Slashdot Mirror

I will not speak of Amazon's data policies but the ALA to a man, woman, or other will SLAM their fist down upon the drive wipe button if someone comes in thinking their warrant means something. This isn't just a threat, many did as soon as "The Patriot Act" was even being considered.

http://www.ala.org/aboutala/go...

DO NOT piss off a librarian! They are some of the staunchest defenders of civil rights in the country.

I will not speak of Amazon's data policies but the ALA to a man, woman, or other will SLAM their fist down upon the drive wipe button if someone comes in thinking their warrant means something. This isn't just a threat, many did as soon as "The Patriot Act" was even being considered.
http://www.ala.org/aboutala/go...

Newsweek misleads by giving examples of common books like Harry Potter and Moby Dick being banned or criticized in the past. The actual poster from the group leading the banned books list , NONE of Newsweek's examples are there, NOT a SINGLE ONE. Here is there poster of ACTUAL books they are complaining about being 'banned', I would lump them in as religious text of the left http://www.oif.ala.org/oif/wp-... .

The summary says most of the challenges are NOT about public libraries, but about school curriculum. One example being ELEMENTARY school having kids read about a transgender child.

However, many of books in the ban list are ABOUT PUBLIC LIBRARIES. You are looking at only one link (with top 10 in 2016 ban books) and then conflate it to the whole list (a bigger list link or better yet here).

Multiple books on the list were about transgender children, presenting that as normal.

Hmm... Half of the top 10 ban list are about LGBTQ, and two of them are about transgender child. That's only from the "top banned in 2016" list. I don't disagree that these books shouldn't be read by children "alone" but rather being approved by their parents. However, you are conflating (again) the number of books about trangender children in order to support your bias.

If you (and anyone) really want to check on banned books from public schools & libraries (mostly in Canada & USA), here is the list of those books in different years. Below, I listed what

From the link:
2015-2016 -- 2 out of 45 books (7 LGBTQ books)
2014-2015 -- 0 out of 33 books (4 LGBTQ books)
2013-2014 -- 0 out of 28 books (0 LGBTQ book)
2012-2013 -- 0 out of 44 books (3 LGBTQ books)
2011-2012 -- 0 out of 42 books (4 LGBTQ books)
... and so on ...

It could well be argued that parents shouldn't be putting their children through multiple surgeries and heavy doses of unnatural hormones to turn a boy into a girl or vice versa, in the vast majority of cases. That's the kind of thing a person ought to decide for themselves, making an informed decision when they are an adult, some would say.

I wouldn't go that far. You are making an assumption about what the content of the book is. You are making an assumption how transgender children become. If you haven't read the book, you have no right to assume about parents making/allowing the decision. It is similar to someone writing a review on a restaurant where the person has never been to before. The person is unqualified to write criticism about the restaurant.

I don't care to argue for or against on any of these issues, but they are certainly issues on which reasonable people may disagree. On such issues, perhaps the government schools shouldn't be forcing this stuff on grade-school kids. If you want to teach your kids that it's normal to chop off a little boys penis, you can do that, but I don't see that you have a need or a right to force that on every other family.

I agree that government should never force the kind of book reading on kids, but I disagree that you or a few people have the right to forbid others to read the book either (ban from public libraries). If you look at the list of banned book, you should at least see that this is NOT about public school ONLY but rather on the whole society in the sense of "family" or "children" relation.

In conclusion, I agree on the part that no one should have the right to force or forbid on kids reading books. The decision should be on their parents. Thus, some books should be banned from public schools but no book should be banned from public libraries.

The summary says most of the challenges are NOT about public libraries, but about school curriculum. One example being ELEMENTARY school having kids read about a transgender child.

However, many of books in the ban list are ABOUT PUBLIC LIBRARIES. You are looking at only one link (with top 10 in 2016 ban books) and then conflate it to the whole list (a bigger list link or better yet here).

