This semester is the first time I have ever read my textbook cover to cover. And I did it with a couple weeks left in the course!
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
This is my latest discussion board post, again in reference to my textbook. This time, I recount an experience I had of being censored, in a library, by a librarian! I know, it was a shocker. Granted, the librarian is not as bad as I portrayed the gender neutral person to be, but I felt that by adding a little drama to my post it would make a more interesting read. I suppose that is the literature enthusiast in me shining through. :-)
According to Rubin on page 379, the First Amendment provides the right to both express oneself and the corollary right to receive the ideas of others. What I find interesting is that it does not provide the right to not be bothered by other people’s ideas.
I remember one time having a discussion in the library about a religious topic and the librarians told us to move my discussion so that others would not have to overhear us. They claimed to be protecting the FA right to not receive information. Perhaps I am missing something, but I am pretty sure the FA does not censor ideas, but protects them.
We were not happy about being censored, but decided to be respectful of other people and moved the discussion. However, I found it disturbing that a librarian would suppress the freedom to discuss ideas in the name of free speech!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
I aced my last paper. I was a little worried because I used EndNote for the very first time and did not have as much control over building my References page. But it worked out.
Discussion Post. Below is my discussion post for the week. I entitled it "E-rates: A Bribe for Censorship." It has to do with government contribution to library operation costs, that end up costing libraries some intellectual liberty.
I understand that my title for this thread regarding pages 348-352 of the text is a bit simplistic and exaggerated, but I could not help but entertain these thoughts.
In essence, the government has been trying to exchange economic benefit to educational institutions for compromise in the area of censorship. Those institutions that apply for and are granted the special “E-rates” are then subject to evaluation to ensure that proper monitoring of use is applied. This left me appalled and saddened, since I can definitely see how easy it would be to compromise standards for some financial relief especially in our current world.
By the same token, I feel it is important to remember that this is not only “Big Brother” wanting to get their hands into everything. While that may play a part in their reasoning, outwardly, the purpose of this censorship is for the children’s benefit. Restricting child porn, preventing illegal activities and eliminating cyber-bullying are very good goals to strive for, especially in environments that cater to minors. However, the implementation of these restrictions would also infringe upon rights to information, which is why librarians oppose them.