Supreme Upholds Library Censorship

[grinninfoole]

Check out the story on the BBC-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3014490.stm

Why is this a problem, you may ask? Because, the whole purpose of public libraries, and the reason that governments fund them, is to provide easy access to all sorts of learning to the public. All of the public. Especially the part of it too poor to get hold of literature, reference, and specialized sources any other way. By requiring libraries to use blocking software, the federal government is forcing libraries to restrict the access of adult patrons to material that might be inappropriate for children, quite literally infantilizing them. It leaves patrons at the mercy of the idiosyncrasies of whichever blocking software is used, and may well prevent them from viewing websites which the creators of the software did not intend to be blocked out. If knowledge is power, then cutting off public access to it is surely an important step towards tyranny.

Comments

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

Military libraries already had blocking software in them.

Which led to days when you couldn't get CNN (like, say, when the word "sodomy" figures in reporting), and absurdities like the Treasury Department's Patriot Bond site being blocked.

Still, despite the Supremes saying they're okay, that doesn't mean they'll necessarily be put it in.

Re:

[grinninfoole.livejournal.com]

True enough, but 'they can but they don't have to' sort of reminds me of the time I went to a Trek convention and got to ask the head writers about the then-upcoming Deep Space 9 series. I asked if there would be any gay characters, since they'd just spent five minutes talking about how Star Trek pushes limits and breaks social barriers. They got very squidgy, and eventually 'hey, you don't what the characters are getting up to off camera.'

I am an absolutist about free expression, free exchange of information, and free choice about what to read, watch, listen to, etc. I know that sometimes there other important concerns, but I believe that, 99 % of the time, restrictions of any kind (including 'secrecy') do more harm than good.

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with you.

Britain has the Official Secrets Act, about which the wags say 'it doesn't exist to protect secrets, it exists to protect officials.'