Intellectual Freedom and Privacy

7/31/2019 Intellectual Freedom and Privacy

1/64

IntellectualFreedom

and Privacy


2/64

What is Intellectual Freedom?

"Intellectual Freedom is the right of every individualto both seek and receive information from all pointsof view without restriction. It provides for freeaccess to all expressions of ideas through which any

and all sides of a question, cause or movement maybe explored. Intellectual freedom encompasses thefreedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas."

Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htm


3/64

Limits

Obscenity

Child Pornography

Defamation (i.e. libel or slander) Calls for immediate lawless action


4/64

Obscenity:Legally Defined

1. A prurient interest in sex.

2. Describes certain sexual acts defined instate in a patently offensive way.

3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political orscientific value.


5/64

What Censorship Isnt:

Unless the decision is based on adisapproval of the ideas expressed anddesire to keep those ideas away from

public access, a decision not to selectmaterials for a library collection is notcensorship.


6/64

Case Study:

ALA vs. Pataki


7/64

Description of the New York Law

imposes severe restrictions on theavailability, display and dissemination ofconstitutionally protected, non-obscenematerials on the Internet by making it afelony to use a computer communicationsystem to disseminate "indecent" materialthat is "harmful to minors.


8/64

Problems with the law

Overbroad

Audience cant be monitored

Geography (The Commerce Clause)


9/64

The ruling

In ALA v. Pataki, Federal District JudgeLoretta A. Preska issued a preliminaryinjunction against the New York law,calling the Internet an area of commercethat should be marked off as a "nationalpreserve" to protect online speakers frominconsistent laws that could "paralyzedevelopment of the Internet altogether.

-from ACLU press release


10/64

Points of Discussion

Is there a way to protect children fromonline material without potentiallyrestricting access to information by adults?

Does the federal government haveresponsibilities in this area?


11/64

Case Study:

China and Google


12/64

Some History

Google arrived late but quickly providedcontent using Asian languages

Acquired 25% of traffic in China by the endof 2002

And then


13/64

Sept. 3, 2002:

Google disappears.


14/64

The Great Firewall of China

Chinese government began blockingGoogle in Sept 2002.

Routers can block any signal from outsideChina.

Extensive Blacklist

Google reveals existence of banned sites,but does not provide access.


15/64

What happened?

Rumors of government intervention atbehest of Baidu, one of Googles Chinese

competitors.

But no one really knows.


16/64

What changed?

The Firewall temporarily blocks Google if abanned term is searched for.

Firewall created a major slow-down intraffic.

Baidu, inside the firewall, gained a greateraudience.


17/64

What was removed

Falun Gong

Free speech in China

Tibet Any mention of Tiananmen Square

Massacre

Other banned terms


18/64

China vs. US

China not secretive about censorship

Intimidation and self-regulationcomplement the blocking of sites in orderto maintain harmonious Internet ordertogether.


19/64

Googles Response

Google wanted to be allowed inside theFirewall, in order to:

Compete with the high-speed Baidu search

engine (self-interested reasons)

Provide access to information in anauthoritarian country (humanitarian reasons)


20/64

The drawback

Google had to censor the results of anysearch performed on the Google.cnwebsite.

The government refused to give them anoutline, so they accumulated a list of blocked

sites through automated trial and error


21/64

The beginning of change?

Meet Zhao Jing

(AKA Anti)

Chinas most famous

political blogger


22/64

Chinese blogs grow in popularity

Mu Zimei

Exhibitionist sex blog written

by a Chinese reporter

Meizi

Housewife describing herdaily meal preparation


23/64

Barriers to change

Government Censorship

Apathy, hostility, and fear of fellow citizens

Most internet users in China are thosewho are reaping the benefits of a risingeconomy and thus, unlikely to rock theboat by reading or writing controversialmaterials


24/64

Points of Discussion

Should Googles compromise with Chinabe regarded as an act of appeasement?

Is free speech an absolute ideal or arethere gradations?

Does Googles China policy do more to aidgovernment suppression or to aid publicaccess to information?


