Expert Report of David Burt, July 14, 1998, for the Defendants in the case Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees
I) The process of Internet filtering as compared to normal library policies.
Librarians select on the basis of content
Libraries do not select hard-core pornography
Hard-core pornography is not excluded for economic reasons
Hard-core pornography is not viewed as part of a public library's mission
The analogy of ILL applied to viewing pornography in the library
"Outsourcing" of selection has a long tradition in libraries
Do Libraries "Select" the Internet?
Problems Caused by Unfiltered Internet Access
II) The availability of material likely to be found obscene on the Internet
Least Restrictive Methods for blocking the viewing of illegal materials
"Tap on the shoulder" policies
My name is David Burt. I am a librarian as well as a computer professional. My current position is the Information Technology Librarian at the Lake Oswego (Oregon) Public Library. In my current professional capacity I am a systems administrator, responsible for the implementation and maintenance of a network of 25 PCs, two LANs, the library webpages, as well as providing training and documentation for library staff and public. I also provide public reference service 8 hours per week. One project I created in my work capacity is an archive of public library Internet policies, located at http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/library/poli.htm, a site recommended as a useful resource by both the ALA and the ACLU (ACLU, 1998).
Prior to my current position I was employed at the New York Public Library, first as a reference librarian at the St. George Branch in Staten Island, NY, then as a Systems Analyst in the main Technical Services Department in Manhattan.
Publications authored in the last 10 years:
Filters keep smut away from kids , San Jose Mercury, September 25, 1997
In Defense of Filtering, American Libraries, August 1997
Public Library Internet Access Policies, Public Libraries, June, 1997
Since July, 17,1997 I have been a public activist, when I launched a new organization and website called Filtering Facts, to promote the use of filtering software in libraries. Filtering Facts is a registered non-profit in the state of Oregon, as well as registered 501 (c) (3) organization. Filtering Facts is non-membership, and I am the President. The Filtering Facts website is located at http://www.filteringfacts.org.
Before I began Filtering Facts, I had only a smattering of experience in activism. I helped to canvas neighborhoods for the Clinton/Gore campaign in 1992, and my wife and I were contributing members of Planned Parenthood in 1994-95. I became an Internet activist because I felt that the position on filtering taken by the American Library Association was destructive and badly out-of-step with most public libraries and the communities they serve. I was also dismayed by the lack of respect shown for librarians who chose to exercise reasonable content management over on-line resources. In the initial press release I issued on July 16, 1997 announcing the creation of Filtering Facts, I said, " We believe that libraries have the right to offer the kind of Internet service they want. We do not believe that libraries are obligated to offer everything on the Internet. We believe in exercising selection of Internet resources. We believe in exercising our professional judgment in the use of the Internet."
I will provide expert testimony on the following: 1) The process of Internet filtering as compared to normal library acquisition and selection policies and procedures; 2) The availability of material likely to be obscene on the Internet; [NOTE: Due to the graphic nature of this portion of the report, it is not included in the on-line version] 3) The efficacy of various methods of restricting illegal materials, such as child pornography and material likely to be found obscene, in the setting of a public library. I have never testified in any trial, and I am not being paid for my services.
I) The process of Internet filtering as compared to normal library acquisition and selection policies and procedures.
It is my professional opinion that the use of filtering software to block graphic, hard-core pornography is fully consistent with the theoretical and ethical framework of public librarianship.
Librarians select on the basis of content
Some librarians have argued that librarians do not discriminate on the basis of content when they select material. Other librarians hold that librarians almost always discriminate on the basis of content, and that this is a form of "censorship".
The controversy in the library profession over whether exclusive library selection policies constitute a form of "censorship" has a long tradition. Librarian Eric Moon wrote an entire book about this subject in 1969. Moon opens the book with this statement: "When is a librarian's decision not to include a book in his library collection an act of book selection, and when is it censorship?" The question is still just as relevant today (Moon, 1969).
Most librarians and librarianship authorities speak in general terms about diverse collections. Library collection development authority William Katz claims that most librarians embrace what he calls a "liberal policy", which Katz defines as "one that contends that there must be service to the total community. All formats should be in the collection, in an effort to cater to all the preferences." (Katz, 1981)
The American Library Association also addressed the issue of collection diversity when it passed a resolution on collection development. The resolution states that "Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive, in collection development and the provision of interlibrary loan. Access to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to the librarian or user (ALA Council, 1982).
Others however, have shown that these ideals are not always practiced in "the real world". Collection development authority G. Edward Evans, "Most of [the ALA] statements are filled with fine-sounding phrases, and the documents look useful when one is in the classroom or in a meeting discussing the theory or philosophy of intellectual freedom. On a day-to-day basis, these statements provide little assistance in collection development are of limited value in fighting off the censors" (Evans, 1987).
Research suggests that Evans is correct. From 1956 to 1958, sociologist Marjorie Fiske conducted a two-year study of book selection and censorship in California school and public libraries. The study showed conclusively that librarians were the most active censors of their collections, and that a high percentage of librarians decided not to buy an item because it might cause a problem (Fiske, 1959).
In 1972, Charles Busha studied the attitudes of Midwestern librarians and found that "It is evident, as a result of opinion research, that Midwestern public librarians did not hesitate to express agreement with the cliches of intellectual freedom, but that many of them apparently did not feel strong enough as professionals to assert their principles in the face of real or anticipated censorship" (Busha, 1972).
Anecdotal evidence suggests these attitudes are still prevalent among librarians today. In 1992, a major controversy arose among librarians over the selection of the book Madonna's Sex. Despite the fact that most public libraries automatically buy everything on the New York Times bestseller list, most public libraries chose not to purchase the best-selling soft-core picture book Sex. Although Sex was the 10th bestselling hardcover non-fiction book in 1992, only 139 libraries of all types currently own Sex (OCLC: 26846575). The 8th bestselling non-fiction hardcover book of 1992, McCullogh's Truman, is owned by 2,732 libraries (OCLC: 25411163). In a recent column in American Libraries, longtime library commentator and Director of the Tempe (Ariz.) Public Library Will Manley addressed the controversy and the surrounding hypocrisy:
All points of view that fall short of our extreme "give everyone unfettered access to everything" party line are branded as dangerous heresies that will lead us down the slippery slope to a repressive society. Of course, that's what we say. What we do is something far different. In public we preach full access; in private we censor. We get away with this because we call our censorship "selection".
The best recent example of this hypocrisy was how public librarians finessed the sticky issue of Madonna's best-selling Sex book. The number of libraries that own that book is minuscule. Clearly it was far too explicit. Very few librarians wanted to have to defend it in front of angry library boards, city councils, county commissions, or parent groups. So they simply decided not to buy the book. But this was not an act of censorship, it was an act of selection. Every librarian that I talked to said that he or she passed on the book not because of its X-rated content, but because it was published with a metal cover and spiral binding that were not conducive to practical library use.
The hypocrisy of this little white lie becomes obvious when we think about what would happen if Danielle Steele's next bestseller were to appear in a similar heavy-metal format. No doubt we would buy it in multiple copies and congratulate the publisher for putting Steele into steel, a material that can withstand the abuse of the hundreds of patrons eager to get their hands on the book.
Why did so many librarians lie about their real reason for not getting the Madonna book? Quite simply, they were afraid of being called censors by their professional peers. When I passed on the Madonna book I mad the mistake of explaining that its explicit content was inappropriate for a community library. Consequently I was branded a censor. It was a most unpleasant experience.
