There are many WWW sites devoted to censorship issues. Those listed
below
are a few that I have used recently. You will need to look elsewhere
for pro
censorship sites.
The ALA Office Of
Intellectual
Freedom Site provides access to a variety of useful items,
including
information about recent book and material challenges. Note especially
the changed and banned books pages with their list of the 100 most
frequently challenged books. Essential for any youth services librarian
since many of the challenges involve youth.
The File Room is a clearinghouse for information about censorship attempts.
Freedominfo.org is a
gateway for
intellectual freedom with a global orientation.
The LibraryLaw Blog deals
with a wide variety of legal issues impacting libraries and that
includes censorship initiatives among others.
"A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to." ~ Laurence Peter
"Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks, put up fences, and deploy pool alarms. All of these measures are helpful, but by far the most important thing that one can do for one's children is to teach them to swim." ~ John Schwartz
"Good people with grave concerns are drawn to the issue because they care about their children. Indeed, the issue is so emotionally gripping that more often than not legal, logical and ethical niceties get lost in the debate. ... It is enough for the would-be censors that they know someone who knows someone who has said there is a problem. ... The message of these campaigns is simple: 'Your friends, neighbors and family members who work at the library have allowed it to become a haven for perverts and a hangout for pedophiles." ~ Paul McMasters
"I have never met a public librarian who approved of censorship or one who failed to practice it in some measure." ~ Leon Carnovsky
"Invariably, the [censorship] attack is swift, across-the-board, well organized, well financed. The campaigners brandish tales of sexual horror threatening the life and sanctity of the community. By the time community leaders and library supporters muster a response, the problem is asserted, the solution determined, and the public mind fairly well made up." ~ Paul McMasters
"When Leaves of Grass was banned in Boston it generated so many sales that Walt Whitman bought a house with the proceeds."
"Witchcraft is of the devil, and the devil is very powerful. When you put witchcraft in front of children and say it's okay to be a witch, you're destroying your children. ... You wouldn't put heroin in front of your children and say it's okay to try it." ~ Ron Rio
Until we are able to develop and maintain the perfect collection and serve perfect users, there will be complaints about the collection. Some will complain about items in the collection that seem inappropriate. Others will complain about items that should be in the collection but are not.
While some information professionals may approach perfection, it is
possible to make an error. An example might be a British public library
that
placed a novel with references to child porn and Satanism as well as
much
sexually explicit language in the children's section.
One of the curious aspects of the complaint is that it is frequently shared with a relatively broad audience--family members, relatives, friends, colleagues at work--and may not be shared with the relevant agency. For example, I may tell whoever will listen about a terrible experience I had at a local restaurant, but neglect to tell anyone at the restaurant. Although the published estimates vary widely, it is clear that for every complaint shared with agency management, many are shared via word of mouth. The absence of complaints is NOT evidence of satisfaction. Instead, it is likely that complaints are not being shared with agency staff because it is too much trouble or because of the belief that it won't make a difference.
When complaints are shared with local media, they have the potential to do considerable damage. For example, librarians have lost their position, and financial support has been reduced because of allegations of malpractice in collection development and management.
Every information agency serving an audience, should have an adopted complaint-handling policy. The policy normally contains major statements (properly embellished) dealing with these issues:
Policies assume life when proper procedures are adopted to implement them. Typically, procedures are needed to:
No one enjoys dealing with complaints. It can result in loss of face and involve unpleasant conversations with others. It can be difficult to retain poise and a state of calm. Perhaps it would be best not to use the "C" word at all, but to talk about encouraging suggestions for collection improvement. The word "suggestion" is much more positive and less threatening.
The key point here is that shared suggestions can be captured, evaluated, and acted upon. We need an easy, visible mechanism for our users to submit suggestions for improvement. Ideally, the parent organization or the information agency will already have a suggestion or complaint-handling system in place and the collection manager could work with that. If such a system does not exist, one should be established within the information agency. Complaints not shared may result in considerable negative word of mouth without giving the agency an opportunity to consider needed change. A client-driven organization will want to improve customer satisfaction by encouraging customers to suggest improvements. In some cases, suggestions are justified and changes need to be made. Ignorance of customer dissatisfaction may be harmful to agency survival.
