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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The Bill of Rights and my parental rights.
In a 1925 Supreme Court decision, it was determined that parents have a constitutional right to raise their children as they would like. In Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, the Court concluded that, “The child is not the mere creature of the State. Those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Since the child is not the mere creature of the State, should public institutions make questionable material readily available to those under the age of 16? As citizens, do parents have the right to determine how government sponsored institutions operate with their tax dollars? Should public libraries, including schools have questionable material on their shelves with restricted access? When minors try to check out pornographic material, hate promoting material, and weapon construction material, should the library required the parents to be present or sign a release?
As a parent, I would like to send my teenager to the library and feel comfortable knowing that she does not have access to information on how to construct a bomb or how to terrorize a bully. However as a librarian servicing a patron, does the child have access to the information, if she is doing a very carefully monitored science project on explosives or a term paper on bullies? Will I, as a librarian be able to provide the service needed, so the student can complete an assignment?
It should be noted that bills and laws all contradict one another. The Supreme Court ruled that a parent has the constitutional right to raise the child as they she fit and that the child is not the mere creature of the State. However, we have child labor laws established by the State, that set the minimum age a child can start working, how many hours they can work, and how much they should be paid. Does this law contradict the parent’s right to have the child work in order to help support their family and teach them work ethics? In Michigan, a child under the age of 17 cannot consent to having sex with someone over the age of 17. If a parent does not oppose to there child having sex, is this not a contradiction of the parents right to raise the child as they see fit?
The Bill of Rights suggests that the widest variety of views and expression be made available to all, does it assume responsibilities for damaging behavior as a result of someone accessing those views? We can not control what adult does and it is so for children. But we should be a little bit more responsible, when it comes to an immature mind assessing the intellectual thoughts of others. As an individual, I do not believe all available information is “intelligent”. That does not mean that I do not think it should not be available to read.
Sources:
American Library Association. (n.d.). Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from American Library Association: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm
Parentalrights.org. (2007). The Vital Child Parent Relationship. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from Parentalrights.org: www.parentalrights.org
State of Michigan. (n.d.). Youth Employment Standards Act. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from Department of Labor and Economic Growth: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-Act-90-of-1978.pdf
I've thought parallel thoughts to yours. Basically, intellectual freedom protects the patron's right to be far from "intellectual" if he wants. He can read or view the "least intelligent" materials the library happens to collect.
Anissa, I wonder what you think of the argument--described in Friday's introductory entry--that children, too, need to be exposed to the universe of ideas, so that by the time they are of age, they'll be able to discern between valid ideas and invalid ones? What I find a little inconsistent about it is this: On the one hand the librarian profession--at least the ALA--says that the library can't be parent by proxy. On the other hand, it's advocating the principle that it should help all children better prepare themselves for productive adulthood by exposing them to the world of "ideas" right now. If that's not parenting by proxy, what is?
But I don't know where I sit on this. I go back and forth on whether intellectual freedom should be without limits.
I noticed that both of the notable court cases that the ALA shows under the category "Minors' First Amendment Rights" have to do with video games. Both involved cities trying to limit sales or access of violent video games to minors, and both got overturned. I was reading the ESRB's website (which is the video game rating system similar to the MPAA for movies) and it says that basically vendors and video stores are required to provide content ratings, but they can have their own policies regarding sales. From what I've seen, most video game stores choose to restrict sales of Mature-rated games to minors.
You would think movie theaters would work the same way, but as far as I know, it is illegal to sell a ticket to an R-rated movie to someone under 17. Can anyone confirm this? If so, I wonder why they are not allowed to sell tickets to kids but libraries are allowed to then loan R-rated movies to anyone. In my opinion it should be up to the parent in both cases, but if I had kids I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to expose them to a lot of things in movies and video games until they were older.
Sources:
"Court Cases." American Library Association. 2006.
http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/1stcases.html (Accessed 17 Feb, 2008)
esrb.org. (2006). Enforcement. Retreived 17 Feb 2008, from http://www.esrb.org/ratings/enforcement.jsp
Kate,
Excellent point. I can't wait until a parents' group or someone brings it up in a general suit against libraries. It's not that I want to see someone sue someone else. Instead, it's simply that this is the kind of analysis that will get people really thinking about the exact values that lay behind the Bill of Rights (and the other ALA documents), the parameters of intellectual freedom in general, and how it all reconciles with existing law.