(Manley, 1997).
The same is also true of public Internet access. Carolyn Tenopir, who writes frequently about the use of electronic resources in libraries, wrote, "The American Library Association consistently speaks against policies that restrict access to any library materials or services or that discriminate against any category of library user. Yet separate policies for electronic resources have a long tradition in all types of libraries."
(Tenopir, 1997)
Citing research that I had done, Tenopir wrote, "According to Burt, "the total number of [public] libraries which have rules against viewing "inappropriate" or "pornographic" materials continues to increase." 25% of the policies written in 1996 and 1997 contain such rules, up from only 8% of those written in 1995. Overall, 19% of policies from 1995- 1997 include rules against viewing inappropriate or pornographic materials." (Tenopir, 1997)
John Berry, longtime editor of Library Journal summarized the feelings of many rank-and-file public librarians in the state of Oho in a recent editorial:
More troubling, the Ohio librarians were saddened that they will never again be able to turn to the American Library Association's (ALA) intellectual freedom apparatus for help with censors. Most said ALA's "position" on Internet access is impossible to defend and has destroyed ALA credibility in local censorship battles. I hope that is not true, but even [Median (Ohio) Library Director Bob] Smith, who began his battle by taking that ALA position, said he and his board decided not to ask ALA to join them, because ALA was seen as insensitive to the concerns of local parents.
(Berry, 1998)
Libraries do not select hard-core pornography
Nothing highlights the contradictions between lofty intellectual freedom rhetoric and public library practices better than the subject of pornography does. Many public library collection development policies specifically state the library will obtain "high demand materials", and "materials in all formats, for all tastes and interests". Excluding such soft-core literary pornography as Story of O and Playboy magazine, pornography of the hard-core, adult bookstore variety does not exist in any public library in the United States. Considering that pornography in the U.S. is a multi-billion-dollar-a-year business, pornography is clearly both "high demand" and appeals to the interests of a good percentage of library patrons.
Marilyn Gell Mason, director of the Cleveland (Ohio) Public Library said in an article last year that "There have always been material that most libraries don't buy. (Much of what can be found in an adult bookstore falls into this category.)"
(Mason, 1997)
In order to demonstrate this point, I recently did a survey of the public library holdings of popular pornographic videotapes. I compared of a list of 61 "X-rated Videotapes for the Library" with the holdings of the nation's 8,921 public libraries. What I found reinforces the idea that public libraries do not offer pornography for their patrons. Only four of the sixty-one films listed were held by any public library at all, and none of these four could really be considered "hard-core".
Libraries, Erotica and Pornography, a 1992 book edited by Martha Cornog, promotes the idea of public libraries acquiring pornography and discusses ways to add pornography to public library collections. A chapter in the book "A Connoisseur's Selection of X-rated Videotapes for the Library" by Robert Rimmer, lists 61 "X-rated Videotapes" that the author recommends for purchase by public libraries.
The titles of all 61 films were checked against the Online Computer Library Catalog, a national database of holdings records that includes most of the libraries in the United States. Of the 61 films recommended, only 11 exist in any library, and only four exist in any public library. Of the four films owned by any public library, two are not pornographic at all, the R-rated Wickerman, and the documentary "Reproduction of Life", and two that would probably be considered "soft core", Caligula owned by 7 public libraries, and Café Flesh, owned by 2 public libraries. Of the 50 or so "hard-core" films on the list, only two, Deep Throat, owned by two academic libraries, and Behind the Green Door, owned by one academic library are shown as being owned by any libraries at all.
The bulk of the list of films recommended for use in a public library consists of hard-core pornographic titles such as Passage Through Pamela, Talk Dirty to Me, The Devil in Miss Jones, and Traci Lord's Fantasies.
Titles owned by public libraries:
Café Flesh, 1982, Caligula, 1980, Reproduction of Life, 1980, Wickerman, 1973.
Titles owned by other libraries:
Behind the Green Door, 1975, Café Flesh, 1982, Caligula, 1980, Deep Throat, 1972, The Harrad Experiment, 1973, Mondo Magic, 1985, Not a Love Story, 1980, Reproduction of Life, 1981, The Secret World of Erotic Art, 1986, Shocking Asia, 1980, Wickerman, 1973.
Titles not owned by any library:
Alice in Wonderland, 1975, American Babylon, 1984, Angela, the Fireworks Woman, 1975, Autobiography of a Flea, 1976, The Big Switch, 1985, Blond Ambition, 1981, The Dancers, 1982, The Devil in Miss Jones, 1972, Diversions, 1979, Educating Julia, 1984, Fallen Angels, 1986, Famous Smokers, A Guide to Making Love, 1973, Hot Desires, 1986, In All the Right Places, 1986, In Love, 1983, Le Sex Shop, 1973, Love Theatre, 1985, Love You, 1980, Males in Motion, 1985, Miss September, 1973, Nothing to Hide, 1982, Old, Borrowed, and Stag, 1975, The Opening of Misty Beethoven, 1975, Passage Through Pamela, 1985, The Passion Within, 1986, Pretty Peaches, 1978, Punishment of Anne, 1979, Raw Talent, 1984, Raw Talent II, 1986, Reel People, 1984, Ribald Tales of Canterbury, 1985, Rising Star, 1981, Roomates, 1982, Sailing into Ecstasy, 1986, Sensational Janine, 1979, Sexual Freedom in Denmark, 1986, She Comes in Color, 1986, Skinny Dipping, Sodom and Gomorrah, 1977, Sometime Sweet Susan, 1975, Suzie Superstar, 1983, Taboo 1-6, 1983-88, Taboo American Style, 1984, Talk Dirty to Me, 1983, Three A.M., 1975, Traci Lord's Fantasies, 1986, Virginia, 1983, Wet Rainbow, 1974.
(Burt, 1998)
Perhaps an even better example is that of Hustler magazine. Hustler has a circulation of over 500,000, is one of the best-known periodical titles in the country, and is for sale in thousands of retail locations throughout the country. Yet of the 8,921 public library systems in the U.S., not one carries Hustler, although a handful of academic libraries do.
Hard-core pornography is not excluded for economic reasons
Defenders of on-line hard-core pornography in libraries argue that the only reason public libraries do not offer "everything'" is because of limited budgets. This argument is badly flawed. While it is true that libraries cannot afford everything, they can certainly, and certainly do, acquire a sample of everything. It would not stretch a library’s budget terribly to spend the $39.00 for a year’s subscription to Hustler magazine to insure that the genre of hard-core pornography was represented.
This defense is also self-contradictory. To argue that pornography is excluded because of limited budgets is to admit that some materials are regarded so lowly as to be excluded altogether when scarcity is an issue. Yet in order for such an argument to justify pornography, Internet access in public libraries would have to be extremely cheap and plentiful. It is neither. Internet access is expensive enough that only 52% of U.S. public have any public access to the World Wide Web at all (American Library Association Office of Information Technology Policy, 1997).
Access to each Internet terminal is a scarce resource, and many libraries must ration its use through time limits. A survey I conducted last year of 116 public library policies showed that 37% of the policies had explicit time limits. (Burt, 1997) With the increasing demand for public Internet access, this figure has almost certainly increased since then. If the scarce resources of books, magazines and videos are already rationed based on content, which entails excluding pornography, then it is logically consistent to do the same with the scarce resource of Internet access.
