Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Summertime, And the Livin' is Easy

I've been meaning to post here for the past couple of weeks. Really, I have. Instead I've been lounging. I even have a couple of topics. There's that million dollar Verizon grant for the gamey librarians, for example. I get suspicious anytime big corporations want to give grants for things, but then I'm just a cynic. Still, it's better than fleecing the taxpayers to fund the gamey librarians and make sure that those poor people on the other side of the digital divide can play World of Wardancing just like their more more affluent slack-jawed peers.

Recently I took one of those life expectancy quizzes, and was thinking of a post on the life expectancy of librarians; unfortunately, that would have required me to do some actual research to find out if there even are stats on librarian life expectancy compared to other professions. I'm guessing longer than coal miners, but other than that I wouldn't know. My work is certainly low stress and physically undemanding, so if I can just keep from balooning up in old age and having a heart attack, I could keep working for a long time to come. Wouldn't that be exciting! However, I just didn't have the will.

Thanks to something else I did, it's going to be even harder to come up with stuff to be annoyed about. I purged my Bloglines of all the blogs I read only to be annoyed. It's amazing how many dull library blogs there are. Some librarians like to brag about what a blogging group librarians are, but rarely are there any blogs worth reading. One in ten, maybe. The popularity of Twitter and "microblogging" among some of these folks doesn't surprise me, since few of them seem to have any thoughts that warrant more than 160 characters, more pictures of library signage excepted of course. Any picture of a library sign saying "Turn Off Your Cell Phone" is definitely worth a thousand words! These library bloggers are clever folk and we must bow to them.

First, I got rid of several defunct blogs. Any blogs with "librarian" in the title by that "distinguished" library school professor got the axe as well, and if you don't know which ones those are, don't bother to find out because they're beyond dull. Next to go were all the high profile library blogs that everyone seems to subscribe to but that haven't produced any interesting content in months, if ever. Goodbye Taming the Web, David Lee King, Librarian.net, Shifted Librarian, and Free Range Librarian. I know we won't miss each other! It's probably a sign of a bad career fit that I find some of the most popular library blogs incredibly boring. Or maybe it's just a sign of boring blogs. These things are so hard to call.

More than ever I have to rely on the kindness of strangers to send me stuff to be annoyed about, but at this point I'm overwhelmed by the email. I vaguely remember a time when I responded to every email, but I haven't been able to do that for months. I can't even keep track of most of the comments these days. I just lack that fire in the belly of the obsessed blogger. Maybe it's a summer thing, though. During the cooler weather we don't sit so much on the library veranda sipping mint julips and waving at passerby, so there's more time to blog. We'll see.

100 comments:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you're no longer the "annoyed librarian", perhaps you've morphed into "jaded librarian". I completely agree with the lack of real content in the blogs listed. Unlike you, I used to NOT be annoyed by them, but I'm getting sick of the lack of content. Sure, I find pictures of Michael Stephens with other people to be real eye-candy (when I put my finger over the other people), but I RSS-ed him because he used to teach me something through his feed. Not so much anymore - I get it: you like twitter and flickr. My theory: they all got so mildly famous that they're too busy touring and doing important talks to 'keep it real' with their base audience. Oh, that gives me some punny ideas about "Jenny from the block". For the other readers: I do still get some great info from iLibrarian and the librarian in black, though. I think TTW and shifted (et al) are just too busy... like the annoyed librarian, now that I think about it. You're one to talk!!

Minks said...

I was looking over some of your older monthly stats... Good-googlie-mooglie! You posted over 35 blogs one month a while back. That is crazy. You can have some time off. I will still check in here several times a month awaiting your words of wit. =)

Brent said...

There is a website that posts blogs on blogspot that are 1 post and dones. It is called "One Post Wonder." http://1post1der.blogspot.com/

You made it passed one post--which is an accomplishment!

Amanda (the librarian) said...

I've been deleting all the librarian blogs when they start to do Twitter feeds. BOR-ING!

SafeLibraries.org said...

How about this blog on the latest rape in a public library, this time the parking lot, this time a 16 year old girl, this time in Lone Tree, CO, and, as usual, in a library that follows ALA advice not to filter computers:

"Another Library Rape Case. How is the ALA Not Partly Responsible? Investigations are Needed."

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I'm not so optimistic about our life expectancy: I think in my library we inhale about the same amount of dust as a coal miner.

SafeLibraries.org said...

soren faust,

No, I am not saying that. I am saying, however, that there might be a connection, and that more investigation is needed. Depending on the results of that investigation, there might be a direct connection.

Now as to being here on this AL blog, AL was talking about how boring the some librarian logs have become. I agree. However, my blog is not the same old same old. You even found the comment interesting enough to comment. Nowhere else does anyone expose the potential that children are being raped and molested nationwide as a possible result the policy and propaganda of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. And I have been successful in bringing such incidents to light in the past where they would otherwise have been missed--Lone Tree might just be the latest case--so this is not idle speculation.

I'll admit "How is the ALA Not Partly Responsible?" is likely "the dumbest thing you've read all day." But I do give a series of conditions that have to exist before the ALA is responsible. Further, one of these days someone is going to sue the ALA on these grounds and one of these days the ALA may be found guilty.

I also specifically said what I was guessing on, and I called for an investigation, specifying what to investigate, then I said if a long line of what if's line up, then the ALA may be liable. They are not liable at this moment in time. Someday it is possible they will be. To the extent SafeLibraries is responsible for that and as a result less children are raped and molested nationwide in and around public libraries, that will be a very good day for me and the nation.

And you can say you knew me when!!!! Now don't you think on a blog talking about boring blogs I can point out some that aren't?

Anonymous said...

What if the girl that was raped in a church parking lot?

Anonymous said...

I'm not so optimistic about our life expectancy: I think in my library we inhale about the same amount of dust as a coal miner.

What about all those workplace wellness initiatives ALA is trying to promote?

If public library administrations love the business model so much, then they need to start acting that way with regards to security. They need to install video surveillance in their parking lots. Given the amount of reprobates public libraries attract, it certainly makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Annoyed Librarian?

Not anymore.

This more like the Cranky Curmudgeon Librarian.

Hey you kids, get off of my blog.

Don't make me turn the hose on you.

Anonymous said...

SafeLibraries... Wouldn't it be a lot smarter, more intellectually honest even, to first furnish proof that viewing pornography leads to rape, rather than assuming that and basing your campaign on a hunch? As it is, you will only ever convince people who already agree with your assumptions. That's not a very effective way to persuade people.

Anonymous said...

As we academics are appoaching a new school year, I really would love to see the AL's take on the whole "Information Literacy" thing.

Anonymous said...

Safelibraries

Seems to me that the person who did this was staking out public places where he could linger. If the library could be faulted for anything it's the security in the parking lot.
What would say if the dude was sipping coffie in the Barnes and Noble super store all day and looking at naked pictures in art books.
Really is amazing how anything that happens around a public library really brings out the stupid in people.

