A couple reasons for them not purchasing porn… it’s the sort of stuff people would just steal, rather than check out (and yes, it’s pretty easy to steal books even if they have security strips and the like) and it’s also the kind of stuff people would… er… soil.

I do agree, though, that the very same librarians who claim that not collecting something is the same as censorship, do not collect porn, or many other things, and don’t call it censorship.

A couple reasons for them not purchasing porn… it’s the sort of stuff people would just steal, rather than check out (and yes, it’s pretty easy to steal books even if they have security strips and the like) and it’s also the kind of stuff people would… er… soil.

I do agree, though, that the very same librarians who claim that not collecting something is the same as censorship, do not collect porn, or many other things, and don’t call it censorship. I think it’s only censorship if they’re not collecting gay porn (at least if it’s requested.)

…All of which refutes your

“but the second even more so since a preponderance of librarians are female and the culture of libraries reflects female-centered values over male-centered or balanced perspectives” statement.

My own living experiences inform me – derived not from any women and gender cultural studies textbook – that

1. Within the world of librarianship, females (the preponderance of whom are heterosexual) possess scant, authenthic “power-over”, but some “power-to”; ie, to carry out the will of the true decision-makers and power-possessors (PR campaigns notwithstanding).

2. Its been my observation (and this of hets and those non-hets who so desperately seek and need their approbation) that what pathetic little capacity they do enjoy is so heavily co-opted, so utterly conflicted, that their own so-called “female-centered values” “female-centered morality” are consistently compromised by their own self-loathing.

(..And this I’ve witnessed even among -especially among- Ivy League directorship).

3. If this were not empirically so, then reams of Court dockets of embattled trans- librarians who have had to go to fisticuffs against their own female-dominated library associations would not exist.

4. And I’ve yet to see the “fostering” of cultural values of dominatrix dames (hets or other) “reflected” within librarianship – even by practitioners within the “profession” [which either validates or voids out both of your initial contentions].

In this case, is it a good thing or a bad thing to do what is easiest? I don’t know. I think it depends on the particular library, the policies and values that are in place, and if the librarians who work at said library would enforce or challenge those policies/values.

The use of privacy screens and other measures are remedies to involuntary exposure, but admittedly they aren’t a 100% perfect solution. And it won’t be, people demand the other extreme which is the complete filtering of pornography. I find that akin to people demanding for cars that don’t crash; the combination of humans and technology does not give a luxury of a perfect solution in this case. People would rather be ruled by dramatic “what ifs” than create reasonable mitigating circumstances.

Your e-rate point is a non-starter since an adult can ask for filtering software to be removed for their use. Libraries can accept the e-rate and educate their community as to how to get the filter removed. It’s that simple.

@D:
“The argument about resource management is illogical and subjective. It sounds like it’s based on someone’s mood and opinion and not a good way to decide what is collected and what is rejected.”

We’re not robots, we are people. As objective and logical as we strive to be, we are all human beings with preferences, opinions, and inclinations. If you want a computer to pick the collection, then hire the Amazon Recommends program. Otherwise, as it is subject to human involvement, it will not be the bastion of Vulcan-like logic.

“We need to face up to the fact that we make judgements about our collections and that we regularly and appropriately censor materials to fulfill our mission.”

In accepting your statement for the sake of argument, then that action goes well beyond porn. It goes into any number of controversial subjects; human sexuality, conspiracy theories, and politics, to name a few. Meaning, it *would* be appropriate to censor books that state that gays should be terminated, that 9/11 was a inside job conducted by Israeli agents, and that President Obama is not a citizen. Why? Because they don’t further the mission of the library (and, quite frankly, they are not very academically valid positions).

I’ll agree that we make judgments about the collection. It’s a constant re-evaluation of how it meets the community needs. But I still hold to my position that there is a difference between the materials desired and the materials that can be actually purchased. Just because I don’t have the budget resources or shelf space to purchase every single Neil Gaiman doesn’t make me a censor; it means I don’t have the funding or the room. You might consider that to be disingenuous, but reality is known to do that.