Michael Hohmann wrote:
>
>
To ensure a first-rate
> library system in Minneapolis, we must offer a safe learning environment.
As another library board candidate (full disclosure[FD]):
"safe learning ennvironment" is too vague for me. If the
safety is interpreted by many to mean children (12 to 18)
cannot get appropriate information to satisfy their school
work requirements and their positive curiosity, then we've
stepped all over the First Amendment. The tools available to
filter are, according to people who have tested them, far
short of satisfactory. Do they filter out all porn? No. Do
they simultaneously filter out sites which have information
children should have access to? Yes.
To defend the library, this question has been debated among
the staff, management, and board both formally and
informally. There will be children's computers which do not
have internet access. As it stands now, children cannot get
internet access at the library until they are twelve.
Curiously enough, shortly after 12, kids start having racing
hormones. They also have some possibly accurate information
through school, parents, and whoever; they also have more
than a little mis-information, braggadocio, and nonsense
from TV, movies, videos, CDs, parental units, schools, the
streets, church/mosque/synagogue/other.
Illustrative of the problem: a few months ago, Hosmer had
the head computer man for the system come out to put a code
on those internet stations which access the catalog. The
computer man is not stupid. His computer programming skills
are top-drawer. So he put the code or filter or whatever on
the catalog access stations. He went into the head
librarian's office for his coat, said goodbye and left--10
minutes tops. The children had gotten through his locks by
the time he was out the door. This is part of the dilemna.
>From the other end, the people who put porn on the net
aren't stupid either. I have turned on library computers
only to have some disgusting, insulting porn thing pop up
and be immune to deletion. You have to turn off the machine
to get rid of the porn site. Hence, any computer user who
jumps on the net will be vulnerable to a porn slam. It is
unfair to ask the public library to solve that problem AND
have internet access. Also, give me any three library
employees and I'll give you back three different notions of
what porn is.
New Internet-Access Policy for the Mpls. Public Library
> will create a more nurturing learning environment for the community and a safer
>workplace for employees.
Library employees have never been "safe" from porn. Public
libraries have defended the First Amendment against attacks
against what was considered porn in every calendar year
since the general public has had access to books, if not
before. When I was 13 it was Lady Chatterly's Lover which,
by my 13-year-old standards, was boring as cow dung.
>
> As one of the principles of my candidacy for the Minneapolis Public Library
> Board of Trustees, I want to ensure a more family-friendly library
> environment. Today I am proposing a new policy for Internet-access at all
> Minneapolis Public Library facilities. My proposed policy is that we place
> some filtered-access Internet terminals in each library facility for use by
> minor children. Unfiltered-access Internet terminals would also be
> available for adult library patrons in all facilities. It only makes sense
> to restrict access by children to non-appropriate sites, while preserving
> First Amendment rights of adults.
By this are you saying that children have no First Amendment
rights?
The Library Board has an obligation to
> the community at large, while providing parents and guardians the ability to
> waive the restrictions for their older children if they think that is
> appropriate.
I really resented this thinking as a child. My parents
dressed up in their Sunday best to get me my first library
card--and made me dress up as well. I was 4. They told the
librarian that I was to be allowed to read any book I asked
for. The librarian, presumably deciding that my parents were
ignorant dufii (pl. of dufus), ignored them entirely.
Everything not in the children's section was denied me,
including picture books of dancers, National Geographic,
etc.
The best way to keep kids out of porn, we found at Hosmer,
was to walk around and see if porn is present, tell the kid
to turn it off--and why, and to say that they will be
trespassed should they repeat the offense. Works every time.
>
> Current library policy offers only unrestricted, unfiltered terminals for
> use by both adults and children and recommends that parents and guardians
> sit at the Internet terminals to monitor what their children are viewing.
> That is simply an unrealistic solution in this day and age.
If the library is saying, with this policy, that parents are
responsible for what their children see and read, that is
true. And, truthfully, you do not want librarians choosing
that for your family. They already make hundreds of
decisions about what you read every day in choosing the
materials the library will carry.
The current
> hostile work environment lawsuit filed by library employees is further proof
> that the current policy is inadequate.
I don't think so. The law suit is much deeper than that.
My position represents a socially
> compelling and fiscally responsible approach to Internet access in the
> Minneapolis Public Library system.
I would disagree entirely here. How it impacts the fiscal
aspect of libbrary custom is not delineated above.
I fail to see how it is socially compelling as well.
In all of this I do not mean to imply that the concerns of
library employees are not genuine and important. They are
extemely important. In fact, there would have been no porn
flap at all during TV Sweeps Week last year, had the board
and management of MPL listened to their own employees.
Clearly what's missing is a team approach for running the
library which extends to the employees not in management. A
team approach would be less expensive as well.
WizardMarks, Central
A DFL-endorsed Library Board candidate.
Check my complete Internet-access policy
> proposal on the FAQ (frequently asked questions) page in my updated campaign
> web site at < www.mikeforlibrary.org >.
>
> I am also campaigning in support of:
>
> * improved access to information, technology and community learning;
> * a multi-source funding strategy and public-private investment to
> supplement
> city property tax revenues;
> * increased alliances with the Hennepin County library system;
> * development of better budget practices and a business model that fosters
> greater operational productivity and innovation.
>
> If you have any comments/suggestions, feel free to contact me.
>
> Michael Hohmann
> 13th Ward
> Independent candidate for Mpls. Library Board of Trustees
>
> Produced and paid for by Hohmann for Library Committee
> 3722 W 50th Street, #311
> Mpls., MN 55410-2016
> 612-922-1490, Scott McGuire Treasurer
> www.mikeforlibrary.org
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _______________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
