At the Library: a Briefly Vocal Minority

Our readers from a year ago may remember the series we did examining the attempt to force censorware into Holland's libraries. (Holland, Michigan is the home of the Slashdot Geek Compound, such as it is.) In February, voters rejected that attempt. But to quote Poltergeist II, "they're ba-ack." Thanks to a new Michigan law, all of our libraries have to address the question of minors and the internet -- and blocking software is, to many, the natural solution. I went to the Holland library's open board meeting on Tuesday night; here's what's up.

By the way, if you're wondering why you should care about Holland, Michigan: this is going to happen at your local library -- and other public institutions -- soon. It probably has already happened at your local schools. The Holland area is fairly conservative, so it's been at the forefront, but the issue will work its way around the country (and in fact the world) in due time.

Before I describe what happened at the board meeting Tuesday evening, I should put the meeting itself into context.

A small but vocal minority has been pushing for library filters since late last year. At that time, the effort was begun by the American Family Association, with the Family Research Council and a local group stepping in to do the heavy lifting.

The FRC is still playing the dominant role. In fact, Tuesday night, the AFA representative actively distanced the organization from the issue, probably because it has earned its reputation as an extremist group.

Since February, the push has been for communication with the library board: "community input" has been big. Since all board meetings legally must be open to the public anyway, it's never been entirely clear to me what the problem was. The board did form a committee, which met on several occasions with filtering supporters -- the few who showed up -- and educated themselves about their options.

But the pro-filter crowd and the media have been attacking the library for not doing more to engage the community in dialogue. In one recent headline, the city's Mayor, formerly anti-filter, was described as "ripping [the library board's lack of] public input." Ouch.

In fact, the FRC representative Tuesday night apologized at length for the pressure tactics -- even though, in most of the media reports I've seen, her comments were relatively mild.

Just a week ago, she was quoted as saying she:

"...doesn't think a Sept. 12 forum will be sufficient to solicit public input, with attendance limited to 200 people and less than two hours set aside for public comment.

"She said those restrictions will limit the amount of input the board can receive."

That's been the concern all these months; that's what's been keeping the library board awake worrying. Every board meeting has been completely open to the public, and the only issue was how many people the fire marshal would allow in, and how long the community would be allowed to outpour its concerns.

In fact, when the meeting started -- the one and only meeting that's been publicized as a forum for the airing of Holland's views -- fewer than 45 people showed.

Some more trickled in, some trickled back out later after less than two hours of public comment. A total of just over 60 people showed up, about half of whom spoke (excluding the boardmembers and the media, including the toddlers, not that the toddlers did much of the speaking).

The Family Research Council's representative saved her statements for late in the meeting, telling her group's supporters how important it was that they came out, and to hang in there because they were only at the halfway point. Her closing comments were encouragement to those supporters: "we're getting closer and closer, glory God, we will not quit until we get this thing right ... c'mon you people, there's two more hours, get up here and talk for yourselves."

As if that was the signal to wind things down, only a few more people stood to speak. There was a period of questions, which took a while because the lawyer fielded most of them, and then the meeting adjourned almost an hour ahead of schedule.

Three thousand people in the Holland area get the FRC's newsletters; roughly 1% bothered to come.

Why the lack of interest?

Part of the reason, to be sure, is that Holland is sick of the issue; they went through a long campaign early this year.

But another part is that blocking software is not nearly as popular as the vocal minority would have us believe. An AP article "Most parents shun net filters" suggests that just one parent in three uses censorware.

And even that seems large, to some. The latest issue of the American Family Association Journal has an article titled "Low percentage of Christians using Internet filtering shows ignorance of the dangers." They claim that "Seven out of 10 Christians have Internet access -- but only one out of 10 has filtered Internet access."

(Keep in mind, too, that when the AFA says "Christians," they mean conservative Christians, presumably more likely to use censorware.)

Parents simply have better choices when it comes to protecting their children. Education and communication are the most effective tools (the only effective ones, I would argue, in many cases). And they're cheaper too: at least, a library in Hudsonville, near Holland, recently spent $20,000 on card-based censorware (not including maintenance fees) for four computers. The city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, just voted to spend $85,000.

And it takes a sneaky kid about ten seconds to completely bypass the $20,000 system. I know; I did it myself, and spent a while browsing a completely unfiltered internet.