Multiple books on the list were about transgender children, presenting that as normal.

Hmm... Half of the top 10 ban list are about LGBTQ, and two of them are about transgender child. That's only from the "top banned in 2016" list. I don't disagree that these books shouldn't be read by children "alone" but rather being approved by their parents. However, you are conflating (again) the number of books about trangender children in order to support your bias.

If you (and anyone) really want to check on banned books from public schools & libraries (mostly in Canada & USA), here is the list of those books in different years. Below, I listed what

From the link:
2015-2016 -- 2 out of 45 books (7 LGBTQ books)
2014-2015 -- 0 out of 33 books (4 LGBTQ books)
2013-2014 -- 0 out of 28 books (0 LGBTQ book)
2012-2013 -- 0 out of 44 books (3 LGBTQ books)
2011-2012 -- 0 out of 42 books (4 LGBTQ books)
... and so on ...

It could well be argued that parents shouldn't be putting their children through multiple surgeries and heavy doses of unnatural hormones to turn a boy into a girl or vice versa, in the vast majority of cases. That's the kind of thing a person ought to decide for themselves, making an informed decision when they are an adult, some would say.

I wouldn't go that far. You are making an assumption about what the content of the book is. You are making an assumption how transgender children become. If you haven't read the book, you have no right to assume about parents making/allowing the decision. It is similar to someone writing a review on a restaurant where the person has never been to before. The person is unqualified to write criticism about the restaurant.

I don't care to argue for or against on any of these issues, but they are certainly issues on which reasonable people may disagree. On such issues, perhaps the government schools shouldn't be forcing this stuff on grade-school kids. If you want to teach your kids that it's normal to chop off a little boys penis, you can do that, but I don't see that you have a need or a right to force that on every other family.

I agree that government should never force the kind of book reading on kids, but I disagree that you or a few people have the right to forbid others to read the book either (ban from public libraries). If you look at the list of banned book, you should at least see that this is NOT about public school ONLY but rather on the whole society in the sense of "family" or "children" relation.

In conclusion, I agree on the part that no one should have the right to force or forbid on kids reading books. The decision should be on their parents. Thus, some books should be banned from public schools but no book should be banned from public libraries.

Sorry, but no. As someone with multiple librarians in the family, I can say you are straight up incorrect.

Weeding is not only normal, it is a very important part of collection management.

Watch this presentation on weeding from the American Library Association, or at least read the slides.

Or if the ALA's word isn't good enough for you, read these comments from a hundred or so working librarians.

Of course librarians will make poor decisions when weeding. Making mistakes comes with the territory of being human. But as a general principle, weeding is critical to maintaining a useful library that serves the needs of an ever-changing community.

The first time, he makes a big deal about the address in question not being really his, but one he did use for WHOIS registration. I know there are people who have legitimate reasons for hiding their personal address when operating a controversial website, but the solution for that isn't to give a totally bogus address. Or maybe the CSA saw that it had been used as a "private" registration (not knowing it had been subsequently revealed) and assumed it was a relevant secret on that basis? And how is it's Amazon's fault if the address was used to cause the sending of a replacement credit card? Did the scammer rent a room at said hotel and request that the card be sent there?

The second time, he complains about the disclosure of the last purchased item and the shipping address. I'd say that the majority of the time when there's fraud, if the real customer calls in, he'd like to know where the item is actually going so he can include that in his police report. In spite of the scammer's attempt, the agent really didn't give out any useful information about the credit card.

The third time, we don't have a the transcript, so it's possible that the agent read off all the addresses, the AWS username, and all credit-card numbers ever associated with the account. More likely, the agent said, "I'm sorry, I can't give you that information. I can send a copy of your invoice to your e-mail address on file."

Even the last-purchased item is arguably sensitive. What if it's a bulk-pack of condoms, for example? Or (back to Amazon's roots) a book on the list of banned books? I'd encourage Amazon to close that hole, but I'm not sure I have a good solution.

