Librarians to the Rescue 280
Duke Machesne writes "Citing concerns over materials being distributed to American students by the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA's evil minions, the American Library Association will begin distributing its own, more balanced material this winter. The material will deal with insignificant and oft-overlooked details like fair use. More information on Wired News."
Go librarians! (Score:3, Interesting)
However, it massively accelerates research. Clearly a good thing.
(Mod me down, this post is stupid.)
Re:Go librarians! (Score:5, Informative)
This wasn't because the information in the libraries was bad (actually, it had a lot of good stuff), but as high school students we were generally lazy.
Better than college though, where publishers will force people to buy whole new editions of math books just because they changed the order of the problems at the end of each chapter.
Re:Go librarians! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Go librarians! (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, it massively decreases incentives to set up efficient second hand marketplaces for books. After all, first doctrine means the publisher never gets money for "used" books getting read by their new owners anyway.
And if a library doesn't offer the latest Stephen King, romance novel or in a nutshell, a lot of people end up buying a new copy..
Having said that, they're always working their evil little ways to get libraries to pay for lending out books or having copying machines.. When you have a dead poet's estate prohibiting a poetry festival from "performing" his poems, you know the system's gone mad.
Re:Go librarians! (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed. Anyone who's ever been to an open mike night knows that in a sane world it would be the poet who would be prohibited from reading his own works.
KFG
Re:Go librarians! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Go librarians! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention literacy, which presumably sustains sales of books in the long term. Imagine what it'd be like if anyone who wanted to read had to pay.
Re:Go librarians! (Score:5, Insightful)
We'd have a culture where most people get their information from visual and audio media like television and radio and ignore in-depth analysis found in newspapers and magazines.
Oh.
Re:Go librarians! (Score:2)
Sounds like things wouldn't change at all.- Imagine what it'd be like if anyone who wanted to read had to pay.
>br> We'd have a culture where most people get their information from visual and audio media like television and radio and ignore in-depth analysis found in newspapers and magazines.Re:Go librarians! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Go librarians! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for publishers. Research lowers the cost of entering the publishing business, and thus increases competition. The Internet even allows publishing for free - and I don't mean book pirates, but people who upload their own texts for everyone to enjoy. I've read several book-length quality pieces of writing on the Net, and this had certainly decreased my need to buy paper books.
Research threatens established power bases - or, more to the point, the fruits of research in the hands of the general public threaten established power bases - and thus is a bad thing, as far as those in power are concerned. Do you really think that the Internet would had been allowed to happen if the politicians and big business had known beforehand what it would become ?
Freedom is the natural enemy of Power. People freely exchanging information and making their own decisions is the worst nightmare of a politician. People producing and trading with each other is the worst nightmare of a corporate overlord. And everyone having a cheap access to publishing is the worst nightmare of a publisher.
All of which means that we will propably go back to pre-emptive censoring, of needing a prior permission to publish anything, before long. Propably as soon as we get mandatory DRM on our computers. That's the real reason for it...
well (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
And not just because to "balance things out", you'd have to push a line that would make all copyright questionable.
The proper way to "balance" this is to not allow the **AA access to the schools. This isn't education, it's propaganda. Let them buy time in the media like every other business.
Re:well (Score:3, Insightful)
BSA marketing exec 1: hey, what should we do this year to increase legal software sales?
BSA marketing exec 2: i know! let's infiltrate the schools with some 'educational material' about copyrights, and how they should be reverently followed. 90 some odd years is not enough.
BSA marketing exec 1: sound great, but how are we going to do that?
BSA marketing exec 2: we'll umm, make a cartoon character and have the kids name it, yeah! it will be great
BSA marke
Re:well (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's hope this is one case where sci-fi is more to provoke thought than to predict the future.
Re:well (Score:3, Informative)
Let them buy time in the media like every other business.
Uhm, they *are* the media.
Ever noticed how "unfair and unbalanced" all the stories about copyright are? They kinda miss the whole "there's a large section of the population that think the laws go too far " kinda angle.
Look at the latest stories about DVD Jon finding the streaming key for the AirPort Express.. "HACKER CRACKS AIRTUNES ENCRYPTION" .. uh yeah. I guess it's a more interesting headline than "SMART GUY FINDS HIDDEN NUMBER".
