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?
What I’ve wondered all along is “why aren’t they addressing the question of the actual crime that was committed?” Who are the two youths? What connections do they have that keep the powers-that-be from saying that a crime took place?