New Filtering Study

I just saw this article and wanted to at least post it here so you could read it. Since we have been talking about filtering software the last few class periods, I thought you all might be interested to read what the San Jose Public Library found out about filtering software. They are being pressured by a city council member to install the software but the library opposes. After their study they concluded...filtering does not work.

Man Sues Library for $10 Million

Ross Tobia suffers from mental illness and is suing the Memorial Hall Library for $10 million dollars after he was banned from the library for allegedly swearing, yelling, and threatening staff.
He claims his civil rights were violated when the police informed him to stay away from the library or risk arrest. Tobia states, "The library is the bastion of free speech in the nation and as such must be available to all citizens." Tobia was banned on January 11 after he was caught shouting at surveillance cameras, shouting as he threw books in the book drop, and harassed and threatened several staff persons within the library.

Tobia's response to these allegations are that he suffers from epilepsy and bipolar disorder. He sometimes talks to himself and becomes agitated. He claims, however, that he is harmless and that his illnesses should be accommodated in the library. As far as the shouting is concerned, Tobia claims that he had his iPod on when he spoke to library staff and might not have realized he was yelling.

My opinions are torn. On one hand I think that if a patron is repeatedly being disruptive and then threatens library personnel, then that person should definitely be banned from the library. Disruptive behavior does not allow other patrons their right to enjoy the library and all it has to offer. On the other hand, I think too many times patrons with mental illnesses are banned just because it is easier than dealing with them. I also think a lot of library personnel do not know how to interact with the mentally ill and therefore see them automatically as a threat. I suppose this is hard to say which is the right side considering I have never seen this man in action.

It does scare me though when I hear about these types of lawsuits being brought against libraries. It seems it gets harder for the library staff to make decisions about banning when lawsuits like these arise. Remember the man who successfully sued the library for banning him over his smell? I suppose this should prompt libraries to reevaluate their policies and strengthen any wording that is not clearly defined.

Update: The Lecture Will Be Held in Greenwich

On February 14, the library officials for the Greenwich Library agreed to allow Alison Weir, the founder of If Americans Knew, to proceeded with the two scheduled lectures. The lectures are centered around Israeli-Palestinian relations and some members of the community complained. According to Executive Director Mario Gonzalez, "The library does not normally receive complaints on programs that have been held on its grounds, so when numerous complaints came in on this particular program, the library needed to do due diligence and determine what was in the best interest of the public."

After the initial cancellation of Weir's talks, she insisted that it was her constitutional right to deliver her lectures. After receiving numerous complaints from Weir's supporters, the library sought legal counsel and it was affirmed that "although the library is a private non-profit organization, because the town of Greenwich supplies some of the operating budget, the facility is technically a public institution that cannot discriminate over which groups can hold events there."

Weir hopes that the lectures will be still receive attendees since the library already announced that the program "violated public sensibilities."

I, for one, am glad the library chose to let Weir hold her lectures. Even though the library does not endorse her speeches the library should allow her to be heard. Just because some members of the community disagree with her ideals and viewpoints does not mean the entire community feels that way. By not allowing Weir to talk, the library was basically censoring the issue. If the offended members do not want to hear the talk, don't attend. They have no right to deny the next person entry.

Free Speech Issues at Greenwich Library

While reading ALA Direct I came across this article about the Greenwich Library in Greenwich, Connecticut. A group called "If Americans Knew" was scheduled to talk at the public library about issues surrounding the media coverage of the Middle East. The group is very critical of Israel and United States media coverage pertaining to the Middle East. The group claims that the media misinforms Americans on what is really going on.

Greenwich Library officials say that they canceled the group's talk because some residents were complaining. Library officials refer to their policy which states "that the meeting should not be considered offensive to public sensitivity." If this condition is not met then the library can refuse the group or persons from using the meeting room. Another concern of the library is that patrons might think the library endorses the group's line of thinking. Also, library officials did some background checking and found that Alison Weir (of the organization) has been controversial in the past.