Not all complaints involve censorship, but censorship is the most visible complaint form and the one that has attracted the most attention from information professionals, especially librarians. In the library literature, censorship complaints are called challenges. The American Library Association identifies four main types:
Since most censorship incidents involve school library media centers and classroom reading assignments, other information professionals are much less likely to ever deal with a censorship incident. Smaller public libraries, especially in relatively homogeneous communities, are the second most likely environment for censorship. Academic and special libraries are unlikely targets for censors. Museums and galleries do attract censors when the host exhibits featuring avant garde or controversial material. While censorship is not a problem for most collection developers and managers, complaints are a problem for all types of information agencies. More will be said about that later. The American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom has placed all of its policies and guidelines on the OIF WWW site. Take a look if you are going to work in a library and are unfamiliar with them.
Censors were the two magistrates in ancient Rome who created a register of all citizens and the supervised public morals. The censors were also responsible for verifying the qualifications of those seeking public office to insure that those who sought public office were of good moral character. Thus, censors were the guardians of the discipline and character of the citizens and their government. Over the years, censors have been associated with government supervision of morals and conduct.
Censorship today is more likely to be by nongovernmental groups associated with religious and political organizations. Still, these groups attempt to mobilize political power to gain their ends. For example, those in agricultural organizations, including agribusiness, have lobbied for legislation to make it illegal (in certain states) to make negative comment about the safety of agricultural products. Beef growers and packagers have campaigned to prevent public libraries from ordering "alarmist, anti-beef" books that might "destroy the local economy (beef growers)." This example also underscores the fact that many censorship attempts are not concerned with sex and violence issues.
Strictly defined, censorship is an attempt by government to prevent individuals from being able to access harmful material. This may be accomplished by legislation or regulation. For example, decency laws may prohibit the creation or use of material that is "indecent" and "harmful" by depicting nudity, sexual contact, or sado-masochism. Regulations might allow postal or customs authorities to seize and destroy indecent material.
Even though they may be unconstitutional, censorship legislation is popular with legislators at the local, state, and federal level. For example, constitutionally doubtful N.Y. decency legislation, later found unconstitutional, passed 57 to 0 in the N.Y. Senate and 144 to 5 in the N.Y. Assembly. It is not clear if these legislators genuinely support such legislation or if they support it for political gain knowing that the courts will later find it unconstitutional. When the issue is "who supports filth," especially making filth available to children and teens, there are few legislative supporters for intellectual freedom.
Opinion polls frequently find that a majority (about 60 percent) of those polled strongly believe that libraries should not allow access to "offensive" WWW sites.
Traditionally, governments have been concerned with the morality and character of citizens. It is only in the last few decades that strong voices have been raised in defense of allowing adults to follow their own direction as long as the consequences are not harmful to society as a whole. The failed experiment in the U.S. with prohibition is a reminder of government action designed to insure that citizens "did the right thing." Clearly, government has an traditional role in preventing the creation and use of pornographic material, especially when that involves children and teens. The difficult questions relate to definition of what is pornographic and how to best prevent inappropriate action by individuals.
Here are some questions that the critic might ask:
The linkage between viewing and behavior is not at all well established. Evidence is fragmentary and sometimes biased. Prohibiting access to harmful material would be easier to justify if there was substantial linkage between viewing, reading, and listening and some inappropriate behavior that harms society.
Is it proper for government to intervene in what is essentially a market relationship between adults who produce this material and adults who consume it? How compelling is the need for governmental intervention? Are individuals responsible for what they view? Can individuals trusted to act in their own best interest? Do adults need to be protected from their own actions? Can parents be trusted to protect their own children?
Can government be trusted to intervene in an effective, equitable and appropriate manner.? Limited evidence suggests that government is often heavy-handed and especially inefficient. Pornography has been illegal for many years and still flourishes in the U.S. In fact, some estimate that it is more profitable than all of trade publishing. Since community standards vary from community to community, Federal government agencies are likely to find a very conservative community in which to prosecute obscenity cases. For example, the Tennessee postal inspector who down loaded images from a California BBS so that prosecution could take place in Tennessee rather than in Northern California. Government agencies may confiscate material now and it may be years before the appeals court rules in favor of the individual prosecuted (after substantial legal expenses). Thus, government agencies have considerable power to harass.
Obscene material has always been illegal in the U.S. and in most other nations. Material is obscene if the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests, depicts or describes sexual acts in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Thus, an obscene item must match these attributes. It must be:
In 36 states, "community" is defined as the state. In other states, the definition varies. In Tennessee, the "community" is one of 31 judicial districts. In general, it is easier to find an item obscene when the community is a smaller political unit. It also makes things more difficult for the publisher who must then fight obscenity in community after community.
The Victoria Secret web site, although offensive to some, can hardly be "obscene." If obscenity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then we have a substantial problem.
"Obscenity" is a term clearly troubled by definitional problems. It is often difficult to define, and Federal appeal courts have not always agreed. Who is an average community member? What are the adult community standards in a particular place? How much obscene content is enough to warrant a finding? What does "taken as a whole" mean in practice? How does one characterize serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value? There is much variability here. At the end, an item is obscene when a Federal appeals court says that it is. Over time, standards change. For example, Lady Chatterley's Lover, long considered obscene by Federal government agencies is now part of our intellectual culture.
Many state laws are so vague as to be clearly unconstitutional [if one is willing to challenge, pay the legal fees and wait for years for resolution]. A good example is a South Carolina law that makes it a crime to post "photographs and other material on the Internet" that is unsuitable for children." This law is being challenged, but is a fairly typical example.
Recent local, state, and federal censorship initiatives have prohibited "indecent" material, particularly on the Internet. However, so far, there appears to be no satisfactory operational definition of "indecent." Both state and federal courts have found fault with "indecent" because it is vague, and overly broad. Indecent items are not illegal. At least, that is the case for those who can afford to appeal such legislation through the federal courts.
In 1789, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights became part of the U.S. Constitution. In part, it says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech or of the press." Although the amendment spoke directly of federal legislation, it has been applied to state and local government via the 14th Amendment. The First Amendment means exactly what federal courts decided it means and that changes from time to time. Clearly, there is freedom to speak and freedom to publish. There is, however, no right to be published nor is there any right to access speech or publications. Until 1957, Federal Courts banned material that "tended ... to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences." Literary merit was not considered. In Miller v. California, the courts decided that the Constitution through the First Amendment protected serious literary, scientific, artistic, and political speech and publication. Three key questions must be asked:
A work is obscene if the answer to ALL three questions is yes.
In school library media centers, the most relevant case is Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico. The Court found that a school board may remove library materials, but it may not do so because the works contain "partisan or political views [the board did not share]. Since the finding is somewhat vague, but it seems clear that a school board may remove items from the collection that are "vulgar or of questionable educational suitability." Again, the devil is in the definitions.
Still, there is no absolute right of free speech and certainly there is no constitutional right to read. The First Amendment only limits action by governments.
In dealing with First Amendment cases, Federal appeal courts often ask these questions:
The First Amendment has never been an absolute prohibition. Some forms of speech have long been prohibited. For example, there is no protection for obscenity, child pornography (visual depiction of sexual contact involving actual children under 18 years){artistic value is not allowable here}, statements made known to be false at the time they were made, threats, and fraudulent advertising. Speech or publication likely to harm minors receives less protection and is more subject to regulation than other kinds of speech. Location is important. Certain places are considered to be public forums and receive more constitutional protection. Libraries are seen as a limited public forum and receive less constitutional protection.
Since 1842, Federal statutes have allowed government officials to censor obscene publications by suppressing their circulation. Typically, this has been done by the Post Office and the Customs Service.
There are always tensions between conflicting rights. For example, Federal courts have held that school children have a right to receive ideas, especially in the school library, but local school officials also have the right to exercise broad discretion in controlling the local curriculum. When the School Board acts to censor, which of these two "rights" will win?
The American Library Association(ALA) has taken a strong intellectual freedom position in recent years and has issued a number of policies dealing with censorship issues. The Library Bill of Rights and other ALA intellectual freedom statements have no legal standing. They may be effective as examples of moral suasion, but they are not likely to have much impact on politicians, government officials, or the judiciary.
The ALA argues that librarians should say no to any censorship initiative. The collection should represent all viewpoints. For example, Holocaust denial literature should be included in the collection because it is a notable view. Collections should include false material. No material in the collection should be labeled or tagged to indicate its authenticity or authority. The collection should be a free marketplace of ideas--the correct, the popular, the weird, and the unpopular. Collections should be open to users of all ages. Only parents have the authority to limit what their children view, listen to, or read. Obviously, these views are unpopular with many adults, including most politicians. Some librarians are also critical. The library community faces an uphill battle in convincing most adults that censorship, especially involving children, is not an appropriate response to an "anything goes" society.
While there is considerable latent support for censorship, it usually takes a campaign by some sort of organization to create an incident. The ten leaders in the censorship movement are:
As Asheim explained many years ago, selection involves identifying
reasons why a work should be added to the collection. Censorship
involves reasons why a work should not be added to the collection. In
practice, the distinction may not be quite so clear. As Carol Hole
says, "It doesn't matter why I don't buy a book, the effect is the
same. Whether I had good reason for my decision doesn't alter the fact
that I've censored Joe Sixpack's choice of reading matter...." The
selector needs to carefully consider the differences between selection
and censorship.