But it's political pressure that installs such systems, not necessarily actual demand. Holland's library has taken a great deal of heat for not holding meetings which only a tiny fraction of the community seems interested in. Of course it's easy to use hindsight, but it's my guess that holding the meetings earlier and more often would have taken the lid off the child-size pressure cooker; everyone would have felt better. That's something to consider for the next community faced with this issue.

And speaking of demand, only about 100 patrons at Hudsonville have signed up for the internet cards. The system was installed under pressure from local conservative organizations; others, like that in Grand Rapids, will be installed thanks to a new Michigan law.

That law, Public Act 212, takes effect in our fair state on October1 and in effect, according to the Holland library's lawyer, makes it illegal for minors to use the internet. It demands that terminals for those 17 and under be "restricted from receiving" material "harmful to minors" (that's the underage equivalent of illegal obscenity). No software can guarantee such a restriction, of course, unless it executes the shutdown command.

In fact, it was recommended that the adults' terminals be not only shielded for privacy, but placed so that no minor might walk by and catch a glimpse of something harmful.

So the line seems pretty clearly drawn. How it will play out in reality remains to be seen.

You've probably figured out by now that I'm opposed to blocking software. Before the end of the month, I'll look at what alternatives a library might adopt -- too late for Michigan libraries, but perhaps not too late for yours. There are many choices to be made between the simplistic extremes of "filters" and "nofilters," some of which protect our right to free expression more than others.

Unfortunately, you won't see such alternatives in the traditional media. When filter supporter Tish Fackler pulled out her air filters, she gave a little laugh and said "looks like I'm going to be on TV tonight." Then she held up her meaningless props and delivered the soundbite that was on TV that night. I'll try to keep it a little more real than that.

Comments

Almost...

[Millennium]

There's only one problem with this: it still allows for lazy parents to shirk their responsibility by simply not granting permission at all. This is a Bad Thing, particularly where schools are concerned (what if a school has a course which requires Internet use but a slacking parent has forbidden access to their kids?).

I'd word it more like this:

Minors may use the Internet only with the permission of an adult supervisor. The supervisor granting permission assumes complete and total responsibility for exposing the minor to any Internet content viewed by the minor, during the time which the minor is actually accessing the Internet. In particular, the Internet Service Provider which provides access does not assume any responsibility for content viewed by the minor, unless it also assumes the role of supervisor or explicitly claims this responsibility for itself.

This allows a slacker parent's authority to be overriden if necessary (but the one doing the overriding assumes responsibility), and still disclaims an ISP's responsibility for the actions of users it cannot feasibly control.

Opinions?
----------

Re:1 in 3?

[arivanov]

They are drawing the number from censorware distribution. Quite a lot of PCs and Internet offers recently come with censorware bundled, preloaded, installed (whatever).

It is usually unused. Reason is very simple - parents who actually know how to use it do not use it. But the overall figures of censorware distribution have reached insane values. Hence this statistic.

Norwegian libraries

[Dionysus]

Why can't American libraries do like the Norwegian libraries do, have an adult section and children's section? I remember when I grew up, you had to have adult supervision if you wanted to go into the adult section.

Not that the adult section had anything pornographic, but it did have some mature subjectmatters (like war, death etc etc), while the children section had stuff more geared towards kids (there is a difference between a history book written for fifth graders and a history book written for college students).

close, but no cigar

[brokeninside]

Personally I'd word the policy something like this:

"Minors may only use the Internet with explicit permission of his or her parent or legal guardian. If a parent or legal guardian grants permission for a minor to access the internet, the parent or legal guardian assumes complete and total responsibility for exposing the minor to any internet content viewed by the minor."

have a day,

-l

Words of wisdom from men wiser than me.

[M-2]

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
-- On Liberty, John Stuart Mill

[F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
-- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Every man -- in the development of his own personality -- has the right to form his own beliefs and opinions. Hence, suppression of belief, opinion and expression is an affront to the dignity of man, a negation of man's essential nature.
-- Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, Thomas Emerson

Indeed, perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.
-- Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr., American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. Janet Reno (No. 98-5591)

A skillful leader does not use force.
A skillful fighter does not feel anger.
A skillful master does not engage the opponent.
A skillful employer remains low.
Tao Te Ching

Anger and venom cannot stop these attempts. Only reasoning in the proper manner can.
----

Re:Can't be helped...