One could also approach this argument from the economist's standpoint of "opportunity cost", which is useful in discussions about allocating scarce resources. The opportunity cost of doing one thing is measured at expense of not doing another. The opportunity cost of allowing an hour of Internet access time to be used for something outside of the library's mission, such as viewing pornography, means that another library patrons will likely be denied the ability to use the Internet terminal in a manner in keeping with the library mission, such as looking up a sport statistic, reading a gossip column, or doing homework. Such a situation would be similar to a library having the choice between buying a copy of The Guinness Book of Sports Records, a copy of Hollywood Babylon, a copy of Opposing Viewpoints, or a copy of Teen Sluts Anal Gang Bang.
Another approach is that of unit cost. Just as each book in the library has a unit cost, so does each "unit" of Internet access. Internet access can be divided into units of time on the Internet, such as an hour.
What does an hour of Internet time cost the library? There are many costs associated with library Internet access, such as telecommunications costs, hardware costs, technical support costs, training costs, and staff support costs. A helpful measure is that of annual Personal Computer Total Cost of Ownership, or annual PC TCO. There has been much discussion in the business press about how to accurately determine the true annual PC TCO to businesses. Figures range from $6,400 to $13,000. (Strassman, 1997) Since PC TCO is almost certainly lower in a public library than the typical business, since library employees are paid less and there are usually less technical support staff per PC than in business, the lower figure is more appropriate. While $6,400 per PC per year may still be too high for a public library, the comparison is useful nonetheless to illustrate the cost of Internet access to a public library. This figure can be used to determine a rough unit cost to Internet access for the Loudoun County Library. The Loudoun County main branch is open 55 hours per week, multiplied by 52 weeks, for 2,860 hours per year. The figure of $6,400 per PC divided by 2,860 hours produces a unit cost of $2.23 per hour of Internet access.
When a patron spends an hour viewing sites like www.bestiality.com or www.extremehardcore.com, the library has just spent $2.23 providing hard-core pornography. As was pointed out earlier, this very real cost of $2.23 for an hour of pornography could have been spent providing materials that are within a library's mission, and it is almost certain that some patrons will be denied access to legitimate resources because library PCs are being used to access pornography.
One objection to lines of reasoning involving limiting access to pornography based on scarcity is that "it costs more to filter" than not to filter, so therefore costs cannot be used to justify content-based restrictions. But this argument rests on an unsound premise: that the best method for allocating scarce resources in a public library is the cheapest method. Were this true, it would not make sense for a library to devote large amounts of expensive staff time to selecting books, since the cheaper method would be to simply order a representative shipment of books from Barnes and Noble. It would be cheaper for the library to not devote staff time to monitoring time limits on Internet access, and implement a "first come, first serve, stay as long as you want" policy. Clearly, when a library makes decisions about allocating scarce resources, several other factors are considered besides economy, such as fairness, public relations, community needs, tradition, and most importantly of all, library mission. And it has not been shown that the mission of any public library is explicitly to collect and distribute hard-core pornography.
In day-to-day practice, the freeness or cheapness of a library resource is usually not what determines whether the resource is included in the library's collection. Many libraries have explicit policies on gifts that state that no gift will be automatically added to the collection. On the subject of gifts to the library, collection development authority G. Edward Evans:
Gifts should not be added to the collection on any other basis than that which is used for items that are purchased. The librarian should resist the temptation to add an item because it is free. No donated item is free -- processing costs are the same whether the item is donated or purchased. Expending library resources to add something to the collection just because it is free, when it is not essential to the library's practice, is a very poor practice.
(Evans, 1987).
Obviously, providing pornography over the Internet involves additional costs as well, such as staff time, telecommunications charges, and equipment.
Finally, the argument from economy can be, and has been, put to empirical test. In August of 1997, I decided to see for myself if any library would accept a free subscription to Hustler magazine. I announced this on my website, as well as in several of the most popular librarian discussions lists conducted by electronic mail. The lists I made the announcements to were Publib, a list devoted to public libraries, Web4lib, a list devoted to the use of the Internet in public libraries, Pubyac, a list devoted to public libraries serving children and young adults, and Alaoif, a list devoted to intellectual freedom issues. Several thousand public librarians subscribe to these four lists.
The initial offer I made read like this:
Filtering Facts will pay for a year's subscription to Hustler Magazine to the first United States public library that will agree to the following conditions:
1) Put each month's issue of Hustler on normal public display with the other magazines, such as Time and People.
2) Allow full access to the magazine to anyone who wants it, including minors, just like you would with a typical magazine.
3) Inform Filtering Facts if an issue is stolen so that we can send an immediate replacement.
4) Announce the new addition as however your library normally does new additions, such as through your library newsletter, bulletin board, or new books display.
There were no takers, but several people did offer the objection that a subscription was not really free, since it costs money to process and circulate a magazine. I then agreed to also provide a check for $250 to cover such costs. Almost one year later, I have never had any public library accept my offer, though I did have one library director tell us that I could easily raise it to $10,000 and I would still not get any takers.
Hard-core Internet pornography is not viewed as part of a public library's mission
Most librarians try to apply existing collection development policies, mission statements, and traditional ALA statements to Internet access. Some librarians apply a literal, absolutist interpretation of certain ALA statements and hold that librarians should not restrict access to anything on the Internet. Other librarians acknowledge that public library mission statements and collection development policies should not be construed to mean the library should provide free access to "obscene", "sexually explicit", or "pornographic" materials.
A number of prominent librarians have stated publicly that they think such material is outside the scope of their missions and collection policies. David Domkoski, Tacoma (WA) Public Library Community Relations Officer said "In the same way the library doesn't buy every book, library officials do not feel responsible for providing access to every web site," (Reynolds, 1997). Katherine Ensign, Harris County (TX) Chief librarian, "The library does not buy books that are sensational, violent or inflammatory, and it will block access to some Internet sites that are similar in nature." (Byars, 1997). Dorothy Field, Orange County (FL) Library Director: "Our only purpose is to block those sites that would not be in compliance with our material-selection policy," she said. "In other words, if those sites were in print, we would not select them for our book collection." (Mendels, 1997).
Examining the Internet access policies of public libraries is also useful in demonstrating how many libraries apply their policies to Internet access.
The Noblesville-Southeastern (IN) Public Library in its Internet policy statement "Recognizes that freedoms of speech and expression are central to the successful maintenance of a free society and acknowledges the concepts contained in the American Library Association's Freedom to View and Library Bill of Rights statements. These rights extend to minors as well as adults. Access to information is a fundamental right of citizenship and helps guarantee an informed citizenry", yet this library acknowledges that this also means that certain materials are not within the scope of the ALA statements, and are not appropriate to the library mission, "The purpose of Library-provided Internet access is to provide the user with educational, informational, and recreational materials… To remain eligible as an Internet user, one must make use of the network in ways consistent with the mission statement of the Library. Since libraries are public places, users should be mindful of the sensibilities of those around them and take reasonable precaution not to display or use files in a way which is unavoidably offensive to other users or staff members." (Noblesville-Southeastern Public Library, No date)
The Tempe (Ariz.) Public Library "endeavors to develop collections, resources and services that meet the cultural, informational, recreational, and educational needs of the community it serves. It is within this context that the Library provides access to electronic information resources." The policy goes to say that "Library users shall not, in accordance with Arizona law (ARS 13-3507), employ the Library's electronic information systems to access or display explicit sexual material." (Tempe Public Library, 1997). The Tempe Public Library has interpreted its mission to "meet the cultural, informational, recreational, and educational needs of the community it serves" as excluding "explicit sexual material."
The Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County (Ohio) draws a similar line it its policy, "In keeping with our mission to make accessible the broadest possible range of information in a variety of formats, the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County provides public access to the Internet", but states that "Users may not view or print sexually explicit materials inappropriate for use in a public setting."
(Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County , 1997).
The Chatham-Effingham-Liberty (GA) Regional Library sees its mission as "providing educational, recreational, and informational materials, programs, and services", but excludes from those uses the right to "acquire, display or print pornographic materials. "
(Chatham-Effingham-Liberty Regional Library, 1996)
The Public Library of Charlotte & Mecklenburg (N.C.) explains in its "Rules Of Use" for Internet access that "Library Internet computers are provided for library-related learning, research and information", and informs users that they "cannot send, receive or display inappropriate materials, defined as text or graphics which may reasonably be construed as obscene." (Public Library of Charlotte & Mecklenburg, No date)
These examples show that these five library systems, like many others, interpret their mission and collection policies so as to exclude the use of library resources for the display of pornographic materials, which are outside the bounds of the library's mission.
The analogy of ILL applied to viewing hard-core pornography in the library
It has been suggested that obtaining pornography via the Internet is like obtaining pornography via interlibrary loan, or ILL. Again, comparing accessing Internet pornography to accessing pornography via ILL serves to underscore the striking distinctions in content between the two services.
Some have suggested that in theory, a patron could make a request for a piece of hard-core pornography from his or her local public library. Since libraries typically restrict ILL requests only on the basis of cost and not because of content, a library would honor a patron ILL request for apiece of pornography available in other libraries, such as Hustler, Deep Throat, or Behind the Green Door.
Again, a careful examination reveals the content-based restrictions already underlying ILL. Such a request would, in fact be impossible to fill.
I decided to test this theory by first identifying indisputably hard-core materials, then seeing if I could place an interlibrary loan for such material. By checking OCLC, I have been able to identify three items that are clearly hard-core pornography, where penetration is clearly visible, and typically sold in adult bookstores, the magazine Hustler, and the videos Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door.
Northeastern University and Sonoma State University own Deep Throat. (OCLC: 23191165) The on-line catalog of Sonoma State University confirms that SSU owns Deep Throat. (http://libaxp.sonoma.edu/MARION/ABI-8004) A telephone call to the SSU Interlibrary Borrowing & Article Retrieval Office (707-664-4184) confirmed that Deep Throat is not available for interlibrary loan. The Northeastern University on-line catalog ( telnet://library.lib.neu.edu ) confirms that NU owns Deep Throat, but the catalog record itself contains the following statement: "RESTRICTED to classroom instructional showings only; no off-campus or personal use; no student activities or club use."
Only Sonoma State College owns Behind the Green Door. (OCLC: 23191207)
The on-line catalog of Sonoma State University confirms that SSU owns Behind the Green Door. ( http://libaxp.sonoma.edu/MARION/ABI-8005 ) A telephone call to the SSU Interlibrary Borrowing & Article Retrieval Office (707-664-4184) confirmed that Behind the Green Door is not available for interlibrary loan.
The Library of Congress, Bowling Green State University, Ohio State University, and the University of Illinois own Hustler. (OCLC: 3487803). The on-line catalog of OhioLink, a statewide consortium of academic libraries in the state of Ohio can be used to place interlibrary loans. A search for Hustler confirms that the item is held by both Bowling Green and Ohio State (OhioLink http://olc1.ohiolink.edu/search/t+hustler/1,24,60,B/detlframeset&tHustler&13,,28 ). When one selects the "request this item" link that is used for placing ILLs, the message "Requesting Hustler -- Sorry, no copies available for requests" appears. ( http://olc1.ohiolink.edu/search/t+hustler/1,24,60,B/request&tHustler&13,,28 )
Materials at the Library of Congress do not circulate. From the document 25 Questions Most Frequently Asked by Visitors of the Library of Congress ( gopher://marvel.loc.gov/00/loc/facil/25.faqs ), " The Library of Congress is a research library, and books are used only on the premises by members of the public."
The University Illinois at Urbana on-line catalog (telnet://illinet.aiss.uiuc.edu) confirms that Hustler is owned by UIU, but the catalog record itself contains the statement "Non-circulating Use in Library only".
Again, comparing Internet access to ILL, like every other resource and service librarians provide highlights the striking differences in the appropriateness and acceptability of content.
"Outsourcing" of selection has a long tradition in libraries.
One common objection is that filtering involves turning over the determination of what library patrons see to an outside third party. An examination of public library practices reveals that this type of "selection outsourcing" is both widespread and has a long history in public libraries.
For decades, public libraries have engaged in two practices called "blanket orders'" and "approval plans". An approval plan is defined as a situation where a "wholesaler or jobber will provide libraries with examination copies if there is a reasonable expectation of purchase of each title or set of multiple-copy orders being placed. For example, if a librarian requests 100 titles on approval and kept 90, the jobber would probably send other titles on approval. However, if the library kept only 65 titles, it would be necessary to convince the firm that there was good reason for this high rejection rate before another approval order would be sent." (Evans, 1987) A blanket order is a contract where "a library is committed to purchasing everything sent by a publisher or vendor under the agreement." (Evans, 1987)
Today even whole library systems are outsourced to private third parties. The public libraries of Riverside County, California and Germantown, Maryland are operated by a private company, Library Systems & Services, Inc. (Riverside County Outsources, 1997).
Do Libraries "Select" the Internet?
One of the most common arguments offered against filtering out portions of the Internet is that when a library offers Internet access, it has "selected the entire Internet".
The argument is inconsistent with the technical realities of the Internet because the Internet is not technically "one thing". The Internet is composed of not only the World Wide Web, but Internet Relay Chat, Multiple User Databases, Gopher sites, sites available via telnet, electronic mail, Usenet Newsgroups, and other resources. Almost all libraries that offer unfiltered public Internet access still exclude large portions of the Internet. Many public libraries that offer unrestricted access the World Wide Web portion of the Internet do not offer access to Usenet news, Internet Relay Chat, MUDs, or electronic mail. Most of these resources can usually be offered to patrons at "no added cost", by simply installing more software that is usually available free. Access to Usenet Newsgroups requires access to a Network News Transfer Protocol server, or NNTP server. Many Internet Service Providers provide access to NNTP servers to libraries at no added cost. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that most public libraries block access to one or more of these resources. It often does "cost more to censor" access to Internet Relay Chat, yet many public libraries that advertise unfiltered Web access deliberately block Chat. If a library is to offer "unrestricted, uncensored access to everything available at no added cost on the entire Internet", this must also include most of the resources described above.
Conceptually, the Internet should not be viewed as a single work. In print, a single work could be a book, a newspaper, a multi-volume set, a magazine, maybe even a whole run of a magazine. But the entire medium of print would never be thought of as a "single work". In a broadcast medium, a single work would be a program, a movie, perhaps a series of programs, or an evening's worth of programs. But no one would ever consider the entire medium of television or all radio broadcasts to be a single work. Like television, radio, and print, the Internet is a medium, and it is simplistic to simply view an entire medium as a single work. A single work on the Internet could be a page, a web site, or a group of web sites.
