He also says a library is not required to allow pornography. What heresy! A hostile environment? Really? Civility! Common sense! The ALA will never allow this.
Harmful to children? How can he say that? Isn't the ALA teaching librarians to ignore those "protecting the children"?
Look at these choice quotes, emphasis mine, and know the ALA thinks nearly the exact opposite:
- The ACLU of Seattle, with the help of the [ALA], searched for and found four plaintiffs to bring as applied challenges against your library’s filtering policy, because we choose not to disable our filter upon the request of an adult.
- If we were to take Mr. Warner’s viewpoint to its logical end, it would imply that it is appropriate to use public funds for adults to search for and view online pornography in our public libraries or turn them into illegal casinos.
- It ignores that pornography is harmful to children, creates a hostile environment for the staff and other patrons, and overshadows any of the benefits of the free Internet access we provide to our communities.
- Imagine an adult viewing pornography, or leaving sexually explicit images on a printer, while a child does her homework at a nearby computer or table. Unfortunately, this scenario is all too real.
- The library embraces free speech and its print and digital collections reflect such principles. However, our community libraries are not Internet cafes. They should remain grounded in their essential traditions.
- Our approach to filtering strives to balance common sense with the needs and interest of our diverse patrons. We filter very little Internet content. We filter Web sites having as their dominant content pornography, nudity and risqué, adult materials, and gambling. We also filter hacking, proxy avoidance, phishing, malware, spyware, spam URL, image search, and video search.
- We filter because it is an efficient, effective means of including Internet-based resources in the collection according to our mission and collection development policy.
- We filter because doing so is a condition for important federal funding.
- We also filter because it enhances an appropriate, safe library experience for all — adults, staff, and children.
- Newspapers, like libraries, should foster civility.
The staff and Board of Trustees of the North Central Regional Library, in their mission to "promote reading and lifelong learning," revere the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 5 of the Washington state Constitution. It is our belief that public libraries simply wouldn’t exist without the right to publish and a free press.
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a facial challenge to the Children’s Internet Protection Act brought against the government by the American Library Association. The ALA argued that Internet filtering violates the First Amendment rights of adults, and lost. However, in their opinion, the court left open a door for an "as applied" challenge to the law.
The ACLU of Seattle, with the help of the American Library Association, searched for and found four plaintiffs to bring as applied challenges against your library’s filtering policy, because we choose not to disable our filter upon the request of an adult. That policy has been the subject of recent discussion, not all of it well informed.
Tracy Warner’s June 25 editorial "What you can’t see can hurt" criticizes a law which has already been declared constitutional under the First Amendment. Our case is about the rubber meeting the road when an adult patron demands that the filter be turned off.
If we were to take Mr. Warner’s viewpoint to its logical end, it would imply that it is appropriate to use public funds for adults to search for and view online pornography in our public libraries or turn them into illegal casinos. It ignores that pornography is harmful to children, creates a hostile environment for the staff and other patrons, and overshadows any of the benefits of the free Internet access we provide to our communities. Imagine an adult viewing pornography, or leaving sexually explicit images on a printer, while a child does her homework at a nearby computer or table. Unfortunately, this scenario is all too real. The library embraces free speech and its print and digital collections reflect such principles. However, our community libraries are not Internet cafes. They should remain grounded in their essential traditions.
Mr. Warner’s editorial does not express some facts and philosophies that are important to the issue of Internet filtering. For example, the library’s policies reflect its mission and the values of the communities we serve. Our approach to filtering strives to balance common sense with the needs and interest of our diverse patrons. We filter very little Internet content. We filter Web sites having as their dominant content pornography, nudity and risqué, adult materials, and gambling. We also filter hacking, proxy avoidance, phishing, malware, spyware, spam URL, image search, and video search.
Some may wonder why the library filters at all. We filter because it is an efficient, effective means of including Internet-based resources in the collection according to our mission and collection development policy. We filter because doing so is a condition for important federal funding. We also filter because it enhances an appropriate, safe library experience for all — adults, staff, and children.
The Wenatchee World rightfully has expectations of their contributors. Their own Use Policy states:
"We want to encourage an open exchange of information and ideas. But if you use inappropriate language (even when typographically obfuscated), or make potentially slanderous or libelous comments when using this site and its features, or engage in ad hominem attacks on fellow commenters, people mentioned in stories, contributors or any employee of The Wenatchee World or The World Publishing Company, we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to remove any and/or all of your contributions.
"We believe it is absolutely possible for people from a variety of points of view to discuss issues in a civil manner; and we reserve the right, but assume no obligation, to remove comments and ban accounts of users that foster incivility."
The Wenatchee World does not believe their policy violates the First Amendment and we at the North Central Regional Library would completely agree. Newspapers, like libraries, should foster civility.
Dean Marney is director of the North Central Regional Library.
.
See also:
ReplyDelete"Outstanding Defense of Library Internet Filters by Dean Marney, NCRL Library Director," by SafeLibraries, LISNews, 5 July 2009.
See also this really outstanding article, although my reading of the case tells me this is not the first CIPA case as CIPA was not challenged:
ReplyDelete"Washington Supreme Court Weighs Whether Library Can Refuse To Disable Internet Filter; First Legal Challenge to Application of CIPA; ALA Offers Support to Plaintiffs, But WLA Stays Neutral," by Norman Oder, Library Journal, 7 July 2009.
Further, the article confirms my assessment of the situation:
"The conflict has placed NCRL director Dean Marney at odds with some in the leadership of the ALA and its sibling Freedom to Read Foundation, which, while not a party to the case, has helped supply witnesses for the plaintiffs."
....
"'Everybody wants to simplify, they want to paint us as these redneck conservatives,' Marney told LJ. 'We're saying it's complicated; you have to consider the rights of the staff.'"
Consider the staff!! Not according to the ALA. What follows is a direct quote from the article. Pay special attention when the ALA president says the ALA's “mission is not ‘to support all libraries,’":
Clash with ALA
Marney and ALA President Jim Rettig exchanged some frosty email earlier this year. Marney criticized the Freedom to Read Foundation’s Report to the Council at the 2009 Midwinter Meeting, calling its summary of the library’s policy “an unhelpful oversimplification.”
“Although it was heartening to hear that the FTRF is not a participant in this lawsuit, previously they provided factual witnesses in the case,” Marney wrote, protesting that no one from the organization inquired of NCRL but instead “listened exclusively to NCRL’s paid adversaries.”
“Moreover, it seems the FTRF has lost sight of the American Library Association’s essential purpose to support all libraries and their role in society,” he asserted.
Rettig responded that “FTRF has advised libraries that CIPA was upheld by the United States Supreme Court only because the federal government took the position at the oral argument that CIPA requires disabling of filters upon request for adults. Without that guarantee there were insufficient votes for a majority upholding the statute. Thus, FTRF has cautioned libraries that failure to disable filters for adults upon request could subject libraries to as-applied challenges by patrons.”
“FTRF serves to protect the First Amendment rights of libraries and their patrons,” Rettig wrote, noting that ALA’s “mission is not ‘to support all libraries,’ but instead ‘to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all."