[drivers]

This is not a case of the libraries wanted to protect themselves from the liability of providing minors with unrestricted access to the internet. After all, librarians are typically the strongest supporters of the first amendment and the right to read. Ever go into a library during banned books week? In fact, they encourage you to read any books that have been challenged or censored.

Banned Books Week:
http://www.ala.org/bbooks/

Hey, banned books week begins one week from now!

This issue has nothing to do with filtering out access to DeCSS. Don't be rediculous. But as you pointed out, as it stands (pre-appeal and overturn of the DMCA), software (even if is considered speech) that violates DMCA is not protected by the first amendment.

However,
THIS seems to be ok to put in libraries. Funny how that works.

Re:Hmm...

[Tackhead]

> If I give my children a 'moral' upbringing only by sheltering them from 'imorality,' I can only protect them to the point that I can control their environment.
>
> The key is encouraging children to develop deep understanding. I cringe when I ask my daughter why something is wrong and she says 'because you said so, Dad.'

Thank you for doing more good in five minutes than these filter-felchers will accomplish in their lifetimes.

I'm gonna shamelessly karma-whore, despite the karma kap, by quoting myself from an earlier Holland Library discussion:

Quoth Tackhead in this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/02/23/10172 33&cid=122

I learned about the Holocaust at about age 8 or 9, watching war documentaries. Seeing a clip of Hitler hollering his lungs out in this majestic-looking square, facing thousands of adoring fans, and having seen the occasional swastika spraypainted on the walls of my public school, I wondered aloud who was this guy with the funny moustache and squiggly symbols behind him, and why did all the people seem to like him so much?

Dad made a very quick judgment call (a clue to AFA: this is how you protect kids, it's called "parenting"), and said "He's a very, very evil man", which I tentatively took for granted, although I didn't quite understand why. Dad picked up on my confusion, warned me that I might see some things that would disturb me, but invited me to have a seat. Being a kid, of course, I couldn't resist a golden opportunity to watch "adult stuff". (More style points for Dad :-)

So Dad and I watched the rest of the documentary and followed the history of WWII together. Six weekends later, 50,000,000 were dead on all sides, but the war was mostly over, our side had won, the Russians were blowing the hell out of the rubble that was once Berlin, and our troops finally started liberating the camps. And I had a much better appreciation of what Evil was.

"So the Russians were the good guys, right? So how come they're the bad guys now?" (Kids can come up with the most embarassing questions...)

So Dad (hey, nobody said parenting was easy :-) had to tell me about Stalin. We went to the library (oh, irony, a library, of all places!) and checked out some books. I found out how he came to power. What he did afterwards. Why we overlooked it during WWII. The purges. The KGB. Another 10,000,000 on top of Hitler's 6,000,000. Yet more Evil.

Over the next few years, I realized that you don't get to pull off anything really Evil without the support - or at least wilful ignorance - of the people. All that stuff about "the banality of evil"; excuses like "just following orders", and "hey, I'm bummed by it, but I just drive the bulldozer, it's not like I can stop them".

Evil is what happens when you let government - any government - get out of control. And all that is necessary for Evil to triumph is that Good do nothing.

It took a parent to teach me that, not an Internet filter.

Re:Can't be helped...

[Coward, Anonymous]

They may say regardless of age, but try getting any of the signatories on that to give an eight year old boy access to the stack of Playboys behind the counter...

I worked at a library, we allowed children to view playboy when they asked for it. I had a parent try to get me fired once because I didn't do anything about her children reading playboy, but that's not my responsibility and all of the librarians agreed with me.

The fact is that children are subordniate to their parents. If a parent wishes the kid to have access then the kid should have it. If not, then not.

If a parent wishes a kid not to have access, the parent should not give the child access, abandoning your child at a library is giving them access to everything in the library. There are many places parent would never think of abandoning their children for hours on end, but for some reason they feel very comfortable leaving their children at a library, if the parent doesn't like what's in the library, that's their problem -- the parent is smart enough to know that they don't know everything that is in the library so they should be smart enough to come to the conclusion that if there is anything they might not want their children to see, they should be with their children, a lot of parents treat the library as a free babysitting service.

require a parent to be present in the library. Another--IMHO the best--is simply to turn the monitors towards the librarians.

