|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Search
Recent Entries
Recent Comments
This Month
Month Archive
Links
|
Tuesday, March 3
A Couple Last FTRW Links
by
Jason
on Tue 03 Mar 2009 07:49 PM CST
My classmate, Lauralee, who has a history of drawing great stick figure art recently outdid herself with the FTRW poster she made for her library. Very cool! (I'm embarrassed to say I just realised that I don't even know if RPL had any FTRW events. I did suggest it to a person who works in our art gallery but the timelines were too tight as his programming for this month had already been planned.)
In other Freedom of Expression news, Skittles, in an attempt to be hip 'n' happenin', basically allowed anyone to post to their home page via Twitter. This was the inevitable result (check out result four - and I've seen a lot worse come across the site as well...)  Saturday, February 28
FTRW 2009 - Internet Filtering in Ontario Lbraries?
by
Jason
on Sat 28 Feb 2009 08:53 PM CST
I started the week talking about a discussion the librarians at RPL were having about the issue of patrons viewing pornography on the public access computers. Although this is an important philosophical discussion, I'm happy to report that (at least as far as I know), patrons' viewing isn't being monitored or censored and no policy changes, either at the library or at other levels, are being contemplated.
Libraries in Ontario may not be so lucky. A retired police officer in Cambridge Ontario saw someone looking at porn in the library and began a campaign to get filters on the library's computers. That's typical enough and happens with some degree of regularity in all public libraries I suspect. But this situation has escalated. A local MPP in Cambridge took up the cause and has introduced a private members' bill that would legally require all school and public libraries in the province to install internet filters. It has gone through a first reading, and even though the OLA website points out that Private Members' bills rarely get passed, this is still cause for great concern, especially since it was introduced as an addendum to an existing private member's bill which the Cambridge MPP, Gerry Martiniuk has been trying to pass for awhile. The main thrust of the existing bill is to make public the list of sexual offenders. In other words, Martiniuk is lumping access to library computers with pedophiles and other sex offenders (And unfortunately, I'm sure he's not the only one who sees this as a connection - both in the wider world and in the library community itself.) Many observers point out that Cambridge is "the only library system in the Region that doesn't use filters." (which means that Kitchener, Waterloo, and the Region of Waterloo all filter at least the computers in their children's areas). The big difference is that Cambridge, with the full support of its board, is actively choosing not to filter. If this law passed, they could be legally required to filter as could every other public library in Ontario as well. There has been some local media coverage of this story and many letters to the editor. But they've been fairly one-sided because (and I speak from personal experience here), it's pretty hard to come out in favour of porn - although there are some who are very articulate in the attempt. Whether this bill has any impact remains to be seen but if there's any further developments, I'll post an update. Friday, February 27
FTRW 2009 - A Collection of Truly Offensive Jokes (Not For the Faint-Hearted) (Feb 27, 2009)
by
Jason
on Fri 27 Feb 2009 05:39 PM CST
Reddit recently had a question posted asking their community to submit the most offensive joke(s) they knew.
There's some pretty disturbing material here and if you doubt the power of the written word to affect people just as much as the visuals of pornography or the sound of foul language, look no further than this thread. It's sort of like a bunch of mini-me versions of the Aristocrats joke. I was looking for a tamer joke to copy here as an example but I honestly couldn't find one. (That should be sufficient warning for anyone debating whether to click through to Reddit or not - or perhaps incentive for some!) Thursday, February 26
FTRW 2009 - "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" (Feb 26, 2009)
by
Jason
on Thu 26 Feb 2009 05:16 PM CST
A great documentary I'd highly recommend...
Wednesday, February 25
FTRW 2009 - Burn Before Reading: A Hot List of Banned Books
by
Jason
on Wed 25 Feb 2009 10:08 PM CST
Here's an article about FTRW that appeared in Xtra.ca ("Where Queers Conspire"). They asked various Canadian literary types and free speech proponents to give their thoughts on some common and/or recently challenged books.
From the article's introduction: Canada is a censorious country. Our nanny state bans most hate speech (not the religious-based homophobic kind), stops erotica at the border and may soon allow police to monitor all communication on the internet — all to "protect" Canadians from reading, seeing and hearing material that, somehow, will harm us. (Apparently the country's watchful agents are able to view all this dangerous stuff without a problem.) Tuesday, February 24
FTRW 2009 - Margaret Atwood Debates Ducking Dubai While Being Challenged in Canada
by
Jason
on Tue 24 Feb 2009 07:08 PM CST
What's FTRW without a couple stories about Peggy Atwood...
