INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM AND CHILDREN
According to the ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Manual, most efforts to censor materials arise when a citizen seeks to limit youth access to information in order to “protect” their moral and emotional development (American Library Association. Office for Intellectual Freedom., 2002). “Such campaigns to ‘save the children’ can focus on information about sex, the occult, or alternative religions or lifestyles, or they can center on classic works that are perceived as racist, sexist, homophobic, or hostile to certain ethnic or religious groups.” (American Library Association. Office for Intellectual Freedom., 2002). The ALA provides, however, that, subject to some exceptions concerning illegal materials and curriculum development, children who patronize the library enjoy the same right to read and receive information as adults. (American Library Association. Office for Intellectual Freedom., 2002). In a landmark decision, Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v Pico, 457 US 853 (1982), the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment imposes limitations on a school board’s exercise of its discretion to remove books from the shelves of high school and junior high school libraries. The ALA has supported this view, and has developed the interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights entitled, “Free Access to Libraries for Minors.” (American Library Association. Office for Intellectual Freedom., 2002). As such, the ALA has taken the stance that it is not the responsibility of a library to monitor the materials a child chooses, but rather that it is the responsibility of the parents or guardians to advise their children about the materials they should select. Id. LaRue affirms that this principle is the current viewpoint taken by libraries, which would include a minor’s use of the internet (LaRue, 2007). How can we as professionals come to terms with the fact that we are not to act in loco parentis or in the place of the parents?
In recent years there have been many laws passed to try and protect minors when they are online. One such law is the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) which is “a federal law enacted by Congress in 1998 to protect minors from viewing sexually explicit materials on the Internet, (Stone, 2008).” Essentially, COPA lays out the reasons why this protection is needed and the penalties for disobeying. The government says COPA is necessary because parents cannot monitor their children effectively. This seems to be selling parents short and basically telling them that they are ineffective. The penalties are pretty straight forward. Anyone who knowingly puts inappropriate material on the Internet where it can be viewed by minors can be fined up to $50,000 for each violation and spend up to 6 months in jail. Violations are defined as each day the content is up so if someone has objectionable material posted for 7 days, the fine could be as much as $350,000. COPA has been challenged practically since it was signed into law perhaps most notable by the ACLU and The Freedom to Read Foundation. COPA was overturned again on July 22, 2008 by the Third United States Circuit Court of Appeals which stated, “COPA cannot withstand a strict scrutiny, vagueness or overbreadth analysis, and thus is unconstitutional, (Stone, 2008).” See also, http://www.cdt.org/speech/20080722COPA3rdCircuit.pdf.
The Center for Democracy and Technology states that there are serious constitutional implications arising from the COPA:
It imposes serious burdens on constitutionally-protected speech, including materials such as movies and television programs when disseminated through popular commercial Web sites such as PlanetOut also risk restriction under COPA.
It fails to effectively serve the government's interest in protecting children, as it will not effectively prevent children from seeing inappropriate material originating from outside of the US available through other Internet resources besides the World Wide Web, such as chat rooms or email.
It does not represent the least restrictive means of regulating speech, according to the Supreme Court's own findings that blocking and filtering software might give parents the ability to more effectively screen out undesirable content without burdening speech. Congress has produced no detailed record refuting this finding or supporting the notion that COPA provides the least restrictive means.
[For additional links concerning the COPA, check out the Center for Democracy and Technology Web site.] Do you think COPA was a good idea or do you agree with the Court that it was unconstitutional? Why?
9 comments:
I agree with the ALA, it is not up to the library to decide what a child checks-out it is up to the parents/guardians. However, many parents/guardians don’t see it that way. At my library we give each person who obtains a library card, a pamphlet containing information about the library. There is a special not to parent/guardian section that states:
By signing your child’s library card application you are accepting responsibility for his/her use of the library and for any damaged or not returned materials and/or overdue fines.
The library does not monitor what children check out. It is the responsibility of the parent /guardian to be aware of the materials their children check-out. The library can place certain limits on children's accounts upon request of the parent/guardian. Please ask Circulation Desk staff for more information.
I find it easier to accept and act on allowing children/young people to check out any materials that they select- I think because I feel this is a physical item and as a parent you can see, hold, read what your kids are reading. The web I go back and forth on. It is so hard for parents to monitor what their kids are doing online at a remote location. It is a situation that parents have to hope that what they have taught and the rules they set forth are being followed. And we all know for any number of reasons kids don't always listen to mom & dad. So for kids, I like the idea of some filtering in public locations- especially because at libraries we don't have the right to act in loco parentis. I don't think we are doing serious harm or violating a minor's rights by filtering obscene photos and monitoring their online activity. It seems a bit like, "It takes a community to raise a child," I suppose. This goes against my usual feelings of trying to provide everything for everybody. My problem is with the adult filtering and adults having to ask for a filter to be removed. I see that as a rights violation that the government need not be involved with.
No, I do not like the creation of the COPA. Although the idea is nice because they wish to protect children and in some ways they are protecting the librarian by forcing them to have filters (this helps them to avoid angry negligent parents), it is a step all too close to stealing the rights of parents. There are other consequences that occur when using filters aimed at offensive sites. Some educational information has been blocked due to filters and this takes away a child's right to learn. So even though it aims to be helpful it is also unconstitutional.
In theory, I think COPA is a great idea. I agree with 'lauriec' that parents cannot monitor their children online at the library; and if parents had the choice of filtering sexual explicit material from their children at the library, they would answer with a unanamous "yes!"