25/64

Before CIPA

There have been several predecessors toCIPA that go by similar acronyms. ALAhas prepared a page that discusses each

in brief, and provides links to furthersources.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelat

edlinks/cppacopacipa.htm
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/cppacopacipa.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/cppacopacipa.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/cppacopacipa.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/cppacopacipa.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/cppacopacipa.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/cppacopacipa.htm


26/64

CPPA (Child PornographyPrevention Act)

This act was specifically focused atpornography, and didnt affect libraries. It

does get confused with the other acts that

do, so ALA made mention of it. TheSupreme Courts decision on this act can

be found here:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html


27/64

Communications Decency Act

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/Approved by the US Senate in 1995

The final version as it was approved can be read here:

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/exon_bill.html

The CDA was part of the same telecommunications bill thatintroduced the "V-Chip"

It raised fines on "obscene programming" on cable and

radio.It allowed broadcasters to refuse to carry public

programming with obscenity, indecency, or nudity.
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/exon_bill.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/exon_bill.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/exon_bill.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/exon_bill.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/


28/64

It also made any person liable for any communicationsmade, or made available, that were considered obscene,indecent, or harassing, particularly when they could beaccessed by minors. This was seen to violate freespeech for several reasons.

Constitutionally protected speech on the internet wouldnow be limited to G-rated material, preventing adultsfrom accessing material they have every right to access.

Alternatives to government regulation were available --

webpages, unlike traditional broadcasts, could come upwith strategies to clearly warn of their mature content,and theoretically could also prevent access by minors.


29/64

Many groups formed a coalition to oppose the act,including the ACLU and Human Rights Watch. ALAbecame involved as the case drew nearer to theSupreme Court.

EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) makes thecoalitions formal letter of protest available here:

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/hyde_letter.html

In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the CDA asunconstitutional, as it violated the First Amendment rightto free speech.
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/hyde_letter.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/hyde_letter.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/hyde_letter.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/hyde_letter.html


30/64

COPA

http://www.copacommission.orghttp://www.epic.org/free_speech/COPA/

COPA (Child Online Protection Act) was called "the sequel" to the CDA. It wassigned into law in 1998.

It criminalized providing minors material that was "harmful to them." Obviously,this is a nicely vague description and can be interpreted to mean manythings to many people.

The act also established the COPA commission. According to thecommission's website:

"The primary purpose of the Commission is to "identify technological or othermethods that will help reduce access by minors to material that is harmful tominors on the Internet." " They were in effect going to hash out thespecifics of COPA, by evaluating various filters and other technology, andenforcement techniques.
http://www.copacommission.org/http://www.epic.org/free_speech/COPA/http://www.epic.org/free_speech/COPA/http://www.epic.org/free_speech/COPA/http://www.epic.org/free_speech/COPA/http://www.copacommission.org/http://www.copacommission.org/


31/64

The ACLU and EPIC once again protested that this actviolated free speech. In their legal challenge, they said:

"Under the Act, anyspeech that some community mightconsider to be "harmful to minors" -- including Ken

Starr's report on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal or aMapplethorpe photograph -- is potentially criminal ifdisplayed for free on the World Wide Web (the "Web")and accessible by minors."

See the rest of their complaint

here: http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/complaint.html
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/complaint.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/complaint.html


32/64

In 1999, the federal district court in made adecision that prevented enforcement of COPA.They said that COPA was unenforceable withoutrestricting the First Amendment rights of adults.

In 2000, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals alsocame to that conclusion, but for a different

reason. They said that, under COPA, everycommunication would have to pass the mostrestrictive communitys standard.


33/64

Also in 2000, the COPA commission also released their final report:

"After consideration of the record, the Commission concludes that themost effective current means of protecting children from content onthe Internet harmful to minors include: aggressive efforts towardpublic education, consumer empowerment, increased resources forenforcement of existing laws, and greater use of existingtechnologies."