Who knows? Maybe it's the law that needs to change--assuming that it is indeed correct that an NC-17 ticket cannot be sold to someone under 17--instead of ALA policy.
The major issue lies with the "interpretation" aspect of the issue. The ALA's website provides the stated limits on expression:
"categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment: obscenity, child pornography, defamation, and “fighting words,” or speech that incites immediate and imminent lawless action".
The bottom line is, there is no checklist for what is obscene, what constitutes pornography,etc.
During my undergrad, I took part in an exercise which involved re-writing the rules on media censorship in regards to free speech. Each group came up with a very different statement. Even when attempting to hash out very basic terms with a large group of people, it is difficult to decide on the proper language to exemplify exactly what is "right or wrong," so to speak. It became a matter of, "I can't explain 'obscenity' in words, but I'll know it when I see it." That, I'm sure, is the reason why so many books get published, purchased, and checked out before someone says "that is inappropriate." Everyone has a different set of eyes and different experiences. With no clear set of rules in place prior to a book being attained, how can a librarian expect anything else but to be bombarded by someone who doesn't feel that a book is appropriate for whatever reason?
source
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htm
I don’t agree that the Library Bill of Rights (the “LBR”) is all that extreme. Article 2 of the LBR reads that “[l]ibraries should provide materials and information
presenting all points of view on current and historical issues.” (emphasis added). Point of view is not the same as content. See, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). And it is the second half of the first sentence in Article II—“current and historical issues”-- that refers to content. To me, it is reasonable to expect librarians to provide materials to the public on current and historical issues. And nothing says all current and historical issues must be covered, or that everything written on an issue must be on the shelves.
Interpretive materials for the LBR produced by the American Library Association(the “ALA”) itself recognize that all books will not be maintained in a library, just those books that are not obsolete and meet “the needs of the community [the library] serves.” ALA (1981, July 1). There is room for discretion—although, because a librarian has a “responsibility to provide information and enlightenment” (Article III of the LBR), he or she presumably must provide a reasonably comprehensive selection of content.
Now it is true that, pursuant to Article 2 of the LBR, once a librarian decides to add content to his or her collection on a particular issue, he or she may not then skew the ensuing dialogue by only stocking materials that address the issue from a single viewpoint. For example, a librarian might chose to not shelve books discussing evolution, assuming the decision is in keeping with the needs of the community. But if he or she decides that the topic is important and relevant to the community, that it cannot be ignored, the LBR mandates that the librarian must not limit the collection to creationism…or to Darwin. And I think this is as it should be. It’s not the Librarian’s job to place limits on public debate.
Under this interpretation of the LBR, the faulty mushroom guide is dealt with easily. Choosing to not carry a book because it contains dangerously misleading facts about mushrooms is not viewpoint censorship, nor does it constitute “proscrib[ing] or remov[ing materials] because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.” Article 2 of the LBR. I don’t believe that the LBR prevents librarians from making decisions about relevance or quality. It just asks that they not ban a book because it was written by a democrat, or because it portrays Islam or Judaism in a positive light, or because it contains sexual content that their preacher doesn’t like.
As for Article III of the LBR, it provides that “[l]ibraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.” (emphasis added). This language is arguably narrower than U.S. law, but, in any event, no broader. It limits the librarian’s duty to challenge censorship to materials that provide both information and enlightenment. Enlightenment is a strong word. A colorable argument exists that librarians have no obligation to challenge censorship of uninformative, non-enlightening material, such as material that appeals only to the “prurient interest.” Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). This of course begs the question of what constitutes unprotected speech under the LBR, but this is the very same question (except that the Bill of Rights governs, not the LBR) that U.S. jurisprudence struggles with daily.
After all, U.S. law provides that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Bill of Rights Article 1 (emphases added). But, as noted in earlier blogs, Congress has made laws that leave certain types of speech or instances of speech unprotected, and in a manner that does not always demonstrate obvious internal consistency. And the Court has upheld such laws, even laws that involve content based censorship, but only when compelling reasons exist for doing so.
