Having studied ethics rather extensively in seminary (4 years of full-time study for a M. Div.), what follows is a broad overview of types of ethics. Subdivisions in ethics are numerous (conventional ethical relativism, subjective ethical relativism, moral absolutist deontological ethics, deontological ethics sans moral absolutism, etc.) and would involve detail beyond what this venue is designed to handle. Please note that this is not a presentation of personal ethics, business ethics, medical ethics, ethical standards of organizations (e.g. ALA) and so on, but rather major categories into which such ethics fall.
Ethical relativism holds that how people ought to function together is based on a subjective understanding of right and wrong and “ought-ness,” if you will. Such ethics might be determined by the individual or by the group (family, association such as a business or professional association, even the culture at large). Ethical relativism does not acknowledge an objective standard outside the individual or the group.
Utilitarianism holds that what is of paramount importance is what is in the interest of the most people. The group at large must be considered over the individual; what is good for society is more important than what is good for the individual or minority. The popular phrase “the ends justify the means” is a pure expression of utilitarianism.
Deontological ethics and teleological ethics deal directly with the good or bad of an action itself. Deontological ethics deal with obligation – it is your duty to do ______. Teleological ethics considers an action to be either right or wrong based on the outcome of the act. If lying brings about good, then lying is good.
It is important to consider that personal ethics, as well as group or corporate ethics, will usually cross into more than one of these major categories.
With regard to intellectual freedom:
- Apart from the issue of pornography (which is illegal for minors to view), is it ethical to place filtering software (especially software that cannot be overridden) on computers in libraries – institutions that are committed to making information available to everyone? What category(ies) of ethics do you employ in your answer?
- Should parents have the right to restrict the materials their children access in the library? UNICEF’s Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to education and the right to information (among other rights). Again, what kinds of ethics are being employed in your answer? How about UNICEF’s Convention on the Rights of the Child?
- In light of the ownership of intellectual property and copyright laws, should librarians intervene when copyrighted materials are being reproduced (photocopied)? If so, on what ethical basis? If not, should the librarian and the library be held liable if authorities bring litigation against them? On what ethical basis do you give your answer?
17 comments:
Filters: There are only filters on the children's computers. There is no filter program on the computers used by the general public. There's always someone looking at porn on the public computers at my local library, so I'm quite certain there aren't filters. Putting filters on the library computers is pointless, since the kids likely have filter-less computers at home. While it does limit their intellectual rights, there are plenty of books around and they can always venture into the adult sections. Parents dropping their kids off at the library can rest assured that their kids aren't looking at porn while they're out shopping.
Copyright: I think you just can't make copies of entire publications. Making a xerox copy of a few pages or a single article is not illegal, at least to my knowledge.
Most of public and school libraries in the United States have implemented internet filters. While filtering can keep children away from inappropriate Internet materials, the use of filters in public libraries encroaches on the intellectual freedom of library users. It is well known that by nature children are curious; no one can stop them from learning.
"Intellectual Freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored. Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas." Personally I believe in this statement and as a parent I will not employ any restriction on what my children want to access in their school library; I want them to learn. I think that the best way to educate those kids is for them to learn about such sensitive issues at the school. I would rather have my kids learning about these issues from a trustworthy source rather than a friend!!!
A copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States to the authors who accomplished this work. Protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work and this is why at no means shall a librarian accept photocopying materials that have copyright. When librarians purchased this program they agreed to the terms and conditions, so it is unethical to breach this agreement !!!
This link provides an article found in Library Student Journal. It is called “Internet filters in public libraries do they belong?
http://informatics.buffalo.edu/org/lsj/articles/gottschalk_2006_9_internet.php
In regard to filters, I think that there does need to be a limited amount of filtering on children's computers, specifically aimed at pornography. I'd say I'm employing teological ethics here; the outcome of a child accidentally viewing child porn could be damage to the child's perception of sex or of themselves. I simply don't think allowing children to view porn is in anyone's best interest.