Essentially, they were recommending the government encourage thepublic to be responsible, instead of introducing restrictive laws andpenalties. You can read the rest of their report here:

http://www.copacommission.org/report/
http://www.copacommission.org/report/http://www.copacommission.org/report/http://www.copacommission.org/report/http://www.copacommission.org/report/


34/64

In February 2001, the DOJ asked the Supreme Court to reverse thedecisions and allow COPA to be enforced. In 2002, the SupremeCourt ruled to uphold the ban on COPA for many of the samereasons that the CDA was struck down.

There were alternatives to government legislation, some of which theSupreme Court generously offered in its decision:

the solutions COPA proposed (such as filtering software) werentproven to be effective

the act limited the free speech rights of adults

You can read the Supreme Courts decision here:http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.html
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.html


35/64

CIPA was part of the federal budget passed in

2000. It requires that any library receiving federaldiscounts or grants must use filtering or

blocking technology on any computer with

Internet access.

What is CIPA?

Children's Internet Protection Act


36/64

This is intended to block access toimages that are:

obscene

child pornography

harmful to minors


37/64

The American Library Association and co-plaintiffs such as the Freedom to ReadFoundation challenged CIPA'sconstitutionality

CIPA in the Courts


38/64

The Third Circuit court agreed:

"We are sympathetic to the position of the government, believingthat it would be desirable if there were a means to ensure thatpublic library patrons could share in the informational bonanza of theInternet while being insulated from materials that meet CIPA'sdefinitions.... Unfortunately this outcome, devoutly to be wished, isnot available in this less than best of all possible worlds."

"CIPA's disabling provisions do not cure the constitutionaldeficiencies in public libraries' use of Internet filters."

"Under these circumstances we are constrained to conclude that thelibrary plaintiffs must prevail in their contention that CIPA requires

them to violate the First Amendment rights of their patrons, andaccordingly is facially invalid."


39/64

The Supreme Court did not:

Rehnquist:"Internet terminals are not acquired by a library in order to create

a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves. Rather, alibrary provices such access for the same reasons it offers othehrlibrary resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreationalpursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality."

"The decisions by most libraries to exclude pornography fromtheir print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; itwould make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block onlinepornography any differently.

Kennedy:

"If, as the Government represents, a librarian will unblock filteredmaterial or disable the Internet software filter without significantdelay on an adult user's request, there is little to this case."


40/64

Except for the dissenting opinions:

Souter:"The unblocking provisions simply cannot be

construed... to say that a library must unblock upon adult

request, no conditions imposed and no questionsasked.""The question for me, then, is whether a local library

could itself constitutionally impose these restrictions onthe content otherwise available to an adult patron

through an internet connection, at a library terminalprovided for public use. The answer is no.... This wouldsimply be censorship."


41/64

CIPA and Libraries

How does a library comply with CIPA?

1. Use filters.2. Set policy for disabling those filters foradult patrons.


42/64

Discussion: Disabling InternetFilters

What would you do?

a) Require patrons to choose "filtered" or"unfiltered" access before using a public

terminal. If they select "unfiltered" they mustalso attest that they are 17 or older.b) Unblock sites upon request from adultpatrons.c) Send requests for unfiltered access to a

library committee for review before allowingunfiltered access.


43/64

Recommendations

Mary Minow, librarian-turned-attorney:

"A quick disabling policy is not only truer to

the professional ideals of intellectualfreedom, it's also legally safer than thecautious disabling policy."

?


44/64

What's next?

H.R. 5319: Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006

Requires libraries to prohibit access to commercial social

networking websites or chat rooms. Allows disabling of blocking software for use by adults,

or children with adult supervision.

As of this writing, the bill has passed the House andbeen referred to the Senate.


45/64

Question?

What if you saw someone viewinginappropriate material, how would youreact and handle the situation?

P i F


46/64

Privacy Facts:

On Dec. 15, 1791, The Bill of Rights was created, and the first 10 amendments of theconstitution went into effect.

Ten state constitutions guarantee a right of privacy or bar unreasonable intrusionsinto citizens privacy. Forty-eight states protect the confidentiality of library usersrecords by law, and the attorneys general in the remaining two states have issuedopinions recognizing the privacy of users library recordshttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/privacy.htm#32006 American Library Association.

