Library Interent Filters

[Segnosaur]

Yes, what a person sees on TV or hears on the radio may differ slightly from content available on CDs/DVDs.

Differ slightly? They are outrightly 'censored', there are un-natural breaks and mis-representations of speech. The view itself is "zoom-in", and doesn't even represent the creator's original view/perspective on the movie.

I never denied that the movies were altered. However, for the most part you can usually still follow the plot, most of the special effects will still be visible, etc. Yes, its not ideal to see movies in that format... But guess what? Its also not ideal to not be able to retrieve a book just because the library couldn't purchase it.

If you were a film student, shouldn't there be somewhere you can find the original work to study, rather than the edited version?

Yes, Its called Netflix.

Plus, if you were a film student, wouldn't you have access to resources at libraries that would be used in your studies?

Actually, I already told you. I have NEVER been unable to fill a book order/request, with the aid of the inter-library loan system.

Good for you....

And I guess, being a skeptics site, we should accept all anecdotes as true. Every one.

And even though there are hundreds of libraries in hundreds of towns across North America, serving diverse population demographics, the fact that YOU (in your small town library) was able to fill all requests means that every request ever made by any library now or in the future will similarly be filled. Never mind the fact that I actually made inquries in the past for books that couldn't be found... your anecdote proves it.

I'm being sarcastic by the way. Point still stands though... just because in YOUR experience you've never had a request you couldn't fill does NOT mean that all libraries or library workers have had the same experience.

Paper costs money, LOTS of it. You have to buy it, care for it, and give it a place to rest. When it gets old, you have to replace it. Data stored on or in digital form does NOT have all of these requirements. Books/'paper', take up space and cost a lot to maintain. DVD's & CD's are as thin as 10 sheets of paper and half the size of an average book. After being removed from their original case, their storage becomes super compact.

Irrelevant. The issue is not whether digital forms of media are smaller/more compact; the isue is whether we should spend scarce resources to aquire material that can be easily aquired elsewhere, or spend the money to aquire stuff which truely would be impossible for people to obtain otherwise.

No, they don't. The ONLY place you can find free internet access in small cities and towns is a local library. Schools are not open during the summer.

Colleges and universities, however, are open in the summer. And even if a student has a delay during summer vacation before they regain internet access, that may be inconvenient but that does not mean there is NO access.

The ONLY freenet organization I've seen was "Books-a-million", over in Sherman, an hour away.

I'm thinking of a group here in Ottawa called National Capital Freenet, who offers free dial-up access.

Then you 'know' how valuable/efficient digital media is..!?

I've never denied the 'efficiency' of digital media. I've just denied the necessity for it to be provided by libraries.

In fact, it is the efficiency that makes it that way. Because access can be provided so cheaply/efficently, there is no need for Libraries to provide that service.

Libraries of the future might be ALL digital. NO BOOKS at all, just a bunch of computer or reading screens, that featured whatever you wanted to look at. You could get a hard copy, but you'd have to pay per page.

People have been predicting the 'paperless' society for years. Technology isn't there yet, and frankly, it may never get there in our lifetimes.



We should use EVERY means possible to get as much information to 'the public' as possible, period.

People make informations requests because..."they require the information".

You seem to misunderstand the point I was making...

Yes, people make requests because they "require the information"... but are they coming specificially to the library because its the only place they can get the matarial, or are they coming to the library because they are just too impatient to wait for movies to come on TV, or don't want to go to an internet cafe.

And yes, all requests are equal. A request for a book on STD's is no or less valuable than one on scale model building. I'd hate to see the criteria list you'd recommend for rating these information requests.

Again, you don't seem to quite understand...

I never claimed we should be dealing with requests based on content. I said they should be dealing with requests based on the ease of getting material elsewhere.

Put it this way... If your library could only afford to buy one book, either one on STDs or scale model building, and you were located right next to a medical clinic which had free copies of books on STDs, then which book should your library buy? The book on STDs (where the person can walk next door and get the same information), or the one on model building (where there may not be another source in the area). In that case, we're not accepting or rejecting books on STDs because of content, but because there are ways to easily get the information from other sources.

Similarly, I'm not suggesting Libraries drop digital media because of content, but because you can get alternatives to digital media outside the library a lot easier than you can get alternatives to book content.

Presently, libraries are the ONLY alternative for many who can't afford to buy books, cd's, movies, and newspapers or magazines. And even they are not open as often as their patrons would like.

Lastly:

"Less Public Access via Libraries = LESS ACCESS FOR POOR"

Is this acceptable to you?

Red herring. And completely wrong to boot.

I want to maximize the information available to the poor. Spending money to duplicate a service which is cheaply available elsewhere (and as a result forgoing other material) is not the proper way to maximize information available to the poor. If you want to maximize what the poor can access, you have to consider all sources of information in society, not just that which comes from the library.

We operated 6 terminals, for $100 a month. The computers were a grant from the Gates foundation, and we paid a guy about $50 every 6 months to debug the system.

For less than the price 54 books, we can give up to 48 people access to the world for one full hour each day, several hundred days a year.

Well, lets debug your little 'analysis'...
- You never said what exactly that $100/month was for... electricty? The actual internet connection?
- You claim that the computers were a 'grant' from the Gates foundation. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were "free" (at least from society's point of view). They still cost, its just that the source of the money (ultimately your average citizen) had their contributions filtered through the Gates foundation rather than through the tax man
- If it 'only' costs $50 every 6 months to debug the system, your system is still pretty new. Talk to me in a couple of years, when the hard drives start to break down, or the operating system gets out of date.

Now, lets say your costs WERE accurate (they aren't, but I'm pretending they are for a second...) Your choice is between the computers/internet or around 50 books per year. However, the internet CAN be accessed in other ways. Those 50 books? Quite possible that the library will be the only source for them.

