 |
 |
I agree with Nickie that filtering software is a waste of time, it lacks any subtlety. However, there is a wider issue here. One persons freedom is another s oppression, hence for example free speach can only be permited within limits to prevent incitment to racism, etc. Librarians are gatekeepers, we provide the access, and skills to enable users to access a huge variety of information sources, but we must be careful that freedom of access does not become a holy cow absolving us of all responsibility for what we ive access to. The usual example is the terrorist looking for bomb making instructions, but normally it is going to be far less clear cut; are pictures of child mutilation and abuse acceptable - if the student has a project on the subject yes clearly, but an engineering student using it for titilation would clearly be unacceptable. And then there is the issue of others seeing the images in passing and being distressed...I do not propose hard and fast rules, but I do not think we can abrogate responsibility. As the gatekeepers we have to exercise some form of access policy, determined I would suggest be the law of the land, the aims of our employing organisation, and conscience. Donald >---------- >From: Roome, Nickie[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] >Sent: 12 March 2001 18:22 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Internet Filtering Software Summary > >I agree with Ellie's comments: > > Ellie wrote: > >> Personally I feel that the use of filtering software in libraries (public, >> commercial, academic) goes against our code of conduct >> (http://www.la-hq.org.uk/directory/about/conduct.html) "members have an >> obligation to facilitate the flow of information and ideas and to protect >> and promote the rights of every individual to have free and equal access >> to >> sources of information without discrimination and within the limits of the >> law." >> >> More importantly, filtering software is never truly "fit for purpose" and >> will always stop access to legitimate sites whilst allowing pornography >> and >> hate speech through. Figures of "66% of [offensive] material blocked" are >> hardly a ringing endorsement. >> >> I would be interested to hear what any other librarians think. >> > --------- > Unfortunately, those who run our institutions of learning seem to be >in favour of this kind of restriction of information flow. > > It isn't quite as dramatic as book burning but still..... > > Nickie Roome >