I don't
Re:well (Score:2)
Even now, after SCO has been whacked on the head so many times, the media still don't get it, and buyers still buy their SCO Lottery Tickets..
Who knows, maybe the earth's supply of crack will be exhausted in a generation or two and things will get back to normal (OMG what will the moderators be on by then? Chip-heads?)
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't education, it's propaganda.
My kids are past elementary school, but we've had to deal with at least two other equally bogus programs that were nevertheless strongly supported by some of the administrators:
Much of this nonsense didn't stop, despite numerous complaints from parents, until Consumer Reports wrote up the practice.
The only role that these sorts of things have in the classroom is in a high school level civics style class that discusses why they should not be used in the classroom.
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention private interests being allowed to making their case as fact in the public schools without so much as a representative of a counterpoint.
I certainly hope school librarians take up the gauntlet, but my experience suggests that to do so might well endanger their jobs.
KFG
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
It is possible to be both a strong supporter of the philosophy of copyright and yet oppose specific copyright law.
Given the current copyright law, it's pretty much impossible to be a strong supporter of the US founders' philosophy of copyright and *not* oppose specific copyright law.
The only way you can really support the current copyright system is if you buy into the content producers' notion that copyright is some sort of perpetual, natural and even inalienable right to collect cash for every use, rather than the carefully balanced social contract originally intended.
Re:well (Score:4, Insightful)
I imagine most slashdot readers are aware of the abuses of copyright law: the endless extensions, the DMCA, stifling of free speech and fair use, impoverishment of the public domain, the lack of rights for the creators of content (publishers using contracts and work-for-hire to take the copyrights for themselves). All of which are extensively documented on Slashdot.
I imagine most slashdot readers are well aware of campaigns by copyright holders (the publishers) to use them to extort money from mostly innocent people (as few cases go to court and so the allegations of infringement are unproven).
While it has been a while, I imagine at least some slashdot readers remember Microsoft's terroristic marketing campaigns to scare customers into buying too many licenses just to be "safe" from audits.
If you don't, AC, maybe you should use your computer for something "useful".
It is good that libraries are going to be educating youngsters in Fair Use. After all, libraries are the sacred temples of Fair Use.
As for the media sharks, remember the Yahlen? Quit being mean, or your yachts are belong to Mothra!
(To be used in the Queen of Monster's thirty-eight year old War on Mean Terrorists.)
"Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster", 1966
Re:well (Score:5, Interesting)
balance in this case is 80% closer to the RIAA and MPAA side than what you think balanced is
Are you talking about balance as in giving a fair and honest explanation of existing copyright law, or balanced as in what balanced law should be? Not that it matters because the RIAA/MPAA/BSA fail on both accounts. Their "educational program" is pure propaganda to push an agenda. They have no interest in giving an accurate and balanced picture of copyright law. They ignore or misrepresent any aspect of copyright law which does not support their agenda, and they simplify and overgeneralize any portion of copyright law which does support their agenda.
Oh yes, those eeeevil librarians are dong this to spread disinformation and lies to undercut the MPAA/RIAA/BSA's fair and balanced message. It's all part of the eeeevil librarians' plot to brainwash our children and conquer the world! Muahahahaha!
As for what balance law should be, well things would be a lot closer to balanced if we simply repealed a couple of rotten laws the copyright lobby has bought in the last few years. The DMCA, NET, Sony Bono, AHRA, and one or two others. If we were to include state laws I think there were a few statyes stupid enough to pass Super-DMCA bills, and two that bought into the UCITA.
But of cource that makes me some some evil anti-copyright nutjob because I want good old traditional copyright. A-yup. I'm an evil anachist for wanting the perfectly good laws we used to have.
And actually there's a rather unlikely item I'd like to add to the list of bad copyright law, though I have to stretch waaaaay back to 1976. And what item would that be? TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. [cornell.edu]
Yes, that's right, I want the Fair Use clause stripped out of US law.
Why? Because it's redundant and it has led to widespread missunderstanding of fair use. You could strike that clause from the law and fair use would not change one wit! If you check the cogressional record when it was first passed they stated it was intended to reflect existing fair use, and that it was not intended to expand, restrict, or alter existing fair use in any way whatsoever!
