Library Interent Filters

[King of the Americas]

A Library's purpose, is to provide access to information or media, upon request of a patron, in a private a manner as possible.

We are not to judge 'why' you want the information, we just fill your order.

The Internet is just another tool we use to identify and locate items of interest.

 

[Segnosaur]

A Library's purpose, is to provide access to information or media, upon request of a patron, in a private a manner as possible.

We are not to judge 'why' you want the information, we just fill your order.

The Internet is just another tool we use to identify and locate items of interest.

Yes, I know the library has the job of providing media to people. The question is, just what media should it be providing? Books? Magazines? Should it provide stuff that can be easily accessed elsewhere? I guess I'm addressing things at a more philosophical level (i.e. what purpose does a library have to society in general.)

For example, our local library supposedly has a copy of the movie Spider-man on DVD. This movie is available for rental or purchase at many video stores, AND has been on TV. While there may be a small minority of people who have an academic interest in the movie (e.g. film students), most are going to be borrowing it purely for enjoyment. So, basically, tax dollars are going to subsidize other people's entertainment.

As I said before, perhaps the libraries should focus their attentions (and their collections) on items that are more academic in nature (or at least less easy to obtain in other ways). Leave things like pop music/movies, the internet, etc. to other companies or organizations to distribute.

 

[King of the Americas]

"Should" isn't a Library's concern.

You ask, we get.

It is that simple.

---

I volunteered to work at the Library, because I found myself there frequently anyways. I operate on a limited income, and can not afford a computer or Internet access at home, nor can I afford satelite or cable TV access, to buy my own books, my favorite magazines, or national or state newspapers.

The library is my connection to the world outside my town.

It is my news, art, current events, and basic communication.

That said, the Library DOES mostly cater or subsidize other people's "time fulfillment".

But not just the poor or dis-advantaged. We can find almost ANY book or movie you want to see, in amost any form, if you are patient...

Rich people can more easily 'buy' what they want, but occasionally, I find them there as well.

 

[Segnosaur]

"Should" isn't a Library's concern.

Perhaps it should be...

I volunteered to work at the Library, because I found myself there frequently anyways. I operate on a limited income, and can not afford a computer or Internet access at home, nor can I afford satelite or cable TV access, to buy my own books, my favorite magazines, or national or state newspapers.

Well, lets see:
- There have been 'free' internet service providers (for example, here in Ottawa we had the National Capital Freenet... not sure if its still around though.) Even if someone can't afford their own computer, they can still access the internet through internet cafes. (Or, if they're students, through their schools.)
- Yes, cable and sattelite is expensive. But most areas of the country still probably get 4 or 5 channels. (I'm in a mid-sized Canadian city, and I can pick up 6 stations at least.)
- As for books or newspapers... I have no problem with a library holding those, since some of them are expensive, hard to get, and can serve as more than just pure entertainment.

That said, the Library DOES mostly cater or subsidize other people's "time fulfillment".

But not just the poor or dis-advantaged. We can find almost ANY book or movie you want to see, in amost any form, if you are patient...

Not sure about the U.S. constitution... but the Canadian constitution says you have the right to free speech, the right to religion, etc. But nowhere does it say you have the right to be entertained.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Oh, how I hate living in small towns that see nothing wrong with trampling upon minority rights with its moral majority rules.

What? The minority has the right to force the majority to pay for whatever they want? "Free speech" means "no restrictions on speech", not "the government has to pay for your speech".

hould" isn't a Library's concern.

You ask, we get.

It is that simple.

So... a free version of Netflix?

Surely there are some limis. Child porn? IED instruction manuals? Copyrighted material? Classified informaiton? Happy slapping? Illegal wiretaps?

 

[King of the Americas]

Small towns like Muenster don't have a pizza joint, much less an Internet cafe.

With my TV antenna, I get 4 stations.

We don't remove the 'sports page' from newspaper, but from what you are saying we should do so...

Fictional reading, which accounts for more than half of the items we check out, are PURELY for entertainment value.

It sounds like you want to be some form of thought police.

"If you don't learn something from that items, it shopuld be thrown out of the Library!"