The library assumes all responsibility in that ...the collection of personally identifiableinformation should only be a matter of routine or policy when necessary for thefulfillment of the mission of the library. Regardless of the technology used, everyonewho collects or accesses personally identifiable information in any format has a legaland ethical obligation to protect confidentiality.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/privacy.htm#102006 American Library Association.

T i i i i i h i
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/privacy.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/privacy.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/privacy.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/privacy.htm


47/64

To assist in maintaining the privacyof the patron:

The ALA recommends that each library adopt a policy thatspecifically recognizes the confidentiality of informationsought or received, and materials consulted borrowed oracquired by a library user. These materials may includedatabase search records, circulation records, interlibraryloan records and other personally identifiable uses oflibrary materials, facilities, programs or services, such asreference interviews. Libraries are advised to rely onexisting laws to control behavior that involves public

safety or criminal behavior.


48/64

PA Law on Confidentiality

PENNSYLVANIA STATUTESTITLE 24. EDUCATIONCHAPTER 16. LIBRARIESARTICLE IV24 P.S. sec. 4428 (2001)

[P.S.] sec. 4428. Library Circulation RecordsRecords related to the circulation of library materials which contain the

names or other personally identifying details regarding the users ofthe State Library or any local library which is established ormaintained under any law of the Commonwealth or the library of anyuniversity, college, or educational institution chartered by the

Commonwealth or the library of any public school or branch readingroom, deposit station or agency operated in connection therewith,shall be confidential and shall not be made available to anyoneexcept by a court order in a criminal proceeding.

Th ALA St


49/64

The ALAs Stance:

The American Library Association affirms that

rights of privacy are necessary for intellectualfreedom and are fundamental to the ethics and

practice of librarianship. To affirm this belief, the American Library

Association created the Library Bill of Rights, toensure that all users of a library would be

respected and granted access to all materials,regardless of topic, race, or religion.

Th Lib Bill f Ri ht


50/64

The Library Bill of Rights

Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, andenlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should notbe excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to theircreation.

II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view oncurrent and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed becauseof partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provideinformation and enlightenment.

IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resistingabridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

V. A persons right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin,age, background, or views.

VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public theyserve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the

beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.Adopted June 18, 1948, by the ALA Council; amended February 2, 1961; January 23,

1980; inclusion of age reaffirmed January 23, 1996.http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillofrights.pdf

C d f Ethi f Lib i
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillofrights.pdfhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillofrights.pdfhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillofrights.pdfhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillofrights.pdf


51/64

Code of Ethics for Librarians

We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefullyorganized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased,and courteous responses to all requests.

We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor libraryresources.

We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to informationsought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.

We recognize and respect intellectual property rights.

We treat co-workers and other colleagues with respect, fairness and good faith, and advocateconditions of employment that safeguard the rights and welfare of all employees of ourinstitutions.

We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or ouremploying institutions.

We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow ourpersonal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or theprovision of access to their information resources.

We strive for excellence in the profession by maintaining and enhancing our own knowledge

and skills, by encouraging the professional development of co-workers, and by fosteringthe aspirations of potential members of the profession.

Adopted June 28, 1995, by the ALA Councilhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/codeofethics/codeofethics.pdf


52/64

USA PATRIOT Act

What is it?

Uniting and Strengthening America byProviding Appropriate Tools Requiredto Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Actof 2001


53/64

A Brief History

Passed October 26, 2001

Revised 2005 to somewhat restrict the power of the act.

Gives greater power of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation to information that was previously kept

confidential. Not first FBI program to monitor library users. As near as

the 1980s there was a Library Awareness Program thatmonitor science libraries.

Parts of the Act (including Section 215, which effectslibraries) will expire in September 2009

If Y Y Lib A S d ith


54/64

If You or Your Library Are Served with aPatriot Act Warrant

Make sure officers have an official warrant and have proper ID.