I don't think parents should be required to be present, but they should understand that they are responsible for what their child does when unsupervised -- if the child picks up a rock and throws it at a car while unsupervised, it's the parent's fault (well, legally speaking, morally the child is certainly to blame as well), if a child picks up a playboy while unsupervised, it's the parent's fault as well. The problem with turning the monitors towards the librarians is that this would seriously slow down the work that can get done. At the library I worked at there were about 30 computers and two or three librarians on staff, most of the time 15 to 20 computers were in use at once, so either we would need 15 to 20 librarians on staff helping people out, actually, more, since it's faster to find information yourself when you know what you're doing than it is to convey to someone what you're looking for and negotiate with them about whether a match is a good match, or we could have only 3 computers which the librarians could use and have lines a mile long leading to the desk. Neither of these is a good solution. The way libraries currently work is great for everyone except negligent parents.

Re:Can't be helped...

[MattW]

Ok, IANAL, and I imagine YANAL either. But, I've come across this issue in a number of places, because I've worked for ISPs/NSPs for a long time. But the library is essentially acting as a service provider. As such, it is incapable of guaranteeing any content will or will not exist. Once it begins to filter things, then it may MAKE itself liable, because it has filtered some things and failed to filter others, and incurs liability for that failure.

In one case I can think of, one specific major ISP had a no-filtering policy. They'd remove stuff after being notified, but they did nothing proactive. But someone sued them, using the fact that the _issued pro-active usenet cancels for spam_ to try to nail them. So, in fact, WITH a good faith attempt at filtering, the library may MAKE itself liable. By filtering, it is saying it has taken responsibility for content upon itself, and then can be sued when its filtering fails.

"the future is now"

[The_Messenger]

I absolutely love books... spending too much money on books is my favorite hobby. ;-) Especially computer books. But the library doesn't serve my needs adequately anymore. I get so much use out of my books that when I want a new one, I just buy it. The Border's across the street from work fulfills most of my needs, and Amazon.com, the rest.

But wait, this isn't about books... it's about computers. Computers with Internet access will make books obselete, and so I believe that one day public libraries will be little more than rows of blueberry iMacs. County governments will find them more cost effective; the Internet updates itself, for free. No more buying new encyclopedias. Want it on paper? Buy a laser printer too. As I said, I love books, and have bought many books fully knowing that the information contained within was available for free on the 'Net. But the library, as an research tool, shouldn't care about my personal preferences.

Fiction is another thing. Reading a novel online will suck. So the 'Net won't completely destroy the traditional image of the library. But the day will come when you can buy an electronic book reader. I envision them to be about the size of an Etch-a-Sketch, with a super-high resolution LCD that lets you read in the dark without straining your eyes. It will take "book cartridges" about the size of Game Boy games. And libraries will stock these, of course.

Censorship in libraries is a very important thing. Many of you think, "Who cares? I surf the net at home anyway.", but what about those who can't afford a PC, and do their research/newsreading at their local public library? Why should they have their opinions colored by government censorship? And the use of "censoring software" on a PC is stupid. If you don't want a child viewing pornography, use something called adult supervision. Just like the blocking software installed on home PCs, it's just an excuse for lazy parents.

If we let the government censor information today in public libraries, even under the guise of protecting the tender minds of young children, we shouldn't be the least bit surprised when the censorship starts getting worse in the future. I view these as the formative years in the next era of library technology, and we mustn't allow library censorship to shape the future of information access in the US. Everyone has the right to freedom of information, not just those with enough money to buy a personal computer.

Don't ignore these actions. It's wrong. You'll wake up one day, and discover PRC-type censorship everywhere, and wonder where it all started. This is where it started. Here, and now.

---------///----------
All generalizations are false.

Re:Non-draconian filtering

[KahunaBurger]

Ah, the embarrassment argument. It hinges on the premise that kids wouldn't be embarrassed to ask some random authority-figure adult for permission to legitimate topics. However legitimate topic include information about birth control, abortion, or sexually transmitted disease.

The problem is that the people who want to keep kids from certain information also want to keep certain information from kids. It's not just that they don't want kids to accidentally see naked ladies. It's that they don't want their kids to know about sex, drugs, and differing religions/moralities/etc.