Oh, and lets not forget one more cost... Even if you can (as you claim) get "any" book through interlibary loan, such loans are not free. I'm sure there are costs to transport the material, staff has to be paid, etc. By buying those 50 or so books (instead of paying for an internet connection), you could be eliminating future costs to the system involved with such loans. (I should also point out that I recall someone stating that at their library, users actually had to pay for interlibrary loans... while that may not be the case at all libraries, where such a policy is in place poor people might end up paying.)

 

[King of the Americas]

I never denied that the movies were altered. However, for the most part you can usually still follow the plot, most of the special effects will still be visible, etc. Yes, its not ideal to see movies in that format... But guess what? Its also not ideal to not be able to retrieve a book just because the library couldn't purchase it.

Okay, THAT in and of itself, would be enough to disqualify it as an "alternative". Censorship is unacceptable.

Yes, Its called Netflix.

And it isn't a 'free' alternative.

Plus, if you were a film student, wouldn't you have access to resources at libraries that would be used in your studies?

Not if you were in high school.

Good for you....

And I guess, being a skeptics site, we should accept all anecdotes as true. Every one.

And even though there are hundreds of libraries in hundreds of towns across North America, serving diverse population demographics, the fact that YOU (in your small town library) was able to fill all requests means that every request ever made by any library now or in the future will similarly be filled. Never mind the fact that I actually made inquries in the past for books that couldn't be found... your anecdote proves it.

I'm being sarcastic by the way. Point still stands though... just because in YOUR experience you've never had a request you couldn't fill does NOT mean that all libraries or library workers have had the same experience.

Libraries share, this is a fact, and in this way we can handle most, if not all requests.

If it is in print, a book can be found. I've heard of a book even having to come from the Library of Congress, but the patron DID get their book.

Irrelevant. The issue is not whether digital forms of media are smaller/more compact; the isue is whether we should spend scarce resources to aquire material that can be easily aquired elsewhere, or spend the money to aquire stuff which truely would be impossible for people to obtain otherwise.

Your stance is that we should do what is cost beneficial, and not redundant. There is nothing truly 'redundant', within the digital media section. "...Easily acquired elsewhere..." is the phrase you so easily toss about, without searching out actual options, THAT DON'T EXIST!

Colleges and universities, however, are open in the summer. And even if a student has a delay during summer vacation before they regain internet access, that may be inconvenient but that does not mean there is NO access.

But this assumes people can get TO these other options. We aren't talking about metroplexes, but towns and cities. Libraries ARE the 'only' outlet for many.

I've never denied the 'efficiency' of digital media. I've just denied the necessity for it to be provided by libraries.

It is fast, inexpensive, easy to store, and inexpensive to maintain. That's exactly the kind of stuff a library should spend money on.

In fact, it is the efficiency that makes it that way. Because access can be provided so cheaply/efficently, there is no need for Libraries to provide that service.

That makes no sense. It works well, so DON'T use it...

People have been predicting the 'paperless' society for years. Technology isn't there yet, and frankly, it may never get there in our lifetimes.

Libraries have already 'started' to go paperless. We stopped carrying the Dallas and Ft. Worth papers, 'because' they were available online.

You seem to misunderstand the point I was making...

I 'think' I understand your point, I just disagree with your findings...

Yes, people make requests because they "require the information"... but are they coming specificially to the library because its the only place they can get the matarial, or are they coming to the library because they are just too impatient to wait for movies to come on TV, or don't want to go to an internet cafe.

Again, you don't seem to quite understand...

I never claimed we should be dealing with requests based on content. I said they should be dealing with requests based on the ease of getting material elsewhere.

Put it this way... If your library could only afford to buy one book, either one on STDs or scale model building, and you were located right next to a medical clinic which had free copies of books on STDs, then which book should your library buy? The book on STDs (where the person can walk next door and get the same information), or the one on model building (where there may not be another source in the area). In that case, we're not accepting or rejecting books on STDs because of content, but because there are ways to easily get the information from other sources.

There you go again, "easily get information from other sources". There are no such sources... A book would likely be more informative than a free pamphlet... Before purchasing an item, we consider times requested & potential secondary uses.

I want to maximize the information available to the poor. Spending money to duplicate a service which is cheaply available elsewhere (and as a result forgoing other material) is not the proper way to maximize information available to the poor. If you want to maximize what the poor can access, you have to consider all sources of information in society, not just that which comes from the library.

Eliminating programs that are already in use by the poor, without locating ACTUAL alternatives would be cutting them off from information.

Well, lets debug your little 'analysis'...
- You never said what exactly that $100/month was for... electricty? The actual internet connection?
- You claim that the computers were a 'grant' from the Gates foundation. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were "free" (at least from society's point of view). They still cost, its just that the source of the money (ultimately your average citizen) had their contributions filtered through the Gates foundation rather than through the tax man
- If it 'only' costs $50 every 6 months to debug the system, your system is still pretty new. Talk to me in a couple of years, when the hard drives start to break down, or the operating system gets out of date.

Now, lets say your costs WERE accurate (they aren't, but I'm pretending they are for a second...) Your choice is between the computers/internet or around 50 books per year. However, the internet CAN be accessed in other ways. Those 50 books? Quite possible that the library will be the only source for them.

Oh, and lets not forget one more cost... Even if you can (as you claim) get "any" book through interlibary loan, such loans are not free. I'm sure there are costs to transport the material, staff has to be paid, etc. By buying those 50 or so books (instead of paying for an internet connection), you could be eliminating future costs to the system involved with such loans. (I should also point out that I recall someone stating that at their library, users actually had to pay for interlibrary loans... while that may not be the case at all libraries, where such a policy is in place poor people might end up paying.)

Firstly, I'd like to point out that 'most' of the costs incurred by offer internet terminals ARE covered by grants. This is because 'some' people realized that everyone should have access to the web, even poor people in out-of-the-way locations. Most of the cost is the internet access fees and electricity.

I don't think we are going to agree herein. Your suggestion can't be heeded, because at this time, the "easily accessible alternatives" are non-existent.

 

[Dancing David]

Make an official request...if they refuse to fill that "written request" in a timely manner, you've got a suit on you hands.

