Book Censorship and Intellectual Freedom

Book censorship, and consequently the censorship of intellectual freedom, is not a modern construct. Long before Gutenberg developed his press around 1439, books, pamphlets and any other materials that were hand-written and later copied, were often burned or destroyed when it was felt that said materials were deemed dangerous, immoral, unsuitable or even heretical. The ones who usually would bring up these charges would be religious or governmental authorities, typically when said works were reactions against the current ideologies or policies of the time.
The suppression of intellectual freedom even goes so far back to Plato, whom in 360 B.C.E. is quoted as saying in regards to his building of an ideal Republic, “Our first business will be to supervise the making of fables and legends; rejecting all which are unsatisfactory…” (Mullally, 2008 ¶ 2).

Thus, as long as there has been printed material available for the consummation by the masses, there has been a centuries long war on the idea of just what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for the general public. History has a long and detailed account of book censorship that encompasses rulers such as Henry VIII enacting a licensing scheme in which all books were to be submitted to the Church of England for approval before publication to the Roman Catholic Church forming the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1559 as the first published book containing a list of forbidden and banned publications. The Index was kept active, totaling over 5000 entries, until it was eradicated in 1966 by Pope Paul VI.

In the 21st century, book challenges and banning, and yes even book burning, is still as prevalent in society as it was when Gutenberg developed his moveable type. In 2003, in Greenville, MI, Pastor Tommy Turner of the Jesus Non-denominational Church organized a book burning specifically for the Harry Potter series. But what was to be a local event, became nationwide media. The reason for the burning, according to Pastor Turner, was to save the souls and that the Harry Potter series in particular, “glorify wizardry and sorcery will lead people to accept and believe in Satan” (WZZM, 2003 ¶ 3). Other items, including CDS, that did not glorify God were also burned.

According to the American Library Association (ALA), more than a book a day is challenged and or removed from U.S. public libraries and schools (ALA). The reasons for the challenges tend to fall in one of four categories:

• 1. Family values.
• 2. Religion.
• 3. Political views.
• 4. Minority rights.

In the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights, Article 3 states, “Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment” (ALA, 1996). Even the landmark case of Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, in 1982 in which the students of Island Trees sued the school district for access to challenged and banned books, in which the students won by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court, has not seemingly created enough of a headway to allow students (and consequently, the public) the freedom to read what they like, when they like.

Topic questions:

• 1. One way that libraries are working towards making their collections accessible to everyone is by making their collections prevalent to the community that they serve. This could mean that some topics that may not be considered as something that will circulate (and thus taking up valuable shelf space) may not be included in their collections. Is this a good compromise? Why or why not?
• 2. The Federal Anti-Obscenity Law, also known as the Comstock Law, came into being in 1873 and remarkably, still remains on the books. The Comstock Law bans the mailing of materials that could be deemed “lewd, indecent, filthy or obscene.” One could interpret that using ILL to transport a book that could fall into one of those categories is illegal. Should libraries make patrons aware of this? Why or why not? Also, should libraries (and subsequently, the ALA) works to getting the law abolished? Why or why not?
• 3. One topic that kept coming up was the cleansing of books to make them more politically correct or modernized. Several examples were used such as the Tin Tin graphic novels, which have been often challenged as being racist due to the artists depiction of Africans and African-Americans. One perspective is that one has to take into consideration of when the book was published, the political climates and the culture of the times the books were written in. Do you think that books that are not, today, considered “politically correct” should receive this treatment? Why or why not?

References

– (1982). Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico by Pico (No. 80-2043). Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0853_ZS.html

– (2003). Church Burns Harry Potter Books. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from                   http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=8041

– (n.d.). American Library Association. Retrieved October 11, 2008 from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.cfm

– (n.d.). National Coallition Against Censorship. Retrieved October 11, 2008 from http://www.ncac.org/action_issues/Books.cfm

Maxwell, Ronald F. (2008). Sweeping Questions: On banning books and hunting witches. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTgwNTdiZTNjNjdlMThlNDExZmZiYWQ0MGUyYTM4ZjE=#more

Mullally, Clarie (2008). Banned Books. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/libraries/topic.aspx?topic=banned_books

Ockerbloom, John Mark (n.d.). Banned Books Online. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from       http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html

Ockerbloom, John Mark (2008). Why Banned Books Matter. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://everybodyslibraries.com/2008/09/29/why-banned-books-week-matters/

For Fun
Guardian’s Banned Book Quiz.

 

The USA PATRIOT Act and Libraries

In the days and weeks that followed the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, on September 11, 2001, fear was high that another attack was imminent. Notably, during this time the FBI was attempting to solve the mysterious appearance of anthrax-laden letters received by the offices of several news media and legislative figures. This atmosphere of fear led to what is considered by some to be the overly hasty passage of a piece of legislation that has helped to define the United States’ war on terrorism (Foerstel, 2008, preface). Though the legislation is commonly referred to by its acronym, its full title is “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001.” Considered to be “one of the longest, most complex, and most controversial bills ever passed by Congress” (Foerstel, 2008, p. 46), the act was signed into law by President George W. Bush six weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11^th.

