CIPA

The last legal act I wanted to touch on is the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). I think it’s really a combination of the previous things I’ve talked about. It is a violation of the First Amendment and it really coincides with the Patriot Act.

This act is essentially supposed to block access “to offensive content over the internet on school and library computers”. This offensive content that must be blocked is pictures that are obscene, are child pornography or are harmful to minors. In order to have these institutions comply, they (the government) withhold funding ("Children's Internet Protection Act"). Now, I agree, child pornography should be blocked. But I have a problem with the words “obscene” and “harmful.” Who classifies what is obscene and harmful? Again, this is something that should be left to PARENTS to decide, not the government.

Schools have issues with the blocking technology. There have been cases where students cannot access information for homework assignments. In an era that relies so heavily on internet access, this is clearly holding some students back (Dobija, 2007, p. 51). Again, I agree there are certain sites that are inappropriate for children, but these filters are extreme. And to withhold funding from those schools or public libraries that don’t comply? I just think there are other measures that could be taken. There are even reports that websites that display “particular political or ideological options” have been blocked (Dobija, 2007, p. 52). How are children supposed to grow up to be well-informed and educated adults that actually contribute to society if they aren’t allowed to explore all of the options available?

I think that pornography should indeed be blocked for children, but there has to be a better way to do so without blocking other sites that are unfortunate enough to have a keyword that stands out. I also feel that however “offensive” pornography is to some people, there are worse things for children to see. I’m not saying I would want my 10 year old to have access to such sites, but human bodies are natural, violence, not so much. Am I being irrational in wanting some not all? Is it all or nothing? What do you think?

Federal Communications Commission. Children's Internet Protection Act. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html.

Dobija, J. (2007, September 1). The First Amendment needs new clothes. American Libraries, 38(8), 50-53.

Un-patriotic?

I know my poll has one more day left of voting, but I wanted to cover the Patriot Act a little more before this blog comes to a close.

The USA Patriot Act was renewed on March 9, 2006. Basically, this act allows the FBI and CIA to seek ‘confidential’ records without having just cause. All they have to tell a judge is that it is a part of an on-going investigation (Schneider, 2002, p. 86). Terrorism is a threat in today’s society, I feel everyone believes that, but to allow the government to essentially spy on anyone they want anytime they want? Seriously?

How does this affect libraries you ask? Well, as I’m sure most of you reading this already know, library patrons feel comfortable and safe in these facilities because they believe (as they should) that their privacy will not be violated. However, with the implementation of this act, should the FBI come in, librarians are legally bound to cooperate with them. People should not be afraid to check out a book for fear of flagging the FBI and launching an ‘investigation’ into their lives. “The ability to investigate ideas, without ‘the spectre of a government agent ...look[ing] over the shoulder of everyone who reads,’ is a cornerstone of democracy” (Mart, 2004, p. 449). The library should be a place free from surveillance of this kind. People should be able to access whatever information they wish, without fear.

The idea of someone monitoring my every move scares me. It gives me the creeps that people at work can monitor my every move on the internet, let alone the government. I’m sure this act makes people think twice before they check out that book they need for a school report merely for the fact that it’s about the Mid-East. As US citizens were are raised to believe that we can access information freely, without government interference, but maybe we need to reassess our thinking. This is something not at all uncommon in other countries, why shouldn’t it be the same for the US? We do have that little document called the Constitution, but I mean, who reads that?

Librarians (or anyone else for that matter) that disagree with the provisions of the Patriot Act should not be considered “un-patriotic.” Nor should they be thought to be “supporting terrorism” as former Attorney General John Ashcroft would like the public to believe (Jaeger, 2007, p. 852). In fact, I feel that quite the opposite is the case. “We as librarians can be true patriots-by doing what we can to protect the Constitution and the people we serve” (Schneider, 2002, p. 86).

The ACLU has challenged the Patriot Act unsuccessfully. It is nearly impossible to bring suit for invasion of privacy if people don’t know they’re being spied on. We can only hope for vast changes in this policy come the election in November.

Check out the ACLU's site: http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/whereitstands.html
and the White House's stand: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/

Jaeger, P. T. (2007). Information policy, information access, and democratic participation: The national and international implications of the Bush administration's information politics. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 840-859.

Mart, S. N. (2004, Summer). Protecting the lady from Toledo: Post-USA PATRIOT Act electronic surveillance at the library. Law Library Journal, 96(3), 449-473.

Schneider, K. G. (2002, March 1). The Patriot act: Last refuge of a scoundrel. American Libraries, 33(3), 86.

ALA and the Patriot Act

In researching for this blog, I came across a snippet from American Libraries in 2006 about the ALA submitting a Freedom of Information Act request on the Patriot Act. They were submitting the request to see if the FBI had been "collecting information on the Association and its leaders as a result of their opposition to certain provisions" of the Act ("ALA plans Patriot Act FOIA request," 2006, p. 5).

