IP: two comments Re: The "Dangerous" Public Library

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

To: farber () cis upenn edu
From: Jock Gill <jgill () penfield-gill com>
Subject: Re: The "Dangerous" Public Library [see my comment at the 
  beginning djf]


Dave,


It strikes me that if Public Libraries develop a reputation of offering
less than the
full deck - a less than maximized idea space - to this degree they marginalize
themselves.  A partial deck, as comfortable as it may be, is not the best
evolutionary strategy.  The evidence is that mono-cultures are less likely to
survive than richly diverse ecologies.  If librarians want to build smaller
idea spaces with diminished meme diversity that is certainly their choice
to make.
But is it, in the long run, wise?  How can anyone know what the essential
mix of ideas will be?  Who can know the mix from which the next successful 
evolutionary strategy will emerge.  Only extreme hubris would allow anyone to
claim to know the answer.


This by the way, is the bottom up reason that all human life is valuable. 
None of us can know which of us will have the key insight which
enables the emergence of the next critical idea [meme].


Regards,


Jock






Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:17:52 -0700
From: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>


I agree that a librarian is exercising judgement about what's
appropriate for their community to read whenever they purchase one
book instead of another.  But that isn't what's going on with Internet
access.


When a library buys Internet access (or has it donated to them), they
get everything at one price.  There is no need for a librarian to pick
and choose among the available selections; the patrons themselves can
do that.  Librarians need to set policies for which patrons get time
on the terminals, if there's more demand than supply.  And they can
research suggested reading lists for people, pointing out interesting
web sites for different age and interest groups to explore.  But any
effort they put in to *restrict* what content is available to patrons
is extra, unnecessary work.  You don't have to choose between A or B
because you can't buy both.  The choice to restrict involves spending
*more* money and time than the choice to offer freedom of choice.


It's easy to make a strawman argument about how an adult was arrested
for viewing pictures of children without clothing on.  The charge
(2907.32.3 illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material)
doublespeaks for itself.  Look up that Ohio statute; it's on the Web.
It even makes it a felony for a *parent* to *consent* to the
photographing of their child without clothing unless it's for a "bona
fide" purpose (which is not defined in the statute).  If there was
truly a danger to the community from this man, which I doubt, existing
laws and procedures were sufficient to "take care of him".  In
bluenose communities, you'll have bluenose librarians who will turn
their non-bluenose patrons in to the cops.  (I say this as an old
Alabama boy, from where the cops forcibly closed a popular supermarket
on Sundays, under century-old "blue laws", after local churches
complained that people were shopping instead of going to church.)


Let's set up another strawman -- if the Lakewood, Ohio librarian
noticed Salman Rushdie typing his latest blasphemous-to-Muslims novel
into the library's computers, would they phone the Iranian embassy to
send in an executioner?  He's a fugitive from the Iranian legal
system, you know.  My guess is that they'd exclaim their strong belief
in freedom -- for people who agree with their prejudices about sex and
religion.  Such people are not qualified to guard our store of
accumulated wisdom.


        John Gilmore


PS:  I greatly enjoyed Mr. Rushdie's novel, "The Moor's Last Sigh", and
I know someone who's been reading it to their child.