The Patriot Act remains controversial a full seven years after its passage. Proponents say that “while safeguarding Americans’ civil liberties, this legislation also strengthens the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) so that it can better detect and disrupt terrorist threats, and it also gives law enforcement new tools to combat threats” (United States White House, 2008, para. 2). Opponents warn that it gives powers to the DOJ that can potentially be abused. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, in particular, has been referred to as the act’s “library provision” because “the library profession has anticipated its use to seize library records and has publicly warned of the abuse of such power” (Foerstel, 2008, p. 62).

Section 215 of the Patriot Act states, in part:

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution . . . (Foerstel, 2008, p. 61).

Further, Section 215 states that:

No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section . . . (Foerstel, 2008, p. 62).

The American Civil Liberties Union considers Section 215 to be unconstitutional because it:

• Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.

• Violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.

• Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.

• Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide notice – even after the fact – to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2003).

Both the American Library Association and the ACLU consider this section of the legislation to be a “gag order” imposed upon the library and its personnel (ACLU, 2003 and McDermott, & Sheketoff, 2006). The gag order is understood to mean that once the library has turned over the requested information to the FBI it is prohibited from disclosing to anyone, including the subject of the investigation, the general public, or even to a member of Congress, that such a request had been made. The gag order is interpreted to be in effect indefinitely (Foerstel, 2008, p. 77), with violators being subject to severe penalties (Foerstel, 2008, p.170).

There have been a few challenges to Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Notably, the ACLU represented a small group of Connecticut librarians who filed suit anonymously because of the potential felony penalties. A federal judge ruled the gag order to be unconstitutional and lifted it. The government appealed the ruling, and the gag order continued to be in place throughout the appeal. During this time, Congress voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in March of 2006. Once the reauthorization was complete, the government dropped its appeal. In effect, this legal maneuver succeeded in keeping the librarians from speaking to Congress while the reauthorization was under consideration (Foerstel, 2008, p. 176).

Questions for discussion:

Do you think Section 215 of the Patriot Act can be reconciled with the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights? Why or why not?

Some librarians have found creative ways to inform the public about FBI visits while still adhering to the law. One librarian reports at each monthly meeting of her library board that the library has not received any warrants under the Patriot Act. In this way, if there is ever a month that she does not make that report, the library board can infer that the opposite is true. What do you think about this librarian’s approach?

References

Foerstel, H. N. (2008). The Patriot Act: A documentary and reference guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

United States White House. USA Patriot Act. Retrieved 10/14/2008, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/

American Civil Liberties Union. (2003). Surveillance under the USA PATRIOT Act. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17326res20030403.html

McDermott, P. & Sheketoff, E. (2006, February 10). The American Library Association expresses disappointment in USA PATRIOT Act compromise.[Press release]. Washington: American Library Association.

 

Academic Freedom Protections for Librarians

Academic Freedom

 

In 1948, the American Library Association established the Library Bill of Rights.  Just a few months later the United Nations published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Doctrine.  Article 19 of the doctrine serves as a broad definition for Intellectual Freedom, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Website, 2008).

 

Staunch supporters of this basic human right, the American Library Association in its Issues and Advocacy section of their website write:

ALA actively advocates in defense of the rights of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment.  A publicly supported library provides free and equal access to information for all people of that community.  We enjoy this basic right in our democratic society.  It is a core value of the library profession.

 

While access to information has always been the highly guarded Intellectual Freedom topic by libraries, another interesting Intellectual Freedom sub-topic of potential importance to librarians is that of Academic Freedom

 

One simple definition of academic freedom comes from Professors Richard Danner and Barbara Bintliff (2006), “Academic freedom can be defined as the atmosphere of free inquiry and discussion necessary to find and teach “truth” as the faculty member sees it” (pp14-15). According to the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure put out by the American Association of University Professors:

Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole.  The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.  Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research.

Simply put, academic freedom is the doctrine that allows professors to research and teach without fear of retaliation, even if the subject matter may be considered controversial or unpopular. According to the 1940 Statement tenure is the appropriate tool to protect academic freedom.

 

As stated by Danner and Bintliff (2006)

Tenure is a condition of employment, granted by the university to an individual faculty member, that is used both to protect and promote academic freedom and to provide enough economic security to make university teaching attractive as a profession. A tenured faculty member is given an indefinite term of appointment in return for meeting certain qualifying criteria and specified continuing performance requirements. The dismissal of a tenured professor requires cause and significant due process, with the involvement of multiple layers of peer review and university administration.

