|����||print - close window|
please write letters to the editor, which i will fax out when i return home friday.� email them to me:� 250 words, name, address, phone.
write to the governor.� a very simple letter will do.� i guarantee he will hear from many librarians!� they always find the time to lobby officials to keep the internet garbage accessible in libraries that your tax dollars provide.
governor rod blagojevich
100 west randolph
chicago, il 60601�� (312) 814-2121
you as a taxpayer do not want your money to go to providing porn on library computers;
filters have been proven to work exceptionally well;
the very garbage he's trying to prevent kids from seeing in games, they can get for free at the library and it's parent's taxes that are providing it;
we should do everything we can to protect kids.
here's what the il library assn. is circulating via email.
from: shirley may byrnes [mailto:email@example.com]
sent: friday, july 29, 2005 5:42 pm
subject: dls memo #05-286e: letters to governor about filtering
dls memo #05-286e: letters to governor about filtering
the following message is being sent to several of our email lists; please excuse any duplicate messages.� if you no longer wish to receive messages sent to dls public email lists, you can unsubscribe through the dls email lists section of our website at http://www.dupagels.lib.il.us/lists/.
from:� shirley may byrnes
date:� july 29, 2005
re:� letters to governor about filtering
a july 26, 2005 article in illinois leader is headlined "governor pledges support for internet filters in public libraries."� it can be found at http://illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=27421 i first learned of the article when robert doyle, executive director, illinois library association (ila) sent it in an email to the public policy committee (ppc) on july 27.� ppc met july 28, and it was suggested that the governor should hear from the library community now on this issue and that a copy of the letter should be sent to our legislators.� you can use cap wiz to send letters, find your legislators, etc.� it is found at http://capwiz.com/ila/state/main/?state=il� if you send a letter, please let dls know.
the ila position on filters is that internet policy is appropriately developed at the local level rather than at the state or federal level.� [p2s:� not true.� the ala develops policy and strongly suggests local libraries must follow it -- that is why thousands of policies in local libraries all happen to mirror the ala's policy exactly.� ala policy is that " despite the 2003 u.s. supreme court ruling on the children's internet protection act (cipa), which permits the government to require libraries that receive certain kinds of federal funding to install filters, ala policy is unchanged:� ala does not recommend the use in libraries of filtering technology that blocks constitutionally protected information.� ....� fact:� the association does not endorse the use of filtering technology in public institutions, such as libraries, because it blocks legal information to which users are entitled under the constitution."� even more damning is the following:� " 'for those of us in this battle, we clearly understand one thing - that when left up to 'local' decision-making, it's still the ala policy/philosophy of 'no filters' that often triumphs,' said ala director judith krug."� so don't be fooled when librarians say policy is developed at the local level.]� how best to address community concerns varies from place to place, and locally elected boards are being responsive and responsible in meeting the community's needs� [p2s:� not true.� for example, a library in rhode island said, " [we've had] no comments from patrons [about the new internet filters].� librarians opposed because of american library association's library bill of rights tenet 'free and equal access to information,' but as of now, the staff has not been encumbered by filters."].
other talking points appeared in 2005 ila update #2, dated
february 2, 2005.
*�filters are an unfunded mandate.� [p2s:� by this do they mean protecting children is inappropriate because it's an unfunded mandate?]� paying for filters diverts scarce resources from limited technology budgets, money that could be used to buy additional computers and pay for more reliable and faster internet access.� [p2s:� irrelevant.� many, many libraries, following ala directives, are intentionally turning down federal funding just to be able to keep computers unfiltered.� for example, multnomah county, ore. turned down $100,000 of federal funding.]� typical network installation of filtering software is $10,000, plus about $3,000 per year to maintain.� [p2s:� not true.� this is a scare tactic.� on the one hand they complain about a lack of money, and on the other hand they turn down hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding.]� this is enough to buy 20 computers and pay for internet access.
