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.)
12 comments:
The library-specific provisions in the patriot act really bother me, because there is no similar standard for home internet search records. That is most definitely not to say that I think that our search records should be monitored and archived, but that often people that can't afford internet access will be using those public machines. This means we are disproportionately monitoring people of lower socioeconomic status.
I found an interesting article relating to librarians as censors. This article is written by an employee of the Northeast Kansas Library System, and details implementation of the filtering system from a tech perspective. What I find particularly interesting (perhaps disturbing) is that the author does not seem to have been at all troubled by his role in the process. He admits that it did raise "policy questions," but I didn't get the feeling that these were necessarily ethical questions for the author. The cite is:
Reddick, T M (April 2004). Building and running a collaborative internet filter is akin to a Kansas barn raising: the filtering committee would apply CIPA standards and Kansas law in making decisions, and I would modify the server to block or unblock as they instructed. Computers in Libraries, 24, 4. p.10(5). Retrieved February 21, 2008, from Academic OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE
I find the patriot act disturbing as well, but it is not a surprise. There is something called the privacy act that does protect patrons to an extent. This is why public libraries in compliance with the privacy act require a library card or a driver's license to access an account. However, many patrons complain about having to have these items to access their account and also the fact that our system does not automatically keep track of all the items they have ever checked out. This is a feature that must be turned on by the patron and they have to read a short paragraph and agree to it before the feature is enabled. Many people don't realize that if our library director required by law enforcement to hand over that information she has to and she won't be allowed to notify the patron to tell them that it even happened. I don't really think this aspect of it has an impact more on those with a socioeconomic disadvantage, but I do think it highlights how important is for us to do our best to communicate this information to the public and let them know their rights. They might get upset when we demand identification to checkout but all we can do is do our best to let them know we are protecting their rights by doing it.
I believe that there are A LOT of librarians who are acting as censors. Compare Article VI of the ALA Bill of Rights--"Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use."--to Article 2 of the Meeting Facilities policy of the Greenwich Library: "The purpose of the meeting shall not be deemed offensive to public sensitivity."
(Though the Greenwich Library is a private institution, some of its operating funds come from the town of Greenwich.)
You may also be interested in reading (ALA online article, link below) how the lecturer had to assert a constitutional right to speak there--she had to assert this against the LIBRARY. The library allowed her to speak, only after consulting with a lawyer and being advised that it should permit her.
Cited:
http://www.greenwichlibrary.org/docs/policies/GreenwichLibraryMeetingFacilitiesPolicy.pdf
http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2008/february2008/greenwich.cfm
I think all this is such a gray area topic. Alot of this has to go with the times we live in. We are living in a dangerous time right now. Information, good and bad, is right at our fingertips for anyone and everyone. And people do take advantage of it. I don't necessarily agree with the privacy act but I don't think it is a bad thing. It just has to beused with delicate fingers. For instance I have looked up information on topics such as Islam, Osama bin laden and Afgainstan, just for my own personal knowledge. That does not mean, I am looking into joining al-quedia but from someone walking by it might look suspicious. However there are people who are looking at those websites with intent to do harm. We just have to use your instincts and believe that the government is looking out for us. For the people are just looking to be better informed.How annoyed do we get when we have to take our shoes off at airport security? But how grateful are we when that hassle results in a terrorist plot being derailed? In our world today we have to live with some inconviences in order to stay safe.
A library record is defined "as a document, record, or other method of storing information that identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific materials from a library" in the Michigan Library Library Act. I know that if I was given the correct papers, after going through the correct channels, that those records would gladly be handed over. This may not be a popular view but I personally don't think I could live with myself if something happened that I could have prevented by handing over the information needed.
http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17451_18668_18689-54466--,00.html. 2006 April 27. 2008 February 21.
It's like I said before, it's a gray area. I spoke up on a lot of this in class, but given my retail past, I'm more likely to "drop a dime" on someone if they're acting suspiciously and looking at controversial topics rather than just turn them in at the drop of a hat. Censorship is not cool by any means, but if someone's acting suspicious, as a matter of concern it could potentially be the right thing.
Censorship is an area that has much controversy around it. Many believe that there should be some kind of censorship and others believe it is wrong. Now with the Internet in the mix, librarians are put in the middle of all the of the heated debate. Should libraries censor some of the material in a public facility or should they let everyone have full access?