Um, I am not sure where you live but the city council has the right to oversee what the library purchases. And they have made a choice to not purchase Playboy or Hustler.

Now when it came to Madonna's book, they agreed to have it in a special reserve area so it was off limits to the kinder.

I am not sure it would be a free speech issue as I can go purchse said materials if I wish.

Heck my small town has a huge discussion about the high schools kids reading The Kiterunner. The school still had them read it but it filled the letters to the editor for many weeks. (The schools had to offer an opt out for parents who did not want their child to read the book.)

 

[King of the Americas]

Um, I am not sure where you live but the city council has the right to oversee what the library purchases. And they have made a choice to not purchase Playboy or Hustler.

Now when it came to Madonna's book, they agreed to have it in a special reserve area so it was off limits to the kinder.

I am not sure it would be a free speech issue as I can go purchse said materials if I wish.

Heck my small town has a huge discussion about the high schools kids reading The Kiterunner. The school still had them read it but it filled the letters to the editor for many weeks. (The schools had to offer an opt out for parents who did not want their child to read the book.)

I agree, they DO have a right to respond their majority...but that doesn't mean that library can't fill that request.

"Inter-library Loans", my friend.

I happen to know personally, that the Library at UNT has EVERY issue of Playboy...(I was looking for the first picture of a published naked woman, "Marilyn Manroe".) To my recollection, they carried Hustler too.

A 'media request' is supposed to be filled upon request, in a timely manner, regardless of content.

Read up on the Freedom of Information Act.

The Right TO Free Speech, doesn't just cover the right to speak, but the right to access 'speech'...

 

[Dancing David]

I hate to say this but you take things too seriously. I mean I am glad you are passionate but the right to access pornography at a library is not high on my list.

The right to access the memos of our government is another issue. Sorry internet filters are here to stay in my library, yours is obviously different.

ETA: I can access that speech anytime I want, on my dime. I don't becuase it is unhealthy for me and would booger up my machine.

 

[Segnosaur]

I happen to know personally, that the Library at UNT has EVERY issue of Playboy...(I was looking for the first picture of a published naked woman, "Marilyn Manroe".) To my recollection, they carried Hustler too.

The fact that a library carries Playboy (or even hustler) does not mean that they will necessarily carry a comprehensive collection of every adult magazine and movie available.

You know, I sense a certain amount of confirmation bias in your responses... because YOU had a certain positive experience, you automatically assume EVERYONE is going to have the same experience.

Read up on the Freedom of Information Act.

Don't think the "Freedom of Information Act" applies here. I'm not American so I'm not privy to all the details, but FOIA involves control and access to government produced/government controlled documents. It does not require the government to provide access to privately produced material that was produced for private consumption.

The Right TO Free Speech, doesn't just cover the right to speak, but the right to access 'speech'...

Yes, you have the right to access any 'speech' you want... but there is nothing in the constitution that forces the government to provide the opportunity to hear that speech.

You have the right to go buy any magazine you want (well, outside of certain items which are considered illegal such as childpr0n). You do not have the right to tell the government "I want you to supply me with this magazine", any more than you have the right to tell the government "I want to watch TV, and because of 'free speech' I expect the government to buy me one".

 

[Segnosaur]

Okay, THAT in and of itself, would be enough to disqualify it as an "alternative". Censorship is unacceptable.

You know, you really don't seem to have a firm grasp on the concepts of free speech and censorship, do you.

I have the right to free speech, to say anything i want, and to listen to anything I want. I do not have the expectation that I will automatically have a forum to present my ideas, nor will I automatically be given access to anything I want.

If you were a film student, shouldn't there be somewhere you can find the original work to study, rather than the edited version?

And it isn't a 'free' alternative.

I never claimed it was free... but if an individual is a student taking classes in the study of some subject, it is certainly not unreasonable for the school to expect the student to supply their own materials. I had to when I was a student.

Plus, if you were a film student, wouldn't you have access to resources at libraries that would be used in your studies?

Not if you were in high school.

Then you wouldn't be a 'film student', you'd be a 'high school' student.

And if there were such a course that a student was taking, it should be up to the educational institution to provide materials (such as movies) if the course cirriculum depends on it. (My library didn't provide microscopes for the courses I took in biology; the school was responsible for supplying those in the lab. If films are necessary for courses a student is taking, then it should be the school making the effort to ensure students have access to materials they need.

And then of course there is the issue of availability... some books/movies at libraries can have very extensive waiting lists. If some student is depending on getting a copy of a movie at a Library in order to fulfill school requirements, they could find themselves out of luck.

Libraries share, this is a fact, and in this way we can handle most, if not all requests.

First of all, Correction... SOME libraries share. Not all do.

Secondly, as had been previously mentioned in this thread, many such library loans result in user fees.

So, tell me, in your little 'library' world... which do you think a user can better afford, if they were poor?
- $1-$2 for an hour or 2 at a local internet cafe or video rental at the local corner store
- $25 for the interlibrary loan of some book, for which the library COULD have lent for free if they had their own copy, didn't bother buying because they decided to purchase a DVD of "Spider-man" instead?

I did a quick search to see how much libraries charged for loans. While its not exactly a comprehensive list, it seems like charging for loans is quite common. For example:

http://www.unf.edu/library/circ/ill.html (points to some loans that can cost $15-25 per title.)
http://www.alexandria.lib.va.us/main/interlibrary_loan.html (Points to a $5 fee per request)
http://www.shellsburg.lib.ia.us/library-information/policies/FinesandFees (another public library charging people for interlibrary loans)

And by the way, even if YOUR library does not charge people for intrelibrary loans, that does not mean that they are 'free'... the cost in shipping matials, book keeping, ect. has to be paid for by someone, and if you're not charging users for interlibrary loans, then the money has to come from other library revenue (which in turn leads to less money for acquistions.)