But unfortunately, in practice COPA seems to be unconstitutional insofar as it filters out educational material. Not to mention it doesn't filter out the sexual stuff that well.
The question still remains, however: if COPA could be supported by effective filtering technology, would you guys support it? My answer would be yes.
Also: should the library support filtering sexual explicit material (both for children and adults) as a statement of the libraries values? Again, I say yes. Doesn't it seem wrong for a person to be watching pornography in the library, as someone waits to use the computer for, say, writing a paper?
Just a thought to stir the pot... What if someone was writing a paper about pornography and, say, its effect on the treatment of women in society, and wanted to do research at the library?
In regards to the intellectual freedom of children and young adults, I agree that we as librarians should NOT have to act "in loco parentis" in a negative or restrictive sense. If we as librarians act "in loco parentis" negatively, we are not supporting the development of intellectual freedom, nor are we helping to foster a young adult's appreciation for our 1st ammendment right in this country. If we restrict youth access to materials (within reason because I do think that it is acceptable for libraries to have pornography filters in place), young adults who are just beginning to assert their independence from their parents do so by "separating" themselves from their parents. (Eventually we hope they come back with combinations of their parents ideals and their own.) Commonly, they separate themselves by listening to different music, tuning out their parents/having a major lifestyle change-for example, suddenly becoming a vegan or gaining in an interest in Wicca (witches, magic, the supernatural etc). As they are "morphing" themselves into new people they require new and different information and they will be hanging out at the library. (Or, finding their own ways to the information in other restricted areas). If we don't let teens have access to information in the library then we show that we don't trust them, which makes them moody and unpredictable around adults which brings up the "typical teenager" stereotype. As information professionals we are trusted handle information without bias, so we should be unbiased toward our patrons too. As Laurie said, young adults don't always listen to their parents (or librarians)and we also know that parents,even if they would like to have total control over what their child is reading don't.
Parents need to be talking to their children and young adults and teaching their values-not only personal ones that the young person may question (at times) but also values of society as a whole. I also think parents need to be open and say that they will be available-even if the young adult isn't listening at the moment. Also, if a young adult feels they have freedom to read they may read something and eventually ask questions about it.
Something else to consider: there are some parents who are not available for their children. In that case, the librarian may be the trusted adult who functions as a provider of information even if some of the information is sensitive. "Loco Parentis" but in a positive sense. As I said in my discussion board post, we can't monitor our patrons every minute, we just know we helped them find information, or atleast young adults know they can come into a library and search on their own. We have to believe that the person with knowledge is a person with power. We have done our job if we can balance power, knowledge and responsibility. The balance is what makes up Intellectual Freedom.
As I was reading this post and the First Ammendment Needs New Clothes article I saw statements made as to how frustrating it is for students and educators as well in trying to locate and use information from the web in lessons, projects, and assignments. I remember the administration putting pressure on us teachers to be innovative and to implement technology, yet when a co-worker and I decided to have students go on a blog we created using Blogger to answer discussion questions as well as to seek assistance from us and their peers with the assigned readings we were faced with several problems. 1. The Blog was blocked 2. Students could not have any of their pictures or last names posted on the blog (because of a new requirement...I can't remember the name that was passed ..schools needed signed consent forms in order for students/teachers to post students pics)3. The administration said they could not unblock that particular blog because then students would have access to all other blogs as well. 4. Some economically disadvantaged student were hurt by this...they had no computers and the school comp. lab was useless in this case. 5. In the end the expereince taught us that laws that seem to protect our students sometimes wind up hurting them and hurting the teacher as well.
We could not use technology the way we wanted and have students use "cutting -edge tools." We were not able to be creative in our lesson planning. You Tube videos were blocked as well as google videos and yahoo and Google images. Students could not even research certain topics on Biology. Yet, students could still have access to pornography via their emails. Or as mentioned they can view inappropraite information if say the information/website was in another language.I remeber one student having a ride with this ...he would go into his email and check out pronography...then get suspended. He came came back a week later only to access another porn webiste by typing whitehouse.com or something like that...his excuse was he was trying to get to the White House's webpage. There are always ways around censorship! Unfortunately, censorship in school libraries and computer labs seems to be obsurd. Students are prevented from accessing a lot of useful information....students who want to access inappropraite information/images will always find their way around to accessing it while those students doing legitmate reserach will not be able to.
I agree with many of my classmates that as librarians we should not act in place of the parent with regards to what children are reading and checking out. Many libraries have on their card application, a section where parents acknowledge that the library is not responsible for what the child takes out. Also, because children mature at different rates it would be impossible for a librarian, who does not know a child personally, to decide whether something the child is requesting access to is over their head. It is up to the parent to be actively involved with what the child is taking interest in, monitor their activities and have open discussions.
The COPA was intended to prevent the minors from accessing inappropriate material on the internet. But at what cost? As with all laws the act is open to interpretation. What one might suggest is "explicit materials" another might view as research. I have to agree with Katherine...what about the positive things that get caught in the filter net that are not inappropriate, or should I say, by whose definition are inapproriate. Is it not a basic form of censorship? I'm not in any way negating that availablity of pornography to minors, but whose responsibility is it to police it, and why should federal funds be tied to the the acceptable use and application of filters. Should pornography be available for children to view - no. But what is the next step? Censorship on materials read? It is a view slippery slope.
Post a Comment