Anonymous said...


If public library administrations love the business model so much, then they need to start acting that way with regards to security. They need to install video surveillance in their parking lots. Given the amount of reprobates public libraries attract, it certainly makes sense.


Amen. Add to that Security Guards.

The Atmosphere of the modern ALA Certified library is one that is all inviting, all inclusive, and all equitable. In short, the people nobody else wants hanging around [AND FOR GOOD REASON!] can freely hang out at the library. Further, they can view everything they want through the library's anonymous or at least patron privacy secured database.

This incident only adds one more reason for the public to stop coming to the public library - and to further cut spending altogether.

Can't last forever like this!

KAT!

P.S. AL, you're on Summer break - three more weeks and the new freshmen will certianly get your hairnet back up in a bunch! Or at least, drive you back indoors to the computer, where the only thing to do that is slightly less boring then staring at the books that need cataloging...is to read someone's blog on the Internet about cataloging.

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

We need to start arming librarians.

Mess around in our stacks, you will die.

Put their heads on stakes in front of the circulation desk and I bet you will see a serious drop off in offenses happening on library property.

Anonymous said...

The problem is much bigger, as Kat has stated: as long as everyone is equally welcome in the public library you'll always have creeps hanging around. I mean who else would let them in to their establishment?

Yes! Also, security measures are not uniform among all public libraries. Even some urban public libraries have lax security.

Like I said, if public libraries try to emulate the business model then they should not allow certain behaviors of their customers that would ordinarily get their customers booted from places like WalMart.

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jenn Nolte said...

Um, rather than saying that the girl was raped because the library didn't filter porn from their computers, how about we say she was raped because the guy that raped her was a horrible, horrible person? If she had gotten shot, no one would say it was the fault of the library (too much GTA?),except that perhaps there should be better security, as noted in some of these other comments.

It is totally bizarre to me why someone would blame rape on lack of internet filtering, rather than totally and utterly on the scumbag that perpetrated the crime.

Anonymous said...

But what ever we don't, don't put up signs in the library, saying what behavior is not allowed, cuz then your sign will end up on someone's blog who doesn't like signs. I like signs. They set up expectations. Then you don't have anyone claiming, "I didn't know that (climbing on chairs, screaming across the room) wasn't allowed."

j- said...

*Um, rather than saying that the girl was raped because the library didn't filter porn from their computers, how about we say she was raped because the guy that raped her was a horrible, horrible person? If she had gotten shot, no one would say it was the fault of the library *

I guarantee some liberal would blame it on the fact that the library had a subscription to Guns & Ammo, and some city council person would suggest the only solution would also include amending the Constitution.

Kimbre said...

How about being annoyed about the great expressed ALA need to recruit African American males to become librarians.

Dances With Books said...

Whew. I am glad it is not just me. I have been pondering doing a purge of ye old Bloglines myself. You are right, a few of those high profile library bloggers have gotten dull as heck. And if I see one more stupid photo of "turn off your cellphone" from the Webtamer, I may do something drastic (who know what, but something). Your first anon. put it well, a lot of the content is how much they like twitter (fitting for twits, huh) and Flickr or some other 2.0 toy.

And yes, once a blogger goes to Twitty updates, they are out of my Bloglines. But you have certainly inspired me to go do some more pruning.

And hey, it's ok to take a break once in a while.

Anonymous said...

I volunteer in a Jewish Community Center. he parking lot is on surveillance [not jsut a camera pointed at the parking lot] but there is also a fully alert security staff running around the palce. They know exactly what is going on around there!

The place is filled with kids, so the liability makes it necessary.

now if libraries realized the liability they have to patron's safety while patrons are in or on the library premises, we might see some changes in tones.

Kat

Minks said...

I am going to jump on the side of safelibraries on this one.

Here are some simple facts to prove Safe's point...

1) Perverts are category of people

2) Perverts are attracted to certain things

3) Perverts are attracted to porn in public places

4) If you attract perverts via pervert bait, then you are going to increase the number of perverts you have around your premises

5) If you increase the number of perverts you have around your premises, then you increase the odds somebody is going to have a bad experience related indirectly, or directly to one or more perverts.

Now, here is the rub,,, there are some studies that say porn actually decreases sex crimes against women. Other studies say it increases sex crimes against women. It really does not matter in this scenario because here is my observation...

People who view porn in public places are retarded. Waoh! Yea, you heard me correctly. I am not being PC here am I? You have to be a special kind of creepy to get your b3wb on in a public place. 'Normal' people do not partake in their porn in a public place. Only the retard nutjobs do that.

When a library does not filter, they create an environment that attracts retard pervert nutjobs.

The key work is "attracts"

It is this category of people that will in fact break laws in your parking lots.

Now, somebody mentioned getting raped in a church parking lot. Not sure the point here other then rape can happen anywhere? Anywho, the point I think myself and Safe are trying to make is lets reduce the odds it will happen in libraries by the simple reduction or elimination of pervert bait.

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

re: there's no way to keep out the riff-raff.<<

Public libraries have a civic and moral duty to serve the "riff-raff." Public libraries serve the public, and "riff-raff" are members of the public. Society's unfortunates have as much a right to information as society's elite. That's what makes it a public library. Nobless oblige. Don't like it? Find a different kind of library. What people really want to filter is not information so much as "undesirable" people. That's not an option in public libraries.

Minks said...

library that has filters on every computer, security guards, surveillance cameras and a watchful staff and still there's no way to keep out the riff-raff

No way to keep them out, but the only reason I can think of that you have all this stuff is to reduce the riff-raff.

...which is all I am hoping for.

So, we are both right. =P

And somebody said libraries have to let in Riff-raff. While that is true, it is only true until they (or anybody) break the rules. Many states have made it illegal display porn in public. You do not see a bus with b3wbs on the side of it do you? You cannot paint b3bs on your car can you? No and no. Just as you cannot paint b3wbs on your car, nor can you splash them across you screen in a public place. Not in a bus stop, library, or even on the little tv's in your car. (yea, people have been getting busted for watchin porn in their cars on public streets).

Shoot, you cannot even have a license plate that reads b3wbs =/

You can get all "first amendmenty" on me about peoples right for porn in public if you want. But IMHO that is like saying people have the right to shout profanity at the top of their lungs or run around without pants. None of these things seems like a great idea... but some people really push for 1 & 3 for some reason.gbhnpxyy

Anonymous said...

Also, did the rapist have a prior history of molestation, rape, etc? Was he prosecuted? Was he provided with additional treatment and some kind of monitoring after he was released? If the molestor has a rap sheet, then safelibraries should start screaming about the lax criminal justice system.

Perhaps safelibraries should start educating men on the evils of porn and take on the porn industry rather than blame rape, which has been a male act of aggression against both men and women for thousands of years, on the ALA's views on porn in libraries.

Anonymous said...

Holy crap. Some of these arguments have holes big enough to drive a train through.