Your stance is that we should do what is cost beneficial, and not redundant. There is nothing truly 'redundant', within the digital media section. "...Easily acquired elsewhere..." is the phrase you so easily toss about, without searching out actual options, THAT DON'T EXIST!

Actualyl, "easily acquired elsewhere" does exist, and the fact that you are unwilling to recognize that fact is yoru failure, not mine.

Colleges and universities, however, are open in the summer. And even if a student has a delay during summer vacation before they regain internet access, that may be inconvenient but that does not mean there is NO access.

But this assumes people can get TO these other options.

And you're assuming people can get TO the library. What about shutins? What about people who live in the country, far from the library? What about people that have to work during the hours that the library is open? If you're going to complain that people can't use my suggested alernatives for distance, then you can also assume there will be certain people who can't use the library for similar reasons.

I've never denied the 'efficiency' of digital media. I've just denied the necessity for it to be provided by libraries.

It is fast, inexpensive, easy to store, and inexpensive to maintain. That's exactly the kind of stuff a library should spend money on.

Uhh... no.

In general, government services should be geared towards providing things that can't be provided elsewhere... we expect them to provide police/fire services, roads, etc. because its logistically impossible for individuals or companies to provide these services. We do NOT expect the government to provide food or clothing, because it IS logistically possible for companies to sell this stuff at the local Wal Mart.

With libraries, since books/journals are expensive and often FAR outside the budgets of poor (or even middle class) people, those are the materials that the libraries should concentrate on. (Without libraries, people could have to spend $20, $30, or more to aquire a book.) However companies ARE willing to run internet cafes. Companies ARE willing to rent videos. And they're willing to do so at a cost that's much cheaper than buying a book.

Yes, people make requests because they "require the information"... but are they coming specificially to the library because its the only place they can get the matarial, or are they coming to the library because they are just too impatient to wait for movies to come on TV, or don't want to go to an internet cafe.

Put it this way... If your library could only afford to buy one book, either one on STDs or scale model building, and you were located right next to a medical clinic which had free copies of books on STDs, then which book should your library buy? The book on STDs (where the person can walk next door and get the same information), or the one on model building (where there may not be another source in the area).

There you go again, "easily get information from other sources". There are no such sources... A book would likely be more informative than a free pamphlet...

You see, this is indicative of problems you seem to have...

First of all, I specifically pointed out that the medical clinic next door had books on STDs available, not just pamphlets. (I find it ironic that someone who supposedly works in a library doesn't seem to actually read stuff that closely.)

Secondly, your fixation, both on the 'STD book', and on the assumption that the Library can and should be the only source of information. I stated quite plainly that there were 2, count 'em 2 possible books they can purchase, on totally different topics. One book had information available elsewhere, one did not.

Frankly, as a society, I would much rather have a situation where if we have 2 topics of interest, we have information available on BOTH of them (even if the information available on one of the topics was not totally complete.)

Heck, lets assume that the information available at the medical clinic next door was only half complete... If we actually had to measure the "total information available":
- If the library bought the medical book, they would not have built the modelling book. Thus, a poor person would have access to 100% of the information available on one topic, and 0% available on the second topic. Total combined information: 50%
- If the library bought the modelling book, but had to go next door for medical information, a poor person would have access to 100% of the modelling information, and 50% of the medical information. Total combined information: 75%
You may not LIKE the fact that your library isn't carrying the medical book, but society as a whole is better off, based on the total knowledge available.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that 'most' of the costs incurred by offer internet terminals ARE covered by grants.

Irrelenvant. I've already pointed out that even if internet terminals are provided free, and Bill Gates himself does the tech support free of charge, and actually provides a free nuclear reactor to generate the electricity to power them, the actual cost is NOT 0. The cost for providing access may not be coming out of the library budget, but it is STILL costing society. If people were not 'generously' giving internet connections to the libraries, then either A: they would be paying more in taxes (giving the government more money to supply services), B: they would find some other worthy cause to donate money to (thus providing benefit to society), or C: they (meaning people like Bill Gates who are providing the donations) would be able to cut the prices charged by his company.

 

[King of the Americas]

You know, you really don't seem to have a firm grasp on the concepts of free speech and censorship, do you.

I have the right to free speech, to say anything i want, and to listen to anything I want. I do not have the expectation that I will automatically have a forum to present my ideas, nor will I automatically be given access to anything I want.

Freedom OF Speech 'covers' the right to access "uncensored" speech, from a public library source. This is not a free service. You pay for it through taxes. And because you do, you CAN, make unfiltered media demands upon libraries.

I never claimed it was free... but if an individual is a student taking classes in the study of some subject, it is certainly not unreasonable for the school to expect the student to supply their own materials. I had to when I was a student.

Then you wouldn't be a 'film student', you'd be a 'high school' student.

And if there were such a course that a student was taking, it should be up to the educational institution to provide materials (such as movies) if the course cirriculum depends on it. (My library didn't provide microscopes for the courses I took in biology; the school was responsible for supplying those in the lab. If films are necessary for courses a student is taking, then it should be the school making the effort to ensure students have access to materials they need.

Study on any given topic starts, when 'you' decide to begin the work studying.

And then of course there is the issue of availability... some books/movies at libraries can have very extensive waiting lists. If some student is depending on getting a copy of a movie at a Library in order to fulfill school requirements, they could find themselves out of luck.

Agreed. Libraries don't guarantee 'speedy' access. But they DO guarantee 'full' or complete access, in an unfiltered manner.

First of all, Correction... SOME libraries share. Not all do.

Secondly, as had been previously mentioned in this thread, many such library loans result in user fees.

I can only speak to the systems I have worked with. In Texas, in order to maintain your title as "Public Library", you HAVE to be a part of NETLS- an interlibrary loan system. Otherwise, you are just a 'tiny' collection of material, and not a library at all.

So, tell me, in your little 'library' world... which do you think a user can better afford, if they were poor?
- $1-$2 for an hour or 2 at a local internet cafe or video rental at the local corner store
- $25 for the interlibrary loan of some book, for which the library COULD have lent for free if they had their own copy, didn't bother buying because they decided to purchase a DVD of "Spider-man" instead?

