I read Sheldon Mains response to the post by Mike
Hohmann concerning Mike's recommendation to develop a
Library Internet policy which included filtering for
minors. Sheldon concluded by asking if he had made
himself clear. Not really. I was a little bit confused
and was hoping Sheldon could explain a few things for
me.
1) Sheldon said "filters are PROBABLY against the
First Amendment. Have I made my position clear?"
Well, not with my understanding of the word probably.
The question for Sheldon is, are filters against the
First Amendment, or are they not?
2) Sheldon said "Kids will get around filters".
I believe that is true for some kids. Lets assume that
Sheldon is correct for all kids. If that is the
argument for not trying filters then shouldn't we also
say, kids will smoke, will do drugs, will have
irresponsible sex? Lets let them have access to all
these things because they will probably get around our
rules anyway. Wizard raises a good option, of having
the monitors patrolled by an adult. Where is the
funding going to come from to adequately insure those
supervisors are a part of the libraries budgets? Maybe
filters are not the answer, but just because some kids
will get around filters does not in my mind make much
of an argument for dismissing their use. No question
here Sheldon, just a comment.
3) Sheldon says in order to stop misuse, "Enforce the
law - you can legal stop minors from viewing things
that are clearly inappropriate". Once again I am
confused. Elsewhere in Sheldon's post he based his
argument against filters with the question, "Who
decides what to filter?" and "Be careful what you call
porn." I guess this is not clear to me either Sheldon.
Who decides what is "clearly inappropriate" in your
scenario. Are you suggesting that each librarian will
know instinctively what is inappropriate? From your
argument if you use filters you have to be careful
what you call porn. How do you then know that
librarians supervising access know what is porn? I'd
like to be there when the Library Board has its first
class for librarians to teach them to identify porn
properly. You would need a big classroom, because I
suspect some of the staff might bring their lawyers.
4) Sheldon says that "filters are expensive". His
counter proposal, if I am correct, is to "teach
responsible surfing" and "Have an adult present."
My question for Sheldon here is if filters are
expensive, how much will it cost us in personnel to
"teach responsible surfing" and "have adults present"
to watch for clearly inappropriate use? Now if you
meant the adults are all parents, then if you are
passing the buck onto the parents to supervise, why
not give them the option of filtered terminals?Current
estimates presented to CLIC predict a $4,000,000
shortfall in funding once the libraries are all open.
If filters are too expensive, I suspect supervision
will be exponentially more expensive.
I don't have the answers on this issue, but I do
appreciate Mike bringing up the proposal. As a Middler
I have always been confused by the complete insistence
of the libraries need to honor First Amendment rights
concerning access to porn on the Internet (as it
impacts minors). As Wizard said they already make
decisions on what is available. Why not have porn
videos people can check out if we are so concerned
with First Amendment rights? I think Mike's proposal
for restricting minors is incomplete without knowing
what age groups it would include, but as he said in an
earlier post the details would have to be worked out
by staff (and probably a few lawyers).
Sheldon, Have I made my questions clear?
Bob Gustafson
MMM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
