Here it is. Ethics time!
Ever since I first heard about this idea of dangerous questions in 647, I assumed the answer was easy.
Patron: “Tell me how to make bombs!”
Me: “NO WAY.”
Of course, it’s not that simple. While I would love the ability to simply refuse to answer any given question, that goes directly against the ALA code of ethics and isn’t fair to the patrons. I appreciate how the Lenker essay illustrates how it’s possible to be moral yet illegal or legal and immoral. It’s a strange, confusing mix that librarians have to tangle with in their jobs.
However, is this even an issue anymore? I think with the age of the internet that, if anyone really wanted to know how to make a bomb for sinister purposes, they could find out how for themselves. I suppose the internet can make people paranoid. I’ve had to look up weird things for projects in the past or just out of innocent curiosity, and the thought crossed my mind that, if the FBI or whoever is really “watching” the internet, I would be in so much trouble.
Since librarians don’t have a search history like Google, maybe they are still the safest place to ask about sketchy topics? This is so tricky. Even now, I’m worried that this blog post will be read as giving advice to terrorists or creepy people in general. Yikes!
The ALA Code of Ethics is interesting in that I’m surprised that we really need one. I suppose if it didn’t exist in an official form, the ALA would not be able to keep librarians from refusing to tell patrons anything. However, the Code can be boiled down into: “Be nice to everyone, and tell patrons whatever they want to know unless you can’t.” “Can’t” here refers to legal/illegal values of “can’t” and not moral/immoral ones.
This blog post isn’t a super long one, but this was my immediate reactions to the readings. I’m really jazzed to talk about them in class! Am I into ethics? I had no idea!
Mary's talking about libraries 
I echo your thoughts on appreciating “how the Lenker essay illustrates how it’s possible to be moral yet illegal or legal and immoral.” Things are never as straightforward as they may seem–and I guess that’s what makes it interesting.
After reading the ALA code and Lenker piece, my boyfriend and I actually had a really long conversation about the internet and reference services. There are so many outlets available to people, and it seems like you’re never more than one (okay, maybe two) clicks away from finding your desired results. You don’t necessarily even need a reference librarian.
I definitely think it’s really interesting, though, to think about the reference librarian as a “safe place” for difficult questions. Based upon the ALA codes, we are not bound up in the same issues as some other professions, and if patrons know that, they may be more likely to come to us in confidence. If the code allows patrons to feel comfortable disclosing and sharing details about their interests, it could be an interesting way of bringing new people into the library, a new outlet for knowledge. As much as some people wish it would, Google isn’t really a shrink; its search results are not comforting.
Of course, my previous comments may only relate to those individuals with less-than-nefarious aims. And that’s a problem, in and of itself.
“However, the Code can be boiled down into: “Be nice to everyone, and tell patrons whatever they want to know unless you can’t.” ”Can’t” here refers to legal/illegal values of “can’t” and not moral/immoral ones.”
Yes, I agree that in most cases we can probably help patrons with reference questions unless it is illegal. I also appreciated the clarification that the ALA Code of Ethics isn’t legally binding, so it’s not necessarily illegal to refuse to answer a patron’s question, but it could be illegal to answer a dangerous question.
All of this makes me want to hide in a commune in Europe for years and learn how to sew book bindings. Patrons scare me now!