What's a Librarian to Do?

I was a bit surprised to learn that most of the public libraries in the Merrimack Valley Library Consortium in Massachusetts do not have filters on their computers. Most libraries state that the cost of installing and maintaining the filtering software far surpassed the amount of federal monies that would be forfeited. Big city libraries, such as Boston Public, however, would lose too much money if they chose not to filter. Many have sacrificed their philosophical differences in order to maintain federal funding; kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The implementation of filtering software was integral to every School Acceptable Use Policy that I viewed online. All made it quite clear in their policies, however, that filters were not infallible, and that there were no 100% guarantees that inappropriate sites could not penetrate the software.

Some librarians prefer the filtering software, stating that it relieves them of the pressure to supervise the computer use of many children at one time. Some are amenable to screening because it helps prevent potentially embarrassing situations and removes political pressure. Some feel that filtering serves as a barrier to possible criminal liability. This certainly was not the case for Julie Amero! NEWS FLASH: A sentencing date for this case has been postponed until the end of April.

Many librarians are uncomfortable with the roles that have been thrust upon them by CIPA. An investigation conducted by Jill S. Ratzan and published in the 2004 September/October issue of Public Libraries revealed that the ambiguities involved in being "protector, screen monitor, unblocker, judges of purpose and deniers of access" have left many librarians with an uneasy feeling.