I work in an industry that provides materials and services to libraries -- mostly of the public variety, not academic. As such, I am always in libraries doing sales presentations, which can be quite lengthy, sometimes lasting all day. These involve my laptop, and I am often tempted to surf my favorite websites or check email during the long lulls. Usually I end up on sports talk sites to debate the pros and cons of this coach or that team.

Occasionally, however, I will try to drop in on PoopReport to see what has newly-emerged from the pipeline. (I'll soon be starting my seventh year of involvement with the site, and these subconscious references are ingrained in me by now.) But about two-thirds of the time, I find the library's Internet filter has blocked the site. The three reasons for this action that I have encountered most often are, in no particular order of occurrence: 1) no reason given; 2) pornographic site; and 3) foul language.

Now, I am under no illusion that someone at all these libraries has actually taken the time to surf all these sites that get blocked. They'd have no life if they attempted to do so. Rather, these filters work on keywords that someone at the library or whoever programmed the software designated as imminently block-worthy. But that, my friends, is as slippery a slope as having a bad case of the squirts on a polished tile bathroom floor.

In the early days of Internet filtering, keywords as cyber-police wreaked all sorts of havoc. Librarians I have talked to about the practice were candid enough to relay their horror stories about the censorship that inadvertently resulted. When the word "sex" was entered as a no-no in some programs, everything regarding sex education, sex therapy, and gender-related distinctions (just to name a few) fell by the wayside. Many sites devoted to medical issues took a big hit because (huge *gasp* inserted here!) the word "sex" appeared in sentences within some article appearing there.

Same thing happened when the titillating word "breast" was designated a filtering keyword. Sites devoted to breast cancer education disappeared from public view altogether; and sites discussing chicken parts and popular recipes took it on the chin as well.

Such is the inevitable result of not allowing people to judge for themselves what is and isn't appropriate cyber-material for their perusal. And forget the preoccupation with what children are gawking at or sniggering about. It's up to parents -- and not librarians as their surrogates -- to grant and then supervise computer use as well as to monitor what books and videos they check out to read or watch.

As regards PoopReport and filtering, I think I have far more of a problem with the site being classified as pornographic than I do with it containing some foul language. I readily admit that four-letter words appear quite frequently throughout the threads of the Forums and sometimes in the Front Page articles. In most cases use of these words is well within an appropriate context, although juvenile and immature outbursts have certainly occurred.

In what sense, however, is the intellectual discussion of bodily functions pornographic? It's quite clear to me that the word poop as a filtering keyword has been partnered with scat and the graphic sites associated with it. And somewhere in cyberspace, entire sites devoted to nautical terms and paraphernalia (such as poop deck) have been put in handcuffs until further notice.

It is worth noting the following: some, but not all, of the libraries that have blocked PoopReport have Dave's Poop Culture [1] on the shelves. Ironic, isn't it, that a book discussing the history of and current state of the Too Much Information approach to poop is available to the same patrons who aren't allowed to explore the living, breathing site that generated it in the first place?

A few of the cyber-eviction notices contain language to the effect that a patron who disagrees with the ban may take up the matter with the librarian for review. Now, that would be a tough one. "Why do you want people to see pictures of poop?" the librarian might ask, particularly if he or she were of the TMI persuasion. (Keep in mind that I'm in that library to generate business and goodwill for the company I work for, and not challenge their censorship policies. That in itself would be a full-time job, and I doubt it would pay very well.)

Oddly, the only remedy here would be to allow open access to the site so that the truth about PoopReport could become obvious: that its purpose is neither pornographic nor to promote or encourage foul language. Sadly, however, too many libraries are content with blocking, rather than tackling a universal, much-maligned, and much misunderstood subject. Pressure from patrons themselves in these various communities would likely be the catalyst for change here, but how you can crusade for something you're not allowed to see in the first place?