Agreed.

As with any group of people there will be some quislings among librarians. But as a whole they are very privacy focused.
Here is a summary of the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights.

Offering my two cents.

It's true that libraries operating in this century are faced with the grim spectre of obsolescence. With the advent of the Internet and the ubiquity of computers, tablets, and smartphones, most people have a wealth of information at their fingertips that dwarfs anything to be found among the physical holdings of your local library.

However, this is beside the point.

Libraries offer more than a given collection of information. They offer the principles of universal access, privacy, and the freedom of ideas, all of which seem to have fallen by the wayside in modern times. The American Library Association maintains an Office for Intellectual Freedom specifically dedicated to teaching ethics, supporting privacy and confidentiality, and fighting censorship. Your library is one of the few organizations today that is actively looking out for your best interests and those of your fellow citizens, and asks for virtually nothing in return, save for a few tax dollars to keep the lights on. When you think about all the other stuff your taxes will be used for--including the NSA's continued efforts to spy on you--I believe that's a more than fair trade.

In his interview with John Oliver, Edward Snowden said that by conducting surveillance on Americans, the NSA is effectively holding a gun to your head and asking you to trust that they won't pull the trigger (unless you give them a reason).

Your library is asking the NSA to put down the gun.

Yeah, that's why they were supportive of The Satanic Verses when it was published..
Oh, shit, they weren't? Damn that sucks being on the wrong side, doesn't it?

What exactly did they do that was not supportive? The ALA has The Satanic Verses on their list for Banned Books Week.
How did they treat The Satanic Verses differently than, say, The Chocolate War?

Yeah, that's why they were supportive of The Satanic Verses when it was published..
Oh, shit, they weren't? Damn that sucks being on the wrong side, doesn't it?

What exactly did they do that was not supportive? The ALA has The Satanic Verses on their list for Banned Books Week.
How did they treat The Satanic Verses differently than, say, The Chocolate War?

http://www.ala.org/bbooks/bann...

Libraries use it to lend e-books. ALA was pretty ticked when it was brought to their attention. According a poll I can't seem to find at the moment libraries and museums are some of the only institutions still trusted today. http://www.ala.org/news/press-...

~ but they're practically begging FSB and PLA to infiltrate them.

Why would the Fuqua School of Business and the Public Library Association want to infiltrate the FBI?

[Business] Leaders are [Federal] Readers?

hyperlinks are still illegal in the US ... Rights are available in the US only if you are rich enough to afford them.

From the American Library Association

Hypertext Linking and Copyright Issues

As the cases above suggest, the law is not yet clear on what constitutes acceptable practice in linking to other people's Web sites. In most instances, however, it appears that linking in itself (whether deep linking or not) should not create legal problems unless there are extenuating circumstances. Setting up links to someone else's website is not the same thing as republishing information (the linking site does not actually store the linked site's information--it just directs the user to that information). Therefore, it seems unlikely that linking can reasonably be seen as copyright infringement absent those extenuating circumstances.

Libraries and newspapers are dying, well, for the same reason the buggy whip industry died.

I've never quite understood why statements like these are taken as gospel in the geek community. I mean, a simple internet search can bring up statistics about library use that show physical visits have been increasing from the mid-90s to today, in *spite* of losses in funding and staff. It is documented fact that more people use public libraries than before the "internet age".

Is it just that we naturally buy into a March of Progress ideology which assumes that the next big consumer goodie will always replace drab, unsexy public services? The easy equestrian analogy that neatly keeps us from having to think at all or check whether our cars-replacing-horses story is actually taking place in the real world?

Since you are tasked with reimagining the school library and don't know who to ask, your school obviously lacks funding and a librarian. The first thing to do is get funding from anywhere you can: grants, awards, sponsorship--anything. You need your school to hire at least a part time school librarian--they are teachers and librarians, and they will help kids learn to work with information and develop critical thinking skills.These are the skills needed to have a chance at being successful in contemporary society. These are skills they wont learn elsewhere because we keep teachers too busy preparing students for the next standardized test.

