Summary: Overall I love the statement, but I think the wording and
ideas could be a bit tighter in a few places. Most importantly, I
think the "obscenity" prohibition is redundant and inconsistent with
ALA guidelines.


>The Michigan Library Association recently approved a statement on Youth
>Access to the Internet.[...]

>RESPONSIBILITIES OF YOUTH IN THE EDUCATIONAL AND ETHICAL USE OF
>ELECTRONIC RESOURCES

This makes me a bit uncomfortable. It seems to suggest that youth have
responsibilities beyond those of other users.  I think it could be
improved by replacing "youth" with "library users".

> Responsible, ethical use of such resources includes the following:

> 1. Using resources for educational, informational and recreational
> purposes only: not for unauthorized, illegal or unethical purposes.
[...]

This is circular and vague. It says defines ethical use as that use
that is not unethical.

Also, I'm uncomfortable with libraries enforcing "ethics". For
example, I personally think it is unethical to deny women admission to
the Citadel, but I don't want libraries enforcing my opinion on their
users. I think it is fine to have reasonable rules of library use, but
I would prefer they just be called "rules" and not "ethical
standards".

> 5. Not sending, receiving, or displaying, text or graphics which may
> reasonably be construed as obscene.

* If these acts are illegal, then this prohibition is redundant given
  prohibition 1.

* If these acts are illegal, why are they singled out for double
  prohibition? There are a thousand illegal things you could do
  on a computer (threats, libel, conspiricy, etc), I don't
  see any good reason to highlight this one.

* Are these acts even illegal? In many states, libraries are exempt
  from obscenity laws. (Some states don't even have obscenity laws).
  
* Although distribution of obscene material is often illegal,
  displaying it often is not.

* Although some graphics may be obscene in some jurisdictions, I don't
  think any text has been found obscene in the U.S. for over 30 years.
  
* The "may reasonable be construed" standard is inconsistent with ALA
  policy that says:

     The Constitution requires a procedure designed to focus
     searchingly on challenged expression before it can be suppressed.
     An adversary hearing is a part of this procedure.
       -- ALA statement on Challenged Materials

For all these reasons I think the policy could be much improved by
removing prohibition #5.

Again, over all I think it is a great policy.

- Carl