Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Morgan's thoughts on government-mandated web filtering in public libraries. It almost goes without saying that I think that this decision is wrong. Another example of the US Supreme Court being split down the middle with Justice O’Connor being the swing vote that gave the conservatives another thin majority. I hope that history judges the Rehnquist Supreme Court as harshly as it judges Dredd Scott. That said, I do think that this is a difficult issue. I don’t want weird people viewing porn and wanking over the keyboards where I work! It horrifies me how the most innocuous search term in a search engine -- or mistyped URL can lead to some very nasty results. This may sound like heresy to some librarians, but I don’t think the status quo was working well. Something needed to be done, but I think CIPA went way too far. It’s wrong to make everybody (meaning the less privileged teens & adults on the other side of the digital divide who can’t afford their own internet access) view the internet through the filter of what’s appropriate for a child. Even the Supreme Court admits this, but says that it’s sufficient that an adult can request to have the filters temporarily turned off. A commentator on today’s FutureTense (I must give a link to this Minnesota production) was correct when he mentioned how people will be very reluctant to ask library staff to have the “porn filters” turned off. So I call on all adult library patrons to thwart this paternalistic Supreme Court decision to demand that filters be turned off when they visit their public library. Not so you can look at porn, but just so that you can use the internet that hasn’t been filtered or dumbed-down or bowdlerized (now that’s a word that’s due for a revival!). Any librarian worth her or his salt would be happy to turn off the filters for this reason. Don’t expect such a positive reaction if you actually are planning on looking at porn in a public library. Whenever I get a minute, I should reread some jurisprudence. The law is only one means (the very official and blunt tool) for governing people’s behaviour. There are also personal ethics and social mores. I would hazard to guess that although most librarians would fight for your legal right to read anything you want, they would not be thrilled about somebody viewing porn in a their library or any other public place. Generally, social restraints are more pervasive but less enforceable than legal rules. That is why there is a danger when conservatives want all their social mores embodied in the law. There is a place for socially disapproved but legal behaviour. It is a murky area which is both a nasty cesspool and a helpful compost heap – which is fertile for humour, self-analysis and new ideas. Furthermore, there is something about the smell of this cesspool/compost heap which keeps the Borg of Conformity & Tyranny at bay. Because as soon as you want the law to mirror social mores – the first issue is who’s mores get chosen. Because that’s the thing, although a lot of social mores are held in common, they are not uniform. And although in a democracy, the majority has the right to do what it wants according to its constitutional powers, it would be very dangerous for a majority to use the its power to impose all of its social mores on everyone else – whether that majority happens to been in Parliament / Congress or the Supreme court. [explodedlibrary.info] I was looking for Morgan and Jessamyn and library-type bloggers in TO, but if our paths crossed I missed it. Maybe another time. 10:28:04 PM    comment []

A Mathematician Crunches the Supreme Court's Numbers. If you have wondered where the Supreme Court's decisions might fall on the spectrum between monolithic unity and total randomness, an answer is now in. By Nicholas Wade. [New York Times: Science] 5:02:52 PM    comment []

Slate: "Presumably by accident, somebody left a live prototype of President Bush's 2004 campaign site on the Web for a few hours today." [Scripting News] 5:00:35 PM    comment []

More from xian: Album-cover knockoffs. Michaelz send along a pointer to the knockoff project, which documents album covers and the biters that bit them. [Radio Free Blogistan] 4:53:59 PM    comment []

Denial and Deception. There is no longer any doubt that we were deceived into war. The key question now is why so many influential people are unwilling to admit the obvious. By Paul Krugman. [New York Times: Opinion] 4:52:40 PM    comment []

Justices Back Affirmative Action by 5 to 4. The Supreme Court preserved affirmative action in university admissions but with a forceful endorsement of the role of racial diversity on campus. By Linda Greenhouse. Also, Ruling Provides Relief, but Less Than Hoped. Many university presidents and administrators said the rulings afforded them more discretion than expected, though somewhat less than they had hoped for. By Greg Winter. Both [New York Times: Education] (I only blinked the ALA-case yesterday from ALA. I'm back now, bit by bit getting it back together.) 4:08:27 PM    comment []

Masterpiece: "More Songs About Buildings and Food". It's 1978, and a band of Manhattan art-school geeks called Talking Heads teams with Brian Eno to produce the funkiest nervous-breakdown record ever made. [Salon Headlines] 4:06:25 PM    comment []

On shutting up. Men are encouraged to dominate conversation without even thinking about it, says Dan Spalding, who has another suggestion: shut up already. Elizabeth Lane Lawley makes a similar point, and asks women with strong voices, "What do you think women should be doing to start getting their voices heard?" [Radio Free Blogistan] 3:02:19 PM    comment []

"Thomas Edison, Intellectual Property and the Recording Industry," by George Ziemann, Chapter 1: The Dawn of Recorded Music and the First Pirates 12:37:12 PM    comment []