A qualified school librarian and functioning library account for up to 20% of the variability in student achievement. See more research at the American Association of School Librarians

  Low-income students are already academically disadvantaged. Don't make it worse by going along with plans to gut whatever your administrators deem "unnecessary." Think about it::rich kids are browsing books, using tablets, using computers to play on the web, watching and creating videos, and checking out laptops at their school libraries. They are learning to be curious about the world and investigate it--becoming internally motivated to learn. Your kids need a working library more than other students precisely because they are low-income and wont otherwise have these opportunities. So stuff that place with all the donated books and computers you can get.

Don't expect your students to catch up with their peers later, after society has already given up on them. Bother anyone who will listen you about this, and don't back down.

There's no struggle for school libraries to remain relevant. They help kids learn the most essential skills for today's world. The return on investment is high. The only struggle is to keep society from divesting from kids' futures.

OK but there are ten times as many reported challenges (where someone, usually a parent, seeks to get a book banned from a school or library), and maybe four or five times as many total challenges. Actual book banning only succeeded 49 times, but that doesn't mean many many more people tried to ban books. ALA website discussion here

You can't look up a word in the dictionary if you don't know how to spell it. He'll be in the esses forever!

To add to your comment though, our modern view of censorship (in the West) has rarely anything to do with government. The ALA says banned books:

A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials.

are all those that are removed from a library, and considers it censorship. And while the first amendment only applies to the law, society's commitment to freedom of speech even in these instances are what keeps it inviolable.

1. shut up

2. educate yourself. here's some intellectual charity for you, start here:

http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases

3. then open your ignorant piehole

stop shooting the messenger, stop acting like a teenager throwing a temper tantrum because life is a little more complicated than you think it is

i'm not your problem. the reality of well-established case law is

grow the fuck up child

http://www.ala.org/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/newberymedal/newberyhonors/1994newberymedal

I wonder if the MP would ban the 1994 Newbery Medal winner about a twelve year old selected as his society's scapegoat and abused as such.

...really nice people who will loan out their book collection to a million or so...

They even have a website: http://www.ala.org/

Really. Then why is Huck Finn one of the top books on the ALA's list of most-challenged books? Are you telling me that it's - to borrow a phrase from the AC I originally replied to - "inbred, hillbilly, neo-fascist, very republican bible belt" conservatives who are challenging the teaching of a book filled with racial slurs? I would think those inbred hillbillies would LOVE the idea of indoctrinating children in this manner, wouldn't you?

Congratulations on your anecdote that you've never seen a liberal parent get hysterical over a book. I assure you, it happens. As far as my links not supporting the assertion, you clearly didn't actually look at the data available on the map. If you bother to look at the map I linked, you'll also see that quite-liberal enclaves fall prey, and not - as you're probably assuming - for "Jenny's Two Mommies!" conservative hysteria. Here's a 'fer instance':

"Seattle, Washington: (2011) Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was retained on the list of approved materials that Seattle, Wash. high school teachers may use in their language arts curriculum. A parent had complained that the book has a “high volume of racially offensive derogatory language and misinformation on Native Americans. In addition to the inaccurate imagery, and stereotype views, the text lacks literary value which is relevant to today’s contemporary multicultural society."

Is the language of that objection more typical of an overly-sensitive politically-correct liberal, or an inbred conservative hillbilly? The book survived the challenge, but you're a fool if you think that extremists on both sides of the American political spectrum aren't trying to suppress materials that conflict with their world view.

It's not any meaningful restriction.

Because it is unenforced. But just like all those laws it is still valid.

You lost mere there. What are you suggesting is unenforced? What are you suggesting is still valid?