*� filters don't work.� [p2s:� not true.� why would the us supreme court decide the issue of filters in public libraries if they don't work -- wouldn't that make the case moot?� and in practice library directors, such as the one in muncie, indiana, are reporting great success using appropriate filtering software.]� study after study has demonstrated that filters consistently block important information on science, health, political, and social issues and regularly allow objectionable material to get through.� [p2s:� irrelevant.� no filter has even been or will ever be perfect.� the us supreme court did not require the filters to be perfect.� on the other hand, they intentionally accounted for the imperfections of filters by requiring that they be disabled in certain circumstances upon request.� for librarians to argue filters don't work means that are ignoring the latest advances in filtering technology, ignoring the us supreme court case of us�v.�ala, and knowingly misleading the public.� knowingly because the ala was the party that lost us�v.�ala and they know otherwise than what they publicly profess in an effort to convince people that us�v.�ala is irrelevant.]� this creates new liability for libraries.� [p2s:� filtering creates new liabilities?� actually, not filtering leads to liability:� the minneapolis library agrees to pay 12 employees $435,000, and it promises to revamp internet policies, suits may be brought for the rape of children in public libraries by known repeat offenders, and suits may be brought against local library boards of trustees for their failure to act on behalf of their beneficiaries, the taxpayers, and not the ala.]
*� filters are inflexible.� [p2s:� what a silly argument.� first, it ignores us�v.�ala that allow the filters to be disabled.� then, the "inflexibility" argument is diametrically opposed to the "too much flexibility" made by other groups fighting to eviscerate us�v.�ala.� for example, the rhode island aclu argues that filter usage by rhode island libraries is too inconsistent and should be consistently minimalized.� so this is one of those arguments that they argue either way depending on the outcome they seek.]� filters don't know if the person using the computer is 5, 21, or 65.� this "one size fits all" approach treats adults, even senior citizens, like elementary school children.� the user doesn't even know what they are being prevented from accessing.� how can we expect patrons to ask to unblock computers when you don't even know what that particular filter has blocked?� [p2s:� there's another reason why this argument is silly.� this is gross overreaching for obvious reasons but for a very subtle reason as well.� google is the number one search engine and the number one most accessed web page of any kind.� google has over 8 billion pages indexed and ready for searching.� suppose a search returns 20 hits and 5 of them are blocked.� setting aside that one merely has to ask to have the filters disabled under the right circumstances, the 5 blocked sites are a tiny drop in the bucket of pages the library patron is not seeing.� it is estimated that the internet actually holds over 64 billion pages but google indexes only 8 billion.� so before any search results are returned, 56 billion pages have been effectively "blocked" from the library patron.� since there are ways to search many more billions of pages than on google, and since the libraries do not assist patrons in finding these pages sometimes called the "deep web" when they could quite easily merely by providing a few links, it is the libraries that are effectively blocking billions and billions of pages from library patrons.� in other words, if libraries don't like a few pages being blocked even if this is perfectly legal, then libraries should make the effort to open up the deep web to library patrons, not defy the law and fail to filter.]
*� filters are biased.� private companies and groups with commercial, political or religious agendas design filters to block what they find objectionable, including political candidates, social causes, basic health information, and even information on their own product's faults.� [p2s:� another argument that ignores us�v.�ala that allow the filters to be disabled.� are we started to see a pattern yet and perhaps a reason why a massive attempt is made to minimalize us�v.�ala?]
*� filters hurt the poor.� [p2s:� this
is the famous "the us supreme court is racist" argument.� and
this argument, in typical fashion, completely ignores the truth.�
the truth is that public libraries are not the only public places
with publicly available computers.� for example,
a man was recently arrested for downloading child porn at a
kinko's copying service store.]� less wealthy
communities are the most in need of technology because more of
their patrons lack these resources at home.� legislation that
mandates filtering on all library computers forces less affluent
areas to choose between filling this need or spending money just
to block access.
for private lists not included on the website, contact your dls consultant or email firstname.lastname@example.org.
shirley may byrnes
dupage library system
127 south first st.
geneva, il� 60134