Her books are currently being challenged in a Toronto school by a parent who says: "...if students repeated some of the words from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale in the school halls, they'd be suspended, so he questions why it is okay in the classroom." But as the article points out, what appears to be a double-standard at first glance, isn't at really as there are different standards for how you speak respectfully in a school setting and what is contained in the material that you might study to become a more well-rounded person with a strong capability of critical thought. Russell Morton Brown, a retired University of oronto English professor, said The Handmaid's Tale wasn't likely written for 17-year-olds, "but neither are a lot of things we teach in high school, like Shakespeare. "And they are all the better for reading it. They are on the edge of adulthood already, and there's no point in coddling them," he said, adding, "they aren't coddled in terms of mass media today anyway...[The Handmaid's Tale] is the most taught Canadian novel at the high school level," he said. "I think it provides a lot to talk about, and generally speaking it does engage students." Meanwhile, around the world, Margaret Atwood admits to confusion about her role in protesting on behalf of a writer who was refused a spot at the first ever Dubai International Writers' Festival because her book contained a gay sheik as a character. Or was she?Atwood's humour shines: "This was a case for Anti-Censorship Woman! I nipped into the nearest phone booth, hopped into my cape and coiled my magic lasso, and swiftly cancelled my own appearance; because, as a vice-president of International PEN, I could not give my August Seal of Elderly Writer Approval to such a venue." But more investigation revealed that the author wasn't banned, she simply wasn't given a spot based care appropriate for our communities. In fact, read the following quote inserting "library" every time you read "festival": This happens every day at every festival in the world. Publishers always want to launch or feature their authors, and all festivals pick and choose. Usually, however - being experienced - they don't give the real reasons for their rejections. They don't say "It's a stinker" or "The local Christians will barbecue us". They say: "Not suitable for our purposes." They know that if they tell the truth, they'll be up to their noses in the merde.] So with conflicting stories, Atwood is uncertain how to proceed (and a bit pissed at the loose usage of the words "banned" and "censored" in a world where writers die for this cause): So what do I do now? Having leapt into this dog's breakfast, I have it all over my face. And Bedell or no Bedell, the question of censorship remains. Every country has some form of the not-permitted. In Canada, child pornography and hate literature are both illegal. What should not be permitted seems self-evident to those within a culture, though often bizarre to those outside it. She doesn't reach a conclusion - attend, not attend, appear by video link - but admits that at least this gives PEN an opportunity to attend and lead a discussion around the issue. Sunday, February 22
FTRW 2009 - Happy Freedom to Read Week (Feb 22-28)
by
Jason
on Sun 22 Feb 2009 02:08 AM CST
Canada's Freedom to Read Week begins today and continues until February 28. As I did last year and the year before, I'm planning to do a week long series of posts on current happenings and issues around this topic.
I'm not sure if he planned it to coincide with FTRW or not but a colleague at RPL posted a query to the professional librarians on staff asking people's thoughts about the viewing of porn at the library. He was especially interested in what this might mean in light of RPL's new Service Plan of which two of the four core service responses will be "Visit a Comfortable Space: Physical and Virtual" and "Create Young Readers: Early Literacy". These are defined in the Service Plan respectively as: "Residents will have safe and welcoming physical spaces to meet and interact with others, or to sit quietly and read, and will have open and accessible virtual spaces that support networking." and that "Children from birth to age five will have programs and services designed to ensure that they will enter school ready to read, write and listen." His e-mail seemed to indicate that he interpreted these service responses as meaning that the library wants to be more "family friendly" - although a search on each of those terms in our service plan reveals only one semi-relevant reference: "Children will have dedicated areas able to accommodate family activities, with age-appropriate design and furnishings." And I couldn't find anything else in the new RPL Service Plan that would indicate to me that we are somehow moving towards the filtering or outright banning of pornography on our PAC's or even that families would be a new focus (just that we are focusing on children's literacy - which isn't the same thing at all in my mind.) In fact, I think a pretty strong case could be made that the other two of the four main service responses: "Stimulate the Imagination: Reading, Viewing and Listening for Pleasure" and "Satisfy Curiosity: Lifelong Learning" could be equally used as a defense of those patrons who choose to view porn in the library. These two Service Responses are defined respectfully as: "Residents seeking materials to enhance their leisure time will find what they want when and where they want them, and will have the help they need to make choices from among the options" and "Patrons will have the resources they need to explore topics of personal interest and continue to learn throughout their lives." It's been a good discussion which I would say sees the librarians who've responded so far split on the issue. Tellingly, it appears that the ones who are most in favour of not