I wonder where the Bible would end up according to those rules...

---

People have the right to access WHATEVER speech 'they' choose to, within a Public Library.

We aren't in he business of identfying or catagorizing 'acceptible speech'.

And we aren't Netflix. To get access to our media, you have to visit the Library.

I am unaware of any limit as to what you can or can't access via the Internet. However, I am sure that ARE some laws somewhere about limiting access to child porn.

That said I am sure the other listed materials are or would be acceptible to view, if you could get access to it, in a Library.

You CAN take home copyrighted material. What you do with it once you get it home, is your business/responsibility.

 

[LibraryLady]

"Should" isn't a Library's concern.

You ask, we get.

It is that simple.

---

So, you have a budget of $500, let's say. Average book costs about $25. You want to buy 2 copies of each book. So the first 10 people who ask, get, anyone after that....?

This is why there are selection policies.

 

[Art Vandelay]

We don't remove the 'sports page' from newspaper, but from what you are saying we should do so...

Who is "you"?

People have the right to access WHATEVER speech 'they' choose to, within a Public Library.

No, they don't. And you're using scare quotes incorrectly.

You CAN take home copyrighted material. What you do with it once you get it home, is your business/responsibility.

What if a patron uses the internet connection to illegally odwnload songs?

 

[geni]

So, you have a budget of $500, let's say. Average book costs about $25. You want to buy 2 copies of each book. So the first 10 people who ask, get, anyone after that....?

Well in theory you should then have a centeral library that has a copy of everything.

 

[Segnosaur]

Small towns like Muenster don't have a pizza joint, much less an Internet cafe.

And some people may live in rural areas that don't even have easy access to a library. If people choose to live in such small towns, that is their choice; the government should not then be forced to provide all the services they would have if they chose to live in a more urban setting.

And did you ever think that perhaps one of the reason some small towns may not have an internet cafe is that they can't compete with the FREE services provided at the library?

With my TV antenna, I get 4 stations.

Which is probably more chanels than you got 3 decades ago. You may not particularly LIKE the options that you have on TV, but you still have options. Again, it shouldn't be the job of the government to provide (mindless) entertainment.

We don't remove the 'sports page' from newspaper, but from what you are saying we should do so...

Not necessary, since there would be no 'added' cost to leaving the sports page in the newspaper.

Fictional reading, which accounts for more than half of the items we check out, are PURELY for entertainment value.

Which is fine, since an individual cannot easily obtain a large collection of fictional books that they may choose to read over their life time. (Plus, it could be argued that reading DOES provide more mental stimulation than passive media like TV programs.)

Although I am curious... you said that fictional items account for half the items CHECKED OUT. But what percentage do they make of the total collection? Books may be used for research within the library but never taken home.

It sounds like you want to be some form of thought police.

Nope. Not at all. As I have already stated, I have no moral objection to pr0n, or other type of material being made available to society (well, excluding things like child pr0n). I just don't want to pay for other people's entertainment.

"If you don't learn something from that items, it shopuld be thrown out of the Library!"

Not quite. The issue should be "We have a limited budget for obtaining materials... what CAN'T be easily obtained from other sources?"

People have the right to access WHATEVER speech 'they' choose to, within a Public Library.

We aren't in he business of identfying or catagorizing 'acceptible speech'.

In that case, should libraries carry hardcore bondage magazines? Movies featuring beastiality (assuming they're legal in your state)? If they weren't before, did you ever complain that they should be carrying the material?

And here's another question... does your particular library carry paintings and sculpture that people can check out? Do they have a Picasso section where you an find art to bring home for the weekend? After all, if your argument is that people can access any 'speech' they choose in a library, why does art not fall under that category? Do you consider it as categorizing 'acceptable speech' if my local library doesn't have a bunch of Renoirs available for the public to take home?

And we aren't Netflix. To get access to our media, you have to visit the Library.

I don't think the issue the previous poster was referring to was whether you had to visit the library (or video store). The issue is that the library is performing the functions that ANY video store (on line or bricks and mortar) already do. (They probably just chose netflix because of their ability to provide rare titles.)