Neither. They are 'poor'. Where are these $1-2 per hr internet cafes? In Oklahoma 10 years go, it was $5 an hour.

I did a quick search to see how much libraries charged for loans. While its not exactly a comprehensive list, it seems like charging for loans is quite common. For example:

http://www.unf.edu/library/circ/ill.html (points to some loans that can cost $15-25 per title.)
http://www.alexandria.lib.va.us/main/interlibrary_loan.html (Points to a $5 fee per request)
http://www.shellsburg.lib.ia.us/library-information/policies/FinesandFees (another public library charging people for interlibrary loans)

I'll concede those rates may be accurate.

And by the way, even if YOUR library does not charge people for intrelibrary loans, that does not mean that they are 'free'... the cost in shipping matials, book keeping, ect. has to be paid for by someone, and if you're not charging users for interlibrary loans, then the money has to come from other library revenue (which in turn leads to less money for acquistions.)

As I noted, I can only talk from Texas systems. Here, ALL interlibrary loans delivery is covered by the post office. Again, I'll concede this isn't a 'free' service. Again it is paid for by taxes. As I noted, even if funds WERE available, no one library could stock EVERY book. Libraries have limited shelf space, when we buy something, something else has to come off. Digital sources don't have this problem...

Actualy, "easily acquired elsewhere" does exist, and the fact that you are unwilling to recognize that fact is yoru failure, not mine.

Alright, imagine its 2000 years ago, and a group of citizens are discussing taking up a collection to begin a library. Segnosaur chirps up and says, "I don't think we should spend money buying religious texts. We already have two churches, no need to be redundant!"

In a retort, the local free speech guru, screams "Wait, those churches ALWAYS censor what comes out of those texts!"

So a debate erupts. "Should citizens pay for ALL of the information, so that ALL of it is accessible, or should we provide 'some' of the information and hope that people can find the other stuff elsewhere?"

Thankfully, free speech won the day. The winning argument was, "If I am gonna 'have' to pay for a library, I want 'complete' access to non-censored material."

We decided, as a society, that the "unfiltered, uncensored, complete work", was worth offering even if we did have to pay for it...and we still do.

We concluded that a 'sanitized' version is utterly useless.

And you're assuming people can get TO the library. What about shutins? What about people who live in the country, far from the library? What about people that have to work during the hours that the library is open? If you're going to complain that people can't use my suggested alernatives for distance, then you can also assume there will be certain people who can't use the library for similar reasons.

We have "library buddies" that can go to the library and check out and return items for you. This is a free service that volunteers help to provide. Eliminating sections of the library wouldn't help anyone get more information...

In general, government services should be geared towards providing things that can't be provided elsewhere... we expect them to provide police/fire services, roads, etc. because its logistically impossible for individuals or companies to provide these services. We do NOT expect the government to provide food or clothing, because it IS logistically possible for companies to sell this stuff at the local Wal Mart.

Agreed. But we 'also' decided that Library goodies were one of those things all people can't necessarily get for themselves...

With libraries, since books/journals are expensive and often FAR outside the budgets of poor (or even middle class) people, those are the materials that the libraries should concentrate on. (Without libraries, people could have to spend $20, $30, or more to aquire a book.) However companies ARE willing to run internet cafes. Companies ARE willing to rent videos. And they're willing to do so at a cost that's much cheaper than buying a book.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean they are within reach of the poorest of the poor...

You see, this is indicative of problems you seem to have...

First of all, I specifically pointed out that the medical clinic next door had books on STDs available, not just pamphlets. (I find it ironic that someone who supposedly works in a library doesn't seem to actually read stuff that closely.)

Secondly, your fixation, both on the 'STD book', and on the assumption that the Library can and should be the only source of information. I stated quite plainly that there were 2, count 'em 2 possible books they can purchase, on totally different topics. One book had information available elsewhere, one did not.

Frankly, as a society, I would much rather have a situation where if we have 2 topics of interest, we have information available on BOTH of them (even if the information available on one of the topics was not totally complete.)

Heck, lets assume that the information available at the medical clinic next door was only half complete... If we actually had to measure the "total information available":
- If the library bought the medical book, they would not have built the modelling book. Thus, a poor person would have access to 100% of the information available on one topic, and 0% available on the second topic. Total combined information: 50%
- If the library bought the modelling book, but had to go next door for medical information, a poor person would have access to 100% of the modelling information, and 50% of the medical information. Total combined information: 75%
You may not LIKE the fact that your library isn't carrying the medical book, but society as a whole is better off, based on the total knowledge available.

Alright, IF the health clinic was FREE and open 24-7, and they had a full collection of STD books that you could borrow, then I'll concede that you should buy the model building book, rather than the STD one... Happy now?

Irrelenvant. I've already pointed out that even if internet terminals are provided free, and Bill Gates himself does the tech support free of charge, and actually provides a free nuclear reactor to generate the electricity to power them, the actual cost is NOT 0. The cost for providing access may not be coming out of the library budget, but it is STILL costing society. If people were not 'generously' giving internet connections to the libraries, then either A: they would be paying more in taxes (giving the government more money to supply services), B: they would find some other worthy cause to donate money to (thus providing benefit to society), or C: they (meaning people like Bill Gates who are providing the donations) would be able to cut the prices charged by his company.

You've said earlier that you didn't 'like' the idea of having to pay for other people's entertainment. Could we also glean that you don't like paying taxes that cover welfare programs? I mean there ARE soup kitchens and churches that feed the hungry...

People like Bill Gates give libraries computers because they acknowledge that information, in this age, is one of the most important things to people. Knowledge can empower, uplift, and encourage people to get more out of themselves and their world.

I recall now why I got impatient with you previously...

Just because 'you' have reached a point of financial security that allows 'you' easy access to library alternatives, that means EVERYONE else should have to as well.

