Librarians As Censors

On our sixth day, Group Two is addressing the Librarian as Censor from the perspective of each of our topics. There are many complicated twists and turns that we will take as professional librarians when we face censorship and intellectual freedom issues head on. Perhaps that is why the ALA's Bill of Rights and Statement on Professional Ethics fights so strongly for complete and unrestricted access to information for every person. It seems a hard, sterile stance at times but one that takes into consideration the humanness of librarians and ultimate vulnerability of our position - will each of us truly avoid bias both personally and commercially, and therefore censorship, in our future decision making?

Librarian as Censor and the ALA's Bill of Rights

The concern that librarians themselves may be acting as censors is not new. In 1985, the authors of a collections development text wrote that "[a]s a rule of thumb librarians ought to be sure that at least twenty-five percent of the materials they buy for the library are personally offensive to them." After all, these authors say, if the librarian is going to expect patrons of the library to accept the presence of materials they find offensive, the librarian should be willing to do so as well. (Curley, 1985) pp. 150-1. This seems like common-sense advice. But one wonders how exactly the librarian should do this. DOes she deliberately request catalogs from publishing companies that she thinks "pollutes" the market with its fare? Or does she seek out books that pertain to a subject matter she's interested in, but that have the opposite viewpoint she has?

"Evaluating Library Collections," one of the interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights, recognizes that collections must be continually reevaluated to ensure fulfillment of the goals of the library and the needs of library patrons. But it also cautions against using this evaluation as an excuse for removing books that may be considered too controversial or disapproved by members of the community. ("Evaluating Library Collections: and interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights," 1973, amended 1981)

But at least one observer notes that the Library Bill of Rights ignores the market forces that create the resources in collections. After all, publishers' and authors' own actions are base on some degree of subjectivity if not self-censorship. (Baldwin, Summer 1996) p. 1 of 17. This may be an argument for the need of the librarian to not just not be a censor - but to also encourage the expansion of the literary universe. 

Works Cited

Baldwin, G.B. (Summer 1996). The Library Bill of Rights - a critique - The Library Bill of Rights [Electronic Version]. Library Trends, 45. Retrieved January 20, 2008 from http://findarticles.com/articles/mi_m1387/is_n1_v45/ai_18616657

Curley, A., & Dorothy Broderick. (1985). Building Library Collections (6th ed.). Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 

Evaluating Library Collections: an interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. (1973, amended 1981). Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=103211

Librarian as Censor and the Patriot Act

A Librarian seems an unlikely person to find themselves placed in the front line of the War on Terror. Yet with the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, librarians have found themselves a part of the net in which the government hopes to catch terrorists. Certain stipulations within the Patriot Act require librarians to make patron records and internet usage available to the FBI should it be requested. Although the information is still made available, requests for certain "suspicious" information can set off red flags. By complying with these rules the librarian becomes a possible informant. The patron is forced to self-censor in order to keep themselves from suspicion. 

Librarian as Censor in the Schools

Kay Vandergrift (www.scils.rutgers.edu) states that as a society, "we feel the need to prectect children... what is dangerous or disturbing to one person may be exciting and innovative to others and perhaps 'the truth' to still others". Technology is not stagnant and as it changes everyday, so does the technical savvy of our young people increase. It is difficult for school media specialists to stay a step ahead of this and CIPA does provide restrictions to deal with it. CIPA states that children must be protected from pictures that are obscene, including child pornography, and are harmful to minors. But what is obscene? Can photographs that some consider to be child pornography also be fine art? And what exactly is harmful to minors? Vandergrift states that "conflicts surrounding intellectual freedom are conflicts of values... that professionals should consider very carefully about accepting positions in communities which obviously hold values in conflict with their own". As with all librarians, subtle decisions take place every day that are probably affecting censorship in the school library to some degree - is the librarian a parent, strongly religious in one direction, conservative or liberal, easily offended, self righteous, easy come easy go? Can the school media specialist be overprotective to other people's children, thus asserting her own values by choices in collection development or internet access? There is no way to control all of this except by being aware starting at the community level as to what is going on in your schools and public libraries. 

Librarian as Censor and the Internet

Fighting against censorship is a core ethic of American librarians. See, ALA LIbrary Bill of Rights. But not acting as a censor becomes tricky when the Internet is involved. First, a librarian must decide whether to even offer patrons Internet access, although in today's world that would be most unusual, except in the most rural, inaccessible areas. Second, the librarian must consider how offering Internet access meshes with his or her professional ethics. The following two statements reflect this concern: 

• Because libraries must maintain a collection untainted by censorship, librarians may not delegate collection selection to others. See, e.g., Intellectual Freedom Committee (1999)
• According to at least one court, public librarians may not filter Internet access once they have decided to provide Internet access. See, Mainstream Louduon v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Public Library, 24 F. Supp.2d 522 (E.D. Va 1998) The Loudoun decision now carries more weight since another court dismissed a complaint against a public library for refusing to filter Internet content. See, Kathleen R. v. City of LIvermore, Case No. V-015266-4 (Super. Ct.,Alameda Co.). T
  

According to the above statements, a public librarian may not delegate selection functions. At the same time, the librarian also must not pick and choose material from the Internet. Instead, he or she must accept the Internet in its entirety. But if the Internet Service Provider (ISP) decides what information should be available, isn't this delegating the collection selection process to another? While some filtering might be appropriate in order to protect children, companies offering filtering services have not successfully limited filtering to obscene material. (Corne-Revere, R., n.d.) and not on the librarian's own personal judgement. How then can a librarian filter Internet content without both acting as a censor and abdicating professional librarian control over collections development?