But what about children?
U.S Courts and Congress have struggled with variable obscenity for years, see e.g., Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), so I suppose there’s no reason to expect that this issue will be an easy one for librarians either.
But I agree with the ALA’s position on this one, and do not see it as extreme. Public libraries serve everyone, not just children. And adults’ access to material may not be limited simply because the material might be inappropriate for children; to do otherwise would be to, “reduce the adult population [] to reading only what is fit for children.” Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 383 (1957). Moreover, “[s]peech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.” Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 214-215 (1975).
And, assuming a library has the wherewithal to maintain separate age- appropriate collections for children and adults, whose standards should the librarian adopt? --Anyway you look at it, somebody’s going to be unhappy.
Under the ALA’s approach, Family A can take steps to ensure that little Jonny is not exposed to evil Harry Potter books, while, at the same time, Family B can make sure Susie is not corrupted by creationist ideas and check out Harry Potter instead. Only parents can monitor what children are reading or watching from the parents’ own perspective. Librarians cannot.
If parents accept responsibility for their children’s education, and I believe they should, and are actively involved in what they are looking at, they can minimize their child’s exposure to undesired content and address questions the child might have if he or she inadvertently sees something inappropriate. If a parent is concerned that their child is going to see inappropriate material at a library, in my view, that parent should solve the problem by supervising their own child.
Will some bad content get past the parent? Of course. But this will still happen even if we censor libraries.
And worse, “[l]ack of access to information can be harmful to minors.” ALA (2004, June 30). What about the child who plans on having an abortion, without informing her parents, because her parents were the ones who abused her sexually, or allowed it to occur?
This child needs accurate information on abortions, the risks associated with them, where to go for a safe procedure, where to go for alternatives to abortion, not to mention where to go for help when home is the problem.
Sometimes children, like adults, need the facts. If a library won’t help them, who will?
Cited works (other than case law):
ALA (1981, July 1). Evaluating library collections: An interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved on February 18, from http://childrensbooks.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=childrensbooks&cdn=parenting&tm=43&f=00&su=p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.ala.org/Template.cfm%3FSection%3Dinterpretations%26Template%3D/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm%26ContentID%3D8639.
ALA (2004, June 30). Free access to libraries for minors: An interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved on February 18, from http://childrensbooks.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=childrensbooks&cdn=parenting&tm=43&f=00&su=p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.ala.org/Template.cfm%3FSection%3Dinterpretations%26Template%3D/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm%26ContentID%3D8639.
Kathryn,
I don't mean to get personal here. And I'm only addressing a fraction of your post. But your post does compel me to ask: Are you--one of the most thoroughly careful document-drafting attorneys I've ever known--saying that there's nothing wrong with the current construction of the Library Bill of Rights? That a librarian can follow it literally and still be the most effective librarian that he or she can be--without inviting more than the unavoidable amount of controversy? (So you know, you just might break my heart if you say "Yes.")
Yashmyn,
I would never break your heart!
I think it would be impossible to follow the LBR literally, as written, without inviting more than the unavoidable amount of controversy.
I just don't think avoiding controversy should always be one's goal--given your piece, which was great by the way--I don't think avoiding controversy has always been your goal either!
That's another good point. Not exactly courting controversy, but not running away from it, either. That point reminds me of an article I'd seen, actually written by Doug Henderson, Director of Loudoun County Public Library. He was there during the Internet filtering controversy and lawsuit. The title of his article by itself gives you his perspective. It's a nice short case study that probably any library director who's going to be proactive and not "self-censor", might take a quick look at. Here's the cite: Henderson, D. A. Controversy is not a crisis [Loudoun County Internet case]. Library Administration & Management v. 15 no. 1 (Winter 2001) p. 26-9
“ If this nation is to be wise as well as strong, if we are to achieve our destiny, then we need more ideas for more wise men reading more good books in more public libraries. These libraries should be open to all-except the censor. We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticism. Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security as well as our Library.”
John F. Kennedy as quoted in ALA’s Intelectual Freedom Manual
Post a Comment