Keep a record of the meeting. Have another colleague present.

A library and its employees can still seek legal advice concerning the warrant andrequest that the librarys legal counsel be present during the actual search providedfor by the warrant.

This warrant contains a gag order. Make sure staff understand they are forbiddenunder law to speak about the warrant.

The library is allowed to consult with an attorney

If you or your library are served with a warrant issued under this law, and wish the

advice of legal counsel but do not have an attorney, you can still obtain assistancefrom the Freedom to Read Foundations legal counsel. Simply call the Office forIntellectual Freedom (1-800-545-2433, ext. 4223) and inform the staff that you needlegal advice OIF staff will assure that an attorney returns your call. You should notinform OIF staff of the existence of the warrant.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


55/64

Can I notify the person whose records are thesubject of the search warrant?

The Freedom to Read Foundations legal counsel advises

that librarians should not notify the person whoserecords are the subject of the search warrant. Only onejurisdiction, the District of Columbia, requires that apublic library notify a patron when the library is servedwith a court order to turn over the patrons records.

No


56/64

If you do not comply with the

warrant or fail to follow the gagorder:

You may be charged with contempt of courtand sentenced up to 5 years in prison

What about my states law on


57/64

What about my states law on

confidentially?

Federal laws override state and local laws.Therefore, while Pennsylvania has a law

against disclosing records, your librarymust comply with a Federal warrant orface legal consequences.


58/64

What can I do?

Once a policy concerning patrons records is put in

place, make sure old records are destroyed in a timely

manner. A library cannot destroy records after it hasbeen served with a warrant.

ALA Recommends:

Be Prepared

If you are concerned about disclosing patroninformation, do not keep detailed patron records. Listsof specific patrons checked-out books are not

necessary for a library to function.


59/64

What else can I do?

Designate the person or persons who will be responsible forhandling law enforcement requests. In most circumstances, it

should be the library director, and/or the librarys legal counsel.

Review the library's confidentiality policy and state confidentiality law withlibrary counsel. Make sure both volunteer and staff workers understandthese laws and understand what they are to do in such case.

Make sure your patrons understand the librarys privacy policy.

How are other libraries


60/64

How are other librariesresponding?

Indiana University Walter E. Helmke LibraryHelmke Library staff will not respond to any informal request by a third party for personally identifiable

information about any library user. Such information includes database search records, referenceinterviews, e-mail requests for information, circulation records, interlibrary loan records, and otherpersonally identifiable uses of library materials, facilities, or services. Personally identifiableinformation may be released only to a law enforcement agency after presentation of an order by acourt of competent jurisdiction issued in proper form (a legal subpoena or search warrant) thatshows good cause based on specific facts.

August 2005. http://www.lib.ipfw.edu/1158.0.html

National Center for Biotechnology Information (National Library of Medicine)You do not have to give us personal information to visit our web sites.If you choose to provide us with additional information about yourself through an e-mail message,

form, survey, etc., we will only maintain the information as long as needed to respond to yourquestion or to fulfill the stated purpose of the communication.

Except for authorized law enforcement investigations, no attempt is made to identify individual users orusage patterns. We do not give, share, sell or transfer any personal information to a third party.

March 2001. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query/static/privacy.html

Library Connections (Connecticut)This consortium of 26 Connecticut libraries won their legal battle with the FBI to keep patron records

private. After dropping their defense of the gag provision accompanying the request, the FBIabandoned the demand all together. After the gag order was lifted, they showed that the FBIwanted all records from one computer. The librarians were never forced to comply with thedemand and the records were never turned over to the authorities.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/25997prs20060626.html
http://www.lib.ipfw.edu/1158.0.htmlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query/static/privacy.htmlhttp://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/25997prs20060626.htmlhttp://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/25997prs20060626.htmlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query/static/privacy.htmlhttp://www.lib.ipfw.edu/1158.0.html


61/64

What do you think?

Scenario: You are the director of a small publiclibrary. You are served a valid National SecurityLetter from the FBI demanding patron

information which your library holds.What is the right thing to do?