Maybe it's different in the States than in Canada, but in the public libraries I've worked in porn is not "allowed" to be viewed on computers. That doesn't mean that we filter. It means that if someone is caught viewing obscene material, or conducting themselves inappropriately, they can be asked to leave. If they don't, we can call the police. There's a bylaw on our side in the current city in which I work that not only allows us to do this, but requires us to. So, rather than assume that everyone is out to view illicit images and restricting everyone's freedom, we just deal with those who DO view porn. That is very different from "allowing" porn to be viewed.

The other point raised was about how public libraries attract sexual deviants (rapists, etc.). Well, sure. But it's not the porn or the Internet that's the attraction - it's the fact that it's a public space and there are people there. If you happen to be in the small percent of child molesters who choses to molest, rape, or assault a child who's a stranger (more on that in a sec), then the public library is the perfect place to observe kids who may not be with their parents, or young girls who are alone. Then again, the same can be said for any mall.

Finally, while we all have to take care out there and be smart (well-lit parking lots, walk in two's, etc.) we must also remember that we hear about the rape and assault cases which are perpetrated by strangers because they're more sensational and they're scary. The reality is that sex crimes are far more often perpetrated by someone the child knows. No Internet filter is going to address THAT issue. But perhaps a child - or any person - who is being abused or assaulted sexually or violently can find the support information they need ... at the library.

But not if the Internet is filtering sites based on words like "sex" or "rape."

SafeLibraries.org said...

Questions and Answers:

Q: "What if the girl that was raped in a church parking lot?"

A: Read the facts again. The rapist selected his victim inside the library, followed her out, then raped her. The parking lot itself is a nonissue.

---

Q: "SafeLibraries... Wouldn't it be a lot smarter, more intellectually honest even, to first furnish proof that viewing pornography leads to rape, rather than assuming that and basing your campaign on a hunch? As it is, you will only ever convince people who already agree with your assumptions. That's not a very effective way to persuade people."

A: SafeLibraries does not oppose pronography. It is a legal product. If that is a sad reality, there is little I can do about it anyway. In part for that reason, I do not know the answers to your questions. I suspect, however, rape is more of a control issue rather than a pronography issue.

Be that as it may, my observations of the numerous public library child rapes and molestations nationwide leads me to the conclusion that pron viewing is almost always involved. Actually, I think always.

Further, where the media does not report a direct connection initially between pron and a crime, twice now such a connection was made only after my personal intervention. Indeed, the entire state of Iowa may get filtered computers in public libraries as a direct result of my intervention. See Media-Wake Up to Library Crime Source.

Along comes this Lone Tree, CO, rape case. The media makes the connection between the library usage and the rape, but not between pron viewing and the rape. That aspect is just absent from the article. And that is exactly what I am zeroing in on. That is what I am saying needs investigation.

I see nothing wrong with suggesting an investigation is called for. Indeed, if the connection is made, the community can act to correct the underlying issue and perhaps prevent further criminal activity.

---

Q: "A word to safelibraries, I understand your concern with child safety in the library; it should be of utmost concern to all library personnel. However, I'm not sure that filters are the answer, or if they are, they're only part of the answer. ...."

A: I agree with you. But right now, filters, though imperfect, are superior to other control methods. For example, in the New Bedford, MA, library rape case, the rape was filmed by security cameras, but the library director said nothing ever happens so no one was watching. And in the Brooklyn, NY, library rape, the librarians themselves weren't even aware of the rape.

---

Q: "Um, rather than saying that the girl was raped because the library didn't filter porn from their computers, how about we say she was raped because the guy that raped her was a horrible, horrible person? .... It is totally bizarre to me why someone would blame rape on lack of internet filtering, rather than totally and utterly on the scumbag that perpetrated the crime."

A: Good question. Here's why. CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000. The ALA and the ACLU sued to overturn it and initially succeeded. In 2003, however, the US Supreme Court found against the ALA. In response, the ALA said despite this, ALA policy will remain unchanged. Indeed part of the ALA propaganda is to reraise issues in local communities already asked and answered in the US Supreme Court. Worse, many libraries would have used filters after 2003 but for the ALA's intervention.

So if a library would have used filtering but choose not to because of the ALA, a child raped as a result may in law and in fact be the partial result of the ALA. Some time from now a court of law will get to this very issue. Then we may know for sure. Until that time, however, it is a perfectly legitimate issue to raise. Obviously the rapist is guilty, but the legitimate issue is, did the ALA put a loaded gun into his hand?

Remember I mentioned the ACLU. Well guess what? The ACLU has seen the light, further illustrating the ALA is wrong. In ACLU v. Gonzales, E.D. Pa., March 2007, an ACLU expert and the court agreed Internet filters are about 95% effective and no longer block out breast cancer and other health-related information—so effective that another law, COPA [Children's Online Protection Act], was found unconstitutional. In contrast, the ALA is still saying filters do not work well. Move on, ALA.

---

Q: "I am going to jump on the side of safelibraries on this one."

A: Thanks. But it's not really my "side." It's really me being one of the very few people willing to consistently take heat for daring to suggest the ALA is intentionally misleading people and as a result some are being severely injured.

You know, once the ALA's point of view was legitimate. Now, after losing in US v. ALA, any time those same issues are reraised as if they were not already determined to be losers, that is reprehensible. It really galls me when OIF leaders act as if US v. ALA doesn't exist--they should know better--indeed, they do, and that is why I call it propaganda. If I can only show this to the local populations being duped, perhaps those people will act accordingly and remove the negative influences of the ALA, separate the wheat from the chaff.

---

Q: "Public libraries have a civic and moral duty to serve the 'riff-raff.'"

A: Yes and no. Yes. But to the extent that service includes porn, no. Libraries are usually created by some legal instrument that defines what the library can and can't do. Porn is usually excluded. Massive misinformation campaigns convince people that porn in public libraries is a First Amendment right, but that is factually and legally false. So serving porn to 'riff-raff' in public libraries is not "a civic and moral duty."

SafeLibraries.org said...

Also, "privacy screens" constantly touted by the ALA are known to be total failures, totally useless. See, for example, "Porn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation," KGO, 29 Nov 2006, and the associated video:

"[T]he Martin Luther King Library has a problem with pornography. They have no rule against viewing photographs or full-screen sex videos from Internet sites, even with children nearby. Chief librarian Jane Light says it's a matter of free speech. .... ABC7's Dan Noyes: 'I've seen the [privacy] screens and I see how they work and the stuff is visible from behind. You can see everything.' Jane Light...: 'So you can avert your eyes.'

Anonymous said...

Should public libraries serve the riff-raff?

Absolutely.

They have every right to information as the next dapper dandy.

They don't have the right to sleep at tables, disturb other patrons, urinate in the stacks, scream at the top of their lungs, masturbate into bound volumes of Vogue, tear pages out of books for kleenex, and so on.

You think that doesn't happen?

You need to get to a real urban library.