Since Section 107 of the law describes fair use, many people have the mistaken impression that that law somehow grants, defines, and restricts fair use. They have the mistaken impression that fair use can be altered/restricted/eliminated simply by rewriting that law. That is incorrect. Fair use existed before that law existed, therefore it cannot be that law which created fair use.
You you actually read that clause carefully, it does not place any limitations on fair use at all! In fact what it says is that fair use is whatever the courts say it is. It merely lists examples of fair use, and gives a minimum list of factors to consider in determining fair use.
If you read the history of copyright law, fair use was established by the courts on constitutional grounds from the very beginning. It was repeatedly found that copyright law would be unconstitutional if it actually attempted to impose the sweeping restrictions it claims to impose. Rather than striking down copyright law as invalid, the court bent over backwards to assume that copyright law implicitly never even attempts to apply in cases of fair use. That copyright willingly flees in the face of fair use.
It is not copyright law which grants and defines and restricts fair use. It is fair use which rescues copyright law from being struck down as unconstitutional.
Where fair use treads copyright is entirely swept away.
The fact that fair use was written into law in 1976 in section 107 has led many people to false beliefes about fair use. Rather than acknowledging and protecting fair use rights as intended, section 1
Re:well (Score:3, Insightful)
language? (Score:5, Funny)
OMGLOLWTFBBQ?
Re:language? (Score:2)
But in instances like this where the BBQ is included in a string of words, its purpose is purely satirical. Its kind of like the "kitchen sink" of online acronyms.
I IS LIEK SO SMERT!! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!1`1oneoneleventyone
Re:language? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:language? (Score:2)
The BSA? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The BSA? (Score:5, Funny)
Probably the same thing that was wrong a few years ago with the GSA (Girl Scouts of America) - They sit around campfires singing copyrighted songs without first getting written permission from the copyright owners and paying the license fees.
Bunch of anarchic, socialistic copyright-violating pirates with no respect for the law, all of them!
Re:The BSA? (Score:3, Interesting)
-
Re:The BSA? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The BSA? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The BSA? (Score:2)
The BSA, Microsoft and the definition of Extortion (Score:2)
Re:The BSA? (Score:2)
Re:The BSA? (Score:2, Informative)
I suspect the religious connections in scouts are why there's that offical anti-gay thing, but offical and practice are two differant things.
Re:The BSA? (Score:2)
More Lawsuits! (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:2)
Not suprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not suprising. (Score:2, Funny)
I find it extremely amusing that you talk of ignorance, misinformation, disinformation, and junk, and then include a link to a scam for a free LCD TV in your sig. Should have been modded funny.
Re:Not suprising. (Score:2)
my library gets free linux/windoze support from myself when their staff can't handle it. they have no formal IT department. it's pretty cool since i have it in with the head librarian. i tell them how it is, and as long as it doesn't break anything, it's all good.
bwahaha
Re:Not suprising. (Score:5, Funny)
You mean, apart from all the rest of us people outside the USA?
Re:Not suprising. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not suprising. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not suprising. (Score:2)
Typical AC know-nothing.
Another "Yay Go Librarians" Article (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another "Yay Go Librarians" Article (Score:3, Interesting)
Old-fashioned librarians are great people (Score:5, Insightful)
They also understand that our cultural heritage depends on free sharing for its preservation and nurturing -as does innovation. Librarians are therefore quite suspicious of those who try to place limits on the sharing of cultural outputs, particularly when they do so to benefit from the social conjectures and economic dislocations produced by a given technological moment in history.
Re:Old-fashioned librarians are great people (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Old-fashioned librarians are great people (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the idea that the Internet competes with libraries, while enticing, turns out to not be true at all. Public libraries all over are getting tied into the Internet, and for the poorer parts of society, this is often the only access to most of the world's information.
Librarians have generally figured out that the Internet doesn't replace hard-copy books; they complement each other in useful ways. Having Internet access in the library gives the librarians the freedom to be a lot more selective about what books they have on their shelves. They are starting to figure out what sorts of things are best presented in book form and which are better online. And libraries are migrating to a system that stocks up on the former while making the latter available via computers.
