And, yes, we do get some complaints about incorrectly blocked websites’

Staggering.

Nor do I say or imply that libraries that accept the e-rate should avoid filtering; just because I don’t like the law does not mean I don’t obey it.

And, yes, I do know because we clearly use one because we do accept USF/E-rate funds. I also set up the filter (and over the years have used more than one from different companies). And I administer it.

If you use keyword filtering, you can run into issues with overblocking. As I mentioned we don’t, so our main issue is underblocking. And we only block on the category related to pornography. And, yes, we do get some complaints about incorrectly blocked websites, and clearly patrons come tell us. But these have been few and far between and are easily remedied.

As I have repeatedly try to point out, the mission of the public library does not include providing pornography. And no one will die if they don’t get it at the library, so your comparison to the pharmacist is completely off base.

As for the rest of your reply I don’t think it accurately reflects what I said, so no further comment from me.

While all of this ticks me off because I care how libraries work, that’s not why I let myself post this while admittedly fuming. It’s because of the presumption that libraries that filter have any idea how it does or does not affect their patrons. It’s because Anon’s language points to a choice to believe that no complaints equals perfect implementation. It scares me to think about the ways this willful blindness might set up walls to self education. It scares me to think about a policy that changes an institution from the role of information provider to one that sends a message of shaming and silencing of those who want information that they might already be embarrassed to ask about in another way. It chills me to think about how easily staff members, and apparently entire library systems, can relinquish sight of their actual mission in the name of what is ultimately a personal value. It’s akin to pharmacists choosing not to provide medicine to customers who will otherwise die because the medicine interferes with their personal religion. We should strive to be bigger than we are when we clock in at the library.

Fine, filters are not for you. It takes me too long to write, and in the end, I don’t think anything I say is going to change your mind. And, no, you haven’t changed mine.

We accept USF/E-rate money. We are required to filter (including staff computers). I’m going to double check with our reference librarians, but I’m pretty sure they prefer the filtered to the unfiltered (and would prefer it could do an even better job). We don’t use keyword filtering, so overblocking has never been much of an issue and is easily addressed.

As I said in the previous post, I think that libraries should have the option of how they want to address this issue rather than have it forced down their throats. But I also think that a well thought out internet filtering solution can play a role if a library chooses to use one.