When a librarian decides to provide unlimited Internet access, as supported by the ALA, he or she believes that he or she has avoided censorship and that professional ethics remain intact. Little does she know that corporate ISP's are conforming the information they are offering the U.S. to rules promulgated in foreign countries. Even worse, a patron's privacy may be violated since people using the Internet to communicate with others by blog or email may have their identity released to foreign governments, or to our own - after all, the ALA has interpreted the Library Bill of Rights to mean that: "In a library, (physical or virtual), the right to privacy is the right to open inquiry without having the subject of one's interest examined or scrutinized by others. Confidentiality exists when a library is in possession of a personally identifiable information about users and keeps that information private on their behalf." (ALA 2002, June 19)

In the age of the Internet, the library can neither assure its patrons that the library will keep their interests or Internet communications private nor that the library will provide uncensored materials to its patrons. Is it incumbent upon the librarian to do something about this... or is it enough that the librarian tried not to engage personally in censorship?

Works Cited:

ALA (2002, June 19). Privacy: An interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=34182

ALA (2003, December 9). Libraries, the Internet and filtering. Libraries and the Internet Tool Kit. Retrieved on February 11, 2008 from http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=litoolkit&Template=/Contentmanagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID-50667.

Corne-Revere, R. (n.d.) The First Amendment and the Media. Online Issues. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.mediainstitute.org/ONLINE/FAM99/online_D.html.

In direct reference to the ALA's Statement on Professional Ethics (Adopted by the ALA Council, June 28, 1995) some questions to consider:

In regard to Article II, how and can we uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources? (http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics/html.)

In reference to Article VII, how and can we distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources? (http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html.)

Has the Global Information Highway been derailed?

Many have predicted that the Internet would spread the ideals of democracy and intellectual freedom around the globe. After all, the Internet affords unprecedented access to information and provides ample opportunity for exchanging ideas via blogs and other communication mediums. But this has not yet happened. Instead, as tech visionaries work towards global on-line libraries, intellectual freedom has become an ever more challenging issue. Different countries define and value intellectual freedom differently—although some library associations overseas do share the ALA’s respect for intellectual freedom. See, IFLA for statements on intellectual freedom by libraries around the globe. And in many countries, including the U.S., privacy concerns may chill truly free exchanges of ideas over the Internet. As a result, the future health of intellectual freedom, and its existence in the age of the Internet, remains uncertain.

China is a prime example of a country that values intellectual freedom differently from the U.S., and certainly the ALA. While China has embraced the Internet as an information tool, it has also effectively quashed its people’s access to and use of politically unpopular material. (MacKinnon, 2007). p. 31. In fact, ‘“China operates the most extensive, technologically sophisticated, and broad-reaching system of Internet filtering in the world.”’ (MacKinnon, 2007) quoting (OpenNet Initiative 2005). p. 32. And when filters fail, China chills intellectual freedom through direct oppression and threats of reprisal. One example is Wang Xiaoning, a man who distributed information over the Internet in China. (Anonymous 2007, July). The distribution was supposedly anonymous, but, allegedly, Yahoo! HK gave Wang’s name to the police when asked about the postings—according to Wang, he was arrested, subjected to torture, and sentenced to ten years in prison. (Anonymous, 2007, July).

And China is not alone.

• Syria, Iran, Burma, and Vietnam are also considered “pervasive” filterers. (Fowler , 2008).
• In France, a new law could be applied so as to prevent people from posting violent images on the Internet. (Anonymous, 2007, May).
• Google has voluntarily mimicked Chinese censorship in its Chinese search engine. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 18.
• France has also sought to impose liability on Yahoo! for making Nazi paraphernalia available. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 19.
• Germany has imposed strict liability on Internet service providers (“ISPs”) that unwittingly host copyright infringement. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 20.
• ISPs must now filter whatever may be perceived as hate speech from French, German, and Swiss Internet users. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 20.
• Australia uses censors and regulators in tandem to find objectionable material and order the Internet provider to remove the content from the site. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 21.

“Internet censorship is growing, both in scale and sophistication.” (Haggerty, 2007, November). See also, OpenNet Initiative Maps. In reality, the Internet has become a tool by which governments can promote their own values and traditions, and not a method by which so-called free societies can open closed social systems to free discourse—assuming it is even proper for a country like the U.S. to impose its ideals on another country, like China. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 21. See also, (MacKinnon, 2007).

Still, why does it matter to us, and to intellectual freedom here at home, that China censors information on the web? It matters because, in our interconnected global world, many companies, including blog-hosts, are choosing to adjust their policies to accommodate the world’s most restrictive information systems. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 28. And by doing so, companies have restricted access to content in this country as well. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 28. It is costly to monitor and distinguish protected versus unprotected sanctionable speech, particularly when the ground rules change at each border. (Kreimer, 2006). Many intermediaries, when faced with the costs involved in keeping all nations happy, are likely to “abandon the effort to avoid errors and adopt a conscious policy of prophylactic self-censorship that blocks any content that could precipitate the threat of sanctions.” (Kreimer, 2006). P. 28. In effect, by corporate proxy, China or France or Germany, and so on, can curtail our intellectual freedom here in the United States.