Another defining feature of a single work is that it has a responsible issuing authority, usually the publisher or broadcaster. The publisher is yet another way in which a medium is divided into smaller units. Print media have publishers, printer and editors. Broadcast media have networks, stations, studios, and producers. Each in different ways and in different situations can be considered responsible issuing authorities. The Internet does not have a "single publisher", it has many, many "publishers", the owners of websites, and from this perspective, should not be considered a single work at all.
Problems Caused by Unfiltered Internet Access
Unfiltered, uncontrolled access to pornography has caused serious behavior problems in some public libraries. The example of the Los Angeles County Library is illustrative:
In the Los Angeles Central Library, for instance, the machines are regularly steered to online photos of naked women, digitized videos of sex acts and ribald chat-room discussions. A few patrons even use stolen or made-up credit card numbers to visit pay-per-peep porn sites, according to a browser familiar with the scam. Despite a 30-minute time limit on Internet use at the Los Angeles Library, for example, legitimate researchers sometimes have to wait in line because the machines are tied up by people perusing personal ads or X-rated chat rooms. One of the sex browsers, an 18-year-old college student who declined to be identified (we'll call him Patron X), says he and at least half a dozen friends - plus assorted businessmen and ``street people'' - routinely cruise the Central Library Internet for porn.
That last part, computer-savvy homeless people, might seem hard to imagine, but Patron X says they're ``really good at this.... We trade secrets.''
One of the most prized tricks: finding Internet sites that post credit-card-number formulas that can be used to get into live-action Web sites where customers must pay up to $10 a minute to type instructions to a stripper and watch her perform as requested.
(Public Libraries Debating How to Handle Net Porn, 1997)
The Orange County (Flor.) Public Library faced similar problems before filters had to be installed to regain control of the situation:
A number of people were coming into the library and accessing sites that would be described as hard-core porn," Field said. "I am not talking about Playboy and naked ladies. I am talking about stuff in the back room of adult bookstores. They would view this for hours on end."
(Mendels,1997)
The Austin (Texas) Public Library installed filters after disturbing incidents where the library was being used as an open conduit for the distribution of child pornography:
Two incidents occurred in February 1997 that caused the library to rethink its policy. In the first incident, a librarian at the Spicewood Springs branch library encountered a patron printing images of child pornography on the library printer that the patron had found through the Internet. Staff confiscated the pictures over the vehement objections of the patron. When Ms. Branch saw the images, she was shocked and dismayed at the crudity of the material that is, she says, in "clear violation of any standard of community decency."
The second incident occurred at another branch, Twin Oaks, where the circulation supervisors witnessed an adult customer instructing a group of children on how to access pornographic sites on the Internet.
(Smith, 1997)
A library that installs unfiltered Internet access, with privacy booths and screens, and does not monitor patron behavior can easily be transformed into, quite literally, an adult bookstore peep show gallery.
It has been demonstrated that libraries do not offer hard-core pornography, such as materials with explicit photographs of sexual acts with penetration clearly visible, bestiality, or sexual acts involving human waste. Of the nearly 9,000 public library systems in the United States, not one features one magazine, book, or videotape that meets the above criteria. And although a few academic libraries own such material, this material cannot be obtained via Interlibrary loan. Not one of the nearly 9,000 public libraries in the United States explicitly says in its mission statement or collection development policies that such material is to be collected.
It is also clear that this situation is not an accident. Every single public library in the United States consciously and deliberately excludes this material in every format except the Internet. It is also clear that this is not done for reasons of economy, but for reasons of appropriateness.
The only rationale for including pornography is the conscious and deliberate decision to radically expand the mission of the public library. No such decision has been made, save for a few free speech absolutists. When librarians decided to offer access to the Internet, the American Library Association did not pass a resolution calling for the inclusion of pornography in all formats in all library collections.
Filtering cannot be rightly compared to "selection", since it involves an active, rather than passive exclusion of certain types of content. But filtering cannot be rightly called "removal" either, since the materials being "removed" do not exist in the library and were never consciously selected by the librarian. Filtering is best described as being somewhere between selection and removal. Marilyn Gell Mason, the director of the Cleveland (Ohio) Public Library, recently said "When we make judgments we call it selection. When we choose to exclude material we call it censorship. Evidence suggests that the distinction lacks meaning in an electronic environment."
(Mason, 1997)
Filtering technology is admittedly limited and imperfect, but it is the best tool librarians have available for Internet content management. Librarians need to have the flexibility to do what they do, which is make decisions about the appropriate allocation of resouces so as to best meet the needs of their patrons. That is what selection is all about. The question then becomes, "How can librarians do this with the Internet?" Creating an elaborate homepage of "best web sites" cannot rightly be called selection, since it does not involve decisions about resources. Since a homepage of recommended links is really a finding aid to resources, it is much closer to indexing or cataloging than "selection". With one mouse click, the "best web sites" page disappears and is rendered meaningless.
The only way a library can exercise meaningful resource allocation of the Internet is through filtering. Only excluding access to material clearly outside the bounds of a library's mission will accomplish this. The frequently-heard objection to this claim is "Where does this stop? Who decides?" The guidelines should be clear: a library's existing mission statement and collection development policies. A library should be free to exclude any portions of the Internet that: 1) Clearly fall outside of the library's mission, and 2) The exclusion of which will not constitute a deliberate attempt at viewpoint discrimination.
Applying legal scrutiny to library Internet access really amounts to the judicial micro-management of library selection decisions. Indeed, free speech advocates opposed to filtering in libraries actually reason that based on the alleged unconstitutionality of Internet filtering, certain selection decisions are unconstitutional as well. Jonathan Wallace a self-described "attorney, author and free speech advocate" writes:
"Advocates of blocking argue that a library has no legal obligation to buy any particular book or to allow the viewing of any particular Web site. However, this reliance on Pico is misplaced. In limiting its decision to the facts before it, the Court was clearly not holding that a librarian could legally follow any imaginable agenda in the selection of books for acquisition. For example, it would not be constitutional for a public librarian to refuse to purchase anything by Malamud or Wright."
(Wallace, 1997)
The American Library Association Intellectual Freedom Committee recently passed a "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy" in which it justified unfiltered Internet access by asserting that "public libraries cannot exclude books about abortion just because they discuss the subject of abortion. That would be discrimination with respect to content. Books can be selected on the basis of content-neutral criteria." (ALA IFC, 1998) Indeed, if Internet selection policies are to be subject to legal review, why not book selection policies? One has little trouble envisioning the day when libraries are ordered to buy particular books so as to include particular content.
As the Internet continues to grow in importance to libraries, librarians need to be free to exercise their ability to shape on-line collections and distribute electronic resources in the most appropriate manner for their communities. The inability to do this may result in the diminished relevance of librarians, the creation of dangerous situations in the library, and the alienation of our patrons.
II) The availability of material likely to be obscene on the Internet
I was able to easily find material that met my qualifications for "likely to be found obscene". I defined "likely to be found obscene" in one of three ways:I visited the search engine Altavista at altavista.digital.com and entered "bestiality", which resulted in "125090 matches were found."
Among the first links I found was http://animalsex.sadboy.com/index.htm. On the main page of this site was a banner saying, "YOU ASKED FOR IT, WE HAVE IT. Radical animated horse blowjob." Following the link at http://animalsex.sadboy.com/horseblowjob.html led to an animated photograph of a woman performing oral sex on a horse. The jerky animated photograph is a preview for a free AVI movie file. The accompanying text describes the movie file:
1) First the chick starts sucking the horse off.