Internal censorship is preventing access to appropriate materials by those employed by the information agency, particularly those responsible for collection development and management. There is some evidence to support the notion that some collection developers, primarily in school library media centers and smaller public libraries, avoid public controversy by failing to select, purchase and circulate materials likely to be controversial in their community. As Walt Kelly said years ago via Pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The major, now dated study, of self-censorship was done by Marjorie Fiske and published in 1957. Librarians rejected controversial but appropriate items "subconsciously" by finding a good reason not to select an item while "conscious" censorship simply rejects an item because it is controversial. "Fiske found 40 percent of the librarians who professed strong intellectual freedom convictions practiced subconscious acts of censorship."
Although internal censorship is almost always the result of fear of controversy, it is certainly possible that such censorship is the result of advocacy. Here, the information professional would refuse to provide access to material that she feels is bad. For example, can a professional be neutral, especially about ageism, sexism, racism and other evils? If you are not against evil, don't you support it? Are not all selection decisions a result of some bias, predilection, or personal preference? Since good materials do good, don't we have a special responsibility to select "good" material? Isn't the issue one of responsibility rather than censorship?
Internal censorship is difficult to measure. In the past, internal censorship has been measured by interviews, checklists of problem items and "what if" questionnaires or interviews. In all cases, reliability and validity are substantial problems. In the interview method, collection developers are asked if they hinder access to appropriate items. Since few information professionals are willing to admit to censorship, this is problematic. The checklist method uses checklists of well received but controversial items. Holdings are checked to see if these items are available. If not, an interview may follow or it may be assumed that (if there is a pattern) internal censorship has occurred. The questionnaire method has largely been used with LIS students. Here, students are given certain situations and asked to make a decision and provide a rationale for it. Since there is no price to be paid for selecting controversial items for a hypothetical library, this approach may be unrealistic.
Studies of some public librarians and school library media specialists has found that these variables are associated with internal censorship. The amount and kind of education is important. The more education, the greater the probability that controversial items will be selected. Information professionals with a broad, liberal arts education are more likely to select controversial items than those with professional or applied education.
Gender also makes a difference. When the proportions of male and female information professionals are properly considered, female professionals are less likely to select controversial material than males.
Community size is important. Larger communities are likely to be more heterogeneous with many pro and con advocacy groups in the community. Larger communities are also more likely to have a wider range of values and attitudes. Information agencies in larger communities are more likely to hold controversial material.
Age is associated with internal censorship. Older librarians are less likely to select controversial items.
Type of information agency. School library media specialists are much less likely to select controversial material than academic or special librarians. Public librarians in smaller, homogeneous communities are also likely to avoid controversial material.
Illustration makes quite a difference. Controversial material with illustrations is more likely to be avoided than similar material limited to text. For example, an all text sexual technique book is more likely to be selected than one with pictures.
An adopted selection policy appears to have some impact. Information agencies with an adopted selection policy are more likely to select and make available controversial items.
Region is also an important predictor. The East South Central States--Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama--are particularly hostile to controversial materials. The Rocky Mountain States run a close second. Conservative religious and political values in the community discourage the selection of controversial items.
Internal censors use several techniques to protect themselves from
controversy and community pressure. The first and most obvious
technique is
simply not to select.The professional can always say that
there
was no local demand or interest for that work or that type of work.
Most
readers select by browsing so what they see is what they check out.
They are
not likely to ask for an item not held. Other rationales might be that
the
work was ephemeral, lacks sound factual authority, lacks substantial
literary quality, or that there was not enough money. It is difficult
to know
what the genuine reason was.
A related problem is to order the controversial item, but for that
order to be neglected by staff or if ordered the item might be
neglected when
received or "lost" or placed in a cataloging arrearage. A variety of
actors have an opportunity to prevent the work from being available to
the public.
The second technique is to select and hide. Controversial items may be added to the collection, but then placed in a restricted area. If users have to ask for an item, they are much less likely to use it. Reclassification of an item may have a similar effect. A controversial children's book may be placed in the YA collection. A controversial YA book may be moved to the adult collection. A controversial adult book may be moved to special collections or library use only in the reference department. A few public libraries have kept controversial items in the librarian's office. If intellectual access is not good, potential users will check the shelf, not find the item, and give up. Few requests then provide a rationale for not selecting similar items in the future because of lack of local demand. A problem here is that controversial items are often high risk candidates for theft or mutilation. It may be that placement in a secured area has nothing to do with censorship, but everything to do with preservation.
The third technique is to select but alter. This is easiest to do with digital files and collections. Still, it is relatively easy to delete offensive parts. The swim suit pages may be removed from Sports Illustrated by straightening the staple. Earthy language may be deleted with a black marker. A controversial page may be cut out.
