Army Libraries

Since visiting my brother at Ft. Leonard Wood in Missouri, I have been curious about libraries on military bases. I’ve gathered that they are staffed by non-military staff and are for the use of active duty and families and retired military. There are the same types of libraries as outside the military—public, school, academic, and special. What I really wanted to know, and couldn’t find, was how the military’s version of the First Amendment was handled at libraries on a military base.
There are limits to a soldier’s free speech, spelled out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Defense Department Directives. “Subchapter X of the UCMJ is the “Punitive Articles,” which include four of the more scrutinized articles in the UCMJ. These are Article 88, Contempt Toward Officials; Article 92, Failure to Obey Order or Regulation; Article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman; and Article 134, General Article.” (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=military_speech ). In the 1974 case, Parker v. Levy, an army physician was prosecuted for speaking against the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction. The military is a “specialized society separate from civilian society”.
Considering the fact that military personnel have limits to their free speech, how does a library operate? Presumably, a soldier could be prosecuted for blogging negatively about the President. Does a military library endorse the ALA’s Freedom to Read/View statements, or their Privacy statement? Do they use filters on their computers (for adults as well as soldiers)? Can a soldier check out ‘subversive’ material without fear of retribution?

Fariness Doctrine

I’ve noticed in the current affairs section at work a surprising number of books with the word censorship in the title. Naturally, as a future librarian, I had to check them out. They are all on the same basic theme: the Fairness Doctrine. Not being familiar with that, I looked it up. Essentially, it was enacted in 1949 to require radio broadcasters to provide differing ideas on controversial issues. It was later repealed by the Reagan administration. Apparently, conservative talk radio hosts were panicked that the Obama administration was plotting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, despite Obama’s statement that he does not intend to. A Fox News story (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/ ) says that conservative talk show hosts, “see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows”. “What this would do is create a dysfunctional situation where no radio station could afford to express an opinion anytime. Whose opinion will determine what’s fair, what’s balanced, what’s diverse?” (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/02/26/senate-votes-to-kill-fairness-doctrine-but-gop-concerns-remain/ ). Not being a conservative myself, I don’t really listen to any of these broadcasts, but I can see why they would be worried should the Fairness Doctrine somehow make a comeback. In one of the books I looked at (Brian Jennings’ Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio or Brad O’Leary’s Shut Up America! The End of Free Speech—I can’t remember which) the author points out that conservative radio programming is simply more popular and that is no reason to impose liberal thought on their programs. Whether it’s true or not that more conservatives listen to the radio, I agree with the principle that they have the right to express their ideas without being required to offer an opposing viewpoint. An author of a book doesn’t have to publish a companion volume to his work to make it balanced. Same goes for the internet or television, so why should radio stations need to? I can see that the intent of the Fairness Doctrine was good, in that they wanted to ensure there was no bias, but I don’t think it really worked out that way.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/internet/news.aspx?id=21668
There was an article related to the topic of this week’s class that I found interesting. Cardinal’s manager Tony La Russa settled a lawsuit against Twitter; apparently someone used his name to post comments about drunk driving incidents and deaths on the Cardinals team. The Twitter page said something about “bio=parodies”, which I suppose was meant as a disclaimer of sorts. I think this kind of story should make parents think about what their kids are doing online. Anyone can say they are anyone on these sites—which makes it dangerous as far as online predators. We’ve talked in our group discussion this week about alternatives to DOPA that don’t infringe on first amendment rights. Is there any way to verify that people are legitimately using Twitter as they should? Does the creator of the La Russa “bio-parody” have first amendment protection? (I think only Twitter was named in the suit, leading me to believe that either they had no case against them or they couldn’t figure out who it was.) Unfortunately, stories like this may also reinforce the idea for some people that social networking sites should be blocked in schools and libraries in order to protect children.
On another note, we’ve also talked in group discussions about parents being ultimately responsible for what their children reads/views. This afternoon at work, a customer brought back two manga novels. She said she had given her teen her credit card and sent him into the bookstore to pick out his books. She was really unhappy with the content of the books and wanted to know why we sold her child ‘pornography’. It was a good opportunity, though, to explain intellectual freedom and first amendment rights to someone.

Intellectual Freedom and Readers Advisory

In the article “A Dirty Little Secret”, the author talks about librarians censoring themselves when choosing what to buy (or not) for their library. I’m interested in how this self-censorship relates to reader’s advisory, especially for children. It seems like if a librarian is censoring what they select, they might also be careful about what they give a child to read.
I’ve been asked by many parents and grandparents, “Can you recommend a good book for my third (etc.) grader?” Sometimes it takes a lot of digging to get to what the child likes to read, but the most frustrating thing is when you recommend one book after another and they are all rejected for one reason or another. “We don’t read books with magic.” “Is it ‘clean’?” “That one looks too hard, is there something easier?” I like to think I don’t censor myself when I recommend books to kids, but I have found myself telling a parent, “It’s a great book, but…” It is infinitely easier to talk to a child directly, but after reading about all of these great books that have been challenged, it gets tougher. Do you give them a book you know has ‘objectionable’ material because it really is the perfect book for that child, or do you choose something else to recommend, just in case?
I hate the idea of having to censor myself in reader’s advisory. I don’t want to pre-screen books; if a book is really exceptional it isn’t enough to just keep the book on the shelf. I want to share it with kids, and I don’t want to worry about what their mom thinks. But at the same time, I don’t want to be personally attacked for my recommendations or put the library in a position where it has to defend its selection choices. I’m on the fence on this one.

Intellectual Freedom in Prison

Do prisoners have the same First Amendment rights as everyone else? This question has been on my mind for a while now. As a bookseller, I frequently help people who want to send books or magazines to someone in either the county jail or prison. Recently, a customer came back after purchasing and sending a few books that were religious or spiritual in nature. The books were refused by the prison and the customer needed detailed descriptions of the books in order to file a formal complaint with the prison.
There are two sides to the question of prisoners’ rights. On one side, some would argue that someone who has committed a crime and been convicted has surrendered their rights. On the other hand, a prisoner is still a citizen of the United States and should be protected. The reality lies somewhere in between. The Anti-Defamation League states that “The United States Supreme Court has said that ‘prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.’ (http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/prison_ex.asp#q1).” But these protections are limited for security or disciplinary reasons. So, an inmate has a right to read what they want, as long as the prison officials say it’s all right.
But how do prison officials judge content? What kind of book would pose a security risk in prison? ADL talks about prison extremism—literature from groups that promote racial hatred or a challenge to authority. This makes sense; there are definitely racial issues in prisons, and prison guards also need to be safe. But in the case of my customer, the books were not in any way inciting violence. So what criteria do prisons use to determine whether books are ‘appropriate’?
When I began researching this question, I felt very strongly that prisoners should have the same first amendment rights as I do—being in prison doesn’t strip you of your constitutional rights. I think there are very few books that would pose a security risk, and those books would probably not be found on the shelves of my bookstore. I guess I’m left with more questions than when I started. I’m curious about prison libraries: Do they have the same sort of collection development policies as other libraries? Can they support the Library Bill of Rights or the concept of intellectual freedom? What does intellectual freedom mean for someone who doesn’t have physical freedom?