At work, we have different sections for all ages to use the Internet and some of them are filtered. The youth section of the library is filtered to protect the children from some obscene material, but not all of it is blocked. In the adult section, there are no filters, and one has to be 18 or older to go in the computer room. But outside the computer room there are more computers that can be accessed by anyone even children and they are not filtered. So in other words, many young children still have access to all the materials an adult has except they have to go upstairs. Librarians at work do question some of the material that people view and have asked patrons not to look at that material, so they are acting as a censor of inappropriate information, but is that encroaching on a patron's privacy to view what they want?
The privacy act is trying to protect against terrorism, but is it invading on our privacy a little too much? As Robin stated above, if someone is looking up information on a terrorist, is that person considered a threat to national security? I have looked up stuff on the Internet on Communism, and does that now make me a threat? I know that the government is trying to protect us from future threats, but sometimes many feel that it is a little over the top. In the end, I would rather have the feeling of being safe then looking over my shoulder all the time. I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Article 5 in the ALA Bill of Rights states the following: “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” For those of us, who plan to pursue a career in Michigan’s public libraries, working with client web-based access, be advised that the Michigan Library Privacy Act, PA 455 of 1982 states the following: “If a library offers use of the internet or a computer, computer program, computer network, or computer system to the public, the governing body of that library shall adopt and require enforcement of a policy that restricts access to minors by providing the use of the internet or a computer, computer program, computer network, or computer system in 1 of the following ways: (c.) By utilizing a system or method that is designed to prevent a minor from viewing obscene matter or sexually explicit matter that is harmful to minors.” According to Michigan Law, libraries are not allowed to provide “obscene or sexually explicit matter” to minor via the internet. In Public Act 33 of 1978, it states that disseminating, exhibiting, or displaying sexually explicit matter to minors is a felony, but in section 6(e) librarians are excepted from this in the performance of their duties. Isn’t this a contradiction? I guess the last order given is the order to follow. So does, PA 455 of 1982 supersede PA 33 or 1978, section 6(3)? Do you follow the law which contradicts itself and risk being charged with a felony or follow professional ethics?
Council, A. (2003). Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from American Library Association: www.ala.org
State of Michigan. (n.d.). Act 33 of 1978. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from Michigan Legislature.
The whole patriot act thing still isn't clear to me. How many libraries keep track of everything anyone's ever checked out? I know it's possible if the patron elects to do that after getting a card, but wouldn't a terrorist tend to choose not to keep a log? As far as I know, the only thing that's normally recorded is what a patron has paid fines for. Also, how do they see what someone has looked up on the internet in the past? Since they are public computers they have countless users and I don't know how you would tell who looked up what. Maybe I don't know enough about computer memory but getting that information doesn't seem easy.
Part of what inspired me to explore the possibilities of library science as a profession was something my boyfriend told me about a year after the Patriot Act was put into play. He explained that a number of libraries were trying to fight against the intrusive nature of the Patriot Act. The idea of working as a intellectual freedom fighter in tweed seemed awesome to me. As librarians our responsibility is to the community we serve. Itmakes sense that in order to maintain our integrity in a public libray system we should be responsible for making purchases that might offend our personal sensibilities with an understanding that as information professionals we are passing along information. However our passing information should not suggest that we are responsible for becoming de facto police informants.
I find your comments concerning the filtering of children’s internet access is interesting because of some personal experiences. In my case when I was younger I was able to find websites promoting hate and racial supremacy agendas easily when working on a school project. In havening been able to do so I wonder how effective filtration methods actually are. Normally I believe these filters are there to stop sexual or vulgar content when searching. However there are many other things that can influence an impressionable child that is out sited of many filters. So the question I am asking myself is what gives us the right to allow access to one type of explicit material and not another, filtering is an all or nothing game either we “protect” people from everything and there by impose an outside authority or we leave it all out for everyone to makeup there own minds about to do otherwise is in my opinion hypocritical.
Come to think of it, my high school supposedly had filters on the computers too, but I remember kids looking at a lot of "questionable" material, much that I did find personally offensive. Go figure.
The Patriot Act has always bothered me a bit in terms of its intrusion on libraries and their patrons. Throughout most of western history, libraries and universities have usually enjoyed a certain amount of more intellectual freedom than most other sections of society, even when they might be opposed to the political and governmental situations. By no means am I making this statement as an absolute, but in general it tends to be true. This type of invasion of privacy really adds up to censorship, by deterring innocent people from seeking out certain types of information. We all agree this is more or less unconstitutional, but I think people sometimes don't recognize that this is (by extension) antithetical to a functioning democracy. Similar measures have been taken in the past during wartime, but now we are fighting a war against a non-specific enemy that is unlikely to end any time soon. As a result these very intrusive laws in the "home of the free" become permanent fixtures of our society. (Okay, I'll get off my soap box now.)
Post a Comment