If you mean some "unenforced" rule about library cards, no. Public libraries are deliberately open to the public. There is no requirement to have a library card to enter the library and access any and all materials. A library card is only required if you wish to remove books from the building.

If you mean some "unenforced" rule about children in the adult section, no. It is Official Policy of the American Library Association that children have full and equal access to all materials. In fact they state it would be a violation of the Library Bill of Rights if any librarian attempted to deny a minor full access.

For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.

Financial and LEGAL reasons.

I don't know what legal reasons you are suggesting, other than the financial-legal issue of collecting fines. But again, the library is open to the public. Any library card limitations are merely a restriction on removing materials from the library, it is not any restriction on access.

Try reading the American Library Association's policy on Free Access to Libraries for Minors.

In particular note the line "Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children ". In other words don't bother the librarian with any such demands. The library doesn't restrict your child's access, and the library is not going to take responsibility for enforcing any such rules upon your child for you. If you want to limit your child's access then you should tell your child that is your rule. It is your personal right and your personal responsibility to raise your children and enforce your rules for them. You either have to trust your child to obey your rules, or you must supervise your children, and you may punish them if they break your parental rules. The library's mission is to make as much information as possible available to everyone, and the library isn't going to get involved in parenting your child for you.

If you read the Library Bill of Rights, items 1 and 2 are anti-censorship, and items 3 and 4 actually direct libraries to actively oppose attempts at censorship. In practice this means libraries actively fighting individuals, parents, organizations, and politicians, who attempt to restrict library content or who restrict access to library materials. Item 5 says libraries should not restrict access to library materials, specifically including any age-based restrictions.

And here it explicitly states that it is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights to remove content anyone claims is "harmful to minors", and that librarians should actively oppose those who attempt to do so.

American Librarians have a reputation for being mild-mannered, helpful, and neutral to the point of bland boringness... except for their intense opposition to censorship. Opposition with includes actively including and promoting anything that anyone attempts to restrict. Activists rarely get in fights with librarians because it almost always backfires. It almost always results in increased awareness and availability of the very materials they opposed.

-

It's not any meaningful restriction.

Because it is unenforced. But just like all those laws it is still valid.

You lost mere there. What are you suggesting is unenforced? What are you suggesting is still valid?

If you mean some "unenforced" rule about library cards, no. Public libraries are deliberately open to the public. There is no requirement to have a library card to enter the library and access any and all materials. A library card is only required if you wish to remove books from the building.

If you mean some "unenforced" rule about children in the adult section, no. It is Official Policy of the American Library Association that children have full and equal access to all materials. In fact they state it would be a violation of the Library Bill of Rights if any librarian attempted to deny a minor full access.

For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.

Financial and LEGAL reasons.

I don't know what legal reasons you are suggesting, other than the financial-legal issue of collecting fines. But again, the library is open to the public. Any library card limitations are merely a restriction on removing materials from the library, it is not any restriction on access.

Try reading the American Library Association's policy on Free Access to Libraries for Minors.

In particular note the line "Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children ". In other words don't bother the librarian with any such demands. The library doesn't restrict your child's access, and the library is not going to take responsibility for enforcing any such rules upon your child for you. If you want to limit your child's access then you should tell your child that is your rule. It is your personal right and your personal responsibility to raise your children and enforce your rules for them. You either have to trust your child to obey your rules, or you must supervise your children, and you may punish them if they break your parental rules. The library's mission is to make as much information as possible available to everyone, and the library isn't going to get involved in parenting your child for you.

If you read the Library Bill of Rights, items 1 and 2 are anti-censorship, and items 3 and 4 actually direct libraries to actively oppose attempts at censorship. In practice this means libraries actively fighting individuals, parents, organizations, and politicians, who attempt to restrict library content or who restrict access to library materials. Item 5 says libraries should not restrict access to library materials, specifically including any age-based restrictions.

And here it explicitly states that it is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights to remove content anyone claims is "harmful to minors", and that librarians should actively oppose those who attempt to do so.