I have so many problems with this, I cannot even begin to write them all. But what has this country come to when we're spying on people who speak up when they take issue with something that is a blatant violation of privacy? Is information that scary? I also wanted to know if anyone knows what the outcome of the request was, I can't seem to find anything further (maybe I'm not using the proper search terms)...

*side note- I swear I'm not an angry person. I feel my posts may make me sound that way. These topics just get me fired up! You should hear me go off about parents blaming the media, movies and video games for their child's behavior! :-)


ALA plans Patriot Act FOIA request. (2006, February 1). American Libraries, 37(2), 5.

Censoring Young Minds?

I’ve found myself so interested in every article I’ve read, it’s been hard to pin down exactly what I want to say.

In my last blog I started talking about the First Amendment and how it affects us as librarians, but I wanted to delve into that a little more. Since I want to be a school library media specialist, I came across an article in Knowledge Quest that really struck me. First of all, the title, “Are We Lucky for the First Amendment? A Brief History of Students’ Right to Read” caught my attention immediately. Then, as I read I noticed myself nodding in agreement throughout the article.

Parents, teachers, administrators, etc. want what is best for their children/students, that much is very clear and absolutely acceptable. But perhaps some become overzealous in their attempts to “protect” children. I know I said I was amazed at people wanting to ban Harry Potter from bookshelves, but I’m even more amazed at people wanting to ban a Newbery award-winning book (The Higher Power of Lucky) based on a single word- "scrotum" (Kelsey, 2007, p. 27). Okay, maybe not a word I would choose to use in a children’s book, but there are many other choices that could have been much worse.

This brings me to the Supreme Court case of Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982). Never heard of it? Neither did I until the other day (if you have, well, you are more informed than I). In 1975, three members of the Board of Education took it upon themselves to remove 9 books from the high school and junior high school. These books were deemed by another group to be “objectionable” ("Education for freedom: Lesson plans for teaching the First Amendment"). At first, a New York judge sided with the school board. Then, in 1982 the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. When the case was taken to the Supreme Court, they said the school board could “remove materials they deemed ‘educationally unsuitable,’ or ‘pervasively vulgar,’ but that they may not restrict access to materials simply because they disagree with the ideas in them” (Kelsey, 2007, p. 28).

Ideas are meant to be expressed and children should have access to multiple sides of a subject if we expect them to become well-informed, participating citizens of society. Censoring ideas because one set of people disagree only leads to ignorance. “A balance must be struck between age and access, but on the whole, intellectual freedom is the overriding principle” (Kelsey, 2007, p. 27).


I truly feel parents should be the ones to decide what books are appropriate for their children- not a teacher, administrator or school board member. What do you think? Am I this gung-hoe because I don’t have children yet?

I promise, next post=new topic :-)

References:

Education for freedom: Lesson plans for teaching the First Amendment. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L05-CaseStudyIslandTreesUnion.htm.

Kelsey, M. (2007). Are we lucky for the first amendment? a brieft history of students' right to read. Knowledge Quest, 36(2), 26-29.

Silence!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-The First Amendment

To censor something is to “remove or prohibit anything considered obscene, libelous, politically objectionable, etc” (Webster's new world college dictionary, 2004, p. 237).

When you look at the two statements above, one contradicts the other. When something is censored (books, movies, music, etc.) any thought of freedom of speech and the press is completely diminished. Therefore, censorship violates the 1st Amendment. Now, I understand there are things that offend people, but who is to say one thing that one person finds offensive is offensive to another person?

I also understand parents are concerned for their children, but a library should not deny other children the right to read a book just because one parent finds the content offensive. That brings me to a fact that astonished me: the Harry Potter series of books are the most challenged books of the 21st century (Harry Potter tops list of most challenged books of 21st century, 2006). Harry Potter excites children (as well as adults, I might add) and incites the use of their imaginations; how can this book be considered evil?

Censoring a child’s (or anyone’s for that matter) right to information and imagination is unconscionable. The thought of a world where everyone thinks the same and where the government regulates information frightens me. Information and ideas are what make life interesting. How can you deny someone the right to enjoy life and get the most out of it?

American Library Association. (2006, September 21). Harry Potter tops list of most challenged books of 21st century. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/pressreleases2006/september2006/harrypottermostchallenge.cfm.

Webster's new world college dictionary. (M. Agnes, Ed.) (4th ed.). (2004). Cleveland, OH: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Librarian shirt

It's been far too long since I've posted anything, so I wanted to start off light. This is a shirt that was being sold on http://www.tshirthell.com/. I don't think they have it anymore, but it just made me laugh. If you go to the site, be aware that a lot of the shirts are vulgar. There's also a great one with the First Amendment, but I didn't think it was appropriate to post (ha!).

:)
Sarah

First Poll

Hi everyone! Thanks for participating in my little poll. I wanted to start off very broad, with the First Amendment, because I feel a lot of people don't truly appreciate what it means to us as U.S. citizens. Without freedom of speech, there wouldn't be very many books, let alone a need for libraries as we know them. I found this site while researching for our Chronology paper and thought it was interesting to peruse.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd

Be back soon!

:)
Sarah