You might want to put some qualifiers on that last part. As is being discussed other places, there are a lot of reasons parents might want to use filtering software. And cut out the "naked ladies" strawman, a casual few minutes of browsing should demonstrate that we aren't just talking about some tasteful nudes out there. There is a legitamate issue even in most parent's minds pitting mature exploration against the wish to protect emotional health.

So lets think about viable options. One good one would be to say "we don't want anything on our computers that would be harmful to minors" then, instead of asking every parent what they think would harm their minors, try to get a professional consensus. Talk to teachers, child psychologists, librarians and parents about what they actually mean when they say "harmful". The professional viewpoint would probably overrule the few wacky fundy parents and in most communities you would end up with a mandate to block pornography (with a priority for eliminating violent and child centered types) and non-professional drug information.

Now, is it possible to implement such a filter? At what success rate? Are we focusing on preventing people from finding information they are looking for or from getting rape fantasy porn when looking for info on preventing date rape? Is this a one size fits all minors, or legal minor vs pre-teen minor?

If the free speechers, the techies and the concerned (some of which may overlap) sat down and had this conversation, instead of both sides assuming that its either unfiltered or christian coalition aproved, we might accomplish something.

-Kahuna Burger

The truly scary part...

[Wrexen]

I did a report on mandatory censorware in libraries as part of a composition class, and what I found out made me extremely suspicious of all filtering software in general. A certain filtering program (I can't remember which, check http://www.peacefire.org for great info) was filtering the National Organization of Women's website. TIME magazine's website wrote an article about this, and the company updated it's blocked list to include TIME's website. The question of "who watches the watchers?" becomes extremely relevant when a community appoints a single entity to decide what is appropriate and what isn't, especially when that entity routinely censors its critics.

Can't be helped...

[IronChef]

The potential liability issues for having unrestricted terminals in public places are probably too much for a library admin to bear. Especially in an America where there is truly forbidden information on the Internet (DeCSS code, for example), public institutions will be installing filtering software.

Right or wrong, they will want to protect themselves. Without a good faith attempt at filtering, the library system could be open to lawsuits from irate parents. Some of them will blame the library internet access for every screwed up thing their screwed up kids do. But quality parenting is another discussion.

Re:Can't be helped...

[Coward, Anonymous]

Without a good faith attempt at filtering, the library system could be open to lawsuits from irate parents.

Libraries have had books and magazines with nudity in them and books and magazines with violent pictures in them, many parents have complained, a few have sued, I don't know of anybody who has won a lawsuit (the library is, afterall, not a babysitting service, though some parents treat it as such).

The Library Bill of Rights, created by the American Library Association states in part:
Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.

This isn't about...

[Cannonball]

This isn't about freedom of information, this is about porn. These conservative christians (and I use the term loosely) want to rid America of pornography, not of freedom of information. Chances are the average pro-filter person doesn't give a damn about DeCSS, open source movements, or anything of the like. They just don't want little Johnny staring at boobies on the internet at the public library. Personally, I couldn't care less if Johnny sees nude XXX asians, but then again he's not my child. However, these people seem to think it will make johnny a corrupt man if he stares at boobs, not only that, it's taking parenting away from the parents and that's the travesty of justice here.

What does this say about America? The few that are vocal hold reign over the silent majority. It's been that way since the 70s. We need to make our points clearly heard, and yes that means becoming an activist (much like those trying to install censorship in our libraries).

Non-draconian filtering

[namespan]

OK. I've been thinking about this ever since I student taught Math at a public school. Of course some things were blocked.

The more I saw the temperament of some of my students, the more convinced I was that there really should be some blocking system in place. Despite my frustration at having to work around it sometimes.

What I envisioned was a simple blocking system, maybe not much more sophisticated than a (public) blacklist. If you came up against a block, you could simply call up someone (or call a library aid in the room or something), and say you needed to look at the URL. Give your name and the reason. They'd give you access, and look at the URL too.

What I figured is that embarassment alone might be enough to stop kids from looking at things they shouldn't, and the access would still be available for things they should. Yeah, this makes looking into circumcision and breast cancer and other such things harder (and that's embarassing to some people) but possible.

In short: most anything is accesible, but some (perhaps many) things require easily available permission.