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Like I said, if public libraries try to emulate the business model then they should not allow certain behaviors of their customers that would ordinarily get their customers booted from places like WalMart.

Have you been to Walmart lately? I'm glad we don't get some of the clientele that they get. My daughter calls it the Walmart freak show. Of course, we add to it by being there. Hmmm....

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan said...

soren faust said... By "riff raff" I meant rapists and other criminals.

Ok soren, and how are you going to seperate the rapists and other criminals from the patrons who aren't?

Are you asking for criminal background checks to get into a library?

And exactly why should a neat, well dressed and conservativly behaved man who has "paid his debt to society" be denied library services?

If you want to keep people out of the library who abuse the facilities and other patrons, fine. But don't pretend that they are rapists.

Anonymous said...

I love going into the public library and watching the homeless guys masturbate to internet porn.

I mean, they don't have an internet connection or a home to do this so why shouldn't the public library provide them with this outlet.

To not do that would be discriminatory and elitist.

SafeLibraries.org said...

I am aware of one university library that keeps a supply of masturbation haz-mat clean up kits to clean up the keyboard and mouse afterwards. Anyone else know of this or anything similar?

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

The original thread is about a girl who was raped.

Actually, the original thread was not about that at all. Safelibraries.org hijacked the thread way back in comment #5 - maybe because way more people read Annoyed Librarian's blog than that of Safelibraries?? I note at this point (9:30 AM Central time on 7/18/08) there are only 4 comments on the post linked to in Safelibraries' first comment here - and since then s/he has made four more here.

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Perhaps Jason Calacanis was correct when decided to retire from blogging, saying blogging was dead.

Hey, AL, let's not forget the iPhone 3G Launch Date, July 11, when all the high profile library bloggers had the time and money to purchase and toy around and Twitter about their new iPhone 3G. Talk about a busy day in library land.

The million dollar gaming grant from Verizon? Now that's a bunch of crap that boils my blood.

Why did I pursue the educational/academic stream of librarianship when I could have simply advocated game play and virtual worlds...Beats me. Guess I thought work was supposed to be serious and stuff. Good luck to the Shifted One.

SafeLibraries.org said...

Anonymous just said, "Safelibraries.org hijacked the thread way back in comment #5...."

Stop it. I hijacked nothing. The AL is the leading library blogger. She commented how boring a lot of library blogs are becoming. In response, and not as a hijack, I said my blog was not boring. (Of course, I am not a librarian--but I am an ALA member.)

And apparently, by all the comments here related to the issue I raised, my blog was indeed quite interesting to a number of people--or rather the issue was interesting, and I'm the only blogger with the guts to bring it up, exposing myself to verbal attacks from the likes of you.

So on a blog where the AL says blogs are boring, I was perfectly within my rights to suggest my own, and all the comments bear out the truth of my assertion.

The AL has been and will continue to be the most widely read library blogger. But I think I have proven my blog has teeth and is worth a read. Please consider subscribing to my blog.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Verizon should give out fewer grants and instead lower their rates. I would rather have more money in my pocket than read some bogus papers about gaming usage.

j- said...

*Btw, if you want to look at porn in a library with filters, simply go to www.youhide.com and type in any Web site you want and it will take you there, filter or no filter. Again, the filter thing is just a bandaid for larger problem. Anyone with even a meager technical ability can bypass filters.*

Umm, could you not just put www.youhide.com on the blacklist and prevent people from going there in the first place?

And kick everyone viewing porn on their email out of the library and ban them from ever using a computer terminal again?

This stuff is not rocket science.

Anonymous said...

Thanks j.

We will kick people off for viewing porn from now on.

ummmmm

I have a question though, just what exactly is porn.

I know it when I see it, but how do I respond to the patron's lawyer when they file a law suit?

Anonymous said...

I miss the Bitter Librarian. She's not posted in 2 years AFAIK.

Alan said...

RE: just put www.youhide.com on the black list

OK - But what are you black listing? Not porn. www.youhide.com does not have any porn. So by putting it on the black list you are stepping outside the boundaries and black listing a site that does not fall into the category to be prohibited.

What you are blacklisting is freedom.

What exactly is the problem here? The problem is that the internet has created a new "media" that has done away with the "mediators." It provides content direct from the producer to the consumer with no publisher, editor, commentator, or (HA!) librarian standing in between deciding what is and is not proper, good, moral or fit.

This is its strength, and it is also its weakness. You get anything and everything, BUT you've got to be willing to take the anything along with the everything.

So, you formally all-powerful mediators are out of the picture. If you don't like it, get rid of the internet entirely. Because you CAN'T get rid of it partially.

SafeLibraries.org said...

Alan said, "You get anything and everything, BUT you've got to be willing to take the anything along with the everything."

That is false. Read "US v. ALA."

Personally, I trust the US Supreme Court more than I trust Alan.

Anonymous said...

Safelibraries.org is the "brainchild" of one Dan Kleinman, who is suspiciously reticent to post his librarianship credentials on his website or elsewhere. Perhaps he will be willing to share with us what his credentials with respect to libraries and librarianship really are? MLS? PhD, Any library credential at all?

I suspect not. Safelibraries.org appears to have nothing to do with any academic, professional or educational group connected to libraries.

Dan Kleinman does not appear (or certainly does not confirm) to hold any academic or professional credentials related to professional librarianism.

The blog and website is a politicized screed, so perhaps it is "interesting" from a sociological perspective but not from any kind of academic research-based inquiry into the ethics of library and information science.

He has hit the AL blog before in an effort to gain readership and support.

I suggest you ignore him. His is not a library issue, but a highly politicized Christian family values driven agenda on the part of someone who does not hold the values of librarianship, intellectual freedom and access of information to heart.

SafeLibraries.org said...

The most recent anonymous comment perfectly demonstrates the ad hominem attack. The person goes on and on about how I supposedly hide my library credentials but never addresses the issues.

Further, what is being said is pure fiction. Just a comment or two of mine back I said, "Of course, I am not a librarian--but I am an ALA member."

The rest of what is being said is similarly false. Like SafeLibraries is, are you sitting down?, not my "brainchild."

So anonymous can't read this AL blog, then makes things up, then complains I'm on the AL blog that s/he did not even read, and is afraid to name him or herself.

You know, another anonymous also counted my comments as if there is some kind of limit. The free speech people are counting my comments and using phoney arguments to shut me down, and actually complain I speak out in other venues.

This perfectly illustrates what the AL says when she says, "Intellectual Freedom Means the Freedom to Think Like Us!"

Why is it that someone like me who presents facts from the news and requests investigations where facts are absent is such a target to these people? What is it that I am so threatening in their minds that is so worthy of such vicious attacks? I mean we are talking about the freedom of speech people here, and some anonymous ones act in a manner that totally betrays any interest in true intellectual freedom or freedom of speech.

