the courts that what is not legally ruled "obscene" is NOT illegal. Then once again I ask, why don't you have Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler (assuming you don't). Unlike many other sexually explicit publications, these would actually PASS the Miller test! And you still don't have them! I am merely searching for acknowledgement that your library, as well as all others, DOES make value judgements regarding selection of materials. Taylor: 2. If the library prevents, or in some other way hinders, a patron's access to information on the internet, is not the library exercising a limitation on the free speech of the content provider? Here's another question: Is the library's selection policy hindering the free speech of patrons by limiting their access to the books that they DON'T buy? If not, then I believe site-specific filtering is justifiable as a form of selection policy. Mr. Taylor again: When I read about such things, I am reminded of Oscar Wilde's landlady who, it is said, told him she did not care what he and his guests did in his room, so long as they did not wake their neighbors. I submit that display of sexually explicit images on a publicly visible Internet station, IS a form of "waking the neighbors". In the interests of logical consistency, I expect to see all you folks who are so strongly against filtering crusading for more sexually explicit magazines in your library! Flame on, Paul Kauppila Dean B. Ellis Library Arkansas State University "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Richard Nagler) Paul, Yours is probably one of the best and well thought out analysis of the whole question of inappropriate access to the Internet in a library setting. The "free speech" or "censorship" arguement flies in the face of common sense when someone is accessing a pornographic site and wants female staff to assist him with some non-existant problem. We are supposed to ignore this obvious attempt at harrassment in the name of freedom of access to material. Give me a break!! I think an analogy that might be helpful to further expose the weakness of the "you've got to give them everything or you're a fascist censor" argument would be that of cable television. You can choose to subscribe to "adult" channels if you want to, but no one is forcing you to subscribe to every channel that is available. Following through on Mr. Taylor's logic, if you were to provide cable access in the library, you would have to get every channel possible or you would be infringing on free speech rights. Just my two cents worth. Richard Nagler Head, Adult Services Farmington Hills Branch Library naglerr[at]metronet.lib.mi.us - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:32:27 EST From: "John D. Orsborn" <jo6[at]evansville.edu> Subject: Re: Internet Filtering MIME-Version: 1.0 I find it interesting that much of the talk regarding Internet filtering and censorship only focuses on sexually explicit cites. That which most people find objectionable. However, what about the sites less talked about. Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups have many sites which promote violence and hate, yet when people discuss the need for filtering it is due to the sexual content of the Internet. What would Mr. Kauppila have us do about that kind of material? Yes, Mr. Kauppila is correct that libraries make decisions regarding the content of materials. However, he simplifies the decisions. Within many libraries the decisions to not carry pornographic magazines is not one of objectionable material, but rather expense. The libraries I have dealt with which carry such magazines have them on a reserve shelf, not to make sure people who look at them are of age, but to keep them from being stolen. That is why most libraries refuse to carry magazines like that. As a librarian, Mr. Kauppila needs to go back and read what was the original intent of the Internet and its creation. No the Internet is not like a collection of books, because it is growing much faster. It is unlike anything we have experienced. What we need to do as not only librarians, but as people in general, is try to define it and handle in ways other than what we already know. Site specific filtering exists only if someone has the time to sit and use it. The WWW itself now boasts some 15 million, or more sites. Is he suggesting that we sit and decide which sites come into our library? Yes we do decide on materials, but with our eye on the needs of the library and desires of our patrons, not on what we the librarian find objectionable. It is possible to create a situation where Internet access is private, and where the screens are not readily seen. The question is whether Mr. Kauppila and others who believe what he said are willing to support that for access or take an easier road by imposing filtering on the Internet. Lastly, I too object to many things I have seen on the Internet, been exposed to on television, or read. However, once we start deciding what is objectionable on an obvious basis, such as pornography, it becomes easier to start on other things as well. Remember that tolerance for censorship starts one step at a time. John D. Orsborn Reference Librarian "Please watch out for each The University of Evansville other and love and 1800 Lincoln Avenue forgive everybody. It's Evansville, IN 47722 good life, enjoy it." ~~~~~~ Jim Henson ~~~~~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Adrien Taylor) Well, now. Here is another "Mr. Taylor" weighing in. I guess I'd have to say that I'm on the side of sex in the library. I have worked as a reference librarian since September, 1963, all but one year in an academic library, so my observations are based pretty much on an academic background. Since most academic libraries try to be either curricular based, or comprehensive research based in their collections the idea of including a magazine such as Hustler seems to be to be based on if that is the collection intention. If the library in question is attempting to collect popular magazines, or "popular culture", or sexually related materials, or communications, or anything else which would logically include Hustler, then it should be included. The inclusion/exclusion decision should be based on the collection intention, not the subject matter. As I read Paul Taylor's post I thought that, that is what he said. One does not include