This is not just speculation. In 2005, Microsoft’s Chinese edition of MSN Spaces blocked a variety of politically sensitive terms (sensitive in China that is) by first issuing a warning to the user, and then by blocking any suspect posting from user access in both China and the United States. It did so by removing each offending post directly from Microsoft’s U.S. servers. (MacKinnon, 2007). p. 41. After the public learned of Microsoft’s complicity with Chinese censors Microsoft changed its policy, somewhat—it now requires a written order from the censoring country and only blocks information from recipients in the censoring country. (MacKinnon, 2007). p. 41. But it appears likely that, absent public outrage, private for-profit companies in the information trade (particularly companies without Microsoft’s resources or public profile) will take the most economically viable path, and not the freest. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 28.

Although a U.S. user may ultimately be able to locate information equivalent to that which was censored elsewhere, how information is presented, by whom, and with what frequency all impact how users evaluate information and overall intellectual freedom in this country. Interfering with speech intermediaries is as detrimental to free speech as is silencing the speaker directly—and sometimes more so. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 17. A speaker faced with censorship might choose to self edit, or to initiate court action, but an intermediary will most likely choose to remove the offending material in its entirety. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 17.

Even worse, we cannot count on our own government to address foreign risks to intellectual freedom at home. Our government has also chosen to inhibit the free flow of electronic speech by pressuring information or speech intermediaries.

• As discussed by Anne, Internet service providers are expected to censor child pornography and filter content directed towards schools for obscenity and information harmful to minors.
• “In 1999, antiterrorism units of the FBI adopted a ‘good corporate citizenship program,’ which empowered them to seek to induce [Internet providers] to censor websites that were constitutionally protected but were not viewed by the FBI as consonant with the public interest.” (Kreimer, 2006). p. 24.
• As mentioned by Holly in our blog segment on the Patriot Act, federal authorities may unilaterally demand that intermediaries turn over communication records without informing the speaker. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 25.
• Our government has also sought to impose criminal liability on persons who assisted with designing Islamic websites. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 26.

Moreover, when intermediaries act as censor, instead of the government, there are no processes currently in place to ensure, for example, that the content removed from a website was really child pornography, and not an artist’s photo album. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 27-28. Because we all now rely on information intermediaries to learn and communicate with others, the intermediaries’ vulnerabilities have become everyone’s problem, including libraries.

Public Internet access in libraries has increased dramatically; a “1998 survey by the American Library Association[(“ALA”)] found that 73 percent of the nation's public libraries, including branches, now offer basic Internet access to their patrons.” (Corne-Revere, n.d.). For librarians, the prevalence of censorship in a medium on which libraries increasing rely raises a variety of ethical issues — issues that, if anyone’s interested, also happen to dovetail nicely with the ALA’s concerns on outsourcing. See, e.g., the ALA 1999 report, Outsourcing & Privatization in American Libraries. As a result, librarians today must question what their moral obligations or duties are in the context of both foreign and domestic Internet censorship.

The ALA has already defined what an ethical member of the professional should do in general terms. Article III and IV of the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights (which was discussed in detail in Yashmyn’s blog) read respectively that “[l]ibraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment”; and “[l]ibraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.” And if one believes that Internet search tools and content are a form of outsourcing, or are analogous to it, ALA outsourcing reports make it clear that librarians cannot delegate content decisions to vendors and that contractual arrangements for outsourced services must ensure that patrons’ First Amendment rights are preserved. Intellectual Freedom Committee (1999).

The plain language of the first Library Bill of Rights assertion referred to above, and possibly the second, demands pro-activity. As do the ALA reports on outsourcing. Refraining from censorship personally is not enough; librarians must take steps to prevent censorship and privacy violations from occurring, at least within the library.

Therefore, in an age when censorship is occurring by proxy, beyond or outside the prohibitions of the First Amendment, on a service offered by U.S. libraries, but controlled by ISPs and other information intermediaries, the question becomes, must a librarian challenge corporate Internet censorship? As libraries go global and collaborate with other libraries around the world, must a librarian challenge censorship abroad? Under the terms of the Library Bill of Rights, is it ethical to participate in global Internet libraries and not challenge limitations placed on intellectual freedom by other governments? Is it enough to issue a statement through the ALA, or is more required to meet the librarian’s duty to challenge censorship? And, further, do librarians have an obligation to cooperate with political activists agitating for intellectual freedom in China? In Syria? And what does cooperation entail exactly?

Questions like these have been faced in the national arena, but acquire layers of complexity when looked at globally—not to mention the practical question of how effectively librarians in the U.S. can impact information policy in France, for example. Or whether it is realistic to expect librarians to cooperate in a meaningful manner with political dissidents fighting oppressive regimes overseas?

But in the end the stakes remain the same, whether the ethic of intellectual freedom can be meaningfully preserved in our country, as it participates more fully in the modern world.

Additional Questions:

• Do you feel that maintaining intellectual freedom on the Internet is essential for maintaining the vitality of intellectual freedom as an ideal?
• Do you feel it is possible to promote intellectual freedom on the Internet without first addressing conflicting cultural norms around the globe?
• If only some companies censor material in the U.S., does the fact that others are not censoring make the Internet free enough?
• Do librarians have an ethical obligation to research and use only those ISPs that avoid censorship?