There are people who disagree with me and can still have a civilized conversation. This last anonymous comment was really brimming with venom. Did you notice? Why? I'm only one voice. What is the threat these people perceive if I say the ALA might be misleading people nationwide and people should think for themselves?

I mean just look at the news. Lone Tree, CO. Rape. New Bedford, MA. Rape. Philadelphia, PA. Vicious sexual assault bordering on rape and even death. Des Moines, IA. Rape. Etc. And child molestations in countless libraries nationwide. What, am I supposed to say nothing? People should just continue on with their lives and not care? Bloggers should go on and on about Twitter and not discuss literally life and death issues?

What if the cause of these rapes is directly related to the ALA getting the libraries to defy the local populations one way or another? What if that is true? What if getting people to realize the danger exists in the first place results in people ousting the negative influences of the ALA? And what if that means fewer children are raped and molested nationwide?

Am I supposed to stop connecting the dots? Why? What or who is being threatened if people knew the truth?

And why the ad hominem argument? Is there no logical argument that could be made to counter my observations?

Given what I have just said, read anonymous's comments again. S/he disgraces him/herself.

Anonymous said...

'Twould be nice to have another blog about librarianship and who's worthy to be called a librarian. Remember that one? That was an interesting read, and so were the other blogs linked to it. What were we talking about again?

Alan said...

RE: Personally, I trust the US Supreme Court more than I trust Alan.

Alan also trusts the SCOTUS more than he trusts Alan. I think their ruling makes sense and does not do much damage to our constitutional freedoms.

But simply because a law is constitutional does not mean it is enforceable, socially responsible or wise. It may have "unintentional consequences." It may even be harmful in and of itself.

In the case of the internet, a substantial portion of its value is that it provides minimally mediated speech. Trying to mediate it undermines its value. And may not even be technologically feasible.

By the way, Safe Libraries is an example of the annoyance of unmediated free speech. Descending, once again, to the ad hominem level, if it were not for the internet, this guy would not get any chance at all to make his case. He would have a hard time getting a letter to the editor published in a local give-away newspaper.

But here he is, on the internet, much like pornography, annoying all the librarians.

Anonymous said...

Well Alan, we need someone to annoy the librarians, how else will we continue to enjoy the Annoyed Librarian?
Re Anonymous 3:53 PM and arming the librarians - Working in school libraries I have often advocated decapitation as a punishment for unruly patrons, especially after I find an ancient sandwich lodged amongst the non-fiction. I figure it is a good disincentive - put heads on pikes outside the library and just watch those overdues roll on in. It should work for sandwiches and porn too.

Anonymous said...

Oh and re the original post - after long enough you tend to move from being annoyed to jaded, because it takes too much energy to keep being annoyed. The only solution is longer holidays for the AL. Maybe it is a good thing if she takes the whole summer off so she has enough energy to be annoyed for us when she gets back to work.

Wakcff said...

Yes, even the Regressive Librarians aren't that annoying anymore. They just talk among themselves, with the occasional outburst on your blog from the cry-baby "distinguished" professor. They belong in the dustbin of ALA history: Cranky Marxist Dude, Humorless "distinguished" Unionater, Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude, Nasty Bronc, Griping Illini. They all still exist, but their radical ideas & intolerance don't have much influence anymore. Thanks to you, AL, for intelligently challenging them & revealing them for the fools that they are.

HippieMan said...

I'm a "regressive librarian" and proud of it. I find it amusing that the AL is so threatened by a little liberal backwater such as ours. I mean, c'mon, the conservatives own the US of A, man. Them and the corporations. It's no contest. The sheeple are mainlining Fox News and right wing radio like a smack addict. Lot more influence there than with the lowly ALA. I mean, c'mon.

If the ALA is a bit liberal, so what? The right wing, with its Christianist soldiers, have had the bully pulpit for over thirty years, crushing the Social Contract like a maniacal Doctor Evil in search of a more lethal Alan Parsons Project.

No contest, people. I think you folks are suffering from an inferiority complex--or something. You won! Can't you see. Whatever is left of "the left" is a sick joke. We barely have a pulse.

Tim Reynolds said...

I must be bored this weekend to post to this one.

First as Minks said AL does a great job at this blog so great they are willing to admit when its slowing. Remember Stienfield go out before you jump the shark and twitter.

As for Safelibraries regardless if they are librarians or not it dosnt matter. People have the right to express their views. If we do not let them then we too are wrong.

I just want to know more about the libraries that are so bad. I am in medium size library. We have problems but not this bad. I have reference patrolling at regular intervals I make random spot checks on the floor. We communicate regularly about suspect trouble makers and make it clear to them that unruly behavior is not tolerated. We are all trained to call the police when things get out of hand. I have reference staff carry cells with all police numbers on them.

Some professional librarians or even para professionals may think that patrolling is beneath them or something others should do. In a public library this is a duty that is expected of you. Its a public service. It not only keeps the trouble makers in check it lets you keep an eye out for other problems. It also makes a positive impact on the public as they know who you are that you are there to help them and not just sitting at your desk surfing.

For Internet porn you filter with a lose filter and keep a watch as you patrol. For email or other proxy porn things you nicely tell people "hey we cant allow that here are kids here or this is a public building ." If they keep viewing they are no longer viewing porn they are creating a public disturbance and they come off the computer. For backlist make sure you list proxy servers/sites as a filter category then block them as you go.

This is not rocket science its common sense. All AL is arguing for is common sense. As for hippieman well sorry you feel that way. I do not think its a victory for the right as so much as a victory for common sense. I am a person moving from right to left in my life. But I openly see both sides spewing their political garbage on to the streets of America hoping the poor masses will be infected.

Its against this illness of ignorance and brainwashing that librarians stand against.

SafeLibraries.org said...

Tim Reynolds, from what you just said, you sound like a Family Friendly Libraries Model Librarian. You prove librarians can be a part of the world of librarians and still do what is right by your community instead of what the ALA leans on you to do. Bravo.

Anonymous said...

And why the ad hominem argument? Is there no logical argument that could be made to counter my observations?

It's not ad hominem except to the point of questioning your academic qualifications to make the assertions you do. Your observations are anecdotal, and your conclusions are unsupported by scientific inquiry.

There is no requirement to "counter" them because you have not presented a testable hypothesis and research protocol that would make it past any review committee that I can see. It's only really necessary to contend they are unsupported.

You've gathered a relatively small number of unrelated and un-researched popular sensational press reports and are attempting to direct the wagging finger of easily-swayed public opinion in lieu of any kind of proof of your claims.

Your responses confirm a sore lack of academic background relating to the ethical and philosophical underpinnings of the discipline, and any kind of concept of the scientific method.

There are arguments you could make that you don't, and you challenge arguments that the discipline has already spent much time and effort exploring in a scientific and peer-reviewed way.

A literature review of qualified studies by individuals who have studied these things is absent from your site and anything I can find that you have published. Where can I find your peer-reviewed research articles?

You are sorely in need of some study and reflection relating to the ethics, philosophy and practice of the discipline and of scientific inquiry in general.