 

[King of the Americas]

Libraryies don't just entertain people. I think that even attempting to draw the line between entertainment value and educational value would be difficult to say the least...

I mean what about a book on sailing. Does anyone these days even 'need' to know how to sail?

Trying to redefine what a library 'should' be is a waste of my time.

Frankly, I don't care if what you think libraries should and shouldn't be in the business of doing. Libraries exist, period. And our singular purpose is to provide people with the media they request in a timely confidential manner.

Good librarians stock their library with material that their patrons ask for frequently. If a library was located near seveal strip clubs and a few known cat houses, I doubt if the children's section will see many new holdings.

If it is near a hunting lodge, and game fishing lake, I doubt they'll have a very large fine arts section.

Libraries strive only to serve the population they are nearest and mot frequented by.

All this said, we are not as fast as 'private' information service like at Internet cafes, or at a book store. Often time, we have time limits on computer times, as well as borrowing limits for items and books. You get 'free' access to stuff, but sometimes you have to wait your turn.

At an Internet cafe, he who has the cash, gets to surf. Bok store, got the cash, get your own book today. At a Library oftentimes we will only have one of each item, but if you are patient you will get access to it.

Libraries also oftne network together to share resources, so that just because we don't have it, that doesn't mean we can 'get' it. That is what is called an inner-library loan.

Libraries offer on one basic principle, "The more information people have access to the better off the society is."

Information is as much a resource as air, oil, or water. If it is not shared and equally distributed, problems occure. Society itself begins to break down.

Suggesting that only rich people deserve access to news and current events, is a recipe for disaster.

So rather than rally against libraries, go and support one.

You could start by donating 5 privacy screens to the Muenster Public Library.

 

[Jabberwock]

Good discussion! One of the thorny questions on my boards was whether I would allow a teenager to checkout a book that details how to perform suicide. Strictly adhering to the code of ethics ("a librarian will allow unfettered, anonymous access to information"), I let him check it out without comment. As a human being, though, I would have a real hard spot not trying to also get him some suicide intervention numbers. I was able to rationalize it (in my boards) by treating the request as a referance interview and providing more information (suicide hotline numbers) than was needed in order to be thorough (then they hit me with the "Well, ok, a Middle Eastern man with a heavy accent wants to check out your copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook" and see your diagrams of the local waterworks. ) Which all means that the unfettered access to information is a hallmark of being a librarian. The only caveat to that is as a school librarian, you are acting in loco parentis and are expected to act as a parent would (like sending the kid to the counselor).
As to what a library collection should contain, the "official" library school answer is that it should reflect the community in which it serves. Which means a librarian buys books for the community and not himself. That doesn't mean that the librarian's preferances and beliefs don't come into play (for each woo book, I try to find another debunking it), but that the librarian needs to be able to defend his choice should someone in the community dispute the placing of the book in the collection (and in my first month as a school librarian, I wound up defending a choice my predecessor made). After all the community is the one buying the books and paying the electric bill.
As for filters, filters are a nice quick solution politicians can use to show that they care about the family and allow parents to feel safe about Junior using the computers down in the library. Unfortunately, they don't work. Period. They are easily bypassed (as soon as I block one proxy, the kids find another, it's gotten to be quite a fun game) and they block information that could be used for legitimate research (the usual example is trying to find information on breast cancer on a filtered computer). Additionally, they can hinder someone from finding information that they would be embarassed to ask someone for (think of a 14 year old wondering if he's gay or who believes he may have an STD). The better method is having an acceptable use policy with consequences for those who violate it. But then, do you want to pay a librarian to do nothing but monitor and then what about "unfettered, anonymous access?"

 

[Segnosaur]

Libraryies don't just entertain people. I think that even attempting to draw the line between entertainment value and educational value would be difficult to say the least...

As I have pointed out, my primary issue is the availability of materals from other sources. (It just seems that most materials for which there are alternatives tend to be oriented towards entertainment.)

Frankly, I don't care if what you think libraries should and shouldn't be in the business of doing. Libraries exist, period. And our singular purpose is to provide people with the media they request in a timely confidential manner.

