Greetings, y'all,
in reply to Dave Gowan's discussion of, ok in a really rough nutshell, public
property v. public access to it, there is indeed the potentially immensely
philosophic question of what constitutes the source of funding for a given
product that would be appropriate to "obligate" a holding library to make these
items purchased from such funds publically accessible. When it comes to
accounting & funding sources, one could argue forever without ever reaching any
sort of consensus.
But, one thing stood out in one of the recent comments (don't remember whose,
sorry) -- the point of intended pro se use of the information. For people in
the info profession, t h a t is a very sore point: if legal information is
"handed" to a client, the client acts on it and/or uses it in court in his own
defense, does not get the desired results, he can come back & sue the librarian
for malpractice with the law's full forces on his side.
So we guard the public information for the protection of ourselves? From
incurring cost to the public agency (i.e. the library) ? What "accounting
column" constitutes "truly" from the public pocket? Isn't it all "public"
funding gained through taxation ? Where do discretionary limitations' levels
of validity truly hold?
All this is very thought-provoking, very complex, with no simple answer -- I
wish I had some ideas as to an answer both feasible, practical, and wholesome
to all.
Dosvidanyie,
Antje
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST