how the world is changing Tuesday, May 29 2007

I’ve been thinking about my previous post and how the world is changing.  Clearly Idaho’s gun laws as related to minors were written for a past era, a time when kids went hunting on the back 40 acres of the family farm.   Like most people I find it appalling that young men are walking around Post Falls armed, and (most especially) that their parents think this is okay.  Personally I consider guns dangerous and I’m not against gun control (just not exactly for it either).  One can imagine many dangerous scenarios and bad consequences to the actions of these young men.  However my guess is that not much will come of this except a certain amount of agitation between groups that advocate or oppose gun control.  It’s also possible that the consequence of the boy’s actions will have the opposite effect of what they advocate – citizens may very well campaign to change Idaho’s gun laws now that they are aware of them – something that I would probably support.  However, my feelings are also influenced by personal experience.   Having grown up in North Idaho and Eastern Montana during a time when it was common and normal for households to own and use firearms I have some sympathy for the boy’s worldview (just not their actions). 

Most of my childhood friends knew how to handle guns at a young age.  I remember target shooting when I was eight or nine years old.  Everybody took hunter’s safety courses after school and I did too even though I’ve never hunted.   I think the biggest difference between attitudes about guns at that time compared to current times is respect.   My childhood friends and I would never have dreamed of playing with guns because they are dangerous. In fact toy guns were strictly forbidden from my household, no squirt guns, or cap guns allowed, we weren’t even supposed to point our finger at someone and say bang.   Guns were never treated as toys.   I think this attitude made it relatively safe to own and use fire arms.       

Which (finally!) brings me to the point of this post.  We all agree that guns are dangerous.  Free speech can also be dangerous.  So isn’t the best answer to socially complicated and dangerous issues like free speech and the right to bear arms education?   Living in a free world is dangerous.  If we want to be free we have to accept the responsibility of teaching each other how to act with integrity and personal accountability.  We need to educate our children about the dangers and teach them how to keep themselves safe.  I’m considering presenting an internet course at the library for young people about how to keep themselves safe when accessing the web.  Any suggestions?

 

Leave a Response »

 

2nd Amendment Rights Thursday, May 24 2007

Librarians are especially concerned about 1^st Amendment Rights to free speech.  A recent news article in local paper describes two teens who are exercising their 2^nd Amendment Right to bear arms. Two brothers in
Post Falls Idaho are openly carrying loaded guns everywhere they go.   The boys are 18 and 15 years old and in
Idaho it’s legal for those over 18 to carry guns and for those 13-17 to carry a rifle with a parent’s permission.   The boys are carrying the guns to demonstrate that they have the right to.     

 

What interests me about this issue is the range of perspectives regarding this right.  Unlike the First Amendment which I support wholeheartedly my personal feeling about the right to bear arms are mixed.  I wonder if we still live in world that is stable enough to allow 15 year old boys to walk around with loaded guns.   Which makes me realize that citizens can easily ask the same question regarding free speech, do we live in a world that’s stable enough to allow people in public libraries to access anything that is legal on the internet?  Isn’t it dangerous to allow that kind of access in a public place? 

 

I recently heard or read (I can’t remember) an analogy between First Amendment Rights and owning a swimming pool.   It goes something like this – if you own a swimming pool do you forbid your kids to use until they are over 18?  Most likely you build a wall around it to make it as safe as possible, keep an eye the kids while they use it, and teach your children to swim.  I’m not sure how well this analogy works for 2^nd Amendment Rights – but clearly a great deal of the responsibility for keeping our world safe falls to personal accountability.  

 

One link to the article – http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836770/posts

 

Leave a Response »

 

Worldwide Internet Censorship Sunday, May 20 2007

Lately I’ve read a few articles about worldwide internet censorship.   This article Net censorship spreads worldwide  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4973114.stm   By Mark Ward, is interesting.  It discusses censorship and the fact that many countries are now censoring internet access.  The information in the article is based on a report by Reporters Without Borders.  It states that
China is considered the biggest censor and jailer of dissidents who publish on-line.  Many countries “including Burma, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Nepal, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, and
Vietnam censor the net.”   

