“The L!brary Book takes readers behind the scenes of fifty groundbreaking library projects to show how widely varied fields and communities – corporate underwriters, children’s book publishers, architects, graphic designers, product manufacturers, library associations, teachers, and students – can join forces to make a difference in the lives of children.” [thanks matt!]
Single link library advocacy sites
I am collecting a list of single-link “save the library” sites or other library value advocacy sites. If people want to add some in the comments, please do. The Save Libraries umbrella site is a good go-to place for general information on funding crises hitting libraries and ALA has a decent page with links to some Facebook examples.
- Don’t Close the Book – New York Public Library
- Keep Your Library Open – Brooklyn Public Library, NY
- People of Boston – Boston Public Library, MA
- SaveLAPL – Los Angeles Public Library (also Save the Library)
- Save Ohio Libraries – Ohio
- Save Illinois Libraries – Illinois
- Save Queens Library – Queens Borough Public Library, NY
Others?
Library Journal on Libraries in Crisis
A friend who is working with the Save LAPL campaign has also been actively paying attention to all of the other libraries in crisis stories that Library Journal [itself newly for sale and purchased] has been writing. Here they are.
LIBRARIES IN CRISIS
Boston:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6719906.html
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6725545.html
Charlotte, NC:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6723200.html
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6724087.html
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6723882.html
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6726630.html
Florida:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6723308.html
Houston:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6726308.html
Indianapolis:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6725481.html
Lexington, KY:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6723655.html
Los Angeles:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6727913.html
Massachusetts:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6727650.html
Michigan:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6721718.html
New Mexico:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6720424.html
NYC:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6726822.html
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6726822.html
Ohio:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6725584.html
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6727977.html
Portland, ME:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6725481.html
San Francisco:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6722800.html
San Jose:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6722394.html
Tennessee:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6722036.html
Moon Letters from The Cataloguer’s Desk
Before there was Braille, there was Moon. Check out these photos from some antiquarian Moon books. More on Moon. This post was made the same day that the Internet Archive announced that they have one million books available in DAISY format for blind and visually disabled folks. Not just talk, here’s the list of them. Image is from this book. [via]
remember CIPA?
Remember CIPA? And remember how we were always holding out hope that someone would challenge it in an “as applied” challenge, an adult who wanted to view material that was blocked by the filters? Well there’s been a challenge, in Washington state, and the State Supreme Court ruled that filtering for adults was in fact permissible, lumping it in with collection development. The case concerns the North Central Regional Library System Opinion here and dissenting opinion here. Interestingly, the sites that were contentious in this case were web sites on firearms, not pornography or otherwise racy topics. Can you see WomenShooters.com at your library?
NCRL’s filtering policy does not prevent any speech and in particular it does not ban or attempt to ban online speech before it occurs. Rather, it is a standard for making determinations about what will be included in the collection available to NCRL’s patrons.
Thus, NCRL’s filtering policy, when applied, is not comparable to removal of items from NCRL’s collection, but rather acquisition of materials to add to its collection. NCRL has made the only kind of realistic choice of materials that is possible without unduly and unnecessarily curtailing the information available to a bare trickle — or a few drops — of the vast river of information available on the Internet.
This may be the set up for a very interesting lawsuit. I hope they appeal.