Readings Reactions Week 11

John Bertot

Public Access Technologies in Public Libraries: Effects and Implications

This article covered the extensive issues public-access technology (PAT) has created in libraries. It discusses the most common problems in funding, necessary technical support, and training.

The section “External Pressures on PAT” talked about users expecting to have a “‘MyLibrary.com’ experience that allows for seamless integrations across the library’s services but also facilitates the use of personal technologies” This pressure to be like Google and other commercial online experiences reminded me of an article from my reference class, Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries by Jack Maness. This article talked more about how libraries could use new technologies, like social media, to provide a more integrated library/user experience.

In the “Discussion and Implications” section Bertot says that successful libraries “articulate the value of PAT as an essential community need and public library service.” This seems to be a reoccurring issue in our readings, letting the public know we have more to offer than books.

Wendy Adamson

Sex in the City: What Happened at the Minneapolis Public Library

This article discusses how the unfettered use of the Internet on public computers left many MPL librarians feeling harassed and unsure of how to reconcile their commitment to intellectual freedom with obscenity laws.

The patron behavior described in this article seemed outrageous to me. I wondered if the issues described by the author might be specific to the time they occurred. In the 90’s, the Internet was new and the world was still developing rules to govern its use. While laws are still being proposed to govern Internet usage today, I think it is less of a novelty now, and not used to shock others, as it was in this article.

Todd Anten

"Please Disable The Entire Filter": Why Non-Removable Filters On Public Library Computers Violate The First Amendment

This article presents a detailed and well-supported case for the illegality of non-removable filters on public library computers.

In the US vs ALA case, I was surprised that the dissent of Justice Souter didn’t hold any sway over the rest of the court. He “felt that because the statute only said that a library ‘may’ and not ‘must’ unblock, the plurality wrongly accepted the Solicitor General’s assurances when the text provided no such promise.” This non-guarantee of First Amendment rights seems like a very important detail to me.

A Comer

Studying Indiana Public Libraries' Usage of Internet Filters

This article discusses the similarity of Indiana Internet filtering trends with the national trends.

I am probably biased, but some of the quotes from librarians in favor of filtering seemed directly opposed to the idea of intellectual freedom. One said, "We would probably not offer Internet service to the public if we could not have some kind of filtering program. The public seems to appreciate the effort. ALA undermines its other objectives by seeming so obstinate on this issue." For a library to consider not offering Internet service because it can’t control what its patrons see on it is willfully encouraging ignorance.

Jaeger, P. I., & Zheng, Y

One Law with Two Outcomes: Comparing the Implementation of CIPA in Public Libraries and Schools

This article looked at how the CIPA law has been implemented in public schools and public libraries.

I understand the need to filter the Internet in schools, since their user population is almost entirely under age 18, and thus subject to to laws against material "harmful to minors." I think a better solution should be enacted in libraries, who serve diverse age groups, to make sure adults are still able to exercise their First Amendment rights.
 

March 20th Readings

One Law with Two Outcomes-Jaeger & Yan

This article looks at the history and implementation of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA)

Perhaps I should start out by saying I don’t agree with this act. Perhaps I should’ve kept that to myself. Either way though, it boils down to the fact that this act is a form of censorship. The government has finally found a way (via funding) to state what is and what isn’t appropriate. That is a parent’s job. Yes, I am not going to get into the public school portion of this act, schools have a primary adjective to educate their students while public libraries focus on access to all information. It is clearly laid out via the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights. Perhaps if filters did their job properly with a 100% accuracy rate and were only installed on computers minors used, the act wouldn’t be so wrong. But as it is, it is far from perfect, often blocking content which is appropriate and educational.

Studying Indiana Usage of Internet Filters-Comer

This article looks at the internet restrictions placed in Indiana Libraries. 

This is an interesting article in that it really shows how dividing this topic can be amongst the profession. My take on it is that monitoring what patrons view online seems exactly like monitoring what they read, and that is not what libraries are about. I firmly believe that as long as what a patron is viewing on their computer screen is not visible by anyone else, then they should be able to look at whatever they want. It isn’t just pornography that makes patrons uncomfortable, medical procedures and related subject can also be offputting. Who is to judge what is and isn’t appropriate. Librarians are not the internet police. Perhaps instead of looking at filters, libraries should look at ways to make computer stations open enough to be inviting (and only as monitorable as much as the rest of the library is) and yet private enough that only the person on the computer can see what is on the screen. MCPL seems to have started on that route with their flat paneled screens, even though I’ve heard they don’t buy them anymore.

