This analysis makes sense. Of course the "libraries" don't have any role in the decision-making.

All of which argues for the ALA, on behalf of its members, using its weight in the "free market" to set standards of transparency, flexibility and accountability - not to mention price - which reflect its members' committment to free speech and information.

Karen is right, no one is asking the libraries; but if the libraries through the ALA set minimum standards - including the release of blacklists to users - you can bet any filtering company which wants to be in the library game will have to comply.

The key here is for the ALA to announce it will be setting standards for filtering software and give the filtering companies a couple of weeks to submit their products for certification. Include the requirement that the lists be sent in clear text.

It is important to note that the ALA setting standards is not an endorsement of filtering: it is merely the ALA using its market power to ensure the worst effects of a bad law are mitigated for its members.