According to this a Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People’s_Republic_of_China

Internet censorship in
China is still strongly focused on political information however restrictions on sexually orientated information have recently become somewhat more relaxed.   According to this article, government censorship in
China is inconsistent and fairly easy to circumvent.  A software project designed by the University of Toronto’s Citizen lab and called Psiphon^{[23] (wikipedia)}    “is a circumvention technology that works through social networks of trust and is designed to help Internet users bypass content-filtering systems set up by governments, such as China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and others.”  (wikipedia)    

It’s interesting that the internet has become part of the power play to control how people think and what they know.  The Ward article quotes “Julien Pain – who heads the internet freedom desk at the RSF…”  It states that “Mr Pain said the world’s dictators have not remained powerless in the face of the explosion of online content. By contrast, many have been “efficient and inventive” in using the net to spy on citizens and censor debate.” 

 

I also came across a link to a Handbook for Bloggers  and Cyber-Dissidents (2005) by Reporters Without Borders, with articles like How to Blog Anomalously, by Ethan Zuckerman, and How to Get Round Censorship by Nart Villeneuve.  I find it interesting that there are often counterbalances to censorship.  Information is valuable and people will find ways to share and learn.  I’ve gained not only a greater respect for
America’s First Amendment protection of free speech but also a more protective attitude toward it.   I now understand what a valuable and precarious right it is. 

 

Leave a Response »

 

The value of conflict Sunday, May 13 2007

Thinking about intellectual challenges as ethical dilemmas reminds me how important conflict can be to society.  I feel more composed dealing with the conflict sounding intellectual challenges when I remember that the other point of view is a valid version of truth.  Sometimes the discussions surrounding the conflict are as important as the issues themselves.  It’s difficult for librarians to be on the frontlines of this social debate but the resulting discussions are important because our participation makes the issues surrounding intellectual freedom more accessible to individuals.  And the consequences of the debate make a difference in people’s day-to-day lives.  Following are quotes about conflict from Wikiqoute that help clarify what I’ve been thinking. On Conflict… 

People aren’t either wicked or noble. They’re like chef’s salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in vinaigrette of confusion and conflict. -Lemony Snicket/A Series of Unfortunate Events 

“Force against force rarely accomplishes anything.” “Conflict is inevitable in life. Do not run from it–embrace it instead.” Tristan J. Loo is an American author and expert on conflict resolution and peace-keeping 

Ethics is not just an abstract intellectual discipline. It is about the conflicts that arise in trying to meet real human needs and values.John Ziman (May 16, 1925–January 2, 2005) was a scientist, and later a philosopher specialising in the philosophy of science 

In order to properly understand the big picture, everyone should fear becoming mentally clouded and obsessed with one small section of truth.  Xun ZiChinese philosopher and Confucian thinker 

“Rest assured, there are no utopias and conflict will not go away in the future. If life became too easy, we would lose our motivation to move forward. However, we have an opportunity now to move into an era with a far better grade of conflict, with problem sets that are infinitely more interesting.”   Thomas Frey (born May 9, 1954) Executive Director and Senior Futurist at the DaVinci Institute.  

 

 

Leave a Response »

 

Collection development case scenarios Monday, Apr 23 2007

Scenario 5:  “You work for the Mallville Public Library. Its collection development policy is very clear about the adult fiction collection. A patron is challenging Chuck Palahniuk’s newest book, Haunted (2005)…. Your library purchased the book based on the reputation of the author, who wrote Fight Club…”  “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”— John Stuart Mill, On
Liberty “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”— Thomas Paine, Dissertation On First Principles Of Government

