| Filtering is a Collection Development Issue - Redux
( Chief Justice Rehnquist; United States, et al., Appellants v. American Library Association, Inc., et al.)
And both wish to strip away the local autonomy of the library. First, it's important that we recognize the Internet as a library resource. It may behave and look differently than books, fiche or DVDs, but it is a resource nonetheless and should be considered as such. Indulge me as we revisit ALA's definition of a "library collection":
It's often said that he who defines the language, controls the issue. I don't recall the term filter ever being used when taking my collection development class back in library school. We were taught that librarians select resources, crafting their collections to coincide with their local constituencies via a collection development policy. Such an innocuous term, selection, when compared to the baggage associated with filter. Both serve the same purpose, preclusion, yet one is acceptable and the other near abhorrent. Why? Because those who are opposed to any technologies to refine the availability of Internet resources have been allowed to successfully control the language by coining the pejorative filter to these tools. Hardly surprising, those opposed to filters draw a distinction albeit artificial between traditional library resources and the Internet. This in spite of libraries collecting nonprint materials before the Internet found its way in libraries. We are told the Internet is different. An exception to the rule that demands full and unfettered access. However it is easy to refute the claims made supporting the Internet as exempt from the scrutiny of collection development. For example, we are told the Internet is different because it's free. But this is not true. Fixed capital and operating costs i.e. workstations, printers, paper, print cartridges, service provider fees all have budget impact. For the other talking points claiming exception, please see my first iteration regarding filtering. There is also the, Internet as an encyclopedia analogy given to support an "all or none" argument for Internet access. This too is nonsense. First, an encyclopedia is the product of an editor, having been thoroughly vetted before publication. An encyclopedia also has with it a scope of which the Internet cannot have because it is merely a medium without a beginning or end. To say the Internet as an infinite ream of blank paper would be a more accurate description. There is also the problem that traditional encyclopedias are subject to collection development, which would seem to contradict those demanding exception. Another inconsistency, unlike published encyclopedias such as Americana, Britannica and World Book where every volume is freely available, the same cannot be said for the Internet Encyclopedia where entire swaths of Constitutionally protected speech are only available for payment. In other words, censored from those unable to pay. (See Academic Universe below) Lastly, the Internet does not merely serve to store static information, but is also a communications tool. Nothing like its supposed cousin sitting on the reference shelf. The analogy is utterly false and disingenuous. But my focus here is with an aspect rarely discussed with filtering, local control. It's when mixing this fundamental concept with filtering that one easily discerns the "jackboots" from those supporting local autonomy. We have all read about state legislative efforts to protect the children with filters. And we are also familiar with federal E-Rate subsidies to schools and libraries incorporating filtering technology. These efforts are wrong. But equally wrong, and heavy-handed, is ALA's resolution prohibiting librarian's from taking local control of their collections.
Let's be very clear. Both groups, lawmakers and the American Library Association, are attempting to strip local control. True libertarian thinking would decline to make any pronouncements on filters, leaving the decision to local libraries to decide what tools to shape their collections. Just as these same outsiders (legislators and ALA) have historically entrusted librarians to select what book catalogs and review sources to use in collection development. The decision to evaluate Internet sites is no different however now they no longer trust us. And while some may consider ALA's Glossary of Library & Information Science definition of a "library collection" as antiquated, I may accuse these same folks of failing to consider the neccessity of reactive, rather than proactive, collection management with digital collections. That there is wisdom in librarians using technology to assist with collection development in this digital medium. Libraries are distinguished from warehouses by quality, not quantity. Question. How different are the actions of a librarian choosing not to subscribe to an index such as Academic Universe, Science Citation Index or The New York Times via the Internet, than of the same librarian deselecting MSN Messenger, MySpace or YouTube via a granular filter because the latter infringe upon others ability to access workstations for reasons consistent with the library mission? (Yes, individual sites can be easily blocked) Take an academic library for example. A librarian is supposed to adhere to ALA's resolution at the expense of their professional responsibilities to students, faculty and staff to engage in research? That others should take a seat while chatters, gawkers, and time-blowers sit for hours sucking up a finite number of workstations? That the librarian should concede their library mission and acquiesce for fear of being labeled a censor by ALA? Don't be duped. There is a campaign to obfuscate the issue of filters in libraries. We are told it's entirely about the censorship of Constitutionally protected material, porn included. However there is no mention of how the Internet is more often used as a communications device. Should we allow our patrons unlimited phone usage too? Or how about all those patrons needing to do physiology research (See "Breast") with Google. About our collective responsibility to educate our users on how to safely use the Internet, yet ne're a word about how to educate these same supposed patrons on how to determine the legitimacy of medical literature on the Internet. This seems to me a more pressing safety issue. Of course the prospect of a library providing abundant, bogus medical information was nonexistent before the Internet. But we are still admonished, "Do not filter!" The truth is that open and unfettered access has consequences completely unrelated to whatever prurient content involved. That quality information still matters. That technology to better deselect Internet sites will never meet a benchmark of perfection, nor should waiting for this to happen serve as an excuse for librarians to surrender their relevance. The filters are in good company, librarians have never been perfect either. The availability of library resources for our target group also still matters. That chatters, gawkers, and time-blowers hogging finite resources have a direct impact upon the patrons our library missions call upon us to serve foremost. If we don't prod the resources suckers to bide their time at home, our core constituents will stay at home leaving libraries nothing more than coffee houses without coffee. Again, we the local librarians are best suited to make the choice to deselect an Internet site or not. Not lawmakers or the American Library Association. What side are you on?
|