or exclude on the WAY a subject is presented, but on the necessity of the material to the collection intention. If we are at a library which requires "great art" we probably do not exclude books which have reproductions of nudes in them; we trust the judgement of the patrons in this, and many other matters. We don't KNOW that the "dirty old men" patrons don't sit around and create sexual fantasies while looking at pictures of nudes (or Madonnas). The test for the Internet is one of acceptance of a technological presentation of materials. I think that the tests we've had for print and AV materials can withstand the Internet. Age appropriate, LOCAL community standards, and the collection intention of the library all present the guidance we need. The technological issues present the greater challenge because it makes our communities less "local". The library staff who draw black marker shorts on the kid in "In the Night Kitchen" are going to do what they can to block Internet access they see as inappropriate. The library staff who black out the "offensive words" in books, ditto. It is a part of our collective professional life. I would hope that most of us would opt for less, rather than more, filtering, or no filtering at all. But years and experience has taught me that no matter how sound and wonderful my feelings are, they are not universal. Now, about homosexuality and religion . . . Adrien Taylor Boise, Idaho. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:18:07 EST From: chuck0 <chuck0[at]gateway.net> Subject: Re: Tap on the Shoulder MIME-Version: 1.0 ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Balas <bab1[at]lex.lccc.edu> To: LIBREF-L[at]LISTSERV.KENT.EDU <LIBREF-L[at]LISTSERV.KENT.EDU> Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 6:00 PM Subject: Re: Tap on the Shoulder > >My only involvement with public library collection development was in grad >courses around 150 years ago. May I have a refresher from the experts? > >How would you respond to a patron's request for a paid subscription to >hard core pornography? Since most libraries, foolishly, don't collect porn magazines, the obvious answer is to help them find the relevant web site. Granted, there aren't many guides to erotica/porn serials--does Ulrich's even include porn magazines? If they were looking for a video, I'd point them to the latest issue of Adult Video News, which every public library should subscribe to. >How would this compare to your response to a patron's request for an >uncontroversial subscription to something in another subject area? It should be treated no differently. It's a legitimate request. If someone asked you how to find the contact address for HOM publications (bondage), where would you find the info? Would you have a reference tool that told you that HOM stands for "House of Milan?" >What if you receive three requests for the controversial publication and >only one for the uncontrovsial title, but your budget only permits one >subscription? I would hope that you would pick up the controversial publication, since controversial and alternative publications are under-represented in library collections. >Do public library selection policies tend to have explicit reference to >pornography or other controversial topics? (I suppose not; I think this is >where we were cautioned to keep them vague.) Librarianship has backed itself into a corner by tiptoeing around this subject area. Hopefully, with the help of others, I hope to bring this more out into the open. Chuck0 Circulation Coordinator Alternative Press Review http://flag.blackened.net/apr/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:20:31 EST From: Anthony Lucarelli <ALucarelli[at]ben.edu> Subject: Re: Internet Filtering MIME-Version: 1.0 (Ditto) What Paul wrote about Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse and all other materials that used to carry Playboy. However, he asks: >"Does your library subscribe to Hustler magazine? If not, why not? After >all, it's very popular (undoubtedly more so than many of the other >periodicals you do subscribe to)." In regards to the library I worked at, I have to answer with a resounding "NO." They cancelled their Playboy subscription shortly after I left because it was getting so little usage. The other obstacle libraries face in having explicit materials on the shelf is the Ginzberg v. New York ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that what was acceptable and not obscene for adults could be found unacceptable and obscene for minors. This presents libraries with a thorny problem. If they do want to order or subscribe to material(s) of an explicit nature, they would have to control access to them or be held liable if a minor (someone under 18) were to come in and freely get ahold of the material. The library I worked at used to keep our Playboys in a verticle file cabinet behind the reference desk. However, they took up too much space in this cabinet. So, with this and the fact they were getting so little use, the library cancelled the subscription. Would you close your adult stacks to people under 18? Would you card everyone who came in the door to use the library? Would you take up valuable space and staff time to carry these materials? These are questions libraries look at when making these decisions. On to filtering. When a library chooses to filter, who are they turning control of the filtering over to? The filter maker. It has been shown that many of the filter makers have a political agenda, blocking such sights as N.O.W. and numerous anti-censorship sites. Another fact is that no filter can cover everything on the internet. To view a good article about this, go to http://www.censorware.net/essays/whycant_2_ms.html This article discusses how even the vaunted search engine, Alta Vista, with millions of dollars worth of hardware attached to the Internet, cannot even compile all the pages on the Internet. The article makes the point that if Alta Vista cannot compile all the pages on the Internet, how can a filter maker who of revenue)? Another thing filter makers do is they do mass site blocking. Let's say http://www.orion.com/jcrew/images.htm (this is a fictional address that I came up with off the top of my head) contains explicit material. Now let's say http://www.orion.com/alucare/play.htm (another fictional address) is a site on how to build children's