Which is a point which you've brought up before, which is irrelevant to the arguments I've been making.

Good librarians stock their library with material that their patrons ask for frequently. If a library was located near seveal strip clubs and a few known cat houses, I doubt if the children's section will see many new holdings.

And if I ask my library to stock bondage porn magazines, or beastiality videos, should they do that? And if I ask my library to stock paintings and sculpture that I can check out (after all, they are a type of 'media') should they do that too?

Libraries offer on one basic principle, "The more information people have access to the better off the society is."

People already have access to that information even without libraries.

Information is as much a resource as air, oil, or water. If it is not shared and equally distributed, problems occure. Society itself begins to break down.

So, society is going to collapse because someone, instead of being able to borrow a DVD of Spider-man at the library, is forced to watch it on commercial TV?

Suggesting that only rich people deserve access to news and current events, is a recipe for disaster.

This is typical over-reactive paranoia.

First of all, I've already pointed out that newspapers would be something I'd support libraries having.

Secondly, do you really think that there are a large number of 'poor' people who do not have TVs or radios or any other way to get information about current events?

 

[geni]

As I have pointed out, my primary issue is the availability of materals from other sources.

Maybe but consider. There is a lot of stuff in the UK goverment archives that would be very educational. However it would be very hard for a a libiary service even at county level to make the information availible.

 

[luchog]

Good discussion! One of the thorny questions on my boards was whether I would allow a teenager to checkout a book that details how to perform suicide. Strictly adhering to the code of ethics ("a librarian will allow unfettered, anonymous access to information"), I let him check it out without comment. As a human being, though, I would have a real hard spot not trying to also get him some suicide intervention numbers.

The problem with that, though, is that as a human who can't actually read minds, you don't know for sure the reason he wants the book. Perhaps he's simply doing research for a report. Suggesting and/or providing additional information is probably not a bad thing in most cases; but there are those who would go farther and simply restrict his ability to check out such a book.

With something like suicide, you'd most likely be in fairly safe territory simply providing info on prevention and counselling resources. But what about other, hot-button issues like sexuality, abortion, illicit drug use, "dangerous" material such as The Anarchist's Cookbook (as you mentioned), and so on? It's a very tricky thing to anticipate the patron and offer what you would consider useful information, because of the potential backlash from the patrons, and especially parents of minors. Simply allowing a minor to check out such material has been the cause of some serious conflicts in various library systems around the US.

For a librarian to appear to "encourage" such things, or in a few cases, to "restrict" or "censor" them, could escalate repercussions. To do either, indicates that the library or librarian takes a more active role in directing the patron's access to information, and sets precendents that could be used as the beginning of a slippery slope. Give too much and you're seen as a promoter, withhold too much, and you're assumed to accept the role of "babysitter" and all the responsibilities and risks that entails. That was one of the resons that local libraries and librarians fought so hard against the Patriot Act's library patron records provisions.

To my mind, libraries exist to provide access to as much information as is humanly possible, regardless of the nature of that information (ruling out, of course, things like pornography or commercial promotions which are devoid of any real information). "Entertainment" media such as literature, cinema, music, etc. is just as important a part of that as informational media.

If a librarian is requested by a patron to assist in an information search, then I don't really see a problem taking a responsive role in providing assistance; but librarians should not be initiating assistance or assuming the direction a patron's search should go.

To use your example, you'd try and direct that young man to suicide-prevention resources. An understandable reaction, even with failing to determine the necessity of such a step in this particular cases (erring on the side of helpfulness is not generally a bad thing). But what resources do you direct the young man to? Strictly government-provided agencies? Religious organizations? Scientologist organizations? While I'm not saying you would, other librarians might.

How about a patron who is researching mental illness? Do you assume that they are looking for help with their own illness and direct them to... who? Local university health clinics? Hospitals? Controversial treatment centers? Anti-psychiatry Scientologist associations? Naturopaths? Again, while you seem to be a reasonable person, I've met more than my fair share of seriously woo-woo librarians (and recently had a falling out with one who, up until now, was a friend). A patron checks out books on illicit drug manufacture. I'm assuming no one here would call the police on them. But what about referring them to drug-abuse counselling? AA? Narconon? Abortion, do you refer them to Planned Parenthood or Project Rescue?

