Something Amiss with this Imus Biznuss

I don't listen to Don Imus via Webcast. My only knowledge of him limited to trying to lip-read this stiff-necked jock in a Stetson when running with an FM radio planted in my ears.

Some of you may know that I've long contended that Internet filtering in libraries should be considered a collection development decision. That the Internet is not "all or none" for libraries. That each site may in fact, as crazy as it may seem, be reviewed and rejected as any other book, magazine or video on the shelf.

Would anyone care to explain to me why librarians should collectively forego this professional responsibility?

As no surprise, the American Library Association disagrees with me, affirming this with their Freedom to View Statement. They don't like filters either. Fine. Let's leave my disagreement aside for the moment and accept their credos. But with the Freedom to View Statement and Resolution on Filtering also comes the reality that the American Library Association is establishing a new precedent, that all accessible media are now entitled to a place in our collections. (For those still believing in a difference between tangible and electronic resources try your Ctrl+P keys. Now we agree?)

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association affirms that the use of filtering software by libraries to block access to constitutionally protected speech violates the Library Bill of Rights.

So ostensibly, Imus in the Morning is now a part of our spoken word collections. The Drudge Report, no different than the local print newspaper, YouTube, the same as your purchased DVD's, Google Earth, part of the map collection, Pandora, with the music collection, and MILF Lesbians, just another addition to .....eh......? The only difference (and it's a big one), ALA's aforementioned dictums here of mandating access are a tool for trumping local control. Think of the American Library Association as your silent, strong-armed, collection development partner.

My questions. Who is drafting the ALAWON alert condemning the jackbooted Sharpton, Jackson types for imposing their values upon our library collections? Haven't all of our libraries been violated here with this chilling cheerleading to put Imus on ice? "Nappy", though insulting, is still Consitutionally protected. And what about our headphone adorned Internet barnacles? Isn't this another Heather has Two Mommies without the endearing illustrations for these forgotten folks?

Take a closer look at these Freedom to View principles:

1. To provide the broadest access to film, video, and other audiovisual materials because they are a means for the communication of ideas. Liberty of circulation is essential to insure the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.

2. To protect the confidentiality of all individuals and institutions using film, video, and other audiovisual materials.

3. To provide film, video, and other audiovisual materials which represent a diversity of views and expression. Selection of a work does not constitute or imply agreement with or approval of the content.

4. To provide a diversity of viewpoints without the constraint of labeling or prejudging film, video, or other audiovisual materials on the basis of the moral, religious, or political beliefs of the producer or filmmaker or on the basis of controversial content.

5. To contest vigorously, by all lawful means, every encroachment upon the public's freedom to view.

Would anyone care to wager if ALAWON talking points for legislators and advertisers about Internet censorship will be arriving in our inbox's anytime soon? And doesn't Banned Books Week now seem passe in light of these new collection responsibilities? Maybe Banned Stuff Week or Banned Things Week more apropos?

Or does this Freedom to View business not include our "ho" collections?

Home