Take a graduate class or two. A graduate level statistics and research methods class grounded in the social sciences wouldn't hurt.

Your baseless assertion that the ALA is somehow responsible for rapes near libraries (among others)is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, not innuendo and the obvious imprint of your personal agenda.

If you want to make a case, do the research. Good luck with the peer review.

Or, you can continue to post what appears to any knowledgable observer as the unscientific meanderings of a right-wing ideologue. That's your protected right under the first amendment.

It's too bad you don't extend the privilege to others with whom you disagree, but unsurprising under the circumstances.

SafeLibraries.org said...

Setting aside Anonymous's continuing ad hominem argument, let's look at his/her assertions: "Your observations are anecdotal, and your conclusions are unsupported by scientific inquiry. There is no requirement to 'counter' them because you have not presented a testable hypothesis and research protocol that would make it past any review committee that I can see. It's only really necessary to contend they are unsupported. You've gathered a relatively small number of unrelated and un-researched popular sensational press reports and are attempting to direct the wagging finger of easily-swayed public opinion in lieu of any kind of proof of your claims."

Two things.

1) Thank heavens. Thank heavens there is only a very small pool of library rape victims. It seems Anonymous would rather allow hundreds of victims a year just to get to the point of "present[ing] a testable hypothesis and research protocol that would make it past any review committee."

It's like orphan diseases. They go on because no one takes the typical 20 years to find a drug just for a few cases. In such cases, I'll bet the few afflicted can only "gather[] a relatively small number of unrelated and un-researched popular sensational press reports."

Anonymous, how many rape victims are acceptable to you to get to the point where someone can actually present a testable hypothesis and research protocol? Are the rape victims responsible for "popular sensational press reports." Get raped, make a sensation!

2) How unfair. Anonymous accuses me of "observations [that] are anecdotal, and ... conclusions ... unsupported by scientific inquiry."

I am a single individual watching the news like anyone else can. (Library Crime News) I am not the ALA funded with $350,000 from George Soros to win privacy for terrorists, or $1,000,000 from Verizon for gaming in libraries while at the same time trying to overturn FISA's protections against terrorists and specifically protection of Verizon from lawsuits merely for acting in the interests of American national security, or the large donations and awards from the Playboy Foundation for ensuring children remain exposed to inappropriately sexualized material in public libraries despite the US Supreme Court saying directly to the ALA that this is wrong.

How unfair you should demand of me what only money and manpower like the ALA has can do. Library rapes are occurring nationwide, rarely, but occurring nevertheless, and it may be because the ALA acts in defiance of the US Supreme Court and more. And the little people like me, we are supposed to say and do nothing, according to Anonymous, because our "observations are anecdotal, and ... conclusions ... unsupported by scientific inquiry."

The ALA has a fulltime, member-paid, multiple person propaganda mill called the "Office for Intellectual Freedom," literally thousands of false and misleading articles will be published about "Banned Books Week" nationwide each year, for example. Yet let one member of the public dare to say the OIF might be directly responsible for the few library rapes and the multiple child molestations in libraries nationwide and Anonymous wields the double edged ad hominem attack in a manner that evidences an absolute total lack of feelings for the few rape victims that exist.

There s/he goes again: "Your responses confirm a sore lack of academic background relating to the ethical and philosophical underpinnings of the discipline, and any kind of concept of the scientific method."

I hereby apologize to the world for trying to stop rapes and molestations of children in public libraries nationwide that may be caused in part by the ALA's law-defying policies. I admit I have "a sore lack of academic background relating to the ethical and philosophical underpinnings of the discipline" and am totally unworthy to even attempt to advocate on behalf of little victims who cannot or will not advocate for themselves. I apologize I have not "any kind of concept of the scientific method." I should instead go to library school and allow the rape victims to pile up before implementing my scientific method.

Specifically as to "a sore lack of academic background relating to the ethical and philosophical underpinnings of the discipline," I paid for admission to a class on public library law given by the ALA's OIF, but the freedom of speech people, the equal access people, denied my entry again and again after invading my privacy and investigating my background. Eventually only 17 people showed up out of a class size of 60. See Unequal Access. Yet here is Anonymous using the very education I was denied by the ALA against me to mock and to ridicule me and to get people to ignore my concerns about children being raped and molested.

"Where can I find your peer-reviewed research articles?" Announcement: according to Anonymous, you may only speak out against child rape possibly caused by ALA policy if you have "peer-reviewed research articles."

"Your baseless assertion that the ALA is somehow responsible for rapes near libraries (among others)is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, not innuendo and the obvious imprint of your personal agenda." It is not baseless. My claims are based in fact, those reported in the media or elsewhere, and I'll admit the media is not always perfect, but I link to all such relevant articles so people can think for themselves. Think. If a library decides to follow CIPA and filter all computers, but the ALA applies heavy pressure despite US v. ALA, etc., and the library then does not filter, and as a result a child is raped, there is a legitimate question as to the whether the ALA is partly responsible. And it is not idle thought as children continue to be raped and molested nationwide in libraries having unfiltered computers by criminals using those computers for viewing porn.

To be clear I am not now saying the ALA is responsible. But eventually a law suit will arise testing that very issue. Those attorneys will then have the time and money to perform the work needed to make the case. I predict those attorneys will eventually win. Actually, one such case already occurred and the victim lost, but that was before US v. ALA. That case changes everything. Since the ALA essentially sidesteps that case, I predict a future court will hold against the ALA, then the whole house of cards will come tumbling down and communities will act to protect their children from harm in public libraries.

And nothing Anonymous can say will stop that.

Anonymous said...

Yawn.

Anonymous said...

Haha! What the heck is all this talk about academic qualifications? Oh, please. This is a freaking blog, not some scholarly website to submit peer-reviewed articles. Oh, on top of that, it's the comment section of a blog. People are here to voice their opinions and nothing more.

Really, this academic or intellectual posturing only confirms my belief that the librarian profession suffers from some collective inferiority complex, as some of you librarians feel a need to validate your intellectualism or prove your intellectual worth. Didn't the AL say that library school is an intellectual joke?

Anonymous said...

Library policies as fundamental as those regarding censorship of information should not be driven by silly blogs and inflammatory web sites. You're right, this isn't the venue for scholarly papers. Neither is it the venue of choice for thoughtful reflection on these kinds of discourse.

hippieman said...

One more comment...

I'd be less worried about internet porn than about what Bush and his henchman are doing to the Constitution. You know, using it as toilet paper.

Granted, US pols have always been reading our stuff and infiltrating our anti-war rallies (i.e. just recently the Quakers, of all people!), it's just now, with the computer revolution, they've decided to go whole hog and scoop up all of our stuff like a binging bag lady. Even Obama, the so-called Second Coming, is getting in the act.

All these right wingers like the AL should really be concerned about how our rights are being trampled upon by an overwrought State. Isn't that what Bin Laden wanted in the first place? To destroy our freedoms.