Sex in the City-Adamson

This article recounts the events that led up to the decision of some Minneapolis Public Library employees to file a complaint with EEOC in 2000.

For those that are reading my post today, you may be surprised to find me agreeing with the author that what the MPL employees were dealing with was wrong. While I support fighting censorship, librarians shouldn’t feel uncomfortable in their workplace. Patrons have the right to view what they wish, but patrons also have the right to not be offended and feel comfortable in a public setting. It is like the rights of smokers verses the rights of everyone else. Yes, you have the right to smoke a cigarette, however, I have the right to breathe fresh air. One right obviously trumps the other. It is the same way with viewing disturbing images (pornographic or otherwise) in a public setting, once other people can also see it and are therefore affected by it, different rules apply, hence the stress in the previous article recap of privatizing screens. 

 Public Access Technologies in Public Libraries-Bertot

This article looks at the development of public access technology in public libraries as well as management and the implications of it all.

I’m going to focus on a small part of this article, but it’s the part I found most interesting. This article briefly discussed fully integrated OPACS (especially when it comes to ebooks and the like) and it reminded me some of what we discussed in my library systems class the week before spring break as well as what I learned during PLA last week. Polaris and 3M have teamed up and are actually the first to integrate downloading ebooks straight from the OPAC and that system was literally just announced. It isn’t even fully past beta testing. "3M Cloud Library Integrates with Polaris ILS" And to think it only took vendors three years to listen to what the patrons wanted.

Please Disable the Entire Filter-Anten

This article discusses the tendency of “over-blocking” in public libraries and why filters should not be installed in public libraries.

I think this author has some good points. It reminds me of an article I read via the emails that the ALA sends out every week to their members. I managed to track the story down. "Missouri Library Sued for Barring Wiccan Websites" & ACLU Filing Announcement

It also made me wonder how other countries handle internet censorship. From what I’ve found, its about as murky everywhere else as it is here in the US. While ten years out of date, Australia did some interesting research while they prepared to pass their own internet censorship ban: http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html

Week 11 Readings

Please Disable the Entire Filter

This article presents legal arguments for doing away with mandatory internet filters at libraries, specifically referencing a case in Arizona. First of all, I really enjoyed this article and agreed with the author’s conclusions. It seemed that the author had done an exhaustive amount of research on this subject. It makes a lot of sense for the library to take more of a “hands off” approach to dealing with problems concerning the internet. If they implement punitive measures because of the actions of a single patron, like in Phoenix, then everyone suffers, guilty or not. If patrons are doing something wrong or illegal, laws and policies already exist to take care of these patrons. Heavy handed and indiscriminate new policies should not be formulated that could affect the majority of users who attend to appropriate internet use. Anten’s recommendations should be taken in and studied by libraries concerned about this issue.

Public Access Technologies in Public Libraries  

This article discusses the implementation of Public Access Technologies (PAT) such as computers, printers, and other hardware and software. The part that I found most interesting (and concerning!) for public libraries was how patrons envisioned the way these PATs should work. It seems that some patrons think that library computers are machines that they should be able to do just about anything on. As a result, many patrons cause problems while operating them, as the article discusses. This factor could also lead to decreased use of libraries from patrons, which should lead librarians to find new ways to connect with patrons. This article also addressed a problem that I had foreseen, but never really thought about deeply- the rolling treadmill of technology. The suggestions at the end seemed helpful. Perhaps forming some sort of partnership with other local government agencies would be an excellent idea in order to share the burden of technology.