Works cited:

ALA (Adopted June 18, 1948, amended February 2, 1961, June 28, 1967, and January 23, 1980). Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm.

Anonymous. (2007, July). Is it legal? Internet. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 56(4), 168.

Anonymous. (2007, May). Paris, France. Dateline: foreign. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 56(3), 125.

Corne-Revere, R. (n.d.). The First Amendment and the Media. Online Issues. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.mediainstitute.org/ONLINE/FAM99/online_D.html.

Fowler, G.A. (2008, January 4). China tightens web-video rules; private operators brace for new censorship moves, but scope of effort unclear. Wallstreet Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.

Haggerty, K. (2007, November). As states encroach on Internet governance around the world, IDRC is supporting a major new initiative that will investigate the impacts of Internet censorship in Asia. The International Research Development Centre. Retrieved on February 18, 2008, from http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-116735-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.

Intellectual Freedom Committee (1999). Response to the resolution in counsel document #24: Outsourcing and privatization in American libraries. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/iftoolkits/outsourcing/Default2446.htm.

Kreimer, S.F. (2006). Censorship by proxy: The first amendment, internet intermediaries, and the problem of the weakest link. University of Pennsylvania Law Review., 155(11), 12-101.

MacKinnon, R. (2008). Flatter world and thicker walls? Blogs, censorship and civic discourse in China. Public Choice, 134, 31-46.

Censorship in the Schools

According to the ALA, intellectual freedom is:

The right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas thriugh which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored. Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive, and disseminate ideas. (ALA Intellectual Freedom Q & A, 1/17/2008)

But the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), a federal law enacted by Congress in December 2000 to address concerns about access to offensive content over the internet on school and library computers, imposes certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding support for internet access or internet connections from the "E-Rate" program - a program that makes certain technology more affordable for eligible schools and libraries. In early 2001, the Federal Communications Commission issued rules implementing CIPA.

While the ALA openly disdains the restriction of access to information, for children as well as adults, school media specialists are subject to CIPA . Conflicting opinions exist as to how to make the law and the ALA standards of intellectual freedom best work together and vary according to one's position and role in society. If CIPA guidelines are not followed, then funding discounts for certain technologies in school libraries are prohibited. What school library can afford this situation if its inherent intent  is to teach college level information researching skills to the student? A situation in the Grosse Pointe school system arose in November of 2007, a case of intellectual freedom versus censorship in the school library, and is interesting for its grassroots level.

According to Steve Wolosyn, District Technical Director of the Grosse Pointe school system, (1/17/2008), a principal reported from one of the district schools that a teacher had found a student on a graphic (sexually objectionable) site on Wikipedia. Because such material cannot be selectively filtered , the whole of Wikipeda was made inaccessible in the school libraries. The decision was made by the Technology Steering Committee, which serves under the school board, in accordance with CIPA. The site remains inaccessible at this point.

A Detroit Free Press article dated 1/13/2008 "Does Wikipedia good outweigh the bad", addressed the Grosse Pointe incident from a students point of view, which was that of protest against the censorship. Veronica Menaldi, author of the article, wonders "that only at school is access to both offensive and useful material blocked". She consulted Dr. Elliot Soloway, a professor with the Center of Highly Interactive Computing in Education at U of M. Dr. Soloway states "Outside of school, Wikipedia and blogs are used all the time. People have learned how to evaluate the information they find there. Children inside of school need to be taught how to critically evaluate informatio so they, too, can take advantage of the value of the Wikipedia and the blogs.".

I consulted Karen Villegas, full time school media specialist for Grosse Pointe North High School. She has been in this position with GP North for 9 years. According to Karen, in summing up our interview:

• The internet is very tough to manage - as a professional she agrees with the freedom to read, but she also sees some benefit to filtering. It is a dilemma for her because protecting kids from something they are going to be using outside of school does not help them - it is more important to steer them to other sources. If a teacher accepts Wikipedia as a reference, then that is his/her prerogative. On the other hand, filters can be positive because they can prevent "unintended material" from reaching the student. Before filtering became more sophisticated, a student unintentionally received email from a porn site. In another situation, education web sites were being "porn-napped" by advertisers who provided disguised links to their pornographic sites on these seemingly safe web sites at school. 
• "Good stuff is not free on the internet." If students want to use Wikipedia and Google, then, according to Karen, we must teach them to evaluate the sites they go to. If unreliable information is used then the student suffers. Since Wikipedia has been banned, Karen has seen some positive changes in the students research habits - they are not using Google as much nor wasting so much time as people do when they get distracted by the myriad of unrelated information on Wikipedia. The students are recognizing that their time is valuable and appreciating qualified references that the school provides and pays for. 
  
• On a positive note for Wikipedia, it can provide a jumping off point for research about a subject that there is not much information about with keywords and related subjects.

As far as censorship in the school library, Karen prefers to choose books and periodicals that support the curriculum. She always considers whether dollars could be spent elsewhere when considering whether to add something to the collection. Some questionable resources can be found in the public library anyway(i.e.Nora Roberts). If she carries a certain periodical, every issue must be accessible. For instance, Rolling Stone magazine is available to students. One issue came out with a scantily clad Drew Barrymore on the cover which upset some staffers who wanted to pull the issue off the shelves. As a professional, Karen would not allow that.