2) You then hear the horse do the Whinnie sound like when the [sic] toss their head around.
3) Then the fucking horse shoots about a gallon (two-litre) of hot CUM into her mouth.
4) The best part is, she lets out a big choking GAG
5) Out of her mouth pours the hot horse cum
6) Then the horse shoots the rest of his load.
Another site I found through Altavista was http://www.bestiality.com. This site promised "superb quality bestiality." I followed the "free samples" link to http://www.bestiality.com/samples/sample1.html where a close-up photograph of a woman placing a dog's penis into her mouth with the accompanying text, "Size does matter..Which is why life sometimes is so damned good when you are a Great Dane :) Join now and get instant access to our huge collection of dog sex."
Entering the term "shit-eating" in Altavista returned "1742 matches were found." Among the sites I found were http://www.worldwidewebservers.com/~peek/disgust.htm which advised "Here are the type of things that can be found in "Disgusting Pictures": Fat Chicks, Women With Dicks, Golden Showers, and other Weird Stuff For a Sneak Peek of what you can find inside...Press Here" This led to http://www.worldwidewebservers.com/~peek/freak18.jpg which shows a photograph of two men urinating into a prostrate woman's mouth while the woman, legs spread apart, urinates into the air.
Another site I visited was titled "Extreme Perversion" at http://www.xtreme-perversion.com/preview.html. This site featured an opening series of photographs that depicted a woman having a hand inserted into her vagina, a woman having a beer bottle inserted her vagina, a woman defecating, and a burning candle inserted into a penis. The text promised "plenty more sections to choose from", including ""The Cum And Get It Fountain" (Spunk hungry bitches who drink it like water)", ""The Enema's Entrance" (Clean up before you get dirty)", and ""The Kavair Suite" (For those of you who like to get browned without the need for suntan lotion!)"
Another site I visited was titled "Mankind's Sickest Obsessions" at http://shit.fecal.com/pick.htm. This site advertised the following sections:
TORTURE AND PAIN, UNBEARABLE TO WATCH!Accompanying the text were a photograph of a woman having nails pounded into her breasts with a hammer, an autopsy photograph of a man's head being cut open, and a close-up photograph of a woman defecating directly into another person's mouth.
Women and Men, No Arms No legs, No Clothes!
PISS, URINE, SHIT, BODILY FLUIDS SO NASTY!
Homosexual/Gay Perverted Acts You've only heard/read about!
Bondage Acts So Real You Will Squirm in your seat!
Entering "hard-core xxx" into www.altavista.com resulted in "384530 matches were found."
Among the links I followed was http://www.xxxir.com/picpicpic2 which advertised "ANIMALs TEEN FUCK-PICS FREE FURY TEEN FUCK-PICS for YOU" and "VERY YOUNG TEEN GIRLS This is truly the most fantastic collection of YOUNG TEEN GIRLS on the entire internet. These girls are the YOUNGEST HARDCORE SLUTS that you will ever find!" The accompanying photographs showed very young women being orally and vaginally penetrated.
Another site I found was "Group Sexdogs" at
http://www.groupsexdogs.com/cgi/log/cgi?picpicpic2 This single page alone had dozens of photographs showing oral, anal and vaginal penetration of very young women, with the accompanying text saying:
HIDDEN CAMERA PICS: YOUNG NAKED GIRL FUCKED by DOGAnother site I visited was www.youngest.com. This site had dozens of photographs of young men and women engaging in various sex acts, usually with penetration clearly visible. From the accompanying text:
6 COCKS IN 1 TINY CHEERLEADER
VERY YOUNG SLUTS PIX ILLEGAL IN PARTS OF THE USA
~SO YOUNG~TINY BREAST~NO PUSSY HAIR
LITTLE GIRLS SWALLOWING COCK
HORNY INTOXICATED RUNAWAY GIRLS!!! FREE PICS!!!
16 YEAR OLD ASIAN GIRLS FUCKED BY FARM ANIMALS!!
DAUGHTER AND MOTHER FUCK PICS-All this material was freely available, and none of the photographs required a credit card, adult verification system, or registration.
HAIRLESS TEEN FUCK PICS
Teens Rammed With Giant Cocks
Hidden Camera In Teen Girl's Room
NEW! THE BABYSITTER SUCKING DADDY
Least Restrictive Methods for blocking the viewing of illegal materials
While I do not possess expert legal knowledge, I will apply my own professional judgement as to which alternatives constitute the best balance between effectiveness and the free flow of information. I examined several methods of blocking access to obscene materials.
"Tap on the shoulder" Policies
Evidence indicates that this is actually the most common method used to control internet access to "pornographic", "sexually explicit", or "obscene" materials in public libraries. As was cited earlier:
According to Burt, "the total number of [public] libraries which have rules against viewing "inappropriate" or "pornographic" materials continues to increase." 25% of the policies written in 1996 and 1997 contain such rules, up from only 8% of those written in 1995. Overall, 19% of policies from 1995- 1997 include rules against viewing inappropriate or pornographic materials."
(Tenopir, On-line Use Policies and Restrictions, Library Journal, August, 1997)
The popularity of "tap on the shoulder" policies seems to be due to librarians' mistrust of filtering software and the fear of lawsuits for filtering. "Tap on the shoulder" policies are seen as a way to balance appropriate use of library resources with protection of free speech.
However, the result of this attempt to offer better protection to free speech than filters may be somewhat ironic. As the ACLU white paper on library filtering points out:
"In an effort to avoid installing blocking software, some libraries have instituted a "tap on the shoulder" policy that is, in many ways, more intrusive and unconstitutional than a computer program. This authorizes librarians to peer at the patron's computer screen and tap anyone on the shoulder who is viewing "inappropriate" material."
(ACLU, White Paper: Censorship in a Box, June 1998)
Further, this can create unpleasant work conditions for librarians, as this posting by Public Library of Charlotte & Mecklenburg librarian Sarah Hudson to the electronic mailing list PUBYAC shows:
"Our branch is located in a busy neighborhood, and is on the corner of a major road through the city. There are plenty of people who do use the Internet to view sexually explicit material. I do not like telling people to get off playboy.com, and more explicit sites, because I do not enjoy viewing that type of material. But that is my job. I feel that some people pull that type of site up when I, or another woman are in the lab, because it gives them a thrill to have me come over and give them attention. I have had to tell people to take the quick time video of sexual acts off of their screen."
Finally, a "tap on the shoulder" policy does not prevent the display of pornography.
Privacy booths are sometimes recommended as a solution. While a privacy booth has the advantages of preventing staff from being exposed to offensive material, it does nothing to prevent the display of obscenity. Indeed, a private viewing booth is the policy that is most likely to encourage the viewing of obscenity. From the standpoint of preventing obscenity, an unfiltered private booth is the least attractive option.
Text-only Access.
It is worth noting that when the first public libraries implemented public Internet access through text-only dumb terminals, there is not a recorded complaint of "viewing pornography". Replacing graphical Internet access with text-only access would almost certainly eliminate complaints about pornography being accessed. Of course, this would eliminate much of the utility of the Internet.
A "whitelist" filter is a filter that rather than blocking selected sites, blocks everything except for an approved list of sites. One product of this type in use by libraries is called Ed-View, which features a list of 15,000 pre-approved sites. While these products offer what is likely 100% effectiveness in blocking obscenity, they have the obvious disadvantage of blocking millions of non-obscene sites.
