Library Censorship - Same Old Issue, New Medium
[From the ACLU-NC website]
Library Censorship - Same Old Issue, New Medium
- San Jose and Sacramento are currently debating whether to censor access to internet information at their libraries. The internet has become a pivotal means of accessing information at the library and with its growth in importance, the age-old issues of library censorship have followed.
To Kill a Mockingbird, The Color Purple, and Heather Has Two Mommies are just a small selection of material that some have tried to keep off library shelves because the content made them “uncomfortable.” But it has always been the duty of the library to offend a few in order to ensure that all have a means to be truly educated about the many sides of an issue.
Children’s librarian Dorothy Broderick says that every library in the country ought to have a sign on the door reading: “This library has something offensive to everyone. If you are not offended by something we own, please complain.”
But now, the ability of libraries to foster knowledge and tolerance is again being threatened. Some local legislators are citing minuscule problems with library users accessing sexually explicit internet sites as an excuse to impose internet filtering and restrictive use policies that will keep essential health, LGBT information, and political information out of reach for many.
The facts are that there were only 13 complaints in the last year out of 2- million internet sessions in San Jose and 24 complaints total in three years out of more than 3 million internet sessions in Sacramento.
It is well-acknowledged that filtering is not able to effectively block all sexually explicit sites, while at the same time improperly blocking access to important information.
Reports by Kaiser, Consumer Reports, and the Free Expression Policy Project have all found that filters improperly block important websites about health, sex education, civil rights, and politics.
Click the blue lettering above for the full article
- JTjaden's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Looking to Understand Why ACLU v. Gonzales is Not Mentioned
Having read the entire blog that was linked, I'd like to ask a question.
Why was ACLU v. Gonzales not mentioned? Not in the blog, and not in the letter(s?) sent to local governments. Another ACLU case is mentioned, the one in Washington, but not ACLU v. Gonzales, so you are aware of other related ACLU cases and you include them in your letters.
ACLU v. Gonzales, E.D. Pa., March 2007 [ACLU expert and court agrees Internet filters are about 95% effective and no longer block out breast cancer and other health-related information—so effective that another law, COPA [Children's Online Protection Act], was found unconstitutional].
ACLU v. Gonzales is totally 180 degrees opposed to your claims here in this blog and in the letters you send to governments. An ACLU expert testified filters work really well and no longer block out material that used to be wrongly blocked. Yet here in this blog and in letters to local governments absolutely no mention is made of ACLU v. Gonzales or any of its underlying facts or its legal conclusions.
I find this to be a serious omission bordering on flat out propagandization. For example, you say, "Some local legislators are citing minuscule problems with library users accessing sexually explicit internet sites as an excuse to impose internet filtering and restrictive use policies that will keep essential health, LGBT information, and political information out of reach for many." Not according to your own ACLU expert in ACLU v. Gonzales, but you make no mention of that. Instead you say the opposite.
But I could be mistaken. Perhaps you have a good reason for completely failing to disclose what the ACLU expert argued and the Court found in ACLU v. Gonzales, something that seems to me to reveal an intentional misleading of local governments, particularly where you include other ACLU cases. Therefore, please answer why was ACLU v. Gonzales not mentioned?
"If the issue of library internet access comes to your neighborhood, please help maintain open access. Contact us for more information about how to fight library censorship." Information or misinformation?
And why do you even call it "censorship" when a case the ACLU itself lost in the US Supreme Court, US v. American Library Association, found Internet filters do not constitute censorship?
I wish you would raise legitimate factual or legal concerns instead of making arguments based on making believe ACLU v. Gonzales and US v. ALA do not exist. And I just disclosed the tip of the iceberg. How do you expect to be considered authoritative when you appear to be outright propagandizing?
Please answer substantively. Ad hominem argument is not acceptable and will only show you have no real answer.
Thank you.
www.SafeLibraries.org
SafeLibraries.blogspot.com
Problems with the internet access policy at Sacramento libraries
SafeLibraries.org,
The question in ACLU v. Gonzales wasn't whether filters are perfect, but whether the VOLUNTARY use of filters by INDIVIDUALS was a BETTER solution than the criminal law that was found unconstitutional. If you research the ACLU position more carefully, you will find the ACLU argued (back when the case was still Ashcroft v ACLU):
"Although user-based blocking programs are not perfect, both because they fail to screen some inappropriate material and because they block some valuable Web sites, a voluntary decision by concerned parents to use these products for their children constitutes a far less restrictive alternative than COPA’s imposition of criminal penalties for protected speech among adults"
See http://www.mediacoalition.org/legal/copa/respondents_supreme_court_brief...
Opposing the mandatory imposition of filters by the government does not contradict the ACLU's previous position that the VOLUNTARY use of filters by INDIVIDUALS was a BETTER solution than that criminal law.
You are also incorrect to argue that "US v. American Library Association ... found Internet filters do not constitute censorship" when, in fact, that plurality opinion most likely means that internet filters DO constitute censorship unless they are removed for adults on request.
Finally, your argument fails to address the part of the Sacramento Public Library Authority policy most strongly opposed by the ACLU, the provision adopted in March 2007 that allows library staff to force adults to “end a search or change a screen” if they are viewing "subject matter that would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment." Until this clearly unconstitutional policy was proposed and adopted, when Sacramento libraries were using filters that adults could remove on request, the ACLU made no criticisms and sent no letters to the Sacramento library board.
I hope that helps,
Allen Asch