I spent last night at work reading through a back log of library science newsletters and magazines. I must admit, most of the time I still feel rather ignorant about the current events and issues within the field, however, I persist in reading all the material placed in my mail box by my supportive supervisors and staff in hopes that one day that little light bulb will go on and I will finally feel “familiar”.
One of the most talked about issues at the moment concerns the U.S Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer upholding the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). The ruling states that in order for a public library to receive federal funding, they must install filtering software on their computers so as to protect children from accessing pornography over the internet.
This has, of course, been an issue ever since the internet came into existence and as a women who hopes to someday be a mother, I can fully understand the fear and concern of our children becoming exposed to such material before they are mentally prepared. As a librarian I also realize the difficulties of keeping unwanted patrons from using our computers for their sexual thrills, running the risk of exposing such material to an innocent child who just happens to walk by. However, even when taking all these things into consideration, I’m not sure installing filters is the best way to solve the problem.
I know very little about filters and how they work. What I’ve heard and what I’ve read seem to indicate that the filtering software in existence today are flawed and will only prevent our public from being able to view perfectly legitimate sites. A logical answer to this would be “Well, in a case where an adult is trying to access legitimate information, just switch the filtering software off”. Seems reasonable to me but apparently it’s not that easy. However, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who ruled in favor of the mandate seems to think it is. “Assuming that such erroneous blocking presents constitutional difficulties, any such concerns are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled. When a patron encounters a blocked site, he need only ask a librarian to unblock it or (at least in the case of adults) disable the filter” (Library Hotline,1, 6/30/03). According to Library Journal, Rehnquist has been misinformed since generally filtering softwares are not installed on individual terminals, but at the system level. You can’t just simply disable it on one users computer.
Rehnquist made another comment in the same article (Library Hotline,1, 7/30/03) that really infuriated me. “CIPA does not ‘penalize’ libraries that choose not to install such software, or deny them the right to provide their patrons with unfiltered Internet access…CIPA simply reflects Congress’ decision not to subsidize their doing so. To the extent that libraries wish to offer unfiltered access, they are free to do so without federal assistance”. Forgive me if I’m missing something here but what hell’s the difference. Libraries are suffering from a financial crisis nation wide right now and as a result we are unable to provide for our public in the fullest capacity that we should. Branches everywhere have decreased their opening hours, some only open a few days a week, some like us, closing an hour early four nights a week. Other libraries, as is the case at the East Grand Forks Campbell Library, MN, now charge people for a library card, $5 a year for adults to use books and audios, $10 a year for them to be able to use all materials, etc. Ok, sure so it’s not that much money, but that’s not the point. It destroys what libraries are supposed to stand for. NO ONE should have to pay money to use a library (unless they have overdue fines, obviously). So, how can Rehnquist state that withholding any amount of federal funding is not a form of penalization, especially where our peoples freedom of information is concerned.
-C
You are currently browsing the daily archive for 20.08.03.
So this is a blog. I’m starting to understand the whole “blog” thing. At first i was confused. “What’s the difference between a blog and a regular website?” As it turns out, not much. You see I compare blogs to Nerf. Remember Nerf? What is a Nerf–a squishy ball. Nerf is just much more fun to say than “squishy ball”. Likewise with blogs, what is a blog? It’s a website where you post articles. But the pop generation requires catch phrases and funky words–thus blog is born.
Well I sure hope I use it. I mean, there is a very good chance that this will turn into something that is hip for a while and then it will turn old hack. But I’ll try to post, though really, who’s going to read it? I”m not famous, my life is not that particularly interesting, but I’ll give it a go and see what happens.
-M