Hustler Magazine Challenge, Week 2

[Ronnie Morgan]

At 11:44 AM 9/2/97 -0700, DEIRDRE F. WOODWARD wrote:
>The following is a long statement about David Burt's challenge which
ultimately
>ends with the conclusion that his challenge is not only wrong, it is
>potentially damaging to libraries everywhere, and Burt has done his
profession
>and the filtering debate a grave disservice by offering the challenge.

I whole heartedly disagree.  IF anybody felt it was appropriate for a
library to have Hustler, then David would have his email flooded with "I'll
accept the challenge".  But he obviously has NOT had ONE email stating
that.  Why?  Because it is inappropriate for a library to have Hustler.
And by anyone not accepting the challenge, you are admiting that.  Sure,
you'll hide behind excuses like "opportunity costs" and "the internet is
not the same as shelf space" and "he's a disgrace to the profession", but
you still haven't accepted the challenge which means you agree that it is
inappropriate.

So, if it is inappropriate for a library to have Hustler, WHY is it
appropriate for a library to have access to child porn (available on the
internet), pictures of people eating feces (again, available on the
internet), etc...?  Shall I continue with other examples?  WHAT educational
or entertainment value is there in seeing a picture of someone drinking
urine or eating feces?  WHY would any library want to have anything illegal
in there library, such as child porn?  

David is making an EXCELLIENT point by making this challenge.  The only
reason most of you don't like it is the fact that it makes you think, and
think hard about this issue.  And you simply don't want to admit that maybe
he's right.  You call him names, and you say that he is looking for an
argument, and he has attacked people in the past.  Sounds like you're
scared of him.  Scared of the truth he brings to the profession.  And
besides that, he has done nothing that hasn't already been done to him.  He
and I both have been attacked.  I'm not looking for an agrument myself, and
maybe he is, but who cares?  And if you don't want to argue, then don't.
State your views in a rationale way, don't start the name calling and
everything else you accuse him of doing.

And again, this has nothing to do with censorship and it has nothing to do
with being "anti-porn".  All it is about is protecting the children from
porn.  Something they obviously don't need.  

Another argument that keeps coming up, "Let the parents decide".  I agree,
if the parents want them to see porn, then let them.  But for the majority
(as all of you WILL find out) parents DON'T want their kids to see it, and
therefore, it is better to filter the stuff out than to open it up wide.

>On the other hand, software which allows librarians to plug in addresses to 
>certain sites while not allowing free access to the Internet is clearly 
>selection.  Libraries who chose that type of software are offering access to
>selected information from the Internet, but not access to the Internet
>itself.  

This statement struck me as odd.  You are basically doing the same thing,
whether you are "plugging" addresses in, or using a filter program.  Either
way, you are selecting what your library wants to allow from that computer.
 It doesn't matter that at the heart of a filter program, you are basically
"unplugging" addresses, you ARE selecting what is to be available and what
is to not.  This isn't a censorship issue.  No sense in trying to make it one.
                                                        
A couple of other points and I'll go back to lurk mode.  What David and I
are advocating is not a dictatorship.  David advocates that libraries
should have the right to choose.  Most of you won't even allow a library to
choose whether or not a filter should be installed.  Think about it, why
would a library want to suffer the wrath of some of you people by admitting
that they have, or are going to, install a filter program?  Luckly I don't
care what you people think about me personally, or I probably wouldn't be
so active in this debate.  I imagine David feels the same way...  But most
of you do care about what the other thinks of you, and you simply aren't
going to admit to something that would cause you a lot of grief from the
rest of the profession.  And I really have no problem with that, I
understand that one's image is highly important.  But if you are not even
going to allow another library to filter, what does that make you?
Everything you are accusing David of!  Think about that, then try to deny
it, as I'm sure some of you will.

Ronnie

Disclaimer:  Views expressed are mine and mine alone.  My views or opinions
are NOT representative to Harding University.