Select but label is the least restrictive technique. Words, phrases, icons, colored dots and the like may be used to tag controversial items. Tags may be visible somewhere on the end papers or appear in the machine-readable check out record to alert staff to fact that this work may is only available for adult use. Labels are subjective, often wrong, and , if visible, may cause users to overlook or avoid good material. An interesting variant of this approach is the "smart" borrower card that includes a tag for parental permission. Such a card, with the proper permission, would allow a child or teen to have full access to all collections and to the Internet work stations. A card with limited permissions would allow only age appropriate material to be charged and would limit Internet access to preselected sites. The card would also allow access to be limited to text only.
When information agencies provide access to the Internet, problems arise. At present, it is difficult to limit access to a "selected" collection of appropriate items. Internal censorship in this situation may take these forms:
Because protecting children and teens from unwholesome material is so popular with parents and politicians, it was likely that some sort of compulsory filtering legislation would eventually become law for the United States and each state. Receipt of state and Federal monies now requires filtering.
While filtering software is improving, it is still problematic. Many filtering systems have a strong ideological bias toward conservative family values. Blocking based on site IP address fails when providers change their address. Blocking based on words fails when providers slightly alter words, usually by adding a stray character. Word or phrase filtering is often crude. The typical example is the service that denied adults access to information on breast cancer in an attempt to block unwholesome images and descriptions of the female breast. New York state students cannot do web research on terrorism because that word is on a blacklist. Blocking software does not yet do a good job of blocking images.
One major problem is that the use of blocking software appears to promise safe access so that the information agency may be in more difficulty than before when there were no implicit promises of safety or security. Given the great political outcry that results when there is news of children viewing unwholesome material in a publicly funded agency, some information professionals will be tempted to limit access to protect themselves. As an aside, the ALA stance against any blocking software and arguing that parents are solely responsible for what children view/read/listen to is unpopular with the public and politicians.
The most frequent approach is to request that items or content be
removed from the collection. Other approaches include:
Although some traditional library literature discusses censorship as if it was always a fight between the library knight and the oafish barbarian, there is a real tension between conflicting freedoms. For example, communities do have the freedom, through their elected officials, to affirm appropriate values, knowledge and skill. Parents do have the freedom to educate their children in a way that preserves family values. Information professionals should have the freedom to exercise professional judgment. Individuals, including children and teens, should have the freedom to fully develop to their potential by exploring issues and problems important to them. The point here is that censors are usually people who care deeply about their children, their family, and the community. They want to do the "right thing." They also believe strongly in the power of reading, viewing, and listening to change human behavior.
Having said that, as Don Sager says, "at stake will be the library's funding, its public image, community relations, staff morale, and public service, as well as the public's right to read, view, listen, and learn."
Ironically, sometimes censors appear to place more value on the power of reading, viewing, and listening than some information professionals. Will people act or behave differently because of an experience via collection use? It seems intuitive to argue that collections do make a difference. Good materials cause people to be and do good. Bad materials cause people to be and do bad things. Evidence is limited, but a recent study published in Science found a significant association between time spent watching TV in adolescence and the likelihood of subsequent aggressive acts against others.
One mainstream opinion is that normal people are not likely to do something inappropriate or dysfunctional because of a reading, viewing, or listening experience. Some even suggest that the reading, viewing, or listening is a substitute for unwholesome acts. Conservative researchers can find evidence to suggest that continued exposure to unwholesome material will alter values and behavior. Perhaps information agencies ought to post large signs throughout the facility: "USE THESE MATERIALS AT YOUR OWN RISK." In fact, most collection developers do not feel any responsibility for what happens to individuals as they interact with items in the collection.
One of the reasons that censors are particularly concerned with items in a library is that inclusion in a professionally selected collection gives items legitimacy. Would information professionals select an item that is not accurate or good? We know that the correct response is yes because of the professional need to develop diverse collections. However, this is not intuitive. Censors often feel that selection is an endorsement that will make controversial material more believable.
Professionals, especially in school library media centers and smaller public libraries, need to consider the gap between the values/attitudes/experiences available in the collection and those that are acceptable to the community. The greater the gap, the more likely that there will be a serious censorship problem. Where there is no gap, and the collection is a comfortable one, users may find the collection too bland to be interesting and to provide them with what they want and need. How much of a gap can or should exist between the values of the collection developer and those of the community? To what degree should the collection developer select materials that stimulate and agitate the community. How much intellectual excitement is viable?