I think that I’d decide to keep the book on the shelf for a couple of reasons.  The Mallvill’s library’s collections policy states that obscene materials are not appropriate for the collections, however It’s not clear to me that Chuck Palahniuk’s newest book, Haunted would be defined as obscene.   The second reason I’d keep the book is based on the following quote from Booklist (Tuesday, March 01, 2005): “There’s a point to the madness–Palahniuk is exploring our yearning for suffering and our newfound desire to make our misery marketable. The allegory is sometimes very clever and pitch-black funny.”  I think the fact that the author intends to make a point about society and is not writing merely to indulge his “prurient (or morbid, shameful, and unhealthy) interest in sex…” (Supreme Court) means that the work has some literary value.  And there’s always the fact that “Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas.”    http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htm     

Scenario Six: “It is a Monday morning and you are reviewing the holds queues that developed over the weekend on the most popular titles in your library. You see that you, yet, again, need to buy more copies of the popular book, Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You to Know About by Kevin Trudeau….”   “Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” — Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383
U.S. 463 (1966)

Whether or not public libraries should try to “protect” customers from particular or even harmful ideas is not the core issue here.  The question is do library patrons (or citizens) have the right to make up their own minds about the worthiness of subjects?       My library would retain this book.  Not only do library patrons have the right to decide for themselves about the validity of particular ideas, they have the freedom and responsibility to inform themselves about personal issues like healthcare.  Not everyone who reads this book agrees with its premise.  Also, the public library’s purchase of controversial items allows customers to preview books before investing in them.  In a sense the library is doing a public service by allowing customers to see this item and decide if it’s useful before they decide to buy it.  (It also means that Trudeau is not scamming as much money form library patrons.)   

I’d tell the concerned doctor that the library’s healthcare collection is well balanced and includes many books with conventional healthcare concepts.      I’d remind them that the library is neutral provider of information, that people need to have access to all kinds of information to be informed.  And that the presence of the book in the library does not mean we endorse Trudeau’s ideas.  

One Response »

 

“Library Porn Policy” Thursday, Apr 19 2007

I’ve been reading about a new story I found at (ALA’s) Web site Issues & Advocacy/ News.  The article was published February 22, 2007 by the Democrat and Chronicle and is titled “Library porn policy stuns Monroe exec.” The story describes an intellectual freedom challenge at Central Library in Rochester New York, a public library that is according to the article “owned,” by the city of Rochester.    The article reports that a Monroe County official threatened to pull library funding when she learned that the library’s internet policy allows adults to view Web sites that “could be inappropriate or pornographic.”  Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks learned about the library’s internet policy when a local television news team did an undercover story about library patrons accessing the internet on library computers.  The news team secretly filmed patrons using the internet at the library.  After seeing the news article Brooks sent a “strongly worded” letter to Paula Smith library director threatening to halt 7.5 million dollars (about 70% of the library’s budget) in county funding unless the library restricted internet use for adults.   Rochester Central’s original internet policy allowed adults to use unfiltered computers in certain areas of the library where children were least likely to be present.  Library officials responded to Brook’s letter by immediately blocking “all access to Web sites that were deemed inappropriate…”.     WHEC-TV (I-Team) reporters visited the library and secretly filmed customers viewing “pornography” precipitating the intellectual freedom challenge at Rochester Central Library.  According to the investigative news story ’I-Team 10: Public library porn policy,” they made “…a half dozen trips to the library, and on nearly every visit, we found someone looking at porn. “  One of the customers filmed by the I-Team was on probation for endangering a minor and was later arrested for violating his parole by viewing children on a Web site, the site was not considered a “pornography” site, but was still a parole violation.     Central library is currently reviewing their internet policy and holding public forums to discuss the issue with community members.  One of the interesting and difficult aspects of this challenge is that it’s so public.   