One Law With Two Outcomes

This article examined the effects of the implementation of CIPA in public libraries and schools. In general, I found the conclusions reached by the author to make a great deal of sense. Librarians are (hopefully!) individuals who take a strong stand on access to information. Therefore, they would be willing to forgo implementing CIPA and losing the funds in order to ensure that children and adults have access to a diverse and high quality set of information from the internet. That said, filters on computers intended for children may not be a bad idea. Schools seemed to accept CIPA and get filters because the often funds starved institutions need any money they can get. For example, an increase in funds means an increase to access of material for classes, which is always good. Additionally, schools are places specifically dedicated to education, so filtering out non-educational material makes sense.

Studying Indiana Usage of Internet Filters

As the title suggests, this article discussed the results of a survey of library filter use that the author undertook. I feel a bit conflicted about this article. On one hand, the surveys seemed to provide some good information on smaller, conservative communities and their internet use. At the same time, there was not much discussion of libraries that are large or understaffed and unable to “patrol” all their patrons. What about those libraries that have more than “’1 computer and it sits where both my assistant and I can see it’” (Comer 12)? Perhaps a more systematic survey is in order for the future.

Sex in the City

This article discusses the difficulties that the MPL had in regulating access to obscene material on their computers and what they eventually chose to do about it. I was very surprised by the lack of care the Board of Trustees showed towards patron complaints. While standing up for freedom to access information, we are also bound to listen to our patrons, especially in a case like this one. As well, judicious and educated use of the internet by patrons is the dream, but so often times it falls short, leading to what happened at the MPL.

03/20 Readings

"Sex in the City: What Happened at the Minneapolis Public Library"

Although probably written to be somewhat inflammatory, “Sex in the City” discussed several important issues including librarians’ right to a work environment free of sexual harassment and other forms of harassment. The article focused specifically on the Minneapolis Public Library, and its problem with patrons viewing porn and patrons’ treatment of librarians. When legal action was finally taken on both counts, many accused the MPL librarians of betraying their profession by questioning patrons’ choice of online material.  I am shocked that other librarians (most of whom were probably women) were not more understanding of the MPL’s librarians’ position. I am also shocked that librarians are somehow considered exempt from the right to a safe, comfortable, workplace, free of harassment and other threats. Librarians’ workplace rights should not even be disputed in this day and age. Patrons are not the only people in libraries with rights; librarians are people too. 

"Studying Indiana Usage of Internet Filters" and " 'Please Disable the Entire Filter': Why Non-Removable Filters on Public Library Computers Violate the First Amendment"

The obvious solution to stopping or at least minimizing patrons from accessing porn in public libraries is filtering computers. However, filtering also comes with a whole host of problems. “Studying Indiana Usage of Internet Filters” and “‘Please Disable the Entire Filter’” discussed some of these issues, and stated that many of the libraries that do not use filters are concerned about filters over-blocking valid and constitutionally sanctioned information. This is a valid concern, and while filters do have their place and function, I think that Phoenix’s requirement that all public access computers be irreversibly filtered is unconstitutional. However, I do not think that the answer is to not filter at all; that’s how you end up with a situation similar to that found in Minneapolis. I do disagree with both of these articles however to the extent that they assert that the librarian act as a human filter. Instead, I think more pressure needs to be put on technology companies to create more effective and selective filters. 

"One Law with Two Outcomes: Comparing the Implementation of CIPA in Public Libraries and Schools" and "Public Access Technologies in Public Libraries: Effects and Implications"

“One Law with Two Outcomes” also addresses the issue of filtering, specifically discussing it in light of CIPA, and CIPA’s effect on public libraries. CIPA uses a financial incentive (government funding) as a means by which it gets public libraries to comply with its guidelines. Although I understand why the government uses money as a means to enforce CIPA, I don’t think that the financial incentive is really necessary. Most public libraries would probably maintain internet filters on some computers regardless. Also, using financial incentives to encourage CIPA might seem unethical to some people. It could be interpreted as the government telling public institutions that they get more money if they sell the public’s First Amendment rights away. 

“Public Access” ties into “One Law” by discussing the huge demands technology in general places on libraries. Technology is expensive, and many small libraries cannot afford to buy a lot of public access computers and then rig them out with tons of applications, filters, etc. Therefore, enforcing CIPA financially is also unfair to these smaller libraries. If a small library with little funding cannot afford an internet filter(s), and then is denied funding because it has no internet filter, a vicious cycle is created.