 

It is important to note that academic freedom is not an inherent right, but rather a privilege granted by the individual university, with accompanying limitations and responsibilities.  For example professors need to be careful of not teaching controversial material not related to their designated subject.  According to the 1940 Statement, a university may place clearly defined limitations on academic freedom based on “religious or other aims of the institution” (American Association of University Professors Website, 2008).

 

References

 

American Association of University Professors Website (2008)

            Retrieved October 15, 2008 from

            http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm

 

American Library Association Website (2008)

            Retrieved October 15, 2008 from

            http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intellectualfreedom/index.cfm

 

Danner, Richard A. and Bintliff, Barbara (2006) Academic Freedom Issues for Academic Librarians. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 25 (4). pp. 13-35.

 

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Website (2008)

            Retrieved October 15, 2008 from

            http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

 

Questions for Discussion: (Respond to any ONE)

 

Should academic libraries require their librarian positions to be tenure-track or “tenure-like”, requiring intensive evaluation of performance similar to those of the same University’s professors?

 

Is a librarian’s ability to support the teaching mission of the university and the research required for professors hindered without the protections of tenure?

 

Does librarianship as a “profession” suffer by not requiring tenure or tenure-like requirements for academic librarians?

 

What foreseeable issues could arise if the same academic freedom protections are not afforded academic librarians?

 

Filtering the Internet in Libraries and Intellectual Freedom

Written by Ariell Burch

Filtering the Internet in Libraries

One of the hot-topics in libraries today is whether or not they should filter the internet on their computer terminals. Some of the reasons this is such a hot-topic is that some people are concerned that filtering the internet infringes on their intellectual freedom while others say that that computers need to be ‘safe’ for children to use . The Supreme Court ruling on the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) has an impact on the filtering of computers at libraries that choose to receive funding under that act. Libraries that do not or choose not to accept funding under the CIPA have to decide individual whether or not to filter their computers and to what degree.

Children’s Internet Protection Act

The Supreme Court has ruled in the June 2003 decision in the case UNITED STATES, et al., APPELLANTS v. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al. that requiring filtering on computers in libraries that accept money from the E-rate program and Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) does not violate the constitution. Although it was decided that it was unconstitutional not to disable the internet filter for adults who ask “to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes.” (“UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC.,” 2003)

The Supreme Court declared that CIPA was constitutional because “when the Government appropriates public funds to establish a program it is entitled to define the limits of that program.” (“UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC.,” 2003), libraries do not have to accept the funding, libraries are not forums for public speech, and it is not an unreasonable burden for an adult patron to ask to have the internet filters disabled. (“UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC.,” 2003)

What does this mean for libraries?

If the library accepts funding from CIPA they have to filter their internet on their computers and when an adult asks to have the filter disabled the library has to disable the filter. The Supreme Court concluded that having an adult patron ask to have the internet filters disabled was not and unreasonable burden.

Libraries have a choice in accepting the funding so the government is not infringing on their constitutional rights by deciding that libraries under this program have to filter their internet. Neither is the government suppressing free speech because “Internet access in public libraries is neither a “traditional” nor a “designated” public forum”. (“UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC.,” 2003) In short, if a library does not want to filter their internet do not accept this funding. This decision does require all libraries that filter their internet to disable the filters when an adult patron asks because not disabling the filter in that case is not constitutional.

What about libraries that do not accept funding from CIPA but are unsure if they want to filter their internet?

The major pro for filtering the internet at libraries is it keeps materials harmful to minors away from minors. The major con for filtering the internet is that the library is censoring information from minors.

Proponents of filtering the internet say that “Courts have balanced freedom of speech and society’s interest in keeping children from harmful material by upholding as constitutional restrictions that do not outlaw harmful material, but limit the time, place, or manner of distribution.” (Johnson, 2006). Another pro for filtering the internet is people who wish not see pornography on a computer screen in their library do not.

People against this say it violates the Library Bill of Rights by it is not providing equal access to patrons regardless to age. (“ALA Interpretations,”) Also, adults could be too embarrassed to ask to have the filter removed so they would never ask to have the filter removed. Additionally, the library can install privacy filters on the monitor so the image on the screen is only visible to people that are directly facing the screen

For the reader

Which should a library choose, accept funding from the E-rate or LSTA program or not accept the funding? Why or why not?

For libraries that do not have to follow the CIPA, should they filter all their internet terminals, filter only the internet terminals that are used by minors, or not filter at all? and Why or why not?

References

ALA Interpretations. Retrieved 10/10/2008, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/default.cfm

Johnson, R. W. (2006). Trademark for Creating a Kid-Friendly Cyberplayground on the Internet (Publication. Retrieved 10/10/2008, from LexisNexis Academic

UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. (Supreme Court 2003).

 

Indexed and book censorship.

If you have not discovered indexed yet, you should. Jessica Hagy puts together via graphs, diagrams and charts, everyday ideas that seem simple enough but sometimes cannot be expressed in words. Monday’s topic is on book censorship, my new specialty, and I thought it was appropriate for the first post.