The news team that secretly filmed customers using library computers to access the internet presented their story in a one sided sensationalized fashion.  (They had caught a potential child predator looking at images of children on a library computer.)  This created a scandalous atmosphere that must have been difficult for library staff to deal with.  The fact that children may have theoretically been in danger made the situation an especially difficult forum for presenting issues of intellectual freedom to the community.  The library’s immediate response mollified county officials and kept the library’s doors open.  But I wonder if the Monroe County Executive who threatened to withhold library funding truly had legal authority to instantly rescind money based on her personal feeling of mortification?  It seems reasonable that a legal contract stating payment terms and responsibilities of funding partners should include a statement about the public library’s role in resisting censorship.  I think all parties should agree that citizens will not suffer the loss of library services due to intellectual freedom challenges or misunderstandings about the libraries position on censorship. 

Leave a Response »

 

Censorship by expurgation Wednesday, Apr 11 2007

Reading section 2.10 of the Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights about expurgating library materials reminded me that this type of censorship is the most common intellectual freedom challenge I’ve encountered.  I’ve never experienced library staff expurgating library materials as discussed in the text, but customers edit and alter library books to remove personally offensive words or information fairly regularly.   I remember an elderly couple who were weekly library users, and the wife couldn’t resist taking a straight edge razor to words that offended her.  The library director spoke with her several times and finally had to ban her from borrowing books.  Parents sometimes destroy books they think children shouldn’t be reading.  I remember one child who said she couldn’t return her overdue book because her mom had burned it.  I spoke with the mom explaining that destroying books wasn’t an effective way to remove items from the library because she’d have to pay for the book, and the money would be used to replace that exact book in the library collection. The mom explained that the book (J fiction by a popular children’s author – I can’t remember the title) contained information that no child should see.  Oddly enough she cheerfully paid for the book and didn’t choose to challenge it.   

For the most part this kind of censorship can be dealt with case-by-case to some kind of resolution. The most difficult situation is when groups make organized assaults on library materials.  For several years the library where I work had trouble with a local Aryan Nations group.  This group consistently removed or blacked-out sections of American history books that they disagreed with.  They also salted the library collection with pamphlets and literature – a practice that was very upsetting to unsuspecting readers. The most difficult thing about this kind of underhanded censorship is that it’s difficult to confront.  They committed secretive acts of vandalism.  Group members were radically closed to ideas that didn’t match their personal ideology.  Talking with them put library staff in a difficult position.  My experience was that they used any opportunity to defend their cause, making conversations very one-sided and frustrating. 

Leave a Response »

 

Personal Expression in the1970′s Monday, Apr 2 2007

I’ve been thinking about Catherine Lord’s story about personal expression. My experiences in the eastern
Montana mill town where my family lived in the 1970’s were similar. 

 

 Like Catherine, girls at my school were not allowed to wear pants and boys had to wear button down shirts and off the collar hair.   By seventh grade this seemed unreasonable, especially considering freezing
Montana winters.  I remember (along with most of the girls in my class) occasionally getting sent home for wearing pants to school.   The school administration did finally give in – with the usual stipulation of no blue jeans (so our mom’s dyed our blue jeans black to wear to school).  The boys had it tougher; they couldn’t use practical reasons like the weather to grow their hair, they also didn’t have adults to back them up.  I’m not sure if this was universally true but like Catherine our mom’s were supportive, perhaps because of the popularity of women’s right at that time.  The boys had to stand alone, and at my school it wasn’t unusual for boys who behaved “disrespectfully” to be physically punished.    

 

What’s most interesting is the fact that these scenarios were also being played out on a larger scale in my town and all of society in the 1970’s.  My dad was a supervisor at the saw mill and I remember him sending men home who refused to cut their hair.  The mill refused to hire woman because they claimed it would be too “distracting” for men to work alongside women.   I remember my dad attending a town meeting to figure out how to encourage a young man (that town leaders disapproved of) to leave town.  The town elders were upset because not only did this man have long hair and a loose lifestyle but worst of all he was disrespectful to the American flag he had draped over the hood of his car.  And of course this being small town
Montana (in the 70’s) there was occasional bar violence between the “long hairs” and locals that resulted in ugly actions like cutting someones hair off with a chain saw.      

Leave a Response »

 

Hello world! Sunday, Apr 1 2007

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

One Response »