6/3: Protesting Ayers Speech

I found an article about an event that happened early in May but raises interesting questions about free speech at public libraries:

http://wbal.com/apps/news/templates/story.aspx?articleid=27063&zoneid=3 

The article concerns a public library dealing with protestors who were protesting the library's hosting a speech by former 1960's anti-war activists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn. They were part of the group Weather Underground and have been labeled as terrorists because their group bombed empty offices at the U.S. Capitol and Pentagon in the 70's. Ayers was especially a controversial figure during Obama's campaign, as Obama's opposition tried to link the two and characterize them as "pals."

The couple, Ayers and Dhorn, are on a national book tour promoting their book "Race Course: Against White Supremacy." According to the article, The Enoch Pratt Free Library were going to host the couple and were already receiving protests about the event. The library handled the response well, saying that they "welcome them [protestors] as well, as long as they are not disruptive to our patrons and to the program, they are welcome to sit in and participate in the program." They also state, "We don't have to judge whoever the author is, or whatever their background is. We believe that is what our patrons can do."

The controversy over the speech reminds me of the protest against Obama's speech at Notre Dame that made headlines. However, in this case, the issue is with a library, not a university, inviting a controversial person to speak. And when it comes to censorship issues, there is much attention given to how librarians handle challenges to books but not to speakers. But as the Enoch case shows, speakers at libraries can cause just as much opposition, and maybe even more since a speaking event would be well-publicized.

That Enoch Pratt library is willing to host a controvesial author is admirable, but I wonder how many public libraries would do the same. This makes me think of the article, "A Dirty Little Secret: Self-Censorship," in which librarians are censoring themselves by not choosing controversial materials. I wonder how often this happens at public libraries and whether libraries should establish policies for hosting authors/speakers so that they are not being biased in their selection. And if a library hosts an author/speaker with a controversial viewpoint, should the library then host a speaker/author with the opposing viewpoint? For example, I know of a library that did a display for Gay and Lesbian Pride Month but then also featured a "family" dispay the next month to show balance. Should the same happen with featured speakers/authors? These are just some of the questions with regards to handling intellectual freedom issues when it comes to speakers/authors/events/programs featured at the library.

5/26 Post: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act

Bill Would turn Internet Flamers into Felons

Trolling Someone Online? Bill Would Slap You with Jail Time

The current event item I want to talk about is the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act that has been introduced in April by US representative Linda Sanchez (D-CA). The articles above show the internet backlash against the bill, as it is now being dubbed the Censorship Act. The language of the bill is thus:

"(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

The major problem that critics have is that the language is vague and broad. What could potentially be included as causing "emotional distress" through "electronic means" could be angry text messages sent to an ex-boyfriend or a forum post telling someone to go kill themselves over an opinion about a news article. To defend her bill, Sanchez states that her bill is akin to stopping a person on the street who is telling a defenseless child to go kill him/herself. However, the bill is not limited to children, so her analogy is a poor one.

In my opinion, hostility on the internet is just the way of things. The internet does afford anonymity, and so people will say things on the internet or electronically that they might not in person. I feel that this quote from ALA's Freedom or Read statement is apt for this situation:

"Such pressure toward conformity is perhaps natural to a time of accelerated change. And yet suppression is never more dangerous than in such a time of social tension. Freedom has given the United States the elasticity to endure strain. Freedom keeps open the path of novel and creative solutions, and enables change to come by choice. Every silencing of a heresy, every enforcement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal with controversy and difference."

Even though the freedom to read statement has more to do with publications and not electronic discourse, this quote seems appropriate in that if the bill were to pass it would in fact leave our society "less able to deal with controversy and difference." How can people discuss controversial issues and differences electronically, if they would fear that someone may take so much offense at what they say that it would cause "emotional distress"?

Even though the bill is not library specific, I do believe that if this passes it would have a profound affect on the way information professionals must interpret free speech. It will make speech through "electronic means" very different than through print or verbal means. Everything is going electronic these days, with library collections going digital and libraries encouraging the web 2.0 phenomenon of social/community networking. I know of libraries already afraid to allow user comments on their websites, this bill would certainly create more fear about such efforts.

In maybe a more practical aspect of this issue, libraries that offer patrons access to their computers and the internet may have to worry about people using the computers for internet "flaming" or "trolling," activities that the above articles suggest would be illegal. This would increase the cases in which authorities would request personally identifiable information about patrons.

Of course I don't want this bill passed, but if it does, librarians would need to be well-informed about its implications.