I do think that parents should have the right to restrict what their children may view. Children aren't adults; they need guidance in choosing what is best for them. To treat them like adults at the expense of their ultimate welfare I think mixes up important priorities. I do not, however, think that librarians or libraries should be deciding what children may or may not view -- this is the parents' job.
In regard to copyright, I like the way my employer handles it. On our copy machines are stickers posting the laws governing copyrights, and letting you know that YOU are responsible for what you copy. Librarians should provide patrons using copying facilities with information about the applicable laws and liability; what they do with that information is their business. I do not think that librarians or libraries should be liable for what is copied on their copy machines because that would cause resources to be allocated to actually watching the copy machine and essentially turn librarians into police.
Putting filters on computers becomes irrelevant, when, as Sylvia points out, there are filter-less computers at home (and everywhere else). Additionally, the filters don't work well, or are easily bypassed by computer saavy teens. I see no reason for filters. If a parent is interested in monitoring their child, they should accompany them to the computer/during online researching in a public space. As libraries/librarians, it is not our place to violate the intellectual freedom of children by attempting to be surrogate parents. If I had been as inhibited by my library/teachers as my parents would have liked when I was growing up, I would never have learned anything.
In my opinion, I think that it is important as future library professionals to really make sure that the library in which we decide to work really goes along with our personal beliefs and we agree for the most part with the libraries objectives, missions, and goals. Most libraries have internet policies, patron conduct rules, selection policies, and rules about children using their library. These library guidelines should be used in helping us future professionals decide where it is we want to work, while also taking into consideration the community and their views against certain book material. Moreover, I personally think that filters should be used at libraries and would not consider working at a library that did not have an internet policy in which I did not agree (or with any other issues for that matter).
I am intrigued by the copyright question. This is not something I had thought about a whole lot and really interests me to know what is legal and what is not. I visited www.copyright.gov to see what the laws are because I wasn't sure. Check out this site if you're interested.
Are librarians required to step in when copyright laws are being broken? From what I could tell from the website above, you have to get permission from the author in order to copy anything except for certain circumstances for libraries. Does this mean that anytime a patron copies a page from a book, I need to stop them? My personal opinion would be no. I'm not their babysitter or a police officer and do not need to watch every little thing they do. I do think that the law does need to be posted above every copy machine so that patrons are aware of the law in case they would happen to get caught.
There are times when it is "fair use" to copy something. See this page for more information: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
I also do not think that the library should be liable for what patrons copy AS LONG AS the copyright law is posted well above each and every copy machine (even staff ones). It is the patron disobeying the law, not the library/librarian.
I do not think copying other's works is ethical by any means. It is their property and work and it should not be right to "steal" it from them. We need to think about what is right in the interest of the author before we copy things.
Regarding your first question, it seems (as you say "apart from pornography") filters are unethical in libraries. If I understand you correctly, the ethical relativist would say that filters (and why don't we call them "censors", since that's what they are) would say freely and easily available information benefits the group -- in this case the culture at large -- and therefore selectively blocking information is bad. As proposition seven of the ALA's Freedom to Read Statement says, "the answer to a 'bad' idea is a good one".
I agree a lot with Sarah. I don't think it's a library or librarian's duty to babysit every child that walks in the door. It is our job to provide access to an infinite amount of knowledge. It is a parent's job to decide what is appropriate for their child, and the best way to do that is to be present. Maybe it was how I was raised that makes me a little different than some people. My mother let me devour any info I could get my hands on. She didn't censor what I read. That combined with the ALA Code of Ethics completely shapes the way I feel about the issue at hand.
sylvia r:
Not true. There are filters on all computers in some library systems.
Filters might be "pointless," however they are necessary for certain types of governmental funding.
Regarding copyright issues, it actually is illegal to photocopy items . . . in any quantity. Exceptions are made for educators making current articles pertaining to classroom issues for students. Even in this instance, it is limited to the immediate -- cannot legally be used in future classes without proper permissions. (I have dealt extensively with copyright issues w/publishers over the course of my career).
Even w/public domain, some publishers claim the copyright on the typesetting.
Carla:
Thanks for the comments on copyright . . . well said.