Is one trashy novel worth the professional life and reputation of the collection developer? If you let them remove this item, won't they come back and want to remove other items?
Although not as frequently heard as in the past, one censorship argument that can be difficult to deal with is the belief that only those who are part of the group know enough to select wisely. For example, representatives of a racial/ethnic or other advocacy group may demand that they develop the collection on their way of life because they have experienced it and know what is true and what is false. "How can a middle class white woman develop a collection on the African-American experience?" Logically, this could be extended to cover many situations. Only men should select works about the male experience. Only Roman Catholics should select materials on Roman Catholicism. Most information professionals are white, middle class females. How important is life experience versus professional knowledge?
In essence, the case for intellectual freedom is simply that there are no easy answers to complex problems. Preventing access to suicide books will not prevent suicide. What is good and true is not always easily identified. Good people will differ. Educated, thoughtful people will differ.
The intellectual freedom advocate believes that individuals can eventually discriminate between the good and the evil, the true and the untrue. This ability is strengthened through use. Exposure to different views and values challenges individuals to examine, evaluate, and grow. Without this experience, individuals are more likely to be manipulated, especially by mass media.
The intellectual freedom advocate believes that only parents are responsible for what their children read, view, and listen to. Adults are responsible for selecting what they read, view, or listen to. No politician, advocacy group, or individual should determine what adults read (if it is legal). Democracy depends on the search for truth.
Information professionals are not well organized as a professional group and lack political power. Typically, library professional associations lack access to talented legal staff to fight censorship battles. However, some state education associations do have legal staff available to protect teacher-librarian members.
Information professionals, especially librarians, lack recognized professional status in the community and seem more likely to be intimidated by assertive lay people than members of other professions.
Some national polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor censorship in the library . Most are opposed to censorship in general, but favor censorship of whatever material they personally happen to find offensive. Those who advocate censorship are likely to be older, have less income, and be less educated. Those against censorship are most likely to be male,under 30 years of age, college educated, non-church goers, raised in a large metropolitan area, and working in a scientific or technical occupation.
A variety of pro-censorship organizations at the national, regional, and state level circulate lists of troublesome or unwholesome items to their members who are encouraged to go to local sites to see if these items are available. If they are, complaints and protests are generated. Such incidents account for about 20 percent of all censorship cases. The anti-censorship organization the People for the American Way maintains a list (available on the WWW) of attacks on the freedom to learn.
Many members of the community consider the library to be a friendly, safe place for themselves and their children. Librarians need to tactfully inform the community that library collections may contain items that they will disagree with or even find offensive but that would be useful to others.
Most censorship incidents are not reported to any national organization so it is unclear how many incidents occur each year. School library media centers are most likely to encounter censorship problems.
Public libraries, especially smaller ones, are also likely to experience some problems. About 90 percent of U.S. public libraries have adopted the Library Bill of Rights which may be a defense against censorship. One study found that the typical public library receives about four requests each year to remove material. This number may be increasing, especially with more requests from members of organized right-wing groups. Checking out controversial items and refusing to return them is a popular tactic by censors. Some collection developers will give up after purchasing several replacement copies.
While academic libraries rarely deal with censorship incidents, there have been problems with theft and vandalism of unpopular or controversial items. For example, material favoring communism/socialism may be found in the rest room trash. Some Indiana seminary libraries discovered favorable material about Jehovah's Witnesses in the trash with sections sliced out.
Complaint handling policies and procedures have been discussed above. Besides the steps mentioned there, the information professional likely to encounter a censorship problem should take these steps.
The end run is a serious problem, especially for school library media specialists. The "end run" is a situation in which the censor complains to a board member or supervisor who agrees to withdraw the item. Such an act places the information profession in an impossible situation. If the decision stands, the professional is either insubordinate for refusing to withdraw the controversial item or unprofessional for withdrawing an item without due process and denying users the opportunity to read, view, or listen.
In school and public library situations, those you report to need to know that a censorship incident could happen and that due process is required. Adopted policies and procedures will make the supervisor's or board member's life easier because it removes them from the situation. Violation of due process may result in supervisors and board members being sued by intellectual freedom organizations such as the ACLU. Many censorship battles are between professional staff and management (principles) and the board (school or library). Boards and directors may undermine adopted policies to resolve controversy . Substantial, continuing educational initiatives are needed to prevent this from happening. No library board should be surprised by a censorship incident.
