Re: Council Resolution on Filtering -Forwarded
Michael A. Golrick (mgolrick@sclc.org)
Tue, 22 Jul 1997 14:21:51 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 14:21:51 -0400
Message-Id: <199707221822.OAA26070@comet.connix.com>
From: mgolrick@sclc.org (Michael A. Golrick)
To: Multiple recipients of list <conntech>
Subject: Re: Council Resolution on Filtering -Forwarded
>
>Please ask the Council to provide one of their members to monitor each of
>our public Internet workstations.
>
>At the next CLA Conference I think I'll run an endless loop of XX Adult XX
>sites on the Internet (such as http://www.petpleasure.com/main.html). If
>it's good enough for our libraries, then why not for our conference too.
>
>Let's share this resource material with our patrons and colleagues alike,
>and stop this filtering nonsense once and for all! Let freedom ring!
>
>Joe Cadieux
>Kent Memorial Library
>Suffield, CT 06078
Joe,
This was a topic of very heated debate -- unfortunately very late in
Council III (the last session). There are two other "associated" documents
which came from the Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC) at the same time.
One is called "Statement on Library Use of Filetering Software" (CD #19.5)
which runs 3 pages and "Questions and Answers" (CD #19.6) which runs 8
pages. I will mail these to anyone who requests them. (And I made this
offer in the article I wrote for *Connecticut Libraries*.)
One of the turning points in the debate was when Gorcon Conable, former
chair of the IFC said that he beleived that the resolution, as it is
worded, would allow libraries to use filtering software on the terminals in
part of the library AS LONG AS *ALL* of the following conditions were met:
1. There are some unfiltered terminals
2. All patrons (including children) are allowed to use the
unfiltered terminals
3. Both the filtered and unfiltered terminals are labeled.
After the meaning of this sunk in, the debate pretty much ended. There is
at least one vocal councilor (Jim Casey, from Oak Lawn Public Library in
IL) who is still very upset at the wording.
Remember, for many librarians this issue of intellectual freedom is a core
uncompromisable value of our profession. For many it is *THE* life and
death issue for the profession, and they will not compromise. There are
others who recognize the political pitfalls of such a position, and do not
want to unecessarily raise red flags.
BTW -- let's not get too personal with this conference stuff!! [Shall we
just agree to avoid that topic, says the '98 Conference Co-Chair?]
The whole filtering issue is a problem for this reason .... All of the
commercial flitering packages rely on lists of sites and excluded words.
For most of the packages, the list is "secret" and is not divulged even to
the people who purchase it.
I have seen a report (I don't remeber where) that some filtered sites could
not get to the NASA sit for the Mars probe. Why? you ask. The site's URL
included "marsexpl" and that software excluded ALL sites with the three
letter combination S-E-X. What does that do for places like ESSEX, or
MIDDLESEX (both legitimate place names in this state, and in many others).
There is a serious issue here. On both sides of this debate. I do not know
what the answer is. I do know that MY JOB (as Chapter Rep) is to both,
express your views on the national level, AND to let you know what is
happening.
Yours in Service,
Michael
Michael A. Golrick mgolrick@sclc.org
Southern Connecticut Library Council
voice: 203-288-5757
fax: 203-287-0757
Wisdom often consists of knowing what to do next.
- Herbert Hoover