It's a very complex problem, and one I'm kind of glad I don't have to deal with. I'd probably end up like the OP, getting frustrated and handing in my resignation.

 

[Jabberwock]

The problem with that, though, is that as a human who can't actually read minds, you don't know for sure the reason he wants the book. Perhaps he's simply doing research for a report...

A lot of great points. I think a good referance interview can weed out the report writers from the people in trouble, but nothing is 100%. To follow the potential suicidal kid to the logical conclusion, if you are going to provide suicide hotline resources, ethically you'd have to include all of them, not just the ones you "agree" with ("abortion? here's all the material we have...and here's the numbers for both Planned Parenthood and Operation Rescue"). It does become a very slippery slope, though. As you say, where do you draw the line, does every kid coming in to get information on alcoholism get a page with the number to Alateen? Does my devout Southern Baptist collegue give the patron looking for information on homosexuality the number to the local pastor who "prays the gay away?" But to argue the other extreme, if librarians don't try to anticipate the patron's needs, why are we there? Why not have a computer terminal? It is a difficult balance to try to strike and I certainly don't have the answer. I think library policy can help a bit, but people are damned unpedictable and no policy can cover everything.

 

[King of the Americas]

Segnosaur,

Libraries arise from a need, voiced by a local community.

Each year the need for that library is revisited, where statics are provided.

The resources checked out the most, get increased funds whereas things that don't, get less or the same amount of funding.

If people stopped using a Library, its doors would soon close.

Therefore I can only conclude that since 'I' have never seen or heard about a single Library closing its door forever, that 'someone' is using them, be they poor, dis-advantaged, or just people of means who enjoy using public resources.

If a Library received nothing but pornographic requests, I think it is likely that said Library would soon have on its shelves pornographic material. It is refused to put those items out for circulation, then I don't think it would be serving its purpose...

I don't know what will lead to socitial collapse, but I know that it is good for society and the economy, for poeple to know what is going on in their town, state, nation, and world.

Closing Libraries, or limiting what they can distribute to only 'educational' material WOULD have negative affects, to us all.

Increased media theft would be the first result...

 

[Segnosaur]

Each year the need for that library is revisited, where statics are provided.

The resources checked out the most, get increased funds whereas things that don't, get less or the same amount of funding.

Facts which are totally irrelevant to this conversation.

The fact that something is popular in the library doesn't answer the question about whether they should carry the material.

If people stopped using a Library, its doors would soon close.

Therefore I can only conclude that since 'I' have never seen or heard about a single Library closing its door forever, that 'someone' is using them, be they poor, dis-advantaged, or just people of means who enjoy using public resources.

Libraries are funded by taxes. Thus, they do not function under the regular rules of supply and demand.

I don't know what will lead to socitial collapse, but I know that it is good for society and the economy, for poeple to know what is going on in their town, state, nation, and world.

I have already pointed out that such knowledge about what is going on in the world is already available to people (basically for free) from other sources.

Here's what I find ironic... I keep arguing that frivilous materials (stuff available elsewhere at a low cost, like movies, music and the internet) should be passed over by Libraries so they can concentrate on other materials (books, newspapers, etc.) that are more difficult to obtain. Now here YOU are, acting as if I've done the opposite, acting if I actually want to RESTRICT the more, ahem academic side of things. In fact, the material that tells people what's going on in the world is the stuff I want to keep and enhance.

Closing Libraries, or limiting what they can distribute to only 'educational' material WOULD have negative affects, to us all.

First of all, I admit it would be difficult to catagorize material as either educational or entertainment. That's why I've been arguing that the decision about what should be carried should be based on easy availability from other sources. (Usually, stuff available elsewhere is more 'entertainment' than 'educational', but that would not be the focus such an acquisition policy.)

Secondly, at NO point have I ever suggested closing libraries, nor have I suggested cutting their funding. Libraries can keep spending the same amount to purchase materials, but just not to replicate the same media available elsewhere.