SafeLibraries.org said...

hippieman said, "Granted, US pols have always been reading our stuff and infiltrating our anti-war rallies (i.e. just recently the Quakers, of all people!), it's just now, with the computer revolution, they've decided to go whole hog and scoop up all of our stuff like a binging bag lady."

False. President Clinton was the president who "decided to go whole hog and scoop up all of our stuff like a binging bag lady." Only the media did not savage him like they do with President Bush. For example, as hippieman said, "I'd be less worried about internet porn than about what Bush and his henchman are doing to the Constitution. You know, using it as toilet paper." See

ECHELON and

Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls and

60 MINUTES; Television Broadcast February 27, 2000; ECHELON; WORLDWIDE CONVERSATIONS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ECHELON SYSTEM MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE TAGGED AS SPIES.

hippieman, when falsely accusing the President of "using [the Constitution] as toilet paper," and when failing to disclose that a democratic president had an even more ambitious plan in place on the subject about which you are complaining, you make your own arguments much less credible. I'll have to go back and see what else you said because it likely suffers from the same problems.

Alan said...

RE: hippieman said, "Granted, US pols have always been..." ...False. President Clinton was the president...

We finally have someone make an argument that is NOT "ad homieum" and safe libraries does not even bother to read it carefully.

So, safe libraries, President Clinton is not a US Pol?

SafeLibraries.org said...

No, Alan, I wasn't saying that. Clearly President Clinton was the first President to "spy on Americans," as people like you and the ALA say. Only I agree with President Clinton that we should be sifting cyberspace for potential threats, and that is not "spying on Americans." Clinton did it and Bush does it, only so so good as Clinton, precisely because of the media reaction being different only for ideological reasons.

Anonymous said...

I am having a Walter Cronkite moment. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Annoyed Librarian blog is no more. It cannot be won. It is over. It's time for the authors to retire the AL. Good night.

Anonymous said...

I paid for admission to a class on public library law given by the ALA's OIF, but the freedom of speech people, the equal access people, denied my entry again and again after invading my privacy and investigating my background. Eventually only 17 people showed up out of a class size of 60. See Unequal Access.

It's perfectly clear from your own correspondence you were not eligible to attend, for very clear reasons stated in the responses you posted. For the kind of education you need, try a graduate school of information and library science accredited by the ALA, and stop whining. You're worse than AL in that regard.

In the meantime, just keep digging that hole you are burying yourself in. I can't see you're winning points with anybody.

Alan said...

RE: Clearly President Clinton was the first President to "spy on Americans," as people like you and the ALA say.

Nope. Servelance of wire communications has been going on, legeally and illegally, pretty much continously since WWI. You ought to look into it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, how many rape victims are acceptable to you to get to the point where someone can actually present a testable hypothesis and research protocol?

Dunno, how many children must die from samonella before we ban cultivation of tomatoes? One, two, no, let's go after the market! No reason to wait for research and investigation, children are dying as we speak. Horrible, dehydrating, unconscionably painful deaths. All from those tomatoes. Many more have died this summer than are raped at libraries. How many more must die from this horrible preventable disease? In the name of humanity, I beg you, ban tomatoes. See my website, safesalads.org.

Oh, wait, it turns out tomatoes weren't the problem after all. Science, and observation and peer-reviewed analysis, you know. Sorry, never mind. Maybe it's jalapenos. Yea, that's the ticket. Blame the Mexicans. Ya'all go on about your business, now.

I'll be on my way, but I'm sure you can figure out how to reverse all those policies that were put into effect because I didn't know what I was talking about. We all know how easy that is.

Keep digging.

Anonymous said...

President Clinton was the president who "decided to go whole hog and scoop up all of our stuff like a binging bag lady." Only the media did not savage him like they do with President Bush.

You really don't know how to do research, do you? Find a librarian, they can help. In the meantime, find this easily traceable paper that even Google knows about:


FBI Surveillance during the Cold War Years: A Constitutional Crisis
Athan G. Theoharis
The Public Historian, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter, 1981), pp. 4-14

There's an entire body of literature exploring federal intrusions on the communications of American citizens over the past century. Are you kidding?

SafeLibraries.org said...

And the ad hominem, issue-avoidance hit parade rolls on:

"It's perfectly clear from your own correspondence you were not eligible to attend, for very clear reasons stated in the responses you posted."

False. And they changed the admission requirements just to keep people like me out, but AFTER first excluding me. They knew who I was and they violated Pennsylvania law to keep me out. Anybody else doing this is wrong, but for the OIF to do this, to use the very tactics against me that it claims to strive to eliminate, that is the height of hypocrisy and illustrates the true agenda of the OIF. Hint, it is not intellectual freedom or equal access.

"Nope. Servelance of wire communications has been going on, legeally and illegally, pretty much continously since WWI. You ought to look into it."

Yes, I know that. I was talking about the kind of activity that you or another Anonymous was talking about, namely using computers in the modern age to scoop up and sift through all information indiscriminately. President Clinton started that with Project ECHELON.

"In the name of humanity, I beg you, ban tomatoes. See my website, safesalads.org."

Now that's funny. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Alan said...

RE: False. And they changed the admission requirements just to keep people like me out, but AFTER first excluding me.

Entierly reasonable. They actually want to get some work done and make progress, not argue with you. I'd kick you out myself.

Alan said...

RE: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

In this case I would say imitation is the sincerest form of ridicule.

Good one, Anon!

"One horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms. It is more effective and far more intelligent."

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I think he makes sense. You guys continue to attack him personally and rarely address the issues. I have to ask myself why. Like Soren Faust is essentially asking people to voluntarily censor our safelibraries. Truly this surprises me to hear this from people who claim to be against censorship.

It seems to me that people who tell other people to ignore so-and-so have something to hide.

Has anyone noticed safelibraries has actually been getting support here from a number of people in this blog? And neither he nor his supporters has told anyone to ignore anyone else or has attacked his detractors so viciously, or even at all. I have to wonder why that is.

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
j- said...

*RE: just put www.youhide.com on the black list

OK - But what are you black listing? Not porn. www.youhide.com does not have any porn. So by putting it on the black list you are stepping outside the boundaries and black listing a site that does not fall into the category to be prohibited.

What you are blacklisting is freedom.*

We also don't allow nude patrons. It's our house, it's our rule(s). Don't like it? There are plenty of ISPs and computers for sale elsewhere.

*What exactly is the problem here? The problem is that the internet has created a new "media" that has done away with the "mediators." *

No, the problem is skeevy dirtbags looking at porn in full view of the public. Used to be common sense prevailed and people just took this stuff home in brown paper bags.

*It provides content direct from the producer to the consumer with no publisher, editor, commentator, or (HA!) librarian standing in between deciding what is and is not proper, good, moral or fit.*

Obfuscation at its finest.

DirectorWho said...