Students who are 18 years of age (no longer minors - who can vote as well as go to war) are still restricted from banned sites at school because they are students. Wikipedia will remain banned at GP North until it can be determined whether pictures  that are obscene, pornographic, or harmful to minors can be selectively filtered.

 Questions to consider:

Should parents or government have jurisdiction over what their children view on the internet at school and in public libraries? Perhaps students could carry an access card which would contain sites approved by parents.

Wikipedia contains a great deal of thoughtful, useful information as well as unreliable information and sources. Disclaimers and warnings to the reader as to the possibility of objectionable content are loud and clear. Does banning this site in a school library violate intellectual freedom and the right of an individual to have access to information or is this a necessary protection of minors for the good of society?

Does censorship maintain a certain quality or moral fabric of life?

Who rules? The majority who is ready to learn responsible internet researching?

or the few who complain? or those who get caught on inappropriate sites?

Is censorship a way for schools to avoid litigation by those who may be offended?

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Freedom

http://www/scils.rutgers.edu/-kvander/censorship.html

http://www.greenlakelibrary.org/blog/archives/016470.htm

Detroit Free Press, "Does Wikipedia good outweigh the bad". Veronica Menaldi, Sunday, anuary 13, 2008.

Interview with Karen Villegas, GP North High School, School Media Specialist, January 31, 2008  

  

Censorship in the Schools

How Right is the Bill of Rights (along with all of its interpretations)?

General. The Library Bill of Rights (the “Bill of Rights”) was adopted in 1948 and has been amended several times since then. (A different form was previously adopted in 1939. (For an interesting detailed discussion of the history of the text of the Bill of Rights and its interpretations, see the Intellectual Freedom Manual. (2006) pp. 55-72.)

In the Bill of Rights, the American Library Association (the “ALA”) states that libraries are forums for information and ideas and provides basic policies to guide library services. The Bill of Rights is one of several ALA-related documents intended to assure the library patron of intellectual freedom in his use of library services.

The ALA cannot mandate that libraries adopt the Bill of Rights, but many libraries do in any case. As intended, they use it to form the philosophical basis of their collections development policy.

Research in Michigan has shown that in high school libraries, when a statement of philosophy such as the Bill of Rights is included in materials selection policies, it is less likely that a challenge will result in actual removal of a book from the shelf. (Hopkins, 1996). p. 3 of 11. But one observer notes that even if librarians obediently incorporate the Bill of Rights into their collection development polices, authors of textbooks on collections development largely ignore it, for its lack of consistent practical guidance, as will be discussed below. (Hitchcock, 2005) pp. 5-7.

Two Specific Library Reactions to the Bill of Rights. And if not all public libraries pay close attention to the Bill of Rights—to either affirm their respect for it or to reject it—at least some certainly do. In 1995, the Loudoun County (Virginia) Library Board, with several recently elected deeply conservative members, voted to delete statements in the Bill of Rights] dealing with censorship and substitute weaker language in their place. (Parr, 1995) p. 6. But after protests from patrons, the Board did not entirely gut the policy. Further, since that time, with the replacement of those members with other members, the library has readopted its previous ALA-version of the Bill of Rights.

And ten years later, in 2005, the Johnson County (Kansas) Library Board removed the Bill of Rights from its own materials-collection policy. One member had earlier been quoted as saying that “if you have to have all points of view, you’re saying we need to have information on acts of terrorism.” (Kansas board deselects Library Bill of Rights, 2005). However, one month later—after intense public criticism and the selection of new board members—this Bill of Rights was also reinstated. (Johnson County reaffirms Library Bill of Rights, 2005).

Some Specific Criticisms. So libraries, library boards, library users, and observers are paying attention to the Bill of Rights. But they’re not all agreeing on the quality of its content. It has received significant criticism, ranging from the unconditioned extreme of its interpretation of “intellectual freedom”--for instance, the fact that the Bill of Rights encourages giving children the exact same access to information that adults have (under Article IV) also rankles many observers. And the criticism extends to the quality of the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Articles II and III are the subjects of the discussion below.

Article II focuses on the materials themselves and the library’s responsibility to include materials covering every point of view on an issue. It also prohibits their removal based on partisan or doctrinal—or as has sometimes been interpreted as “political” disapproval.
Article III requires that libraries take a proactive stance against any form of censorship.

Article II.
“Sound factual authority.” From 1948 to 1967, Article II applied to books or other reading matter of “sound factual authority.” But in the early 60s, a Catholic librarian in Peoria, Illinois, excluded a Protestant text because, he said, it lacked “sound factual authority.” In response, in 1967, this condition was removed from Article II.

But was this the appropriate action? Does it mean that if a library is offered a donation of The Encyclopedia of Mushrooms (Dickinson & Lucas, 1979)—which contained erroneous information about the edibility of a mushroom and which resulted in several people becoming so ill that they needed liver transplants—that the library must accept it? (Baldwin, Summer 1996).

Labelling. As mentioned in yesterday’s blog, the ALA is cautious of labeling—calling it a potential form of censorship. One of the interpretations is devoted to this concept. The ALA supports it only when it can serve as a “viewpoint-neutral directional [aid]” to save the library patron time. But one important justification for it besides the one described by the ALA might be that the freedom to read or view what one wants is meaningful only when one can know what it is that one is about to read or view. (Fricke, 2000) p. 474.