They just have to figure out how to handle the pr0n and spam problems
Re:Old-fashioned librarians are great people (Score:3, Funny)
I agree whole-heartedly. I mean, last week I went to the library, checked out a book about financing a new home and found nothing but ads for Viagra and hookers.
Re:Old-fashioned librarians are great people (Score:2)
Re:Old-fashioned librarians are great people (Score:3, Informative)
Cites?
Didn't think so.
Well, it's probably more library administrators (some of who are librarians) fighting to deal with inadequate budgets and space, and the demand for (and sexiness of) newer technologies (Internet access, CDs, etc.) that enroach on existing physical space. You want cites?
Do we [ariadne.ac.uk]
Re:Old-fashioned librarians are great people (Score:3, Insightful)
The Enlightenment emphasized reason, tolerance and learning.
It's sad that emphasizing reason, tolerance and learning is considered a period of history. We could do with a revival.
-
Finally, some good news. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Finally, some good news. (Score:2)
Yes, it is!
But before we start sing "Hosanna!", let's keep in mind:
The librarians have enlisted Legolas (Score:3, Insightful)
The librarians have enlisted [ala.org] the help of Legolas Greenleaf [tuckborough.net] of Mirkwood, Sindarin decendent of the Teleri...
I think the chance of being victorious over the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA's evil minions [tuckborough.net] is good !
I'm not enlisting in this "war" (Score:5, Insightful)
Smiroldo compared the BSA's program to an antismoking or antilittering campaign. The curriculum doesn't talk about fair use but focuses on what are "right and wrong" behaviors online.
Hmm, lemme see, smoking harms the kid himself, littering defaces the entire community, and "pirating" copyrighted works hurts -- oh right, the Business Software Alliance.
And lemme see, these kids, having mastered all that readin', writin', and 'rithmeticin' -- ain't no child left behind no any more --, they've got plenty of time to spend learning a corporate lobbying group's version of "right and wrong".
I've never pirated music or software, and I do believe that the MPAA and the BSA should have the protection of copyright -- including the right to bring civil suit.
But when they try to co-opt the education of children and get the Department of Justice to bring their civil suits for them, and to pile criminal charges on top, well, it seems to me the corporations are getting much more than a fair shake.
Begins to remind me of the "War on Drugs" -- a "War" we'll never win but which benefits corporations building and running prisons (and the drug mafias and the prison guards' union) at the expense of cops and taxpayers and citizens.
It even makes me wonder if the "content providers" have gone so far as to forfeit their moral rights to copyright protection. There comes a time when you just have to say that the "cure" is worse than the "disease" (as for instance, the "War on Drugs") and tell those grabbing more than their fair share of money and legal power, "this far and no farther".
The ALA's aims (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, copyright is a mechanism with a purpose other than just enriching the BSA. It's part of a system designed to allow content funding to be produced.
The ALA is just interested in people not having something presented as "right" and something else presented as "wrong" -- they'd rather have people consider the benefits themselves.
I have no problem with copyright per se -- the question is whether it is still practical and useful in its current from in present day, where it is nearly impossible to enforce, and where it has been extended far, far beyond the intent of its creators.
Many Slashdotters may not like Britney Spears. However, she clearly entertains many people, and I don't have a problem with publishers making money off her if they are entertaining people -- if that's what people want, let them have her.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that they should have her for her lifetime and well beyond, nor am I convinced that copyright can be enforced any more, nor am I comfortable with DMCA-based end runs around fair use. That doesn't mean that we should "drop copyright" -- we have a number of content-producing mechanisms that are based around it, and no good systems that will necessarily replace them. It does mean that copyright reform may be necessary, and given that I feel that the ALA is a group of people with a good deal of insight into copyright-related issues, I'm more inclined to listen to what they have to say than a number of the other players in the copyright game.
Re:I'm not enlisting in this "war" (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever sung "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant?
It's still under copyright, by Summy-Birchard.
If you've performed it in a public place without paying ASCAP, you are a pirate in the eyes of the RIAA.
>it seems to me the corporations are getting much more than a fair shake.
I agree with the folks who modded your post insightful.