We had a mom drop off her 6 year old at the library Saturday. We made the young 'un call her on her cell phone (luckily, he knew the number).

when she got back she was royally pi--- um, ticked off because we had started a 'new policy' that stated "children under 12 must be accompanied by a responsible adult while in the library". My counter staff pointed out that the policy has been in place since the library opened.

She still didn't like it and left in a huff.

How can you POSSIBLY blame the Library or the ALA or filters (or lack thereof) for the bad things that happen when the PARENTS themselves REFUSE to take responsibility for their own kids????

Another time, we had a 16 year old have her mom drop her off at the library, and then waited until she drove off, met her boyfriend (still in the parking lot) and drove off with him. The mom called the library, and in a rare instance of benevolence, we paged her. The MOM was FURIOUS with US that her daughter never made it into the library and called the police on US for allowing her daughter to disappear like that.

Fer cryin' out loud, we are NOT a baby-sitting service, we are not a security agency (some of us don't even have security guards let alone security cameras, etc.), we are not an escort (in the good sense) service -- we are LIBRARIANS.

We tell you where the books you need are, and how long you can keep them out. We tell you how to log onto the computer and how to set up your email account.

We are not here to make sure you are safe every minute of the day, especially if you do stupid things like leave your SIX-YEAR OLD here by himself.

grrr. Sometimes it just gets to me.

"The Director"

Alan said...

RE: It's our house, it's our rule(s).

Sorry, J, but I'm a member of this household, so I have some say about the rules. As a matter of fact, the law that Safe Libraries is promoting requires filtering only of images - the proxy server sites don't have any images, let alone porn images.

The same law REQUIRES that filtering be turned off at the request of any adult patron. So, you can filter all you want, but if I ask for free access, that must be honored.

So it looks like I can take a peek at Victoria's Secret whether you like it or not.

------------------------
RE: There are plenty of ISPs and computers for sale elsewhere.

Yes, and there are also plenty of bookstores out there with books for sale. The whole point of a public library is to provide a service, free of charge, to the public. If that is the idea, then quit pissing about people who want you to actually do your job.
------------------------------
RE: Obfuscation at its finest.

Seems like a simple and straight forward point to me. Maybe you should think about it a bit more.

Alan said...

RE: ...we are not a security agency...

Not if Safe Libraries has its way. You will become a wholly owned subsiderary of the NSA, and a front organization for the Public Safety Committee of the Sourthren Baptist Convention.

RCN said...

I don't understand why this discussion, which has nothing to do with AL's original post, shouldn't have continued over on SafeLibraries.org's blog rather than spamming poor ol' AL. The discussion has little to do with her, per se, which could make her even grumpier. Move along now, there's nothing to see here, folks.

~RCN

Alan said...

RE: I don't understand why this discussion.. shouldn't have continued over on SafeLibraries.org's blog

Because NOBODY reads or comments on the SafeLibraries blog. There wouldn't be any discussion of any sort at all there. Nobody new would have seen it and added anything.

Discussions can't take place on the Safe Libraries blog. It's empty.

SafeLibraries.org said...

"Discussions can't take place on the Safe Libraries blog. It's empty."

It's also only a few months old. It'll grow in time.

Anonymous said...

You know, I had a lot more sympathy for SLs position (despite any demonstrated causal link between the porn and the rape) before the comments got so out of hand, and they failed to address (or recognise) the legitimate arguments made against their position. They clearly have no understanding of the scientific method or the fundamental concept "correlation does not imply causation". I give up on this batch of comments - it's just getting silly now.

Anonymous said...

of course I meant to say ..."(despite the lack of any demonstrated causal link between the porn and the rape)"... sorry for that little error.

j- said...

*Sorry, J, but I'm a member of this household,*

Well, you're not a member of MY particular household.

* so I have some say about the rules.*

So you have no say in MY rules...anyway...

*As a matter of fact, the law that Safe Libraries is promoting requires filtering only of images - the proxy server sites don't have any images, let alone porn images.*

I could care less about whatever law that blogpimp is pushing. Local communities have their own decency standards. If the local library wants to pretend it's the last guardian against fascism by allowing perverts to broadcast porno in public, they should be taken to task for it. It's not that hard to comprehend. What kind of person wants to make their career one of nothing but dealing with porn addicts 8 hours a day? Is that you got your MLS? To guarantee the right of Chester the Molester to come in and spend all day at some site like 4chan? Puh-lease.

*So it looks like I can take a peek at Victoria's Secret whether you like it or not.*

If you think Victoria's Secret is porn, you're an ignorant naif. If you are trying to be "cute", it's not working.


*Yes, and there are also plenty of bookstores out there with books for sale. The whole point of a public library is to provide a service, free of charge, to the public.*

The public did not set up libraries with the idea that they would become nothing more than pit-stops for public masturbation. The very fact that this "debate" is even taking place is highly indicative of just how far down the toilet our society is currently swirling.

* If that is the idea, then quit pissing about people who want you to actually do your job.*

I am no longer a librarian who works in a public library--thank God. However, on occasion my family goes to our city's public library. I do not want my young child to be wandering past some old slob manipulating himself on the public dime.

If some librarians want to work in places that are dominated by 30 terminals full of hardcore freaks and/or public masturbators, I recommend a career operating peep show theatres or porn loop booths. Both are probably much more lucrative than public librarianship.

soren faust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan said...

RE: If you think Victoria's Secret is porn, you're an ignorant naif.

Put Mr. Blog Pimp and the Southren Baptist Convention in charge of the web filters and you'll be surprised at what will count as porn.

Blasphamy is next on the to-do list.

RE: perverts... should be taken to task for it

Ok. So your community has public decency laws, and prohibitions on lewed behavoir. Then do what someone on this blog suggested and have a cop arrest the "porno slob." Let the prosecuters decide if his behavior falls under the law's restrictions. Then you don't put the librarians in the position of having to define pornography and act as thought-police.

RE: The public did not set up libraries with the idea that they would become nothing more than pit-stops for public masturbation.

I went to my local public library last night after work and walked around a bit. We have 10's of terminals (probably less than a hundred, but close to) and almost all were occupied. It was easy to see what was on the screens. No porn. And, of course, nobody masterbating.

You think maybe Mr. Blog Pimp might be getting a bit excited about something that isn't really a problem?

I do. That seems to be his modus operandi.

SafeLibraries.org said...

soren faust - that was funny!

Alan - not a problem? See, for example: Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library.

Nom du Jour said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

How about a new Internet theorem on the number of listserv posts/blog comments required before someone refers to porn??

spinetingler said...

@safelibraries

"the OIF might be directly responsible for the few library rapes and the multiple child molestations in libraries nationwide "


I don't think "directly" means what you think it does.

Petter said...

Annoyed, why don't you come over and take a peak at my blog at knowbodies.blogspot.com - I think there's much there that might not interest you!

Anonymous said...

We need only one more for 100 comments.

C'mon folks, pony up something stupid.

Anonymous said...

We can't even get a grocery list here?

Sad.