You are in the minority, I'm afraid. We decided, as a society, that it is of the utmost importance that people, even the poorest, should have complete access to the world of media, that means ALL of it. The alternatives you continuously tout DON'T exist, 'especially' for the poor.

Eliminating the Internet and the digital media section would limit the poor's access to the 21st century... I find this unacceptable.

I'd wager you don't.

And with that, I'll announce yet again, that I am finished with this thread. I made the arguments I failed to before, and they were no more effective in changing your mind.

While I feel like I gave you 'good arguments', maybe I didn't make the 'best' most convincing ones. So, I'd like you to do me a favor 'before' you make another response...

Go to your local library, present your ideas & arguments to the on staff Librarian, and ask he/she why the continued redundancy when there are so many alternatives...

I'd LOVE to hear someone else's retorts to your planks. And before you accuse me of wanting you to do my research, for me. I want you to 'hear' it from someone else. I have no faith in my ability to augment your thinking with my set of facts.

 

[Dancing David]

So this is just ranting...

 

[King of the Americas]

So this is just ranting...

I thought of it more as a request for understanding...

He can't hear 'me', maybe someone qualified to respond in a face to face manner will be able to reach him.

---

I just re-read my retort...it sounded a little "rant-ish". My apologies.

 

[Segnosaur]

Freedom OF Speech 'covers' the right to access "uncensored" speech, from a public library source. This is not a free service. You pay for it through taxes. And because you do, you CAN, make unfiltered media demands upon libraries.

Please point me to the part of the constitution that requires the government to provide access to any and all media at taxpayer's expense.

I never claimed it was free... but if an individual is a student taking classes in the study of some subject, it is certainly not unreasonable for the school to expect the student to supply their own materials. I had to when I was a student.

Then you wouldn't be a 'film student', you'd be a 'high school' student.

Study on any given topic starts, when 'you' decide to begin the work studying.

So, in other words, what you're doing is your taking the word 'student' (usually assumed to be someone enrolled in some formal educational program) and expanding its defintion (almost to the point where some people might assume it has no meaning.)

Agreed. Libraries don't guarantee 'speedy' access. But they DO guarantee 'full' or complete access, in an unfiltered manner.

First of all, I've already pointed out that libraries do not gurantee access to "all" material. You keep claiming that every request YOU'VE been involved with has come through, but that is nothing but an anecdote, and even YOU weren't sure wheter some material (e.g. Hustler magazine) was available. How's that serch for hardcore pr0n going? Certainly not available in the public library I have access to (even with their loan systems).

Secondly, I find it ironic that you would complain about someone having imperfect access to materials through non-library sources, yet you seem to totally dismiss the fact that such waiting lists can be such a burden as to make the public library useless in obtaining certain documents.

So, tell me, in your little 'library' world... which do you think a user can better afford, if they were poor?
- $1-$2 for an hour or 2 at a local internet cafe or video rental at the local corner store
- $25 for the interlibrary loan of some book, for which the library COULD have lent for free if they had their own copy, didn't bother buying because they decided to purchase a DVD of "Spider-man" instead?

Neither. They are 'poor'. Where are these $1-2 per hr internet cafes? In Oklahoma 10 years go, it was $5 an hour.

First of all, your answer is a total cop-out....The issue is which cost less, a $25 user fee, or a $2 rental or internet cafe fee. That was the question you were asked. (Of course, I'm not suprised you avoided actually answering the question... after all, I'm sure having to actually deal with issues that debunk your points is something you might want to avoid.)

Secondly, I got the $1-2 cost by just googling internet cafes.. Even if your local internet cafes are more expensive, in MOST parts of the world $5 is STILL less than $15-25 that it might cost for an interlibrary loan.

By the way, if you were basing things on costs from 10 years ago, don't you think that the costs MAY have come down over the years as infrastructure improved?

As I noted, I can only talk from Texas systems. Here, ALL interlibrary loans delivery is covered by the post office. Again, I'll concede this isn't a 'free' service. Again it is paid for by taxes.

Costs that again reduce the amount of resouces available for other community infrastructure. Of course, you never seem to want to address that when you talk about how much money you save having 'cheap' digital sources in the library.

As I noted, even if funds WERE available, no one library could stock EVERY book. Libraries have limited shelf space, when we buy something, something else has to come off.

And where did I claim a library COULD stock every book?

Alright, imagine its 2000 years ago, and a group of citizens are discussing taking up a collection to begin a library. Segnosaur chirps up and says, "I don't think we should spend money buying religious texts. We already have two churches, no need to be redundant!"

In a retort, the local free speech guru, screams "Wait, those churches ALWAYS censor what comes out of those texts!"

So a debate erupts. "Should citizens pay for ALL of the information, so that ALL of it is accessible, or should we provide 'some' of the information and hope that people can find the other stuff elsewhere?"

Thankfully, free speech won the day. The winning argument was, "If I am gonna 'have' to pay for a library, I want 'complete' access to non-censored material."

Fine, except for the fact that you are ignoring material that that library would have had to have given up in order to buy those religious texts.

You seem to be ignoring the issue of limited resources. Its a mistake you make now, its a mistake you've made before.

We have "library buddies" that can go to the library and check out and return items for you. This is a free service that volunteers help to provide. Eliminating sections of the library wouldn't help anyone get more information...

And how exactly do those 'library buddies' work providing internet access to shutins and/or those working during regular hours?

You have suggested in the past that internet connections in libraries was 'necessary' because alternatives (such as internet cafes, or community freenets) were impractical for certain poor people. Yet I've pointed out a portion of the community who would gain no benefit to the library's interenet connection even if they 'need' it.

If its 'bad' to have anyone denyed access to the internet, then what do you do about those people?


Agreed. But we 'also' decided that Library goodies were one of those things all people can't necessarily get for themselves...



Agreed. But that doesn't mean they are within reach of the poorest of the poor...

Frankly, as a society, I would much rather have a situation where if we have 2 topics of interest, we have information available on BOTH of them (even if the information available on one of the topics was not totally complete.)