toys. The filter maker might just block http://www.orion.com and be done with it, denying access to BOTH sites because one contains explicit material. This is a simplified example of what happens to such web page services like GeoCities. GeoCities contains millions of web pages by itself. It also has a so-called "red-light district" with thousands of pages. However, that red-light district does not contain all explicit material, some of it is valuable information. But the filter maker that would try to go through and evaluate each site or page on its merits would spend most of their time just doing this. So, they block the whole dang thing. Careful selection? I think not. Now, what about government censorship? Isn't the public library a government organization? If the public library uses filtering are they not censoring? If a public library wants to use filtering, they would have to turn down tax revenue, government grants and other government funding in order to use the filter. Most libraries would close their doors if they had to do this. Again, these issues are not as cut-and-dried as they seem. Libraries need to protect the information rights of users, and filtering is not the way to go. Anthony Lucarelli Benedictine University Theodore Lownik Library alucarel[at]ben.edu Standard disclaimers apply. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Karren Reish) I find that I also, while being a believer in open access, have come to wonder about open access to the Internet. There has been some discussion of harassment with it and one comment about female staffers that I didn't see followed up. (Forgive me is it was and I missed that post). I sub in a local public library and have seen materials and had behavior occur in relation to pornographic Internet sites that were offensive. They were offensive to me. The patrons involved intended that. Unfortunately, I am not in error about that. However, the policy is complete open access so I get to put up with what amounts to on the job harassment, NOT open uncensored sources for patrons. If we are going to consider this issue fully, what is offensive to staff IS important unless you wish to force your employees to quit or sue you to get away from patrons who very carefully tread a line to get a thrill out of harassing the staff. Just a thought. ------------------------- Karren Reish Reference Librarian/Archivist Spring Arbor College Spring Arbor, MI 49283 (517) 750-6435 FAX (517) 750-2108 email: karrenvn[at]admin.arbor.edu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (John Maxstadt) This is not the first message to address the concerns over harassment of (female) library staff by library patrons. There was an extensive thread on this topic just a few months ago. The central idea is that objectionable behavior on the part of patrons can be controlled by policy and practice without interfering with their right to read. I agree that this is possible, but too often stated concerns about patron behavior and the rights of staff turn out to be just a backdoor justification for blocking access to information that some people find objectionable - in a word, censorship. There is a simple acid test to determine whether we are really talking about abusive behavior or whether we are simply trying to excuse censorship. Would the same behavior be objectionable if the "hot button" information item were removed from the situation? For example, let us say that a group of teenagers are gathered around a screen salivating over pictures of nude models. Would we have the same objection to their behavior if they were salivating over pictures of sports cars? If so, then it really is the behavior and not the information source that we are reacting to, and we don't have a case of censorship. Likewise, suppose we object to patrons leaving windows containing sexually explicit pictures open when they leave a terminal. Would we have the same objection if the pictures were of spiders, or partially dissected cadavers, or Nazi parephrenalia? Do we have a policy against patrons leaving windows open when they walk away from a workstation, or only against them leaving open windows to sites that we don't like? If a patron continually needs assistance finding adult entertainment sites, would we feel equally justified in refusing assistance to the same patron looking for other kinds of non-research sites? It's a very questionable leap to assume that a patron whose service requests require me to look at things I don't like to look at is deliberately trying to make me uncomfortable. It is very likely that in such a circumstance I will project a considerable amount of my revulsion toward the picture or the site onto the patron. Therefore, as in most things, a service-oriented librarian will give the patron the benefit of every doubt. I will even concede the possibility that some patrons somewhere sometime have engaged in behaviors involving explicit sexual materials which might seem innocent in other contexts, solely to annoy or "gross out" a library worker. The frequency and severity of such actions is easily overstated, but I will concede that it probably happens sometimes. However, it's not a hardship that stacks up very well against the bedrock ethical principles of our profession, that our patrons will have the right to read what they want to read if it is part of an information resource that we provide. If it's a choice between sacrificing our feelings occasionally and sacrificing our ethical principles all the time, I think the correct answer is pretty clear. I would further suggest that people who are easily offended by information sources (and graphics are sources of information: flags and works of art make obvious examples) might be better suited to professions other than librarianship; just as people who faint at the sight of blood shouldn't be doctors or nurses and people who dislike children shouldn't be elementary school teachers or day-care workers. People have a right to their feelings about pornography and blood and children, but they don't have the right to throw a whole profession on its ear just to accomodate those feelings. ************************************************** John Maxstadt Head of Public Services Killam Library, Texas A&M International University jmaxstadt[at]tamiu.edu ************************************************** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Lynda