Re:Non-draconian filtering

[goliard]

Ah, the embarrassment argument. It hinges on the premise that kids wouldn't be embarrassed to ask some random authority-figure adult for permission to legitimate topics. However legitimate topic include information about birth control, abortion, or sexually transmitted disease.

If you came up against a block, you could simply call up someone (or call a library aid in the room or something), and say you needed to look at the URL. Give your name and the reason.

Oh, yeah, right. I can just see some 13yr-old junior high school student telling his librarian "I need to check out this site on gonorrhea, 'cause, um, I have this itch...."

Or, for that matter, a 14yr-old telling a librarian's aid "I need to access this site about Ecstacy side effects, because I think I had this weird reaction."

Or, for that matter, a 15yr-old telling a librarian "I want to access this site which is a support network for homosexuals because I think I might be gay."

The problem is that the people who want to keep kids from certain information also want to keep certain information from kids. It's not just that they don't want kids to accidentally see naked ladies. It's that they don't want their kids to know about sex, drugs, and differing religions/moralities/etc.

The moment you start allowing some filtering, those parents will demand that you start filtering to keep information from kids -- demand that you do their dirty work for them. The only way not to get stuck with that job is to refuse to do any filtering for them at all.
-------------------------------------------- --

The Minnesota solution works better

[bluGill]

In Minnesota it is illegal to view in a public place anything of a prnographic nature.

There, a simple law that covers not just the internet, but all possibal ways to kids to get corruption, and it forces the burdon of not looking at pron where it belongs: The insensitive jerks who view it in public. Want to view porn at home, fine, want to check out playboy from the library? Fine, but you have to keep it concealed until you are at home.

Best of all, this law allows for telling the difference between breast cancer research and porn.

Deep Thoughts

[roystgnr]

I think we should try to make the future a better place for our children, but not for our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex.

"do it for the children" bullshit

[jjoyce]

It's obvious that no one actually gives two shits about children, as evidenced by the fact that politicians always use "our children" as the motivation behind their ideology battles. Oh, don't forget the highly tactical debate phrase, "...and our children's children." What about their children? And the children after that? How many generations do we keep track of?

If you're on a debate team, just keep repeating the phrase, "...and our children's children." No one will know (or care) what the fuck you are talking about, but you will win!

--
You don't become a failure until you are content with being one.

Simple Solution

[Dredd13]

Talk to your local library. Obviously, they're going to be in your court on it. They don't believe in censorship. It's like Library-Science-101 to them. "Don't do it, ever."

It all centers around the LIBRARY offering the internet service. That's very key.

Have the library specifically re-task their computers that are doing internet access to card-catalogs, office work, whatever. Then, YOU come in -- yes you, the concerned citizen -- YOU offer the computer, YOU offer the internet access, and just LOCATE it at the library. YOU are then offering the public service, not the library.

I had already spoken with my old smalltown local library (when HR4577 was on the agenda to mandate censorware for any library whose computer was purchased with public funds) and they were more than amenable to the idea of circumventing silly censorship statutes in such a manner. (I had told them that I would buy the computer and arrange for free internet access for them, if they agreed to retask the publicly-funded computer elsewhere). Luckily 4577 hasn't seen the light of day yet, so I've yet to have to pony up, but if the time comes, yeah, I'll do it, and so should you.

D

Re:Simple Solution

[Dredd13]

Not at all. (well, in my scenario I'm not, but in the scenario I'm suggesting HERE the person could be).

In the scenario with MY local library, I'm simply donating the funds specifically to cover the services the library is providing. Their blanket insurance policies or whatever will cover them. HR4577 simply mandates "publicly funded", and I'm eliminating that public funding.

Now in my solution to Michigan's problem, the answer is simply to require someone to sign some paperwork (usage agreement, etc., which limits/eliminates liability) before they use the system. If you're a minor, get a parent to sign for you.

The Michigan solution isn't as "neat and tidy" as the HR4577 solution. The HR4577 solution provides a drop-in replacement for the existing computer with no changes necessary, whereas the MI solution will require minors to get approval from their parent first. Personally, I'm not that opposed to the minor having to check with their parents. That's what parents are FOR, right?

D

Let's keep this in perspective...

[ronfar]

And be thankful you don't live in Jacksonville, where Harry Potter is considered Witchcraft by similar groups. Library's 'witchcraft' certificate endorsed religion, group says

Besides, Gore and Lieberman have been going on and on and on about how important it is to protect children from these things... but I haven't heard anything about that on this site. Oh, wait, didn't this site endorse Al Gore?