You keep harping on how people need to "know what's going on". Well, if the libraries would spend less on movies and music, they'd have more money to spend on stuff that people couldn't get elsewhere. (And the people would STILL be able to see their movies and listen to their music cheaply from other sources.) Ultimately, I'm suggesting a course of action that will INCREASE available knowledge.

Increased media theft would be the first result...

Sorry, you're going to have to provide a little evidence for that claim.

After all, the type of people who would engage in theft are probably already stealing stuff... I doubt you'll get your average gang member hanging out at the local library.

 

[King of the Americas]

You are WRONG.

Firstly, movies and music are NOT readily available to everyone, and I have provided you several examples/explainations of this.

Secondly, Libraries operate in a manner that is directly connected to its patronage. If people stopped using the Library, it would be reflected in its statictics, and the elected leadership WOULD close its doors.

Lastly, you can rail on as much as you like, as to what YOU think Libraries 'should' contain. However, you 'should' know that what is in any given Library, is a direct response to the requests it gets, period.

Maybe you'd have better luck lobbying patrons in your area to make ONLY educational requests of YOUR Library...? Successfully doing so is the ONLY way to clear out all the entertaining stuff from your Library.

Put plainly, you don't have any right to tell people what they 'should' or should not be reading or viewing in a Library.

Geez, I am sure I've said that before here.

 

[Segnosaur]

Firstly, movies and music are NOT readily available to everyone, and I have provided you several examples/explainations of this.

Yes, you have said people may have to wait before they can get certain items. But, you've also said that its available, you can likely get it through inter-library loans.

And the fact that a person might not be able to get the EXACT movie or music they want is not as important as the fact that SOME people ARE getting DVDs/Music, either by being first-in-line, or by choosing alternate selections.

Secondly, Libraries operate in a manner that is directly connected to its patronage. If people stopped using the Library, it would be reflected in its statictics, and the elected leadership WOULD close its doors.

You are making the assumption that the vast majority of library users ONLY go to sign out DVDs and CDs, or use the internet. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Lastly, you can rail on as much as you like, as to what YOU think Libraries 'should' contain. However, you 'should' know that what is in any given Library, is a direct response to the requests it gets, period.

Yes, I know that libraries base their collections on the requests they get. You made that point clear. In fact, I already knew that much.

But guess what? Its irrelevant. This is not a debate ono how things are, its a debate on how things should be.... how acquisitions should be made and what would provide the most benefit to society. The fact that its done in a manner that I think is wrong (and less beneficial to society) doesn't mean that I can't have opinions on how it should be changed. Debate the issues for what they are... continually saying "this is how its done... end of story" does not prove your way is better, only that you (and the libraries) are dogmatic to a fault.

Complaining about me expressing an opinion is as idiotic as saying people shouldn't engage in debates on tax cuts (after all, the government is ALWAYS going to collect taxes), or debates on military spending (after all, we're always going to have an armed forces). Guess what? People SOMETIMES have opinions on the way things shoudl be, and we SOMETIMES want to express our opinions. For someone who was trying to champion certain elements of freedom-of-speech at the library, you certainly seem to be keen on trying to cut free speech short when it attacks one of your beliefs.

Put plainly, you don't have any right to tell people what they 'should' or should not be reading or viewing in a Library.

The library is supported with my tax dollars. Why I do not currently have the power to dictate library policy single-handedly, I SHOULD have the right to express an opinion on how those tax dollars are used, and if I desire, to vote for politicians who will implement those changes. If there were a local politician who said "I will force the library to not buy stuff that people can already get for free elsewhere", I would consider that.

Geez, I am sure I've said that before here.

Repeating an irrelevancy does not make it any more relevant.

So far, all I've seen you do is:
- Keep repeating how libraries purchase materials, a fact which was never in dispute
- Make claims which are self-contradictory, such as stating how libraries are needed to inform people about what's going on in the world, while at the same time criticizing my ideas that will actually result in making MORE information availble about what's going on in the world
- Ignoring all my counterpoints that I used to debunk your claims