allowing pornography in the library work at our Central branch in public service roles where they have a lot of direct interaction with patrons and deal with this issue firsthand on a regular basis. Not saying this is the reason for my colleagues leaning towards censoring/filtering necessarily. But I also think there's also an "ick" factor that always happens (as I try to point out in my response which I've reprinted below), where people in our society get all worked up about pornography and anything related to sex but don't care if there's a ten year old boy watching a YouTube video of some guy getting his leg blown off in Iraq or whatever. So what's the solution? Definitely not banning the viewing of pornography - that's wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start. Definitely not trying to get a policy to define what porn is so that staff can act - that's impossible. One colleague mentioned that at a previous library she worked at, all screens were somehow embedded in the desks AND had privacy screens so it was literally impossible to see what the patron was viewing. So then, the little old lady walking by (who's probably going to look for a steamy Harlequin romance  )
is protected from seeing something she may find offensive, staff aren't
put into a (potentially dangerous and definitely inappropriate)
position of trying to police morality and all is right with the world.
(Where's my Kumbaya smiley face??? I guess this: - - -- -- -- will have to do...) That's a big part of it. It's also important that staff know when to step in and/or involve authorities. If a patron moves from viewing porn to being a bit more "actively" involved in the viewing experience, that requires intervention. If the material being viewed is obviously illegal, that requires intervention. If the material being viewed contravenes library policy, that requires intervention. (And in fact, RPL has a policy that was adapted for use in Southeast Regional Library as well so I have seen first-hand how you can cite policy to deal with this type of viewing if it makes you or other patrons uncomfortable.) Anyhow, I won't post my colleague's initial query (or any of the other responses) since I haven't asked permission. But here's what I chimed in with: It’s always a challenge to take a position defending pornography but let me try! <grin> There are some pretty standard arguments why pornography should be viewable on public library computers… 1)
The
biggest one (to my mind) is that, in keeping with the value of Freedom
of Expression that is core to our profession, libraries don’t censor
books, DVD’s or other materials based on their content. Not censoring
any of the material that patrons view on PAC’s can be seen as an
extension of this value. (To be fair, libraries do “censor” with our
selection in some ways – have you ever heard of a public library that
has a subscription to Playboy? Me either.) 2)
Another
major question around this issue is: who gets to decide what is
appropriate and what isn’t? Should we restrict all scenes of
intercourse showing penetration? All scenes of intercourse? All
nudity? What about erotic photography that’s artistic in nature?
Clips from award-winning movies that have nudity? And how do you write
any policy that will be equally enforced by all staff? (I’m reminded
of the US Supreme Court Judge who said “I can’t define pornography but
I know it when I see it.”) Ultimately, just as I may be offended by
some of the violent or sexist or racist videos that I see patrons
watching on YouTube, I understand that it’s their right to watch these
videos (as long as they are not illegal.) 3) How do you balance the right of the person watching the pornography with the right of the person who may be offended by it? Although it’s not an exact parallel, my wife worked as a nurse on a unit in Calgary dealing with lots of young guys who had suffered serious spinal injuries and were left paralyzed. They had a PAC in their common area and many of the nurses were offended that these young guys were watching pornography. But should the patients’ right to explore or deal with their sexuality in this manner be trumped by someone else’s right to not be exposed (no pun intended) to material that may bother them? At any rate, a timely topic with Freedom to Read Week (www.freedomtoread.ca) coming up in a couple weeks! Thanks for raising it! As
you know, I don't post a lot about what happens in my working life and
this topic especially may seem like I'm airing something private. But
with the start of this year's Freedom to Read Week, the timeliness of
this discussion was too good to pass up. The discussion so far has
been very respectful so far - exactly what you would expect from a
group of engaged, intelligent professional librarians. And who knows -
maybe some colleague will read this post and the discussion can
continue here in a public forum in the spirit of openness and sharing
that defines both libraries and Web 2.0? Or some other readers may
choose to chime in with their thoughts and experiences as well. Finally, another reason I'm extended on my initial thoughts here instead of writing a second response to the librarians' mailing list is that this sort of feels like debating "Is there a God?" or "Is abortion right?" - people feel very strongly about their position and it's next to impossible to convince them otherwise. So sometimes it's better not to argue at all. (Shea, reading this, rushes to take Jason's temperature!) Saturday, January 31
A Few Mini-Movie Reviews (Avec Tangents)
by
Jason
on Sat 31 Jan 2009 11:59 PM CST
- Just watched "The Reader" and after a slow start, it turned out to be quite an enjoyable film. Plus I don't think it's a spoiler to mention that a helpful prison librarian plays a small part in the movie near the end - always a bonus to see librarians in films and a double-bonus to see them in non-stereotypical roles.