“…Presenting all points of view.” This clause in the first sentence seems to be taken literally by nobody. Even the library with the largest budget certainly couldn’t expect to take the effort to try to locate and obtain every such book. (Doyle, 2002).

Article III.
Inappropriate-to-distribute information. One set of authors points out that—contrary to what the Bill of Rights and its interpretations suggest—there are at least some instances in which content-based censorship would be recommended. These include instances in which intellectual property rights are otherwise violated; where the information that is being provided invades privacy (for instance contains genetic information about individuals). They also point out that medical information resulting from experiments at concentration camps in Nazi Germany, provides “information and enlightenment” as stated in Article III. (Fricke, 2000) pp. 476-7.

So wouldn’t the librarian want to censor provision of this information? Aren’t these therefore clear reasons why Article III isn’t desirable in its current form?

Democratic-principle approach. Another observer looks at the issue more from the perspective of democratic principles. First he notes that most people favor some kind of content-based censorship. Then he points out that in the librarian profession, intellectual freedom is far more broad than the ordinary First-Amendment conception of free speech. He then concludes that “the idea that a publicly funded [state] institution has a duty to advance a conception of free speech in clear tension with ordinary views and well-established constitutional law is difficult to reconcile with commonly accepted principles of democracy.” (Himma, 2004) pp. 2-3 of 3. Does this not seem like another reason that Article III should be reconsidered?

Some legal context. The case (Board of Education v. Pico, 1982) that the Supreme Court has decided regarding librarian collections policies has not resulted in any clear black-and-white law. After a school library’s books had been challenged, the school board appointed a review committee, which recommended returning five of the books to the shelves, placing two on restricted shelves, and removing two of them. The board instead decided to remove all but one of the books, calling them “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy.” (Notable First Amendment court cases; Baldwin, Summer 1996) The Supreme Court recognized the discretion of a school library to determine the content of a public school library, but stated that it may not remove books “simply because they dislike the ideas contained” in them. And they could not “…seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” A trial was ordered to determine just what the school board’s motivations had been. (Only the rationale for requiring the trial was not agreed to by a clear majority of the 9-member Supreme Court, and it’s not known what today’s Supreme Court would decide on this issue.) But the trial didn’t happen. The case had gone on for years, and neither party pursued the case. (Baldwin, Summer 1996; Notable First Amendment court cases).

The outcome of this trial could have shed some interesting light on just how close to—or far from—common law the actual Bill of Rights sits.

Loudoun County, mentioned earlier in this posting, is also the site of the Internet filtering that led to a lawsuit brought against the library on the grounds that (i.) the filtering applied to not just chidren’s use, but adult usage as well and (ii) the filtering software was overly broad, excluding non-offending sites. In 1998, the judge—who was also trained as a librarian, the current Director of Libraries tells me—held that the overinclusiveness of the software and its use on adults as well as children, made its use unconstitutional. (Notable First Amendment court cases).

While courts condemn censorship, they still recognize a right of educators to “inculcate social values.” But the Bill of Rights simply does not. (Baldwin, 2006). So does this mean that if the Loudoun software had applied only to children and had been able to better censor sites, that the library could have continued to use it? Should the library have been able to continue to use it?

Responses. Defenders of the Bill of Rights suggest not throwing out the baby with the bath water. That is, clearly the concept of intellectual freedom deserves and needs to be expressed in some document, whether or not one agrees to the broad form of it that the ALA advocates (extending to children of all ages). Doyle (July 2002). Even some scholars who critique the Bill of Rights recognize this and suggest rewriting the Bill of Rights as two documents. The first would be one that clearly states what the library patron’s rights are, particularly under First Amendment law. That is, the ALA should generate a document that states what actual U.S. law permits the user to expect from his library. But also, there would be a complementing document—something like the ALA Code of Ethics—that describes the aspirational goals of the ALA. This is where the ALA would exhibit its support for intellectual freedom in its fully unconditional form. (Wiegand, Summer 1996) At least one author—Hitchcock—has proposed a revision to Article II (at 15 or so lines long, it was too long to include in this posting, but it is included in his article, the citation for which appears below).

So can libraries that disagree with the Bill of Rights (on substance) just ignore it and implement the policies that they think are best for their communities? Should they? How about those who disagree with the Bill of Rights based on wording alone?

Does it seem to you that your local library is doing a good job of adhering to its own Bill of Rights (if it has adopted one)? Do the librarians even know what it says?

How important is the Bill of Rights to you actually?

Works Cited

Baldwin, G. B. (Summer 1996). The Library Bill of Rights - a critique - The Library Bill of Rights [Electronic Version]. Library Trends, 45. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1387/is_n1_v45/ai_18616657

Doyle, T. (July 2002). A critical discussion of "The ethical presuppositions behind the Library Bill of Rights" [Electronic Version]. The Library Quarterly, 72, 275-293. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu

Fricke, M., Kay Mathiesen, and Don Fallis. (October 2000). The ethical presuppositions behind the Library Bill of Rights. Library Quarterly, 70(4), 468-491.