American Librarians have a reputation for being mild-mannered, helpful, and neutral to the point of bland boringness... except for their intense opposition to censorship. Opposition with includes actively including and promoting anything that anyone attempts to restrict. Activists rarely get in fights with librarians because it almost always backfires. It almost always results in increased awareness and availability of the very materials they opposed.

-

It's not any meaningful restriction.

Because it is unenforced. But just like all those laws it is still valid.

You lost mere there. What are you suggesting is unenforced? What are you suggesting is still valid?

If you mean some "unenforced" rule about library cards, no. Public libraries are deliberately open to the public. There is no requirement to have a library card to enter the library and access any and all materials. A library card is only required if you wish to remove books from the building.

If you mean some "unenforced" rule about children in the adult section, no. It is Official Policy of the American Library Association that children have full and equal access to all materials. In fact they state it would be a violation of the Library Bill of Rights if any librarian attempted to deny a minor full access.

For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.

Financial and LEGAL reasons.

I don't know what legal reasons you are suggesting, other than the financial-legal issue of collecting fines. But again, the library is open to the public. Any library card limitations are merely a restriction on removing materials from the library, it is not any restriction on access.

Try reading the American Library Association's policy on Free Access to Libraries for Minors.

In particular note the line "Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children ". In other words don't bother the librarian with any such demands. The library doesn't restrict your child's access, and the library is not going to take responsibility for enforcing any such rules upon your child for you. If you want to limit your child's access then you should tell your child that is your rule. It is your personal right and your personal responsibility to raise your children and enforce your rules for them. You either have to trust your child to obey your rules, or you must supervise your children, and you may punish them if they break your parental rules. The library's mission is to make as much information as possible available to everyone, and the library isn't going to get involved in parenting your child for you.

If you read the Library Bill of Rights, items 1 and 2 are anti-censorship, and items 3 and 4 actually direct libraries to actively oppose attempts at censorship. In practice this means libraries actively fighting individuals, parents, organizations, and politicians, who attempt to restrict library content or who restrict access to library materials. Item 5 says libraries should not restrict access to library materials, specifically including any age-based restrictions.

And here it explicitly states that it is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights to remove content anyone claims is "harmful to minors", and that librarians should actively oppose those who attempt to do so.

American Librarians have a reputation for being mild-mannered, helpful, and neutral to the point of bland boringness... except for their intense opposition to censorship. Opposition with includes actively including and promoting anything that anyone attempts to restrict. Activists rarely get in fights with librarians because it almost always backfires. It almost always results in increased awareness and availability of the very materials they opposed.

-

Why? If it's already on display via the computer, what difference does it make if it's on display from his actions? Why not let him whip it out, since he's already allowed to put those images in front of everyone? The whole thing is crazy and the censorship arguments are ludicrous. Libraries absolutely need to filter this kind of content.

I agree!

At the same time, we should also make sure they don't allow anything else that's morally questionable. We can start with these works of literature. Hell, there's Lolita, by Vladmir Nabokov on that list, and that's basically child pornography, so we had better get on that.

We could also probably do without letting terrorists research things like bomb making and the like -- so how to guides and books teaching chemical or mechanical engineering, they have to go, since they could be abused. Works on the details of how our government and legal system should probably go too -- no upstanding American would need access to those, and they just run the risk of letting terrorists find evil loopholes in our systems designed to keep them suppressed.

We could also get rid of books detailing any of these oddball heathen religions, like Buddhism or god forbid, Islam. Since the United States is a Christian Nation (the books saying otherwise were morally questionable) we shouldn't be allowing the risk of youngsters seeing this kind of material. We don't need to know these things, we only need to know their vague direction ("overseas") and if they have any resources we could use before (or after) we bomb them. ... Or.

