data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9f759/9f759da8e7187085df0edfde5ea8543d5decabd0" alt=""
This is the core of it:
Article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." The "right to use a library" includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V.
Libraries are charged with the mission of developing resources to meet the diverse information needs and interests of the communities they serve. Services, materials, and facilities that fulfill the needs and interests of library users at different stages in their personal development are a necessary part of library resources. The needs and interests of each library user, and resources appropriate to meet those needs and interests, must be determined on an individual basis. Librarians cannot predict what resources will best fulfill the needs and interests of any individual user based on a single criterion such as chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation.
.....
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/14aff/14aff68db5f9e860048ea70f8442e4d7c8b1d5ec" alt=""
Listen to Trustee Wagner's original motion re the ALA:
Please read earlier post re this issue:
Is Wagner fair to librarians?
In my earlier post, I presented an explanation of the ALA's opposition to the Childrens' Internet Protection Act (CIPA) offered by the (2000-1) president of ALA, John W. Berry. Berry seems to say that minors' access should be restricted to some library resources, if local communities and libraries decide to do that. Berry's objection was to a "one size fits all" federal solution to the problem of shielding children from objectionable resources.
Prima facie, Berry's explanation doesn't square with the "Minors Access" policy above, which seems a priori to oppose restricting access to (e.g.,) pornographic websites for, say, 10-year-old library patrons, unless the kid's parents squawk. Am I wrong?
Let me know what you think. (Any librarians out there? Lawyers? Anybody?) --CW
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6af87/6af8780b8b651b163808439e1ebd9327cd65eeae" alt=""
1 comment:
Nice hats.
I love what the sombrero does to Williams especially - it really brings out his eyes.
Ole!
Post a Comment