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.