All hail the librarians!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
We need your help (Score:5, Informative)
Last month the South Dakota governor removed a section of the state library Web site because it gave health advice to teens.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlif
This month the Kansas governor had rap CDs removed from all libraryies.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/06/l
A Librarian
Re:We need your help (Score:2, Funny)
This statement is not helping your cause, trust me.
Look near the bottom of slashdot's webpage (Score:2)
I think it's important to remind everyone that even slashdot seems concerned about protecting it's copyrighted material -- despite the stories selected for posting by people like michael.
Re:Look near the bottom of slashdot's webpage (Score:2)
Re:Look near the bottom of slashdot's webpage (Score:2)
Cover one's butt from what? What are they trying to protect?
Fact is they are claiming control of the information.
And consider this: what is it that they REALLY provide in terms of content? The stories they mention aren't theirs. The comments aren't theirs. Just what is? Yet they assert their copyright while bashing others that do the same.
Just think about that. They provide almost zero
Re:Look near the bottom of slashdot's webpage (Score:2)
Slashdot is like a compilation CD or book. What is copyright is the order of the stories, the timing and the editor's notes on it.
Perfectly legitimate, btw.
And you have every fair-use right to link to them in your own blog or to quote them.
Not even needed at most schools (Score:4, Interesting)
Our CS program is also basically MS free and we're starting to get some real recognition by the NSA and DoHS for our information security work. Most of the CS and many of the other classes I've seen outside the department also are pretty hostile toward the views of these groups.
Good work, thanks libraries. However, the situation is much better on most campuses than many would believe.
4th graders probably won't even matter (Score:3, Interesting)
evil? (Score:4, Insightful)
Go ALA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Go ALA (Score:2)
Re:Go ALA (Score:3, Informative)
This sounds unusual, and I should correct what are likely misconceptions.
First of all, public libraries in Canada are generally free to use,
Libraries (Score:2, Insightful)
Same with musicians. How many have benefitted from fair use and now vehemently oppose anyone "stealing" their work most of which is a derivation of fair use.
So Where Can We Get It? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup, the article mentions high school librarians will get copies. I'm sure high schools will be thrilled to have more visitors to their libraries. We need a date posted, so we can /. libraries.
Burn, baby burn... (Score:4, Insightful)
Repent! Repent! and Read no More!
Come to think of it, the American school system is actually doing a marvelous job with creating illiterate young adults, so the **AAs have nothing to fear. Eventually, everybody will have to pay someone (in another country) to read for them and all reading will be outsourced to India.
hey, teacher, leave those kids alone (Score:3, Insightful)
Intellectual freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
All I have to say is (Score:4, Insightful)
It's much like how the communists infiltrated schools, or the McCarthy era here, where all teachers told their children to report their parents' communist activities to them. etc.
It's very sick that people use children as tools.
One thing people always seem to do is use younge children and the elderly, becauset hey know the two groups arent likely to sock them in the face and tell them to fuck off.
More cheers for the ALA! (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone's favorite tyrant AG John Ashcroft wanted ordered the American Library Association to destroy all copies of the federal laws on asset forfeiture [rumormillnews.com] and to prevent disclosure of their content [november.org]. Thanks to quick action and a lot of publicity by the ALA and others, the fascists backed off [ala.org].
Kill the copyright weasel (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey Disney, you didn't invent Sleeping Beauty!
World changing? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bah, parents aren't doing their jobs! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bah, parents aren't doing their jobs! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bah, parents aren't doing their jobs! (Score:2)
Re:Bah, parents aren't doing their jobs! (Score:5, Funny)
And it's even worse than that. Many of those parents knowingly hand over their children to "schools", which are institutions that also attempt to teach the children that they should share.
After years of this sort of indoctrination, it's not surprising that the result should be teenagers (and even adults) who think that it's ok to violate copyright by sharing ideas, documents and music with each other.
These organizations are merely trying to interrupt this process and teach the children that ideas and songs are like toys and other kinds of property: Every child should have his or her own, every one should be paid for, and they should never be shared. Sharing is an economic perversion that undermines the private property that is at the heart of our corporate economic system.