Filters which operate by blocking sites that contain certain words, such as "sex'" or "smut" are highly effective in blocking out obscene sites, since the pornographic websites load their pages with these types of words to attract viewers. Unfortunately, word filters block many innocent sites, such as portions of my own, www.fiteringfacts.org, because I use the words "pornography" and "sex" on my site, and those of sites like that of the Internet safety group Enough is Enough.
Clearly the best technology for blocking obscenity while leaving non-obscene sites unblocked is site-selected filtering. This technology relies on employees of a software company to select "obscene" or "sexually explicit" websites and add them to a continuously updated list of banned sites.
I decided to compare X-Stop with three other site-selected filters commonly used in libraries, CyberPatrol, IGear, and SurfWatch. I wanted to get an idea of how effective each filter was at 1) Blocking sites likely to be obscene, and 2) Not blocking sexually explicit sites that were clearly non-obscene.
I defined "likely to be found obscene" in one of three ways:
1) Photographs showing vaginal, anal, or oral penetration clearly visible.
2) Photographs of bestiality with penetration clearly visible.
3) Photographs of one person defecating or urinating onto another person's face.
I then selected 50 "likely to be found obscene" sites and 50 sexually explicit sites that clearly did not meet one of the "obscene" categories. The 100 sites were selected in the following manner:
50 Likely obscene sites -- selected by entering terms in AltaVista search engine such as "hardcore", "XXX", "bestiality", "scat". Scanned for penetration clearly visible, bestiality penetration clearly visible, and sex involving feces and urine.
10 Soft-core magazine sites -- selected by visiting the "Sex and Erotica" section of The Electronic Newsstand at http://www.enews.com/channel/1,1026,22,00.html and selecting the first 10 magazines listed that a) had active websites and b) did not have penetration clearly visible, etc.
10 Art Nude Photography sites -- selected by visiting the Fine Art Nude Webring at http://www.fineartnude.com/webring/ and selecting the next 9 sites.
10 Safe Sex Sites -- selected by visiting Yahoo: Society and Culture; Sexuality: Activities and Practices: Safe Sex at http://www.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Safe_Sex/ and selecting the first 10 sites. A subpage of a pornography site, www.gai.com, was excluded.
10 Nude Celebrity Sites -- selected by visiting Yahoo: http://www.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Companies/Sex/Virtual_Clubs/Online_Picture_Galleries/Nude_Celebrities/ and visiting the first 10 sites. "Nude Celebrity Sites" were selected for non-obscene because this type of pornography almost always consists of simple nudity and partial nudity.
10 Sexuality -- selected by visiting Yahoo at http://www.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Sexuality/General_Resources/ and visiting the first 10 sites, excluding those that appeared to be commercial pornography sites, had banner ads showing penetration, or were devoted to S&M or bondage.
Between July 10 and July 11, 1998, I downloaded the latest versions of Surfwatch and CyberPatrol. I updated the "blacklists'" for Surfwatch, CyberPatrol, and X-Stop on July 11, and connected to the IGEAR remote proxy server. On July 11 I tested all four filters.
Each filter was set for its least restrictive "adult" category, Surfwatch being set to block only "sexually explicit", Cyberpatrol being set to block only "sex acts", and IGEAR set to block only "adult".
For "Effectiveness at Blocking Obscene Sites" I scored 2 points for each successful block. For "Effectiveness at NOT Blocking Non-Obscene Sites" I scored 2 points for each site NOT blocked. Results: [Note: URLs are not included due to explicit content]
[Note: In the original, these sites were listed in one table, and they were listed again, with URLs, in a separate appendix. Taking advantage of the web, I have skipped the appendix and instead hyperlinked the site titles in this table to the URL given for the site in the appendix. It is my recommendation that viewers turn OFF Javascript in their web browser before clicking on any of the first fifty sites below, as many of them use Javascript to open new windows and cause problems generally. M.S.]
| 50 Likely Obscene Websites | CyberPatrol | I-Gear | Surfwatch | X-Stop |
| 1 Animal Sex | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 2 Animal-Teen Pics | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 3 Disgusting Pictures | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 4 The Orgy | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 5 Hot Teens | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 6 Bestiality | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 7 Ex's of the Hour | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 8 Private Gold | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 9 Cyber Boobs | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 10 Youngest | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 11 Splash Zone | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 12 Porn City | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 13 KandyLand | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 14 Mulipass Free Porn | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 15 Wombat | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 16 Whorific | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 17 Whore Stories | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 18 Pleasure Cat Amateurs | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 19 The Torture Chamber | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 20 Mankind's Sickest Obsession | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 21 Jessica Grabbit | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 22 Bad Teens | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 23 Ultra Hardcore | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 24 Gay Villa | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 25 Orgasmik | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 26 Japanese Domination | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 27 Nookie | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 28 American Babes Hardcore | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked |
| 29 Extreme Perversion | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 30 Bushwackers | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 31 Sex Shop | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 32 Bob's Lesbian Watersports | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 33 Planet Nympho | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 34 Erotic Box | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 35 I-Linx | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 36 Porn | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 37 Abbey's Erotic Peepshow | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 38 Kara's Hardcore | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 39 Free Haven | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 40 Porn Clips | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 41 Erotic Country Club | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 42 Miami Beach Models | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 43 Dirty Dozen | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 44 Girls of Japan | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 45 BDSM Top List | Unblocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 46 Pussy Park | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 47 Slut Babes | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 48 Sticky Keys | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 49 Porno Machine | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 50 Flesh FX | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| TOTALS | 94% | 80% | 98% | 86% |
| 10 Soft Core Magazine Sites | ||||
| 1 Playboy | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 2 Penthouse | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 3 Genesis | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 4 Club Paradise | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 5 Imagine | Unblocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 6 Playgirl | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 7 Naughty Neighbors | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 8 Plumpers and Big Women | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 9 Sex: A Man's Guide | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 10 Circuit Noise | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| TOTALS | 20% | 40% | 0% | 70% |
| 10 Art Nude Photography Sites | ||||
| 1 Fine Art Nude Webring | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 2 Italian Underground | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 3 Nudes by Jorge Parra | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 4 SOAVE | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 5 Alan Lindsay Garrett Gallery | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 6 Debenport Fine Art Photography | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 7 Ralph Oellerich Gallery | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 8 Fine Line Photography | Unblocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 9 Ronald Lee Hildebrand Gallery | Unblocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 10 Sepia Studios | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| TOTALS | 100% | 50% | 50% | 100% |
| 10 Safe Sex Sites | ||||
| 1 Enjoying Safer Sex | Unblocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 2 Di Que Si | Blocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 3 How Safe Is Your Oral Sex? | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 4 Coaltion for Positive Sexuality | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 5 Safe Sex - The Manual | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 6 Safer Sex | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 7 The Sex Directory | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 8 Take Care | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 9 Abstinence: Safer Than Sex | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 10 Born-Again Virgins | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| TOTALS | 90% | 90% | 90% | 100% |
| 10 Nude Celebrity Sites | ||||
| 1 25,000 Nude Celebrities | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 2 All Nude Celebrities Archive | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 3 Babes Paradise, The | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 4 Bond Girls | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 5 British Babes Photo Gallery | Blocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked |
| 6 Butts of the Nude and Famous | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 7 CelebCity | Blocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 8 Celebnet | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 9 CelebPics | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 10 Celebrities Caught Nude | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| TOTALS | 20% | 30% | 40% | 90% |
| 10 Sexuality | ||||
| 1 Dr. Ruth | Unblocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 2 Society for Human Sexuality | Unblocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 3 Coal. for Positive Sexuality | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 4 Sex Health | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 5 All About Sex | Blocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 6 New Male Sexuality | Blocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| 7 Internet Sex Radio | Blocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 8 History of Sexuality | Unblocked | Unblocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 9 Glass Wings: | Unblocked | Blocked | Blocked | Unblocked |
| 10 Eroticism in Antiquity | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked | Unblocked |
| TOTALS | 70% | 80% | 50% | 100% |
| Blocking "Obscene" Sites | 94% | 80% | 98% | 86% |
| Not Blocking Non-Obscene Sites | 60% | 58% | 46% | 92% |
While Cyberpatrol and Surfwatch were more effective at blocking the "obscene" sites, there was a large difference in the not blocking of non-obscene sites, with X-Stop scoring 92% and the nearest competitor, Cyberpatrol scoring only 60%.