Perhaps we could instead recognize that as a nation, our right to free speech (and, I would go so far as to say, "free information") is one of the most important, vital rights we have, one 100 generations of Americans have been willing to kill and die for. Just because you don't like the idea of someone looking at erotica doesn't mean his right to look at erotica is any less important than say, looking up how to program PHP or using the computers to make his resume. We don't -- we can't -- differentiate between the two, because the second you do, you open up wide the gates of objective censorship.

Putting it another way, would you like barely functional wingnuts like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, or god forbid, Sarah Palin to decide what you could or couldn't read?

censorship arguments are ludicrous

Fuck you.

Libraries absolutely need to filter this kind of content

Fuck no.

Librarians tend to have extremely strong views on the subject of censorship. The American Library Association actively promotes books that are targeted for censorship. Most librarians would happily stock Playboy magazine if it didn't cut into their budget for buying other materials.

How about I quote the American Library Association:

Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.

Article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." The "right to use a library" includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V.
[]
Libraries should not limit the selection and development of library resources simply because minors will have access to them. Institutional self-censorship diminishes the credibility of the library in the community, and restricts access for all library users.

Children and young adults unquestionably possess First Amendment rights, including the right to receive information through the library in print, nonprint, or digital format. Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images a legislative body believes to be unsuitable for them. Librarians and library governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections, because only a court of law can determine whether material is not constitutionally protected.

The mission, goals, and objectives of libraries cannot authorize librarians or library governing bodies to assume, abrogate, or overrule the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians. As Libraries: An American Value states, "We affirm the responsibility and the right of all parents and guardians to guide their own children's use of the library and its resources and services." Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's - and only their children's - access to library resources. Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.

Lack of access to information can be harmful to minors.

-

censorship arguments are ludicrous

Fuck you.

Libraries absolutely need to filter this kind of content

Fuck no.

Librarians tend to have extremely strong views on the subject of censorship. The American Library Association actively promotes books that are targeted for censorship. Most librarians would happily stock Playboy magazine if it didn't cut into their budget for buying other materials.

How about I quote the American Library Association:

Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.

Article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." The "right to use a library" includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V.
[]
Libraries should not limit the selection and development of library resources simply because minors will have access to them. Institutional self-censorship diminishes the credibility of the library in the community, and restricts access for all library users.

Children and young adults unquestionably possess First Amendment rights, including the right to receive information through the library in print, nonprint, or digital format. Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images a legislative body believes to be unsuitable for them. Librarians and library governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections, because only a court of law can determine whether material is not constitutionally protected.

The mission, goals, and objectives of libraries cannot authorize librarians or library governing bodies to assume, abrogate, or overrule the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians. As Libraries: An American Value states, "We affirm the responsibility and the right of all parents and guardians to guide their own children's use of the library and its resources and services." Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's - and only their children's - access to library resources. Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.

Lack of access to information can be harmful to minors.

-

Somehow managed to not add the URL, because I'm a dunce.

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics

There's a lot of libraries out there. We'd need a lot of rich guys to make that happen.

http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/libfunding/fed/index.cfm

The majority of federal library program funds are distributed through the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to each state. The Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) is part of the annual Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill... While the majority of funding for libraries comes from state and local sources, federal funding provides critical assistance, giving libraries across the country the financial support they need to serve their communities...

On April 14, 2011, after vigorous partisan debate, behind-the-scenes haggling and a nation wondering if the federal government would shut down, Congress finally approved the FY2011 budget for its final five months, ending September 30. Congress made a .2 percent across-the-board cut to all federal programs and made $38.5 billion in cuts to both mandatory and discretionary spending compared to FY2010.

IMLS received a 10.7 percent cut from FY2010 levels. Its FY2011 funding is $237,393,262, down $28 million from the FY2010 total of $265.8 million, which does not include the $16 million IMLS lost with the elimination of all federal earmarks from the FY2011 budget.

Don't be stupid and don't spread stupid.

If your local library ignores the ALA, that's up to you to fix.