(Lessee; will I get a "Troll" or "Funny" rating here? Maybe I need a
Re:Bah, parents aren't doing their jobs! (Score:2)
Schools and indoctrination (Score:4, Interesting)
Schools are an interesting system -- they both indoctrinate and inform. Control of the schools is one of the most powerful long-term institutions to control.
It's not even that I dislike the BSA/RIAA/MPAA that much -- I just don't want *any* corporate marketing taking place in schools. If the BSA/RIAA/MPAA wants to fund a marketing campaign, they can certainly do so, and there are many channels that will let them target children -- but not in the schools, dammit. If schools are filled with marketing drivel, how can children trust anyone? It's not that I'm saying that people shouldn't question what they're taught in schools, but some things have to be at least accepted in the short term in order to operate, while we learn enough to find inconsistencies in arguments -- the stuff in schools is normally less trusted than than in 30 second spots between advertisements.
If the Weekly Reader wants to sell a section of their space to the BSA, I'd at least like to see them have to donate equal space to groups like the ALA and the EFF, to present kids with both sides of an issue and let them think their own way through the issues involved.
Ford and Carpools (Score:2)
In other news, Ford announces it will initiate thousands of lawsuits agains those who illegally share rides known in a process know
Re:Bah, parents aren't doing their jobs! (Score:2)
Re:No! Unfair! Confusing! (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a major difference between "supporting porn access for kids" and "opposing arbitrary, corporation-influenced censorship for all patrons".
I'm not sure how seriously you meant the quoted passage in your post, but it's wrong and I wanted to point that out.
Re:No! Unfair! Confusing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Public librarians, of which my wife is one, do not want children to look at pornography. They also don't want children to wonder why they can't research papers on gay rights or learn about breast cancer. Filters do not work. They let some bad things through and they block some good things. Every day we see children unattended in the library. Their parents and apparently you would like to impose upon us the responsibility of parenting these children.
So, I find it lamentable that you hate the ALA who fights to protect your right to read without intervention by the Department of Homeland Security and defends Mark Twain from book burning "concerned parents". I am more disturbed, however, that you feel the ALA ideological slant (again, freedom;liberty;democracy) is evil.
Re:No! Unfair! Confusing! (Score:3, Insightful)
"They also don't want children to wonder why they can't research papers on gay rights or learn about breast cancer"
The purpose of fighting against the proposed filtering programs twofold. One, because the ALA believes people have a right to access constitutionally protected material in a public institution, and Two, because even with a definition of obscenity/et al, the tests of
Re:No! Unfair! Confusing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't blame him. He's blindly spouting rhetoric. The reason he's a neocon is because neoconservatism strongly appeals to insecure people...i.e., nerds. Neoconservatism is a "manly man" political philosophy. (I'm trying to remain as neutral as possible.) Neoconservative rhetoric appeals to the insecure because it makes people feel dominant, in control, alpha-male, and morally superior.
As far as I'm concerned, as a recovered ex-neoconservative, this rhetoric does not correlate with reality. However, I can't blame him. It's taken him over like a virus, just like it had done to me. Even the most logically rigorous are prone to this powerful fallacy.
Re:No! Unfair! Confusing! (Score:2, Funny)
violence is good, because we use it to kill bad guys
I don't know why people in the "outside US" (if that really exists) can't understand this
sex=bad, killing=good
basic American English lesson 101
Re:No! Unfair! Confusing! (Score:2)
I suspect that the ALA would like to see more people thinking thoughts along these lines in general, where "they" doesn't necessarily have to represent the ALA.
Re:No! Unfair! Confusing! (Score:5, Informative)
Um, what? Porn access for kids? Can you point me to a link where the ALA advocates giving out porn to the kids that walk in their libraries? Google seems to be letting me down here.
And the liberal bias thing - I just don't get it. Most librarians I know support smaller, less intrusive government, which seems pretty conservative to me.
The occasional forays into politics that librarians have made in the past few years seem to be the moderating voices of reason, like questioning the value of having a government mandated censor at the firewall or letting the FBI see what books you check out without so much as warrant. These seem like valid questions to be raised, and if the government were suddenly making your job more difficult, while cutting your funding, I'd expect you to be raising similar questions, as a matter of patriotism.
Or were you just being disengenuous?
Re:No! Unfair! Confusing! (Score:2)
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Funny)