Catcher in the Rye vs MySpace

Is there really any difference?

One was created by an adult and published through the accepted publishing architecture while the other is a place where anyone can add almost any content anonymously or not with no editors or filters other than other users.  One is text, the other is video, ads, blogs, music, flashing pictures and more.

They both capture teen angst and the thoughts of a young generation.  They both have many adult opponents and proponents.  Both are free expression of what it is to be young and American in their time.  Both foster the creative writing dreams of a generation.

Yet, ask a librarian if you should remove Catcher in the Rye from the YA section and they will turn to you horrified.  How could you suggest we ban a book or otherwise censor our precious books!  Ask the same librarian why they have just restricted access to MySpace on the teen computers and the answer is very different.  Something more like, "To protect them from potentially sharing too much personal information" or "The bandwidth cost is too much for the demand."

These arguments would never hold up with books.  Too much demand for a best seller? Buy 200 copies.  Potentially dangerous information? That's censorship and you can't do it.

Why do we treat new technologies so very differently from old ones?  Because we don't get it.  Kids need social outlets be they online, over the phone or in person.  They will use whatever technology they can to make communication easier and more convenient.  In many ways the server logs and other information available under a warrant make online communication all that much more safe than any other conversation that a teen might have with peers or adults in public places.