Don't be stupid and don't spread stupid.

If your local library ignores the ALA, that's up to you to fix.

That's part of a report that is available to ALA members, but here's a more useful, but not comprehensive, guide with much of the info you would be interested in.

They are acting as feudal lords granting privilege to some by decree, privilege that shouldn't be theirs to grant. On Amazon's terms, subject to Amazon's goodwill.
"There are an estimated 122,101 libraries of all kinds in the United States today." Amazon today has granted less than 10% of those libraries the right to do with their digital books what they have always had the right to do with physical books bought from Amazon. In the process they are binding these libraries to Amazon ebooks to be read on the Kindle or through Kindle apps. Hell, they are probably making the libraries pay for the infrastructure to do the lending, or part of it. The internet and digitization of media was supposed to eliminate the middlemen, not create new, more powerful ones.

It's actually worse than that. The FBI has for the past several years been demanding librarians turn over records of who's reading what and trying to place the library staff under a gag regarding the whole thing. Some librarians have been able to make a fight of it. Some have not. The ones who lost this battle are precisely the ones we'll never hear from.

Tin foil hats aside, if you've been doing a term paper on Islam or the Haber process, the American Library Association reports the FBI wants to know about you.

Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.

Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.

Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.

Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.

Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.

Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.

Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.

Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.

Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.

You are mistaken, apparently you've never tried it. By all means, go to your library and walk up with a mint condition used book and ask to donate it. You'll be turned away.

Ahem, from the ALA themselves:

Most public libraries in the United States accept gift books with the proviso that the library is free to decide whether to keep the book in the library's collection, put it in a book sale to raise funds for the library, or discard it. Persons seeking to donate books to libraries are encouraged to contact their local library and ask about donating books to it.

So I'd say that your library is either very well funded, or they have some other bug up their butt. In any case, it's a local problem. We donated books all the time in Manhattan - there was no room in our tiny apartment.

You could, but the postage will be more than the price of the books, let alone the price after credit for trade in.

If the approximately $2 in shipping is too rich for you, then this guy is indeed impacting your hobby and you'll need to rethink the library. Or if enough customers like you complain, perhaps you can get the sellers to adopt a no-electronics policy. He's still not doing anything unethical.

Then this person should not work in IT.

And won't need the training the OP is talking about.

Your definition of IT - and of careers in IT - strikes me as too narrow for the ninth grade classroom. I am not even sure it is the proper focus of study.

In 1999 the NRC made a useful distinction between teaching "computer skills" and "fluency with technology" - inspiring critical thinking about the uses of technology. Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education

The GUI based server is still a server.

Is teaching command line skills really more important than teaching what a server does - how it is used and abused?

Well, since you obviously didn't use Google: http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/firstamendment/firstamendment.cfm

It's about somebody's "bill of rights" rights being submitted to vote which according to the Supreme Court cannot be done (they're inalienable rights)

If they stopped flusing so much of their operational budget on M$ problems and products they libraries would have more money and more time to work with that money. Seriously, nearly every action or function of M$ has gone against the ALA Bill of Rights.

Sure there are potential concerns with Google Books. These are small compared to the ongoing, increasing problems posed by M$ products and methods. Librarians have been standing by and in some cases helping M$ flunkies to increase the Digital Divide rather than close it.

Then again, Google is a technical or legal problem. Microsoft is a people problem.

I wonder if the publishers take into account the libraries that are buying 3+ copies of "popular" books (Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, the Stephanie Plum mysteries...) to meet initial demand. The ALAestimates over 100k libraries in the US, although it doesn't give numbers as to how many of those are specialized. Assume half are in universities or otherwise disinclined to buy popular fiction, and that's still 150k copies of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone bought and sitting on a shelf somewhere, and no real indication of the number of people who read them. I wouldn't be surprised if (an admittedly small) part of the inflation appearing in publisher numbers is because of the library phenomenon.

Then again, they could just be trying to look good.