Oct 28, 2022·edited Oct 28, 2022Liked by Sarah Hartman-Caverly
"Libraries must promote a culture of free speech beyond the legal contours of First Amendment protection - if for no other reason than that the law is downstream of culture. If we foresake free expression as a virtue, we can anticipate its diminishment as a right."
Good luck with that. I marvel that the American Library Association has maintained the "Freedom to Read" statement in its present form as long as it has. Screenshot this: within ten years, there will be an expressly pro-censorship clause added to the ethical documents of our profession SOMEWHERE. Something like "librarians have an ethical duty to weigh the potential harm of the materials they collect and avoid materials that might contribute to patrons feeling unsafe."
Because they (and by they I mean opinion leaders on the academic side and "intellectual" side of our profession) already write stuff like that in their unofficial opinion pieces and encourage that kind of thinking in the library schools.
On note 1, was there at least any discussion about the tension between clause 3 and the rest of the statement? It seems obvious that protecting freedom of expression often conflicts with efforts to suppress hate speech and disinformation, but I increasingly observe that many librarians (and others) fail to see (or at least to acknowledge) any tension at all. The thinking seems to go: "Free speech is good; disinformation is bad. Therefore, all good people will defend free expression and suppress misinformation." To implement the policy, you just have to figure out who's good and who's bad instead of developing a consistent set of principles that can apply equally to everyone.
Discussion was minimal, largely due to the structure of how resolutions move through ALA. They are presented to committees and round tables at one of two annual conferences (LibLearnX, formerly Midwinter, and Annual) and are usually one of many items on the agendas for consideration, so time for discussion has to be capped. Also, by the time they are presented for endorsement, they are pretty much considered 'final' and only considered for up-or-down vote.
"Libraries must promote a culture of free speech beyond the legal contours of First Amendment protection - if for no other reason than that the law is downstream of culture. If we foresake free expression as a virtue, we can anticipate its diminishment as a right."
Good luck with that. I marvel that the American Library Association has maintained the "Freedom to Read" statement in its present form as long as it has. Screenshot this: within ten years, there will be an expressly pro-censorship clause added to the ethical documents of our profession SOMEWHERE. Something like "librarians have an ethical duty to weigh the potential harm of the materials they collect and avoid materials that might contribute to patrons feeling unsafe."
Because they (and by they I mean opinion leaders on the academic side and "intellectual" side of our profession) already write stuff like that in their unofficial opinion pieces and encourage that kind of thinking in the library schools.
I wonder if there will be an ALA response about the Penguin staff protesting the Amy Coney Barrett book?
https://kathleenmccook.substack.com/p/amy-coney-barrett-book-protested
I anticipate no response, but if one is forthcoming, it will likely be a defense of Penguin staff's free speech and association rights as a private entity. This is the same logic applied to social media companies despite longstanding and emerging evidence of coordination with state agencies to surveil and censor users (most recently https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/, I'm also keeping my eye on https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/10/21/court-orders-depositions-of-top-biden-officials-in-missouri-ag-s-case ).
That coordination is terrifying, and I don't understand why it wouldn't be opposed by everyone. The pendulum does swing.
I saw that "the bird is freed" tweet this morning and had to laugh. Also laughed at "Chief Twit" in Musk's twitter bio.
On note 1, was there at least any discussion about the tension between clause 3 and the rest of the statement? It seems obvious that protecting freedom of expression often conflicts with efforts to suppress hate speech and disinformation, but I increasingly observe that many librarians (and others) fail to see (or at least to acknowledge) any tension at all. The thinking seems to go: "Free speech is good; disinformation is bad. Therefore, all good people will defend free expression and suppress misinformation." To implement the policy, you just have to figure out who's good and who's bad instead of developing a consistent set of principles that can apply equally to everyone.
Discussion was minimal, largely due to the structure of how resolutions move through ALA. They are presented to committees and round tables at one of two annual conferences (LibLearnX, formerly Midwinter, and Annual) and are usually one of many items on the agendas for consideration, so time for discussion has to be capped. Also, by the time they are presented for endorsement, they are pretty much considered 'final' and only considered for up-or-down vote.
I'm very impressed - this is quite eloquent for a hot take! Thanks for producing a response so quickly.