Recent+Attempts+at+Censorship

Back to Main Intellectual Freedom Page

__**Recent attempts at Censorship**__ The ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom tracks media and library reports, and compiles an annual bibliography of challenged and banned books. A challenged book is one whose content has been questioned, and which typically remains in the collection until the issue has been resolved; whereas, a banned book has been removed from a collection because an individual or group has determined that patrons should be denied access to it (Scales, 2007). This annual bibliography includes the titles of the books, the location and nature of the challenge. Nearly all of the concerns regarding [|Books Challenged or Banned in 2010-2011]were in relation to appropriateness for youth. Parents are the primary initiators of challenges, and the top three reasons from 1990-2010 were:
 * 1) Sexually explicit
 * 2) Offensive language
 * 3) Unsuitable to age group

( American Library Association, 2011, [|Statistics])

Aside from the three most frequent reasons for challenging books, the [|ALA’s 2010] top 10 list includes:
 * Homosexuality
 * Religious viewpoint
 * Racism
 * Sex education
 * Violence
 * Insensitivity
 * Drugs

The School Library Journal notes that //And Tango Makes Three// by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell has recently become a favorite target for challengers. The “true story of two male penguins who hatch and parent a baby” has won the top slot in four out of five years since 2005, the year in which the book was published. Of course, this book is essentially the replacement for Alice Walker's //Color Purple// //(another book featuring homosexuality),// which is no longer seen in the top ten. Many other top ten features have also replaced previous favorites with similar subject matter ([|School Library Journal]).

**Intellectual Freedom for Youth and the Internet**
The Internet has opened up new considerations and concerns, as public and school libraries balance protecting the privacy and safety of youth, with protecting their intellectual freedom. From Federal law to organizational policies, requirements and practices are being implemented that have implications for intellectual freedom.

__[|Children's Internet Protection Act]__(CIPA)-In reaction to fears of online predators and harmful materials, Congress passed legislation in 2000 requiring that schools and libraries which receive e-rate discounts and/or LSTA funding (in the case of libraries), must comply with requirements to install filtering software on computers and to implement Internet safety policies (Jaeger & Zheng, 2009 ). Rather than trying to limit content on the Internet, CIPA limits access to the content. The filtering software is supposed to block three types of content:
 * Obscene material
 * Child pornography
 * Material that is harmful to minors

(Jaeger & Zheng, 2009)

Each of these areas is specifically defined and CIPA treats all youth the same, regardless of maturity. Unfortunately, one of the problems is that the filtering programs also block information which may be helpful rather than harmful. De facto, software designers determine what information youth can access in schools or libraries (Jaeger & Zheng, 2009). In addition to CIPA, some states and local governments have also passed similar laws.

Interestingly, while schools and public libraries both have financial incentives to comply, and both have an interest in protecting children, they have responded differently to CIPA. Jaeger & Zheng (2009) found that only a small portion of schools and public libraries had implemented filters prior to CIPA. However, 96% of public schools were in compliance by 2001, and 100% had implemented filtering by 2005. On the other hand, while the number of public libraries which have implemented CIPA has increased since the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 2003, the number of libraries not applying for the e-rate also increased from 15.3% to 31.6% from 2006-2008. In 2008, 51.3% of public libraries were filtering Internet access because of e-rate, compared to 100% compliance by schools. Certainly, as Jaeger & Zheng observed, schools have significant pressures and expectations to maintain student safety, as well as a large number of computers, making it financially persuasive to comply, while public libraries serve not only children but also adults.

__Organizational Policies/Practices__-Wolf (2008) prompts us to broaden our thinking to include the Internet when we review and revise organizational policies, for instance:
 * //Selection/collection policies// often do not provide guidance about online materials, including games, informational sites, and videolinks. If policies are format-specific, or too vague, they may be interpreted in ways which are contrary to the tenets of intellectual freedom.
 * Separately, //acceptable use policies// which define how students, teachers, and staff use computers in schools may also inadvertently limit access. If parents do not sign acceptable use policies, they are restricting intellectual freedom. Acceptable use policies commonly remind students that using the Internet is "a privilege, not a right." Yet if necessary educational content is online, restricting the Internet violates intellectual freedom. Broad interpretation of what is unacceptable may block blogs, social networking sites, and games because they do not fall under the definition of "instructional purposes."

Bell (2007) found that schools are also imposing filters on websites beyond what is required by CIPA--filtering the filters. Some schools allow only "district approved" websites or place computers on kiosk mode to prevent open surfing; others place time limits on certain sites. Often times, it is the technology department which determined what is an appropriate website, rather than teachers or librarians. As a result, students miss out on potentially valuable educational resources, as well as the opportunity to learn how to use the Internet safely on their own (Stripling et al., 2010). Sometimes, local policies seem to defy logic. Bell found a school blocking the weather website, even when many of the students used the ferry to travel between school and home; another blocked all sites related to automobiles in order to discourage "frivolous use" (2007, p.41). This also creates two levels of access to information for students--those who are able to access the unfiltered Web from home, and those who are not. As Bell observes, while filters may make media specialists and librarians lives easier, they "go against everything we stand for" (2007, p.40).

See Examples of How Libraries Deal with Intellectual Freedom for guidance on librarian reponsibilities related to the Internet, and Strategies or Tactics to Combat Censorship for ways to address Internet censorship.