While there is nothing magical about an adopted censorship policy, it does make a difference. The policy should be adopted so that it represents the will of the community and not just the values/beliefs of the professional staff. The policy should relate all collection decisions, including reselection and deselect ion to the mission, philosophy, and objectives of the information agency and its parent organization. Supporting procedures should clearly indicate what is done, when it is done, how it is done, and why it is done. Each staff member who deals with the public should be familiar with policy and procedures. They must know what to do (be polite) and what not to do (argue with the customer). It is troubling to report that most information agencies do not have effective complaining handling policies/procedures.
Ideally, one staff member should be a specialist in complaint handling. A fact-finding mechanism should be developed, tested, and ready for use. Senior administrators and those involved in agency governance should be informed and educated.
Ike an automobile accident, the censorship complaint can be an emergency. A vigorous complaint, if not well-handled, could be as damaging to the agency and the collection as a fire, theft, or burst water pipe. When involved in an automobile accident, information is exchanged, poise is maintained, no guilt is admitted, and resolution is deferred until evidence can be gathered. The policy ought to insure that a similar situation occurs in the information agency when a complaint is made.
Community support and confidence in the collection and the information professionals is based on daily experiences. Quality service creates a reservoir of community good will and support. Every satisfied user is a potential ally. Pleased collection users are likely to support the agency and the collection developer against those who make damaging accusations.
When a controversial item is being discussed, it is important to be able to demonstrate why an item was selected. Items which meet a particular, recognized need or have been requested by users are easier to defend. Some selectors maintain decision files with reviews and rationales for items selected that are likely to be challenged . We select different items for different audiences. Not everyone will share the values and interests of any particular community member or group. We will select material to meet your needs while selecting material to meet their needs too. They also pay taxes and live in the community.
It is easier to defend a controversial item when the collections include diverse religious, spiritual, and political opinion. You should include material by and about organizations involved in censorship so that their views are heard.
Every information professional, especially those in school library media centers and smaller public libraries should be familiar with community taste and standards. You should know which topics are likely to be most controversial and why. Which people and groups in he community are most likely to be involved in censorship initiatives? What standing do these people have in the community? The more that you know about your community the less likely that you will be taken by surprise when an incident occurs. When a problem does arise, community knowledge will make your response more appropriate and more effective.
Most information agencies would benefit by establishing, maintaining, and strengthening a friends group. Friends can do much to develop community support for the collection and tell the good news. Some friends may defend the collection in a less interested manner than the information professional. Not all friends will be intellectual freedom fighters.
A particularly damaging assumption is that the value of the information agency and its collections are known and appreciated by the community. Typically, this is not the case. Those who are not informed are more likely to believe allegations about unwholesome material in the collection. There is no substitute for a visible, continuing public relations program. An effective PR program should create a reservoir of good will.
Develop good contacts with local media long before the incident . You cannot wait until you are faced with a censorship emergency to make friends and influence local media. The evidence clearly indicates that when local media support the collection, censors are not likely to be successful. When local media supports the censors, they are likely to be successful. Collections should offer local media a steady flow of good news about services and collections. Reference services may be able to help local media lacking their own information services.
The leading information professionals need to be visible. Ideally,
the
head of the library, the museum, or other information agency should be
seen
as someone who truly cares about the community and works with others to
improve the quality of life. Meet with people from a variety of
organizations. Invite citizen groups to meet at the information agency
so
that they can see what is taking place and share the good news with
their
colleagues.
"Dig the well before you are thirsty." It is important to have a
public relations plan in place and a designated PR person on staff [may
be full- or part-time]. "learn the names of reporters and camera people
who cover the library and treat them with warmth and respect Reporters
will want to interview the Director so the Director needs to be the
principal media contact when there is a censorship problem. The
Director must look and act like she is in charge, is well prepared, and
is articulate. Have supporting facts and examples available for mention
and distribution. "Know the points that you wish to make and stay on
message." Do not be rattled by questions or statements. Don't be
pressured into a quick response. Reframe negative questions to
represent your point of view. Do not repeat a negative. Do ask
your own questions. You cannot wait until there is a crisis to develop
a strong relationship with local media.
Censorship is more likely to be successful when the information agency is relatively isolated in the community. Allies can make a notable difference in providing political, legal, and moral support. Which natural intellectual freedom allies exist in your community? Can you identify other organizations likely to be concerned with censorship and intellectual freedom? There are national and state-wide anti-censorship organizations. ALA has played a major role in developing such coalitions.
The obvious liability of finding and working will allied organizations is that they will expect you to support them when they are attacked. Some library associations are fearful of such association. They don't want to be linked with the bookstore or theater owner trade associations. It is unrealistic to expect help from others, but then withhold help when they need it.