Some Greenwich residents are outraged that the library has chosen to cancel the talks. Some are concerned that opposing viewpoints of high profile situations will be censored.

I am wondering what some of you think about this situation. I know that my hometown library has a policy in place that stipulates the regulations and conditions of allowing events in their meeting rooms. I know that they do not allow someone to use the room to recruit for business or a political party. They also do not allow churches and the like to recruit as well. I think this is to make sure that patrons are not falsely thinking that the library endorses these parties, groups, etc.

But should the library have banned these particular talks just because a few of the residents complained? If some of the community did not want to hear the talks then they should just stay at home. Don't go. I don't really see a harm in allowing the group to speak. They were not trying to recruit to their organization or sway votes for something. They were only trying to give a different viewpoint to an ongoing problem. Are we not allowed to disagree with the majority anymore?

Amy Winehouse Banned by U.S.

I don't know about you but I simply adore Amy Winehouse. Sure, she has her problems with drugs, attracting and dating the wrong men, marrying the wrong guy, and becoming a wild child but she isn't doing anything that most musicians have not done at least once. This is why I think it is utterly ridiculous for the United States to ban her from entering the country so she could perform at the Grammy Awards. Regardless of whether or not she goes to rehab, she earned those nominations with her powerhouse voice and awesome songwriting ability. She deserves to be there just as much as the next person. Hell, how many of the performers that night won't be raging drunk at some point? Who remembers back in the early 1990's when Guns N' Roses were so drunk that they stumbled on to the stage used the "f-word" a few dozen times on live television? They were not banned from ever returning. The worst that happened was that the live show had to have a delay before it reached the television-viewing audience in case obscenities ever flew out of mouths again.

Why ban her when we allowed BritneySpears to perform a few months ago even after she flashed her privates, acted like an insane person, put her children's lives in jeopardy, and made bad hairstyle decisions. Are we saying that, "yeah, you can drive around with your toddler on your lap but if you do a little pot and get arrested for it in Norway we have to ban you." Mel Gibson gets drunk, drives his car and then makes racial slurs against the Jewish community and people just lined up to forgive him. Is it because he is American and Amy Winehouse is not? How can we attack Amy Winehouse for her personal life and her decisions and not other celebrities? How do we determine their value and worth? Who gets to make those decisions because who gets in and who doesn't is not a balanced equation.

I think Amy's personal troubles should be left out of the decision to let her perform. The Grammy committee thought it was alright to nominate her and she was no different then than she is right now. Is this what it is coming to? We base whether or not the world can see you on whether or not we agree with your actions? I think this is the same thing with books and authors. We can not ban a book simply because we disagree with the author's lifestyle or personal opinions because those viewpoints are not necessarily in the book's overall theme. Same with music. Sure, part of the artist will be in the work but we can not ban someone from performing it just because they lead a different lifestyle than us.

I am wondering what the rest of you think about this.

Open Access Benefits for Students

I came across this interesting article entitled, "The Right to Research highlights Open Access benefits for students. SPARC ( the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) have started an initiative to get students more interested in open access for information. According to the article, The Right to Research:

• helps students recognize the problem of access.
• introduces the principle of open access, making a clear distinction between the principle and the ways open access is being realized (through open access journals, repositories, copyright management, and policies).
• indicates how open access can make an easier time for research by widening the access for those who need it.
• offers ways to support open access for both undergraduate and graduate students.

Students are more aware now that access to research is vital to their education. Subscription-only models can hinder their access to information. The Right to Research initiative is a comprehensive and educational and is available for use by libraries, student organizations and governments, and anyone else in need.

For more information on the subject, the following website is helpful: http://www.arl.org/sparc/students

I personally think this is a great idea. I know that sometimes subscription-only models can be very expensive and a library might not be able to afford the costs. This would be a great alternative to allow students continued access to pertinent research information.