As we set forth into the 21st century, the censorship battles show no sign of abating. Bonfires have been made to burn Harry Potter books because they allegedly contain witchcraft; a strong anti-homosexual agenda has resulted in an increasing number of challenges to books with gay themes; and the challenges each year have become more organized, as the Internet has made it possible for groups who challenge library materials to share information.
Whereas one group may have challenged a particular title in the past, a virtual ‘‘echo chamber,’’ according to Deborah Caldwell-Stone, had arisen by the early 21st century. Small groups across the country had set up web sites linking to the same titles for parents to consider challenging. Sometimes the web site was really the work of just one person, but appeared to have greater support. On the other hand, the library community also has been able to use the Internet to marshal its own resources—sharing tips on how to respond to challenges, and quickly get its own information out to those in need.
Alongside the threat of direct censorship of materials, library users face an equally threatening development—the erosion of reader privacy. After the September 11th attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act and related measures were passed that made it easier for law enforcement and intelligence officers to gain access to patron reading records. Although controversy rages as to when and how often these measures are put into effect, one thing is clear: they have a potentially chilling effect on library readers.
The library profession is currently taking a leadership role in the privacy front, and this area is just as important to intellectual freedom as direct censorship is. One librarian reports seeing a young boy, of apparent Middle Eastern descent, ready to check out a book on airplanes. The boy’s father quietly said, ‘‘You better put that one back.’’
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Deborah Caldwell-Stone (Deputy Director, Office for Intellectual Freedom), Robert P. Doyle, Zoia Horn (Librarian), Candace Morgan (Chair, Intellectual Freedom Committee) and June Pinnell- Stephens.
References
American Library Association (1995). Code of Ethics of the American Library As- sociation. Adopted June 28, 1995, by the ALA Council. Retrieved Feb. 2, 2006, fromhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/codeofethics/codeethics.htm American Library Association (2005). Intellectual freedom statements and pol-
icies. Retrieved Feb. 4, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/
statementspolicies.htm
American Library Association (2006).Intellectual Freedom Manual, 7th ed. American Library Association, Chicago, IL.
Berninghausen, D. K. (1979). Intellectual freedom in librarianship: Advances and retreats.Advances in Librarianship9, 1–29.
Castagna, E. (1971). Censorship, intellectual freedom, and libraries. Advances in Librarianship 2, 215–251.
Freedom to Read Foundation Time Line (n.d.). Retrieved Feb. 2, 2006, fromhttp://
www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/othergroups/ftrf/ftrfinaction/timeline/time- line.htm
Gellman, B. (2005). Recruits sought for porn squad.Washington Post, September 20, A21.
National Conference of State Legislatures (2006). Children and the Internet: Laws relating to filtering, blocking and usage policies in schools and libraries (January 20, 2006). Retrieved Feb. 2, 2006, from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/
filterlaws.htm
Sullivan, K. (1992). The First Amendment Wars.The New Republic207(14), 35–38.
Cases
American Amusement Machine Ass’n v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001), cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 994 (2001).
American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 31 F. Supp.2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999),aff’d, 217 F.3d 162 (3rd Cir. 2000),vacated and remanded sub nom. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), aff’d on remand, 322 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir.
2003),aff’d and remanded, 542 U.S. 656 (2004).
American Library Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
American Library Association v. United States, 201 F. Supp.2d 401 (E.D. Pa. 2002), rev’d, United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
Ashcroft v.American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002).
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1978),cert. denied, 439 U.S. 916 (1978).
Doe v. Gonzales, No. 3:05-cv-1256 (JCH) (D. Conn., Sept. 9, 2005), application to vacate stay denied, No. 05A295 (Oct. 7, 2005, Ginsburg, J.).
Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Blagojevich, No. 05-C-4265 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 2, 2005).
Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Granholm, No. 05-CV-73634 (E.D. Mich., Nov. 9, 2005).
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968).
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974).
In the Matter of Industry Guidance on the Commission’s Case Law Interpreting18U.S.C.
Section 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency, File No. EB-00- IH-0089 (April 6, 2001). Retrieved Feb. 2, 2006, from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/
Orders/2001/fcc01090.html
Interactive Digital Software Ass’n, 329 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2003).
Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974).
Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576 (1989).
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
Moore v. Younger, 54 Cal. App. 3d 1122 (1976).
Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor v. Ashcroft, No. 03-72913 (E.D. Mich., filed July 30, 2003).
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982).
Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983).
Pfeifer v. City of West Allis, 91 F. Supp.2d 1253 (E.D. Wis. 2000).
Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987).
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 492 U.S.
115, 126 (1989).
United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Ass’ns, 453 U.S. 114 (1981).
United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 820 (1996).
Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Maleng, 325 F. Supp.2d 1180, 1188 (W.D. Wash.
2004).
Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger, No. C-05-04188 RMW (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2005).
Statutes
Children’s Internet Protection Act. Public Law 106-554 (2000). Section 1711 of this statute amended Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. Sections 6801 et seq. Section 1712 amended Section 224 of the Museum and Library Services Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 9134, which is part of the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), which is Title II of the Museum and Library Services Act. Section 1721 amended Section 254(h) of the Communi- cations Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. Section 254(h), which establishes the ‘‘universal service discount,’’ or ‘‘e-rate,’’ for schools and libraries. Only Sections 1712 and 1721 (insofar as they applies to libraries) were at issue in the case before the three- judge district court and the Supreme Court.
Resources
to Uncertainty
James Rettig
Boatwright Memorial Library, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA, USA