Himma, K. E. (July 2004). Libraries as political advocates: A critique of the Library Bill of Rights, Article III [Electronic Version]. Alki, 20, 21-23. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu

Hitchcock, L. A. (2005). An examination of Article Two of the Library Bill of Rights. Public Library Quarterly, 24(2), 1-18.

Hopkins, D. M. (Summer 1996). The Library Bill of Rights and school library media programs - includes related information on Library Bill of Rights and its interpretations - the Library Bill of Rights [Electronic Version]. Library Trends, 45. Retrieved January 27, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1387/is_n1_v45/ai_18616660

Johnson County reaffirms Library Bill of Rights [Electronic. (May 20, 2005). Version]. American Libraries. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/may2005ab/johnsonco.cfm

Kansas board deselects Library Bill of Rights. (April 29, 2005). [Electronic. (May 20, 2005). Version]. American Libraries. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/april2005ab/kansasbillrights.cfm

Notable First Amendment court cases. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.htm

Parr, C. S. (July-September, 1995). The Library Bill of Rights in Loudoun County. Virginia Librarian, 6-8.

Wiegand, S. A. (Summer 1996). Reality bites: the collision of rhetoric, rights, and reality and the Library Bill of Rights - includes related information on American Library Association's Code of Ethics - The Library Bill of Rights [Electronic Version]. Library Trends, 45. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1387/is_n1_v45/ai_18616661

An Introduction to the Intellectual Freedom Blog

Last week the class discussed banned books through the decades. We saw examples of bans (removal of books or proscriptions against them); censorship (wherein someone who disapproves of the message in a book alters its content in some way or otherwise suppresses that content so that others do not have access to it); and challenges (wherein a book’s content is questioned). (Scales, September 2007) p. 30 and ("Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A," 2007). But what lies at the base of our disapproval of these actions?

Librarians call it “intellectual freedom.” And intellectual freedom is the concept that “accords to all library users the right to seek and receive information on all subjects from all points of view without having the subject of one’s interest examined or scrutinized by others.” [emphasis in original] (Intellectual Freedom Manual, 2006) p. 3.

If the values expressed in that definition look familiar, it’s because they share the same philosophical underpinnings as the First Amendment. The thought is that if there’s a right to free speech, there must be a corollary right to free access to speech—in all its forms. As will be discussed in a subsequent blog this week, there has been debate on whether intellectual freedom should have some limits. (After all, freedom of speech has limits—for example, “fighting words” are not protected by the First Amendment, nor is child pornography, nor libel or defamation, nor “obscenity,” etc.) And that debate continues. But from it, more detail on the value of intellectual freedom has been garnered.

Specifically, as the American Library Association (the “ALA”) points out: “Intellectual freedom is the basis for our democratic system. We expect our people to be self-governors. But to do so responsibly, our citizenry must be well-informed. Libraries provide the ideas and information, in a variety of formats, to allow people to inform themselves.” ("Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A," 2007) And it applies to children, too. The thought is that they need to cultivate critical skills needed to distinguish good ideas from bad by the time they come of age and become a part of the political process. (Doyle, July 2002) p. 7 of 15.

Further, free speech (and access to it) is important because it encourages a battle among ideas in which the best ideas survive, to everyone’s benefit; and even the most widely accepted ideas are subjected to opposing viewpoints in order to continue to test their validity—again, to everyone’s benefit. (Fricke, 2000) p. 474.

It is hard to argue with the above points. (Or is it?) But how exactly do they relate to a 12-year-old girl who wants to check out pornographic material—not child porn—but porn nonetheless? Under the notion of intellectual freedom, she should be allowed to take such material. But how exactly does this contribute to the world of ideas to which she is exposed?

Censorship infringes the autonomy and freedom of the individual person, preventing him from being able to make up his own mind on what to read or see. (Fricke, 2000) p. 474.

The ALA is the professional association that establishes guidelines and policies that all libraries are encouraged to follow. The ALA is a particularly prolific association, having generated a large number of policies and other statements. In its statements—which include among others, Libraries: An American Value statement (adopted Feb. 3, 1999); the Freedom to Read Statement (adopted in 1953 (during McCarthyism) and last amended June 30, 2004); the Freedom to View Statement (endorsed Jan. 10, 1990); the Code of Ethics of the American Library Association (adopted June 28, 1997 and amended Jan. 22, 2008); and, most famously, the Library Bill of Rights (adopted June 18, 1948, last amended Jan. 23, 1980, and inclusion of “age” reaffirmed Jan. 24, 1996) and its numerous associated interpretations—the ALA is consistent in opposing any restrictions on intellectual freedom.

For instance, with respect to labels and ratings systems, ALA is cautious about the former and opposed to the latter. (ALA believes that even though labels can be “viewpoint-neutral directional aids that save the time of users,” they might also be used as “attempts to prejudice or discourage users or restrict their access to materials.”) (Intellectual Freedom Manual, 2006) p. 171.

Even though historically there had been a tradition of libraries “guarding” their patrons from materials that weren’t deemed fit to be read, by the 1950s at latest, librarians—or at least the ALA—had begun to express rejection of paternalism (or being a parent by proxy). Libraries that adhere to ALA’s policies now simply do not censor. Period. But not all libraries, of course, adhere to ALA’s extremist (some might say) policies.

