The North Central Regional Library District in Washington state is one library district that has decided it isn't a library's job to peddle Net porn and that filtering software for library computers can help create a more family-friendly library experience. For that reasonable stance, the Wenatchee-based district has been sued. Late last month, the case finally made it all the way to the Washington state Supreme Court. And now the court will decide whether public libraries can refuse to disable library Internet filters for adults who want access to blocked content.
No reasonable, well-adjusted person would argue that pornography should be viewed in public areas frequented by children (like most kids don't already know where to find it). Having said that, though, I find myself profoundly disturbed by anyone who would argue for what they euphemistically refer to as "sensible censorship". What might seem "sensible" to one person might appear far less so to another (like me, f'rinstance). The problem with censorship is that, once we begin heading down that path, it becomes progressively easier to block what one group or another finds offensive...and far more difficult to put the brakes on the impulse to censor. If I may engage in a bit of hyperbole (just work with me here), what would stop a Fundamentalist Christian group from demanding that books or websites that discuss any aspect of homosexuality...or abortion...or atheism...or Liberal politics...or...well, OK; I think you can probably see the point I'm trying to make...be banned as offensive? Once we ban one thing, it sets a precedent. Banning the next "objectionable" item or idea becomes much easier. Where does it stop? Who gets to make these decisions? And what, exactly, is offensive?
IF a library was able to use an Internet filter that blocked ONLY pornography (depending how "pornography" is defind, of course), I might be somewhat less concerned about the implications of this sort of censorship. The problem, though, is that no filter is absolutely, completely, 100% effective and foolproof. On top of that problem, who gets to decide exactly what gets to constitute "pornography"? Naked young girls might seem an obvious choice for that description, but what if one happens to have an interest in Renaissance art, which can be heavy on naked, Rubenesque women? Is THAT pornography...and no, I don't think any reasonable person should be expected to swallow the "I know pornography when I see it" argument. We're allegedly talking about protecting children here, NOT indulging whatever one individual's particular prejudices happen to be.
Before we begin blindly hurtling down the road to censorship, don't you think we really ought to fully consider if the map we're going to follow will really lead us to the destination we intend to reach? Once we begin the journey, turning around is going to be a difficult- and likely impossible- thing to do.
After all, one person's naked young girl is another's exercise in art appreciation. One person's bared breast is another's attempt to find information on breast cancer. Yes, we all want to protect children, but one normally isn't going kill a mosquito with a shotgun. Censorship and the law of unintended consequences often travel hand in hand. Is that what we want? When it comes to freedom of speech, are we really willing to kill the patient in order to save it? It's a question that those who so blithely advocate for "sensible censorship" really ought to ponder a bit more carefully.
