Just when you think something goes away, it comes back to haunt you. This article reports that last night the city changed it’s computer policy which “includes having Internet filtering software on all city-owned computers.” This of course includes all library computers. So, regardless of the library board’s position, the city gets to say since they own the computers. (So, what’s the point of having a board?) The City Council says that they’re willing to reevaluate the policy in the future but it’s a logical fallacy. If the filters are keeping people from doing what you don’t want them to, what possible reason would you ever have to rescind the rule? Could you envision someone saying “well, we’ve had the filters for six months now and since no one’s looked at anything inappropriate in that time we can remove the filters now”? Of course not. This is a one-way decision and saying you’re open to changing it in the future just doesn’t hold water for me.
Despite all of this, I still stand by my original reaction; that none of this actually addresses the issue of two youths breaking into the library. As one person asked me today, if they had stolen books would the city had solved the problem by chaining the books to the shelves?
About a month ago I posted about the situation in Yutan, NE in which some boys broke into the library to view porn and how I felt the “solution” to the perceived problem totally missed the point. Yesterday a co-worked pointed me to an article from LibraryJournal.com about the story. It contained the following closing sentences:
“Library director Verna Milenkovich did not respond to phone calls or emails from LJ requesting comment. On his Travelin’ Librarian blog, Michael Sauers, who works for the Nebraska Library Commission, suggested that the actual problem had not been addressed.”
The link, of course, is to the afore mentioned blog post.
I’ve got some totally mixed feelings about this. Of course I’m glad that LJ linked to me. It shows that someone’s reading this blog of mine and that, in some cases, what I have to say is worth passing along to others. And yes, I do work for the Nebraska Library Commission but yes, I wrote it on my own personal blog which does not represent the views of the Commission or the State of Nebraska. (How’s that for working in a disclaimer without officially stating a disclaimer?)
But, and here’s the core of the discussion I had with that same co-worker this morning, despite making it clear that I blogged about it personally and not officially, would LJ have linked to my post had I not been employed by the commission? I’m guessing the answer is no. It also, to some, may make it sound like I’m some sort of “most official response” they could find since the library itself hadn’t responded. It’s all about context.
Do I want LJ to change the post? No. Do I wish they had done something differently? I guess not. Am I worried folks at the Commission will be upset? No. My boss reads my blog so I’m sure if what I wrote was a problem I’d have heard it back then. It’s all just making me think about how much my personal and professional lives overlap and what some of the potential consequences may be.