Alright, IF the health clinic was FREE and open 24-7, and they had a full collection of STD books that you could borrow, then I'll concede that you should buy the model building book, rather than the STD one... Happy now?

No...

first of all, I would have been happy had you figured out all that stuff out on your own, and were able to clue in to the fact that sources of information exist outside the library system, without me having to hit you over the head with such a contrived scenario.

Secondly, your 'conditions' (such as having to be open 24-7) illustrate that you still don't quite understand. Even if the clinic had REDUCED hours. Even if their collection was limited, it is still better, as a society, to have information on 2 subjects, even if the information on one subject imperfect, than to have information on one subject only.

You've said earlier that you didn't 'like' the idea of having to pay for other people's entertainment. Could we also glean that you don't like paying taxes that cover welfare programs? I mean there ARE soup kitchens and churches that feed the hungry...

Actually, I have no problem with the government offering welfare. I believe that the government does have a responsibility to help those people that are truly disadvantaged.

Now, I DO believe that there are limits to how generous welfare programs should be. Yes, the basics of life should be covered, yes there should be programs that will help poor people improve their lot in life (though the education system, training programs, etc.) But I also have trouble justifying support for people who WANT to be poor, and/or make repeated bad decsions.

People like Bill Gates give libraries computers because they acknowledge that information, in this age, is one of the most important things to people.

The cynic in me says that he's giving computers because:
- He wants the tax deductions
- He wants the free publicity that comes with being generous
As I said before though... those computers that Bill Gates are not 'free'... they are still paid for by society, either through higher software prices, less tax money collected, and/or money not spent on other charitable causes.

Knowledge can empower, uplift, and encourage people to get more out of themselves and their world.

An empty headed, moronic statment if I ever heard one.

At no point have I ever suggested that we should curtail the spread of knowledge. In fact, I'm MORE interested in spreading knowledge than you are. The difference is, you've become fixated on the provision of knowledge from one source only (the Library), while I have an interest in the knowledge available to society as a whole.

But hey, if it makes you feel better, keep knocking those strawmen down with those lovely empty headed phrases.

Just because 'you' have reached a point of financial security that allows 'you' easy access to library alternatives, that means EVERYONE else should have to as well.

As I've pointed out, even your 'free' alternatives can result in user fees to 'poor' library patrons, a fact that you seem to regularly forget.

You know, I once challenged you to explain how somone could be wealthy enough that they can afford a TV and DVD player, but so poor that they don't have the ability to actually pay for their own movie rentals (thus requiring the library to supply the material). You declined to address that issue (probably because it would further debunk your assertions.)

You are in the minority, I'm afraid.

Being in the minority does NOT mean that I am wrong.

By the way, where exactly is your proof that I'm "in the minority"?

Eliminating the Internet and the digital media section would limit the poor's access to the 21st century... I find this unacceptable.

I'd wager you don't.

No, I wager that I just have a better grasp at how the real world works.

While I feel like I gave you 'good arguments', maybe I didn't make the 'best' most convincing ones.

You are welcome to 'feel' any way that you want. But when you reguarlly run away from challenges I make when I debunk your posts, you're not exactly presenting your points in a 'good' way.

Empty headed 'flowery' speech, knocking down strawmen, and ignoring the content in posts that others make is not exactly giving "good arguments".

 

[King of the Americas]

Seg,

I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration. I've enjoyed reading your responses and sharing my notions.

Be well, sir.

*When or IF you ever make it to your local library and present your arguments to an actual Librarian, I look forward to hearing a qualified person's retort...

 

[LibraryLady]

*snip*

After re-reading the thread, I did want to pose a question to L.L.:

You mentioned that you were proud of the atheist collection you've built, in lou of not being asked for such material. The retort was made in response to my contention that Libraries should be a 'direct' representative of the requests made upon it. What other areas do you add to that aren't requested? I am suggesting that it is 'wrong' to add material that hasn't been requested. That to me seems truly wasteful. If a town was made up of catholics, how much sense would it make to to fill the shelves with Muslim or Hindu study guides, in an attempt at 'balance'? Libraries should be filled by material that HAS been requested.

*snip*

I didn't see until now that this thread was revived.

I don't see that I ever said that atheist books weren't requested. Actually they were and we didn't have much, so I developed that collection in response to patron need.

Do you really think that Catholics would only want to read Catholic books? My experience has been that people of various religions are very curious about others and request reading material accordingly.

 

[fuelair]

Okay, THAT in and of itself, would be enough to disqualify it as an "alternative". Censorship is unacceptable.



And it isn't a 'free' alternative.



Not if you were in high school.



Libraries share, this is a fact, and in this way we can handle most, if not all requests.

If it is in print, a book can be found. I've heard of a book even having to come from the Library of Congress, but the patron DID get their book.



Your stance is that we should do what is cost beneficial, and not redundant. There is nothing truly 'redundant', within the digital media section. "...Easily acquired elsewhere..." is the phrase you so easily toss about, without searching out actual options, THAT DON'T EXIST!



But this assumes people can get TO these other options. We aren't talking about metroplexes, but towns and cities. Libraries ARE the 'only' outlet for many.



It is fast, inexpensive, easy to store, and inexpensive to maintain. That's exactly the kind of stuff a library should spend money on.



That makes no sense. It works well, so DON'T use it...



Libraries have already 'started' to go paperless. We stopped carrying the Dallas and Ft. Worth papers, 'because' they were available online.



I 'think' I understand your point, I just disagree with your findings...



There you go again, "easily get information from other sources". There are no such sources... A book would likely be more informative than a free pamphlet... Before purchasing an item, we consider times requested & potential secondary uses.



Eliminating programs that are already in use by the poor, without locating ACTUAL alternatives would be cutting them off from information.



Firstly, I'd like to point out that 'most' of the costs incurred by offer internet terminals ARE covered by grants. This is because 'some' people realized that everyone should have access to the web, even poor people in out-of-the-way locations. Most of the cost is the internet access fees and electricity.