Professional Associations do not always provide meaningful help when an agency is involved in a censorship problem. Moral suasion is readily available. Substantial legal assistance is much more rare. Don't assume that TLA or ALA, for example, will ride to your rescue. If a censorship incident seems likely, check with the appropriate organization to see exactly what they are likely to do. You need to be familiar with the exact procedure for securing intervention.
As mentioned above when discussing tensions, not every complaint is a fight between good and evil. Community members have a right to complain about items in the collection or items that should be in the collection. All complaints should be treated with courtesy and empathy. Library staff need to be good listeners. They explain the process, but do not defend it. The complaint handling process should be efficient and effective. Responses should be available in a timely manner. Those who complain should not be demonized or categorized as foolish. It may even be possible that the complaint is warranted and that an item should be removed from the collection or placed in a different collection.
Each information agency should have a complaint or reconsideration form readily available on the WWW or at convenient locations near the collections. It should be easy for users to locate, complete, and deposit the complaint form. The form should be clear, free of professional jargon, and easy to complete. It should not ask any "loss of face" questions such as asking complainers if they are aware of critic's evaluation of the work in question. Typical questions found on such a form:
It is difficult to respond to an oral complaint because the rationale may not be heard or recorded. Most information agencies will respond only to written complaints. This is reasonable, but it does substantially reduce the number of complaints heard and received. That could be a problem. The written form does encourage passions to cool. Written exchange creates time for verification, documentation, and decision-making A suspense date should be created so that the complaint is answered within a reasonable amount of time.
There should be an appeals process if requested by whoever initiated the complaint. Such a process will identify the steps in the process to the final appeal. The process would also include specific information on the evidence and rationale statements to accompany the appeal.
Sandra Bernstein notes how to identify a would-be censor:
Censors use a wide variety of tactics besides the obvious one of coming to a public service desk and complaining. Letters and phone calls to the collection developer, her supervisor, the CEO, board members, and local media are common. Flyers in public places and placed in mailboxes and newspaper tubes may be used to rally public opinion. Placing flyers in controversial books, such as gay and lesbian literature, denounce the subject with slogans and sometimes pictures. In a few cases, there may be protest marches and demonstrations outside the agency. Less likely are personal threats, often via late night anonymous phone calls. Local prosecutors, especially in an election year, may threaten prosecution or initiate other legal action. Although infrequent, vandalism sometimes occurs against the collection or the building where it is housed. A major focus in each case is the use of taxpayer money to purchase unwholesome material. Often, this is seen as malpractice and threats are made to reduce agency funding, especially for collection development.
In schools, there has been a movement to have the selections made by the school library media specialist reviewed by the principal and, in some cases, by the superintendent.
In the past, typically about 60 percent of all censorship cases involve sexual content, the occult [especially witchcraft], or items that were "far left." Note the current flap about the Harry Potter books. At the moment, evolution, creationism, and "intelligent design" are hot topics for censorship and replacement of content. One study estimated that about 80 percent of the complaints are associated with conservative religious - political groups.
It is terribly important to remain calm and be careful in what you say. An off the cuff comment to local media may cause many problems later. There should be no strident defense statements. Emphasize the importance of due process and the need to gather evidence before commenting further.
While it is useful to comment on the general issues of censorship and intellectual freedom, it is best to focus on specific complaints. The more specific the complaint, the easier it will be to respond.
Normally, a committee is used to gather facts, evaluate the questioned item, and prepare a report. Censors are suspicious of the fact that most committees are limited to information professionals who are assumed to automatically support retention of the controversial item. From a political perspective, it would be best to include at least one community member on the community. That may be difficult.
The committee would typically ask questions like these about the item being reviewed:
Challenged materials remain available for use until the fact-finding process is complete and a decision is made. It is important to emphasize that the work is innocent until found guilty. Allegations are not enough.
A prompt, clear response to the person who complained is essential. The response should contain specific reasons why the work is being retained, removed, or placed in a different location. If an appeal process is available, information about that should also be included.
It may also be appropriate to respond to the community with a news release. Such a release might summarize the rationale for the decision. It should also deal with more general issues. For example,
Be able to discuss several reasons why censorship is so popular in the U.S. today.
Why do information professionals engage in internal censorship? What might be done to minimize this behavior? You may wish to consider this question within a type of information agency framework.
To what degree should the collection developer lead community taste and values when selecting items for the collection? Why? Select either a school library media center or a public library as a context.
To what degree are information professionals responsible for the behavior of collection users after reading, viewing, or listening to items selected?
What elements or questions should be included in a reconsideration
form (a
form that requests that an item be removed from the collection or
placed in a
different location)? What will the committee evaluating the
reconsideration
request need to know about the complaint and the item itself?