de los Santos) On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Lynda Leigh wrote: John Maxstadt wrote: >I would be very interested in seeing any federal or state laws against >minors viewing pornography. I think the reference is to minors being >involved in the *creation* of pornography, specifically as "actors", being >against the law. Texas Penal Code 43:24 Sale, Distribution, or Display of Harmful Material to Minor: (b) A person commits an offense if, knowing that the material is harmful: (2) he displays harmful material and is reckless about whether a minor is present who will be offended or alarmed by the display; This is the portion of the penal code we cite when asking our patrons to get the pornography off the screen when they are caught viewing it. We don't spy over our patrons shoulders, but if we do happen to glance up and see pornography on an internet screen or if another patron complains we have this state statute to back us up. The problem we are having however, is with patrons leaving the material on the computer for others to find later, or even creating an icon on the desktop which when clicked produces the offending material. This section of the penal code is also the reason that Playboy and other type magazines sold in convenience stores and newsstands in Texas must have brown paper covers or have the cover photo otherwise hidden. Let's face it folks, the public library is crawling with minors. I personally believe that if a person wants to view pornography or other offensive material it should be done in the privacy of that person's home. Flame Away, Lynda de los Santos - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: "Paul J. Taylor" <ptaylor[at]tln.lib.mi.us> Lynda de los Santos wrote: > Let's face it folks, the public library is crawling with minors. I > personally believe that if a person wants to view pornography or other > offensive material it should be done in the privacy of that person's home. I wish that if people want to read Christian novels, they would do it on their own dime and not bother me with having to handle the checkout for them. I only wish it, though. The difference between a wish and a belief, to me, is that a wish cannot be enforced or inflicted upon another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:11:28 EST From: John Maxstadt <jmaxstadt[at]tamiu.edu> >Texas Penal Code 43:24 Sale, Distribution, or Display of Harmful Material >to Minor: > >(b) A person commits an offense if, knowing that the material is harmful: >(2) he displays harmful material and is reckless about whether a minor is >present who will be offended or alarmed by the display; > An important omission here is subsection c of the 43.24, which exempts from prosecution cases in which 1) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was by a person having scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification; or 2) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was to a minor who was accompanied by a consenting parent, guardian, or spouse. I strongly suspect that libraries fit into item 1) under "educational". Does anybody know of any instance in which a library or library worker has been prosecuted under any of these laws? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:12:34 EST From: Stacey Shoup <sshoup[at]ccmail.gc.cc.fl.us> Subject: Hustler web site MIME-Version: 1.0 Here is an interesting case/example that I wanted to share with the list for the purpose of discussion. I work at a community college library that is used by a great number of community patrons as well as students. Our campus-wide computer usage policy forbids "deliberatley viewing obscene pictures." So, if a patron wants to view the Hustler Magazine web page in order to use an on-line form available under the "contact Hustler" link, to contact Larry Flynt, do we allow (and assist) her? My response to this is an emphatic "yes"; however, a collegue's response was "no"! What do you all think? I thought this was an interesting twist to our "internet filtering" thread. If we had a filter, the patron would not be able to access this e-form. Stacey Shoup sshoup[at]ccmail.gc.cc.fl.us ___________________________________________________________________________ Questions from Library Juice: Is Pornography "Information"? Should we be dealing in "information" at all? What does all "information" have in common? Is it that which should be in a library collection? Or is it "binary data." (Is it too late to get out from under the Shannon and Weaver definition of information?) Is Pornography Knowledge? Can Pornography create or transmit knowledge? Aren't fashion magazines "sex magazines"? (Not just "Can they be?") Aren't they problematic for libraries? For YA sections? Isn't a policy of "remaining vague" designed to protect decisions that don't have a rational basis? How do we begin to justify drawing the lines where we chose to? Is there ambivalence in libraries about library materials that are used in a non-intellectual way? Isn't the idea of "intellectual freedom" based primarily on the need to protect the free interchange of ideas? Should all library materials exist to contain and transmit ideas? Does pornography transmit ideas, whatever else it might do? If so, should it be protected on the basis of transmitting (or "giving people") ideas? Are libraries worse off for embracing the pleasures of popular culture? Has this embrace changed the conception of the library in the public mind? Would people use library internet computers for pornography if the culture of libraries were different? Or more to the point, would people use the library computers for ENTERTAINMENT if the culture of libraries were different? If sexually explicit materials (or sex or even porn-related bibliographic tools) were used for only for educational purposes in libraries, would the public still have a problem with it? (Children as library users included.) Would intellectual freedom-inspired policies be easier to defend? If we wanted to defend the role of libraries as sources of entertainment, how could we continue to justify libraries as a public expense? Can we change the culture of libraries? Is it in our power as librarians? How might we go about it? ___________________________________________________________________________
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 08:37 AM