I don't think we are going to agree herein. Your suggestion can't be heeded, because at this time, the "easily accessible alternatives" are non-existent.

I love the part of this on film studies - I have been in no library so far that could match my film studies collection in books or films (VHS/DVD) - though possibly in periodicals. Even in the areas of Black film/filmmaking, SF/Fantasy films and three others I could run full two year courses on any. Same for television. So, here I am teaching Chemistry. (Well, I do have some nice things on explosives, pyro and poisons......) Kinsey beats me on erotica, but I am good.

Translation: lots of areas the average public library would have trouble with for several reasons - and the reason I use libraries rarely though I have an MLS.

 

[King of the Americas]

I didn't see until now that this thread was revived.

I don't see that I ever said that atheist books weren't requested. Actually they were and we didn't have much, so I developed that collection in response to patron need.

Do you really think that Catholics would only want to read Catholic books? My experience has been that people of various religions are very curious about others and request reading material accordingly.

My apologies for my misunderstanding.

I've said it before, I can only speak from my personal experience. In "Muenster Texas", we get almost zero 'requests' for books covering other than Catholic material. I can't say "zero" because I haven't been around for every request. The Catholics in Muenster are ONLY concerned about Catholicism... These are a closed mined people, who get offended by the mere notion that there even ARE other religions.

*This is of course an over-generalization. I am sure 'all' Muenster Catholics aren't this way. 'I' have just never witnessed the contrary.

---

You mentioned before that you were wary of the Internet initially... I was wondering how do you find it now?

 

[King of the Americas]

I love the part of this on film studies - I have been in no library so far that could match my film studies collection in books or films (VHS/DVD) - though possibly in periodicals. Even in the areas of Black film/filmmaking, SF/Fantasy films and three others I could run full two year courses on any. Same for television. So, here I am teaching Chemistry. (Well, I do have some nice things on explosives, pyro and poisons......) Kinsey beats me on erotica, but I am good.

Translation: lots of areas the average public library would have trouble with for several reasons - and the reason I use libraries rarely though I have an MLS.

Does your library network with other libraries to share resources?

 

[LibraryLady]

My apologies for my misunderstanding.

I've said it before, I can only speak from my personal experience. In "Muenster Texas", we get almost zero 'requests' for books covering other than Catholic material. I can't say "zero" because I haven't been around for every request. The Catholics in Muenster are ONLY concerned about Catholicism... These are a closed mined people, who get offended by the mere notion that there even ARE other religions.

*This is of course an over-generalization. I am sure 'all' Muenster Catholics aren't this way. 'I' have just never witnessed the contrary.

---

You mentioned before that you were wary of the Internet initially... I was wondering how do you find it now?

You seem to be drawing your conclusions from a very small sampling of data. You might want to read some of the professional literature.

I don't see that I've ever mentioned being wary of the Internet. Where do you see that?

 

[King of the Americas]

"...Print on demand was unheard of and the Internet was a pipe dream, and that pipe was pretty darn suspicious."

Admittedly, I used the wrong term, "wary". But, when I initially read and then re-read, it sounded like you weren't entirely ready to embrace the coming digital age...

By all means straighten me out. When I am wrong, I LIKE to be told so, that I might correct myself for the future.

---

ETA:

"Muenster" IS a small sample of data, agreed.

I am sure Catholics 'outside' this place are different. Muenster is a strange little town stuck in some sort of time warp... Parents 'over-shelter' their kids here. Descent is NOT allowed.

*Did I mention that the Board kicked my Chess Club out of the meeting room, just 3 weeks after I resigned? No reason... I quaried why we lost our timeslot "Saturday mornings 8-12", and was told that the Boy Scouts needed it at that time. When we tried to reserve another time, we were told that we needed to have "several parents attend each meeting", and that 'my sponsorship' was not enough adult supervision for the kids (all 8-10 of them)... Half of our members only have one parent available, and our 8:00 AM meeting time ended up being too demanding. We simply didn't have enough parents willing to show up EVERY Saturday morning, so we're not allowed to use the room. *Insert that bang your bloody head against a wall emo-con here*

ETA II:

Doesn't this case decision that we have a first amendment right to access "unfiltered" media:

Mainstream Loudoun, et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 24 F.Supp.2d 552 (E.D. of Va. 1998)
Adopted in 1997, the Loudoun County, Va., Library Board's "Policy on Internet Sexual Harassment" was designed to prevent adult and minor Internet users from accessing illegal pornography and to avoid the creation of a sexually hostile environment. To accomplish these goals, the board contracted with Log-On Data Corporation, a filtering software manufacturer that offers a product called "X-Stop." Though Log-On Data Corp. refused to divulge the method by which X-Stop filters sites, it soon became apparent that the software blocks some sites that are not prohibited by the policy. Shortly after the adoption of the policy, People for the American Way Foundation commenced litigation on behalf of several Loudoun County residents and members of a nonprofit organization, claiming the policy violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. The suit was predicated on the theory that the policy is unnecessarily restrictive, because it treats adults and children similarly, and precludes access to legitimate as well as pornographic material. On November 23, 1998, Judge Leonie Brinkema declared that the highly restrictive Loudoun County Internet policy was invalid under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment.

If a "highly restrictive Loudoun County Internet policy was invalid under the free speech provisions", then banning the internet altogether would have to be a violation...?

 

[fuelair]

Does your library network with other libraries to share resources?

My libraries do - but trying to integrate all of those when I want/need to do some quick research would be less than speedy. For some one-off thing, would be fine, for most I need to have a reasonable amount of the material close at hand. On the pyro and explosives, not likely.

 

[King of the Americas]

My libraries do - but trying to integrate all of those when I want/need to do some quick research would be less than speedy. For some one-off thing, would be fine, for most I need to have a reasonable amount of the material close at hand. On the pyro and explosives, not likely.

Interlibrary loans DO take time, but is still an example of how just about anything can be acquired, with patients.