While this sampling could not be called scientific because of the small sample size and the lack of controls, I believe it does give an indication of the blocking practices of these filters. The results indicate that these three other filters tend to lump most "adult entertainment" into a single category, and do not try to distinguish "hard-core" from "soft-core" as X-Stop has done.
Therefore, it is my opinion that X-Stop is likely the least restrictive filter for blocking obscenity, while at the same time, at 86% effectiveness, is reasonably effective at blocking what are clearly hard-core sites.
For a public library that wishes to block obscenity, the choice comes down to "tap on the shoulder" policies and site-selected filters. Indeed, libraries that wish to restrict access to "pornography" or "sexually explicit materials" almost always use one of these two methods.
All the filters I tested blocked sites that did not appear to contain images that would be likely to be obscene. But my brief survey does indicate that X-Stop tries to avoid blocking sites displaying simple nudity, and appears to be focused on blocking "hard-core" pornography, as the company claims.
I tested the claims Karen Schneider made in her brief about sites that X-Stop blocked on both the home version of X-Stop and the Librarian II version. My results:
1) animafest.hr was not blocked on either version X-Stop
2) The entire www.gayweb.com site was entirely blocked by both versions. This is a pornography site.
3) www.blackiris.com site was entirely blocked on the home version, presumably because it is a sexually explicit S&M site. It is not blocked by Librarian II.
4) www.gai.com site was entirely blocked in the home version, presumably because it has sexually explicit content. It was not blocked by Librarian II.
5) www.rainbowmall.com was entirely blocked by the home version, presumably because it has pornography banner ads, but not blocked in Librarian II.
6) qrd.tcp.com was entirely blocked in the home version, presumably because it has pornography links, but was not blocked by Librarian II.
7) theory.doc.ic.ac.uk was not blocked, http://theory.doc.ic.ac.uk/~kcl/ was not blocked, but http://theory.doc.ic.ac.uk/~kcl/bash.html was blocked in the home versions, presumably for mild sexual content. No portion of the site was blocked by Librarian II.
8) www.arrowmag was entirely blocked in the home version, without apparent good reason. It was not blocked by Librarian II.
I have spent a lot of time evaluating filters, and what I found most striking about X-Stop Librarian II is the large amount of sexually explicit material that the viewer was allowed to see. No other filter I have ever seen is so liberal in its blocking philosophy as X-Stop Librarian II, which allows access to the such sites as Playboy, Penthouse, Playgirl, All Nude Celebrity Archive, Internet Sex Radio, etc.
Since it is my opinion that X-Stop Librarian II is the least restrictive filter for blocking obscene material, X-Stop must be compared to the only other realistic option, "tap on the shoulder" policies. It is my belief that a library patron wanting to view information on safe sex, view fine art nude photographs, or read Playboy would be much less likely to do so in a "tap on the shoulder" environment. These is not because a librarian would determine that Playboy was obscene and halt the patron's Internet session, but because the patron would likely interpret the policy as excluding all sexually explicit material, and out of fear and embarrassment would probably never visit the site.
If the library has as its policy goal to allow the viewing of sexually explicit, though non-obscene materials, I believe the least restrictive option for achieving this would be to install X-Stop Librarian II and provide for a minimum amount of patron privacy.
ALA Council. (1982, July 17). Diversity in Collection Development: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.
ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee. (June, 1998). Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy.
American Library Association Office of Information Technology Policy, (1997, November). 1997 National Survey of U.S. Public Libraries and the Internet.
ACLU. (1998, June). Censorship In a Box.
Berry, John. (1998, June 15). Censorship and Politics Are Local: They will never again be able to turn to ALA for help with censors, Library Journal.
Burt, David. (1997, May 8). Public Library Internet Policy Page. Available: Http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/library/pol-sum.htm .
Burt, David. (1998, January). Pornographic Videotapes Are Not Owned by Public Libraries, Filtering Facts Website. Available Http://www.filteringfacts.org/videos.htm .
Busha, Charles. (1972, July). Intellectual Freedom and Censorship. Library Quarterly, 42, 283-84.
Byars, Carlos. (1997, July 3). Libraries to restrict Internet access, Houston Chronicle.
Chatham-Effingham-Liberty (GA) Regional Library, (1996, November 19). Internet Access Policy. Available: Http://www.co.chatham.ga.us/sites/disclaim.htm .
Evans, G. Edward. (1987). Developing Library and Information Center Collections.
Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Fiske, Marjorie. (1959). Book Selection and Censorship. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Katz, Wm. (1981). Collection Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Manley, Wm. (1997, October). Are We Free To Talk Honestly About Intellectual Freedom, American Libraries, pp. 112.
Mason, Marilyn Gell. (1997, July). Sex, Kids, and the Public Library, American Libraries.
Mendels, Pamela. (1997, January 18). A Library That Would Rather Block Than Offend, New York Times.
Moon, Eric. (1969). Book Selection and Censorship in the Sixties. New York: Bowker.
Noblesville-Southeastern (IN) Public Library. (No date). Internet Use Policy. Available: Http://www.nspl.lib.in.us/policy.html .
Public Library of Charlotte & Mecklenburg (N.C.), (No Date). Internet Rules of Use.
Available: Http://www.plcmc.lib.nc.us/find/policy/internet.htm .
Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County (Ohio). (1997, August 18). Internet Use Policy. Available: Http://plch.lib.oh.us/about/policy.html
Public Libraries Debating How to Handle Net Porn. (1997, July 3). Augusta Chronicle.
Reynolds, Tim. (1997, July). Unrestricted Internet Access at Public Libraries, Washington Library Association Journal.
Riverside County Outsources. (1997, August). American Libraries, pp. 19.
Smith, Mark. (1997, February). Meeting the Pressure to Filter, Texas Library Journal, February.
Strassman, Charles. (1997, January 13). The Real Costs of PCs, Computerworld.
Tempe (Ariz.) Public Library. (1997, June 12). Internet Acceptable Use Policy. Available: Http://www.tempe.gov/library/admin/aupweb.htm .
Tenopir, Carolyn. (1997, August) On-line Use Policies and Restrictions, Library Journal, pp. 41.
Wallace, Jonathan. (1997, November). Purchase of Blocking Software by Public Libraries is Unconstitutional. Available: Http://www.spectacle.org/cs/library.html .