 - Shea and I also watched a documentary called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" which was awesome! I'm not sure where my interest in censorship/freedom of expression issues began but suspect it probably came from a couple different places. The biggest was the realization early on that any book that was supposed to be "bad for you" actually probably had something in it that was, well, if not "good for you" at least, that was going to show you something you probably wouldn't get anywhere else - sex, violence, drugs - whatever. The other big memory is going into the library when I started high school (our high school went from grade 7-12) and seeing they had a copy of "Mein Kampf". At the time, I was like "holy shit - they have THAT book here?" Of course, I immediately checked it out, expecting (and it's sort of shameful to admit this now) that it would be like some weird army instruction manual written by an over-the-top cartoony super villain. Of course, you start reading it and it turns out to be the rather mundane ramblings of what sounds like a mid-level bureaucrat - at least for the first few pages (perhaps the Lex Luthor stuff comes later?) I returned the book, partly relieved and partly disappointed that the book wasn't what I expected. But at the same time, I learned the incredibly valuable lesson firsthand about how important it was for me to have access to that book and to make that decision for myself instead of having someone else - whether it was a teacher, a member of the clergy, a civic leader, or even a librarian - to make that choice for me. - finally, we also watched "The Wrestler" last weekend and I was about as pumped for this movie as anything that's come out since probably Batman last summer. Unfortunately, that created a situation where I allowed the movie to become this perfect creation in my mind and there was no way that it could live up to what I expected it to be. It's too bad that it wasn't the opposite experience - that I'd heard little about the film and happened upon it in the local art house cinema or something. I think that would've had a big impact on how I reacted to the movie. I've done that before in both ways - to use two movies from the 80's as examples, I remember hearing amazing things about "Crocodile Dundee" of all things but by the time it got the theatre in my small town, it turned out to be a pretty funny comedy but not the funniest movie of all-time that I'd built it up to be in my mind. On the other end of the spectrum, I went to see "Dirty Dancing" when it also came to our small town theatre and honestly, I can't even remember why I went - this definitely wasn't the type of movie I usually attended. But, going in without knowing a lot about the plot or the actors or anything, meant that it turned out to be one of the most enjoyable movie going experiences, probably of my entire life. And I still can't turn the channel when that movie comes on late-night TV! Wednesday, September 10
Noted Pundit Matt Damon Weighs In On The Sarah Palin Choice
by
Jason
on Wed 10 Sep 2008 09:29 PM CST
Pretty funny clip and Damon does mention the thing about her banning books so that's cool! Oh, but if you've seen an e-mail flying around supposedly listing the books she tried to ban, that's false.
Too bad but if you look at the list, it basically looks like the ALA's "100 Most Challenged Books of the Last Decade" list, that's probably not a surprise. My guess is that the more likely story is that she tried to a few books that didn't conform to her religious views. Sunday, March 9
CLA's 2nd Annual Survey of Challenged Materials in Canadian Libraries
by
Jason
on Sun 09 Mar 2008 07:08 PM CST
Continuing yesterday's trend of posting items long after their "best before" date, here's a press release from the Canadian Library Association
summarizing their second annual survey of challenges to materials in Canadian libraries.
Oliver Twist, The Golden Compass and Rolling Stone magazine were among the library materials challenged by Canadian library users in 2007, according to a new survey released today. The Canadian Library Association’s 2nd annual Survey of Challenged Materials in Canadian Libraries identified 42 items challenged by patrons. Children’s books, mainstream films, graphic novels and popular magazines were all challenged, and a policy on Internet access was also disputed. The survey was released in advance of Freedom to Read Week, February 24 to March 1. |
 www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from shealisahammond. Make your own badge here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