62/64

Bibliography

ALA.org Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & Ahttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htmThis is the ACLUs webpage on intellectual freedom issues in general. It contains and links toinformation on Banned Books, Court Cases, the CIPA, the first amendment and other issues

ACLU.org American Civil Liberties Union : Feature on ALA v. Patakihttp://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15510res19970620.htmlThis is the ACLUs section on the ALA v. Pataki case, and features court documents andtranscripts, as well as related ACLU press releases.

Loundy, D. Internet Speech Cases Cinch Broad Freedom. Chicago Daily LawBulletin(July 10, 1997): p. 5.This is an article from a law journal discussing the ALA v. Pataki case and another related case inNevada, and analyzes the legal reasoning and impact of both cases.

Thompson, C. Googles China Problem (And Chinas Google Problem New YorkTimes, April 23, 2006This New York Times article discusses the censorship regime in China, Googles methods foraccommodating it.

Pan, P. Bloggers Who Pursue Change Confront Fear and Mistrust Washington PostForeign Service, Tuesday, February 21, 2006; section A01This article discusses the struggles of Zhao Jing, a Chinese political blogger, as he battles withcensorship of his internet-based writings, which are occasional critical of the government, andfrequently discuss sensitive topics.

Annotated Bibliography
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htmhttp://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15510res19970620.htmlhttp://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15510res19970620.htmlhttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htm


63/64

Annotated BibliographyALA's CIPA Web Site: http://www.ala.org/cipa/

This URL is a convenient one-stop-shop for CIPA-related news. It includes a selectivebibliography of outside sources as well as ALA's description of CIPA's history and impact onlibraries. While this is not the source for well-balanced commentary (remember that ALA was on one

side of the "versus" in United States v. American Library Association), one can feel confident that anyupdates about CIPA and its application in libraries will be addressed here.

Minow, M. and T. Lipinski. 2003. The Library's Legal Answer Book. Chicago: American Library Association.Written by librarian-turned-attorney Mary Minow and attorney-turned-librarian Tomas Lipinski,

this book is intended for public librarians and their attorneys. The Q&A format and comprehensive indexmake this a useful go-to guide on a variety of topics from copyright to privacy. Its in-depth coverage alsoallows for a more comprehensive exploration of each topic. Its obvious weakness is that it will becomeprogressively out-of-date regarding current legislation and court decisions; for example, CIPA had still not

been argued before the Supreme Court at the time the book went to press. While the book has the usualdisclaimer "this information is notprovided as a substitute for legal advice," it is still an excellentframework in which librarians can start conversations with their boards of directors and attorneys.

Minow, Mary. 2004. "Lawfully Surfing the Net: Disabling Public Library Internet Filters to Avoid More Lawsuitsin the United States {computer file}." First Monday (Online) 9, no. 4. Library Literature & InformationScience, EBSCOhost(accessed October 3, 2006).

Written for public libraries affected by CIPA, this article acts as a practical "how to" guide. Itaddresses the fine line between CIPA compliance and violating First Amendment rights ofpatrons. Minow's objective is to help librarians comply with CIPA without putting their institutions at risk

for "as-applied" lawsuits due to overblocking content.

Foerstel, Herbert. Surveillance in the Stacks. New York : Greenwood Press, 1991.This book deals with the Federal Bureau of Investigations Library Awareness Program, a

program in the 1970s and 80s that monitored library patrons. This programs purpose was to monitorscience libraries primarily, and was concerned with Soviet infiltration of American knowledge. Althoughthe program is now discontinued due to widespread unpopularity, this book serves as an excellentbackground material for matters concerning privacy and government interference.
http://www.ala.org/cipa/http://www.ala.org/cipa/


64/64

Bibliography

EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center)website http://www.epic.org

The Copa Commission

http://www.copacommission.org

Cornell Law School Supreme CourtCollection

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html
http://www.epic.org/http://www.copacommission.org/http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.htmlhttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.htmlhttp://www.copacommission.org/http://www.epic.org/

Documents

Intellectual Freedom and Privacy