I’m a librarian. Every public library has filtering software to prevent “inappropriate” content from being accessed from the library computers. That includes porn, not much controversy there, but beyond that it can get surprising. At a Florida Library Association conference in Jacksonville last year, I could not access the SDMB from public library computers! I just started working at the Miami-Dade system. You can get the SDMB on our computers – but not MySpace. I don’t know whether that’s a policy decision made by an administrator in the library system, or whether the software bars MySpace automatically based on detected keywords. In any case, we’ve been instructed to, if requested by a user, enter an override code that allows access to MySpace (and I get many such requests). That only works on the adult side of the library; blocks on the children’s side computers cannot be overriden.
(Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R.-Penn.) has just introduced a bill to forbid libraries from making social networking sites such as MySpace available to minors, on the grounds that pedophiles use such sites to troll. See this Pit thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=371343)
How strict should such controls be? Just how much protection from distasteful content in public spaces do we actually need? And is online trolling by peds really a big enough problem to warrant such policies? (See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=345445)
I don’t think there should be any filtering software, any more than there should be book bannings and censorship of the volumes in your stacks.
If use by minors is an issue (as I gather that it is), restrict minors to machines that log which patron is using it and what sites they’ve visited, and if they are going to inappropriate venues you can blacklist them from using the library’s computers. (I don’t really approve of censorship for minors either though).
Same; for minors or otherwise. My parents never restricted my reading matter; I came out OK.
As far as pedophilia goes, I’ve never bought the idea that it’s this huge plague we need to be paranoid about; nor do I think that restricting the Internet will make much difference.
Well, there is. Librarians generally are very hostile to censorship and impatient with demands to pull this or that book from the collection. (See .) OTOH, even we acknowledge there should be some limits, not on what can be published or sold but on what is appropriate for a public library’s collection. No librarian would think of putting pornographic novels (the kind usually sold only in adult book stores, which are tales of sex and nothing else) on the open shelves of a public library. (They might be appropriate for a limited-access special collection at an academic library.) Beyond that, the details get controversial. No librarian would raise an eyebrow at Lady Chatterly’s Lover. But there’s a lot of gray area between D.H. Lawrence and a Beeline novel.
Sorry, here’s the link (to the American Library Associations “Banned Books” webpage: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.htm These books are listed as “challenged” only because somebody demanded they be pulled from library shelves, not because any library complied.)
BTW, when you try to access MySpace from our computers, the message you get includes the words, “The WebSence category “Tasteless” is filtered.” Whatever that means, or says about MySpace.
You are right about that, and the internet gives censorship a whole new meaning, I think, when it comes to libraries. Because books must be purchased, and libraries have budgets, decisions have to be made as to what materials are worthy to be placed in the library. This is not exactly censorship, but it does require a certain amount of judgement. When it comes to the internet, there is no cost, and therefore this form of “censorship” becomes irrelevant. So…the library is put in a touchy position. I am not fond of censorship in any form, but on the other hand, should a publicly-funded library really have to provide access to porn? Iam thinking that this is something that the individual really should be responsible for procuring for themselves, if necessary.
Well, the main perceived problem with allowing access to porn sites from a public-library computer is that it is a public space, and other patrons than the one sitting at that computer might be inadvertently exposed to material they find offensive (or that their parents would rather not have them looking at).
You mean like a book or website on atheism ? Homosexuality ? Jews ? Environmentalism ?
That argument leads immediately to simply shutting down the library, since everything offends someone.
My view is simple; if you find it offensive, don’t look. If you are paranoid about your kid, talk to him/her, and don’t try to childproof the world. Besides, I don’t think that turning kids into the intellectual version of the Bubble Boy is good for them.
Nor do I buy the idea that sex and/or nudity is evil.
Nor do I, but not everybody wants to look at it. Which is why we have indecent-exposure laws. Maybe we shouldn’t . . . But most people have at least some sensitivity in that regard. I’ve been to nudist camps, and the restrooms are shielded from public view and segregated by sex. Apparently there are some things even nudists would rather not do in public and/or watch others doing.
Fine; just turn the monitor to the wall then. It’s not hard to make it so you can’t see what someone else is looking at without effort, and if you make that effort it’s your fault if you are offended.
To use your analogy, nudists may have shielded restrooms; they don’t ban restrooms.
At my small branch library, all the public computers are side-by-side in a row in the middle of the adult reference section; it economizes on floor space. At some extra cost, and by sacrificing some shelves, we could them all in separate carrells facing the wall, and eliminate our filtering software; but I wouldn’t want to be the person who has to clean off the chairs at the end of the day.
The thing is, if you take away the (literal) censorship, I’d like to believe the library could set their own rules. After all, aren’t “community standards” the definition of pornography?
Libraries – that is, public library systems – pretty much do set their own rules, under the local government. In Miami-Dade, the public library system is under a director (http://www.mdpls.org/info/information.asp) and a Public Library Advisory Board appointed by the County Commission (http://www.mdpls.org/info/advisory.asp). They’ll get the brunt of any political pressure, but since the Advisory Board is not the same as the County Commission there’s some measure of insulation.
BrainGlutton, how is the banning done? A blacklist of known bad sites would seem to be something no one could object to (assuming the sites were clearly inappropriate) but impossible to maintain. Using keywords like breast bans a lot of sites of legitimate interest. Using lists compiled by others would seem to make you hostage to their choices. What options do you have?
This shouldn’t be a difficult question. Public libraries should not be in the position of being thought police. If the government chooses to provide library computer access for the edification of its citizens (as any smart jurisdiction does and must), it must do so without reservation; it’s not really a resource for the intelligent patron if you can only access the material the government wants you to see. Of course libraries should not censor the internet.
It’s also not an actual problem. Plastic screen filters exist which prevent a bystander from seeing what’s on a monitor unless they’re sitting directly in front of the screen. This allows anyone to look at whatever they want without impinging on others’ rights to be free of material they or their parents find offensive and inappropriate. From what I’ve read, my local library uses these filters and has never received complaints despite the fact that patrons can, and occasionally do, choose to access pronography on library computers.
To elaborate on BrainGlutton’s statement, the only federal law that has been allowed to stand regarding public library internet filtering is the Child Internet Protection Act, which requires that all libraries which receive certain types of federal funding have internet filters in place to block objectionable images. (Note - images, not text.) While acknowledging that filters often block important or protected sites, the Supreme Court allowed CIPA to stand provided the filters can be easily turned off if a patron requests it.
I think there are some state laws that are working their ways through the court system but so far CIPA is the only federal law that’s passed. (Another law, the Child Online Protection Act, has been booting around since 1998. It’s scheduled for more hearings this fall.)
Public libraries aren’t required to take the federal money and not all of them do. Those libraries might or might not have filters and there might be local laws influencing them as well.
Personally, I think filters are a waste of time and money. Anyone who’s familiar with computers knows how easy they are to work around. They only thing they do is slow down legitimate research.