The issue of ethics plays a large role in this area. First, ALA asserts that it is naturally the role of the library to enforce intellectual freedom, because only in the library can self-directed learning, with no outside-imposed limits, take place. With that said, ALA’s Code of Ethics states that “[e]thical dilemmas occur when values are in conflict. The American Library Association Code of Ethics states the values to which we are committed, and embodies the ethical responsibilities of the profession in this changing information environment.” ("Code of Ethics of the American Library Association," 2008)

But professional ethics aren’t the only kind that may affect a library’s responsibilities to its patrons. As one set of authors quoted, with minors in mind: ‘[n]or must we deprive [children] of the nurture, the helping hand, the guidance, the tools for seeking truth and knowing when it is discovered. We cannot simply turn them loose in our jaded information society without helping them understand that some of the information is false, is evil, is dangerous, is misleading, or is ambiguous…That may not be a legal obligation but it is clearly a moral duty for every librarian, every teacher, every parent and person in a free society.” (Fricke, 2000) pp. 485-6.

Is it true that libraries have no role other than the one articulated in the ALA documents—that is, to promote an atmosphere of intellectual freedom for the patron?

Children have access to far more “dangerous” materials now—particularly via the Internet—than they did in years past. Is this by itself reason for libraries to exercise caution in the materials that it makes accessible to children?

Numerous issues are being debated within the area of intellectual freedom. Below are the topics that we will be discussing throughout the coming week.

1. How Right is the Bill of Rights (along with all of its interpretations)? Attempts at censorship by individuals and organizations alike continue, and laws are passed (even if held unconstitutional) that attempt to restrict what children in particular may be exposed to. In this environment, the most called-upon ALA document to assert the ideal of intellectual freedom is—according to some observers—unrealistic in its virtually unconditional rejection of any form of censorship. Yashmyn will explore some of these claims and some responses made by Bill of Rights defenders.

2. Intellectual Freedom, Librarians, and the PATRIOT Act will explore the threat posed to the ideals of the information profession in regards to the passage of the PATRIOT ACT. Librarians and the patrons they serve are now subject to an unprecedented level of surveillance by the government. Holly will explore the librarian’s ethical responsibilities and objections to this infringement on intellectual freedom.

3. Censorship in the Schools will look at a specific case of school censorship in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, exploring the variables that affect what school libraries allow in relation to use of the Internet by students. Anne will explore how the problem can arise, who is in charge of addressing the situation, and how the situation is handled—as well as ask whether the outcome can be of benefit to the students, or whether their intellectual freedom is simply being repressed.

4. In the modern world, many people rely on the Internet to communicate with one another and to retrieve information. Libraries provide the public with access to the Internet, and must, therefore, consider issues that affect the Internet service they provide. In Has the Global Information Highway been Derailed? Kathryn will discuss how differing visions of intellectual freedom around the globe have caused Internet service providers to censor content both at home and abroad. As a result, American libraries today are, in effect, providing services that do not always respect or preserve intellectual freedom, an ideal that librarians are expected to protect and promote. This blog will conclude by exploring what the role of the librarian should be on this issue.

5. As Lester Asheim noted in his seminal 1953 essay “Not Censorship But Selection” (found at the ALA Web site), the librarian must be on guard against becoming a censor herself. Over fifty years later, in The Librarian as Censor, we examine the factors that must be carefully considered by the librarian before he may assert, “But I’m not censoring (nor am I simply passing the buck to someone else to act as censor).”

6. And on the last day, we’ll highlight the trends in the responses that the posted questions evoke.

Works Cited

Code of Ethics of the American Library Association. (2008, February 13, 2008). from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/codeofethics/codeethics.htm
Doyle, T. (July 2002). A critical discussion of "The ethical presuppositions behind the Library Bill of Rights" [Electronic Version]. The Library Quarterly, 72, 275-293. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu
Fricke, M., Kay Mathiesen, and Don Fallis. (2000). The ethical presuppositions behind the Library Bill of Rights. Library Quarterly, 70(4), 468-491.
Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A. (2007). Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htm
Intellectual Freedom Manual (7th ed.). (2006). Chicago: Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association.
Scales, P. (September 2007). Ain't that a shame. School Library Journal, 53(9), 30.

I finally got in!!!!

I am now officially part of this blog. I got the invitation.

Classn Review of Blog

I have posted this to show how the blog works.

THANKS! GOOD JOB GROUP ONE

Thanks to everyone for posting comments on special libraries. I hope that we all have gained more knowledge and a greater sense of appreciation for special libraries. If it is the goal of a private organization to provide exceptional service to its consumers or patrons, I believe that special libraries are beneficial to the public, in that the knowledge acquired makes for a more efficient and effective provider. All of the libraries presented this week peaked my interest. They all provide services to information seekers. Many of the competencies required for special libraries are also required for school, academic and public libraries as well. Along with the week four discussion board assignment and group one's brave attempt to go first, I hope that everyone has traveled a step further on their path of career development. Good Luck to everyone.

"Library Garden" blog - discussion about different types of libraries

Greetings to everyone! I hope it is okay to post this. I ran across a blog called Library Garden which described itself as "an ongoing conversation among librarians with differing perspectives (public, academic, consortial, state, youth, LIS) but one shared goal: ensuring the health and relevance of libraries." I thought that it seemed especially relevant to this week's blog discussion and hoped that others in the class might find it useful too.

Xanthe Muller