Why is it not considered newsworthy when there is a bipartisan witch hunt accross American culture going on, calling for regulation or at least threatening it, but the library in Holland, Michigan gets mentioned? Is it just snobbery (censoring movies and video games is ok, but censoring the Internet in Libraries isn't) or is it something else?

Damn Straight!

[Greyfox]

Then we knew that X had to be interesting and could avoid the duller Y in our quest to learn all those things our parents didn't tell us.

Of course, at the time you had to go to the Librarian for the really interesting materials like X, but the guy down at the 7/11 would happily sell it to you without question. God that guy was great. Got my first Journal of American Live Goat Porn from him...

If they passed it, how long would it be...

[MattW]

If they passed a resolution and bought and installed filters, how long would it be before someone (maybe Jamie?) was standing outside the library with a huge stack of leaflets: "How to bypass internet filtering at the library."

I wonder if that would be cause for arrest -- contributing to the delinquincy of a minor? But then again, filters obviously block legitimate sites.

And of course, that assumes that any of the kids would actually need a leaflet.

This should be (and is) a local issue

[Fas Attarac]

I am firmly against federal (and even state) requirements regarding filtering software. To date this has always been a local community decision, and that's where it should remain.

We may all be geeks here, and we may share attitudes on "censorware" software in our libraries, but it is not our right to dictate whether or not libraries in another community should adopt these policies any more than it is the government's right to do so. By all means, pay attention to this and if you see some items you'd like to bring up with your local library system, PLEASE DO SO.

I personally would prefer that my library go back to having 'adult' and 'child' library cards, with adult cards having access to more mature topics and perhaps an uncensored (but still quite visible to the librarian's desk) feed to the 'Net. If I wanted my child to have access to this stuff, I'd just have to give my consent to the library so that he would be issued an adult card. The only people with censored access are the kids whose parents don't want them to have access. But still, as logical as this sounds to me, I would never try to force this on other communities. It's up to the local community to decide how they want to run their public libraries, not me, not you, and certainly not Slashdot.

Christianity and Filtering

[Millard Fillmore]

The best filtering of publicly available material for a Christian is his or her own sense of accountability to what he or she believes. The members of the Christian right who have spoken out so loudly about filtering have done so because, on some level, they recognize that human beings are always going to be unable to resist looking at sex, violence, and sin wherever it pops up. This means that, on some level, they distrust their children, and even themselves, if left alone with a computer connected to the internet. They aren't wrong to mistrust: we all sin, as far as Christianity is concerned, and so people are going to look at these things. But they are wrong to put their faith in a piece of software rather than in God, and to trust a library custodian rather than the instruction they have lovingly provided to their children.

*sigh* Parents these days...

[goliard]

When I was a child, there was this idea that if your parents didn't want you to read X, they told you "You're forbidden to read X", or "I don't want to catch you reading any of that skanky X, you hear me?", or "Our kind of people don't read X" or whatever.

Now putting aside the issue of whether or not these things are effective, there was this idea that parents were responsible for their kids.

Everyone keeps acting like this whole internet filtering thing is about protecting children from being inadvertantly exposed to, er, whatever it is that would be so dreadful for them to be exposed to. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's about keeping kids from seeing what their parents don't want them to see. It's about making libraries, schools, the government and general passers-by on the streets responsible for enforcing some parents' rules for their kids.

Quite aside from the very legitimate and excellent first amendment concerns, I'm getting pretty cheesed off about me and my tax money being expected to contribute to raising some slacker's brat, just because the loser is such a tinhat dictator they've lost all respect of their spawn.

Look, 'rents: it's not the public library's job to enforce your bloody rules. Instilling moral behavior in your kids is your job, and either you feel you've done a sufficiently good job that you can trust them to surf the net alone, or you don't. If you don't, then don't let them go to the library.
---------------------------------------- ------

Why bother with software?

[mblase]

There's a ridiculously easy way to keep kids from using library Internet terminals to browse pornography. In simple step-by-step format:

1. Turn all computer monitors toward a librarian's desk.
2. Keep the desk staffed.

Problem solved, and nobody's spending any additional money at all for the effort.