Thanks, Kimberly and Russell for interacting with the ethical categories. I think that it helps us step back and think things out, even if (and when) our way of seeing things doesn't change.
May I ask us to please include a bit of self reflection on how our points of view are shaped by ethical categories?
Rodger:
That is quite unfortunate about the filters on so many computers. I haven't used a library computer since maybe junior high, so I don't really have any knowledge of this. Public computers always struck me as rather dirty...
If people aren't allowed (legally) to copy copyrighted material, why are there copy machines in libraries? I spend an hour or so of my day copying and scanning at the library where I work.
With regard to the filtering software, it would be easy to apply both deontological and teleological ethics to argue in favor of filters. Filtering proponents could easily say that we have a duty to protect children from harm (and would be justified by deontological ethics). If filters protect even one or two children from malicious content, then teleological ethics would dictate that filtering is ethical.
These two schools of ethical thought could also apply to the copyright scenario. Deontological ethics would indicate that we all have a duty to uphold the law, and that librarians should monitor copying to uphold copyright law. Telelogical ethics might consider the end result and someone applying this school of thought might argue that copying a book is acceptable if it gets the information into the hands of someone who can't otherwise afford to access it.
The above scenarios are far more simplistic than anything we'd encounter in real life, and I'm not convinced that any one of the four types of ethics is of much use on its own--I think they need to be applied together to come up with a sound solution to an ethical question.
Wow, extremely interesting post. I am not quite sure which question to tackle.
“Is it ethical to place filtering software (especially software that cannot be overridden) on computers in libraries – institutions that are committed to making information available to everyone?”
I believe that beyond high school it is ethical to employ filtering software on computers in libraries. I really want to say that it is not ethical; however, I do not believe that it would be ethically right for a library to allow patrons access to information that may bring harm to the institution. If it is possible to compromise in some way the library’s ability to offer computer service to its patrons, then I believe it would be unethical to allow total unfiltered access. That would fall under the category of Utilitarianism. What is good for the group must be considered as of paramount importance in this situation. If one person’s abuse of the system can ruin it for everyone, then filtering is ethical. Should we think of this unlikely what –if situation when considering filtering? Yes. Information if far more accessible on the internet than on the book shelves and through abuse of that it could take away the rights of others to access information.
In regards to copyrights, I believe that libraries should allow their patrons to make copies. I assert that on teleological ethics because the goal is almost always for the good. Someone typically does not make copies in order to steal information or illegally distribute it. Often the source of the information is known. If the point is simply to prevent plagiarism, I don’t believe that it is a real threat. If the point it to make sure someone gets paid for the information being copyrighted, I believe that is unethical in the sense that it puts the material needs of an individual above the intellectual needs of a society.
Should parents have the right to restrict the materials their children access in the library? UNICEF’s Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to education and the right to information (among other rights). Again, what kinds of ethics are being employed in your answer? How about UNICEF’s Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Parents have the right to restrict the materials that children access. If a parent feels that certain materials are detrimental to their child’s upbringing, especially on religious grounds, which are protected under the First Amendment, They have the right to do so. UNICEF may have passed a convention, but the law of the land preempts it. In a Supreme Court Ruling, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor noted in Troxel v. Granville (2000), that under the due process clause of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment; “the interest of parents in the care custody, and control of their children... is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the court.” (Peters, 2003)
References:
Peters, S. F. (2003). The Yoder case: religious freedom, education, and parental rights. Landmark law cases & American society. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas.
In reguards to filters on computers for children, I think they are a must. As discussed on the discussion board, there are benefits and drawbacks. The day a filtering program can limit access to only the material suitable for the specific age group will be a day many teachers and librarians will never forget. I know that many children don't have filters at home, but at home they are their parent's responsibility. At school or in the library, they are ours. If the school didn't have filters, I guarantee that a line of parents would be at the door the day after a student found something the "shouldn't have" seen. Kids (I'm thinking elementary age) talk so much about things they know they shouldn't see or do. For example if the teacher makes a mistake at the board, they'll go home and tell their parent. I wouldn't even want to imagine what would happen.
Post a Comment