OIF Blog

Libraries, schools, and individual bloggers who would like to celebrate the freedom to read and help the American Library Association get the word out on Banned Books Week 2007 (September 29-October 6) may freely save the Web badge above and mount it on their sites.

Here’s the code:

[bracket] a href = “http://www.ala.org/bbooks” [end bracket] [bracket] img src=”useyoursource.gif” alt=”2007 Banned Books Week: Treasure Your Freedom to Read” title=”Banned Books Week Web Badge”/ [end bracket] [bracket] /a [end bracket]

Please let the image point to the link http://www.ala.org/bbooks/ and include the ALT message [2007 Banned Books Week: Treasure Your Freedom to Read].

Note: The 80 x 15 sized banner, which fits neatly on blogs, was created by jovial_cynic.

Here are some addtional badges, which you can get at our Banned Books Week Web Badges page:

For other ways to help get the word out and other ideas on how to celebrate your freedom to read, visit Aye, mateys . . . celebrate your freedom t’ read! and How to Celebrate Banned Books Week 2007.

Tags: Office for Intellectual Freedom by Don Wood
No Comments »

The Freedom to Read Foundation has announced the nominating committee for its April 2008 election. Committee members are Robert P. Doyle, Chicago, Ill. (chair); Therese Bigelow, Chesapeake, Va.; and Candace Morgan, Portland, Ore.

Five positions on the 2008–2009 FTRF board of trustees will be filled in the election to be held April 1–May 1, 2008. The persons elected in the 2008 election will serve a two-year term on the board beginning at the close of the 2008 American Library Association Annual Conference and continuing through the end of the 2010 ALA Annual Conference. Trustees are required to attend two, one-day meetings per year, held in conjunction with the ALA AMidwinter Meeting and Annual Conference.

Nominations should be sent by January 15, 2008, to:

Freedom to Read Foundation
Attn: Robert P. Doyle
50 E. Huron St.
Chicago, IL 60611

In addition, nominations may be e-mailed to ftrf@ala.org. FTRF members also may be slated for candidacy by petition by submitting 25 current FTRF member signatures in support of the candidate. The Executive Director of the Foundation must receive names of petition candidates and the required signatures to support each no later than February 29, 2008.

Only individual FTRF members are eligible to seek election to the board. Membership begins at $35.00 ($10.00 for students). To become a member of the Freedom to Read Foundation, visit us online or call (800) 545-2433 x4226. You also can mail a check, payable to Freedom to Read Foundation, to 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611.

Tags: Freedom to Read Foundation by Jonathan Kelley
No Comments »

Treasure your freedom to read September 29 through October 6 by displaying Banned Books Week materials at your library or bookstore. This year’s materials feature the latest craze—Yarrr, Pirates! Featured below is the YA poster. In addition to the adult and children’s posters, we have bookmarks, T-shirts, the 2007 edition of the BBW Resource Guide, and more. Buy separately or buy in kits!

If pirates aren’t your thing, then don’t sweat it, mateys! There are other ways to support the freedom to read with classic pieces such as an I Read Banned Books button:

or an I Read Banned Books adult bracelet (shown) or adult-sized children’s bracelet:

How about an I Read Banned Books tote bag to help you carry all those banned and challenged books to read during Banned Books Week?

All of these items—and more—are available for purchase through ALA Graphics online or by calling 1-866-SHOP ALA (1-866-746-7252). But please don’t wait until the last minute to order! To guarantee that your materials arrive in time for Banned Books Week, please place your order by Tuesday, September 4. (After this date, you will need to you expedite your shipping—higher rates will apply.)

Note: Online ordering is unavailable for international orders. For more information on orders, please contact 1-866-SHOP ALA.

Tags: Banned Books Week by Nanette Perez
No Comments »

ALA TechSource, in collaboration with the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), held the first annual Gaming, Learning, and Libraries Symposium, July 22-24, 2007, in Chicago. Top gamers, librarians, and others discussed how gaming impacts our nation’s libraries.

Participating in the symposium were Judith Krug, Office for Intellectual Freedom Director, and Katherine Fallow, a partner in Jenner & Block. The presentation, What IF: Gaming, Intellectual Freedom and the Law is available as an MP3 audio file.

In the presentation, Fallow discusses how video games are under scrutiny around the country as some parents and special interest groups raise concerns about the topics and themes contained in various games. While a few groups call for laws regulating access to games based on their content, others advocate for an outright ban on violent games. Several states have passed laws restricting minors’ access to “violent” video games, but every such law has been invalidated by the courts as a violation of the First Amendment. These organizations and individuals are likely to turn their attention to libraries as they begin to add games to their collections. Fallow also explains how to apply intellectual freedom principles to games and gaming activities, and discusses video games in the context of the First Amendment. In addition, Fallow discusses recent court decisions addressing minors’ access to video games, the legal status of game ratings, and policy developments.

Thirty-four additional presentations, including keynote presentations by James Paul Gee, Henry Jenkins, Liz Lawley, and Gregory Trefry, also are available as MP3 audio files.

For more information about video games and violence, see Henry Jenkin’s 2004 essay “Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked,” in which he deflates eight common video-game myths, including those that suggest violent games promote violent behavior.

Tags: Office for Intellectual Freedom by Don Wood
No Comments »

OIF is hearing from librarians who are wondering if they must comply with a request from British publisher Cambridge University Press to remove the book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World from the shelves of their libraries.

Alms for Jihad is the subject of a British libel lawsuit brought by Saudi banker Khalid bin Mahfouz, who has filed several similar lawsuits to contest claims that the Saudi government has used Islamic charities to fund terrorism. Cambridge University Press chose to settle the suit rather than risk a large damage award at trial. Under the settlement, Cambridge University Press has agreed to pulp unsold copies and to ask libraries to return the book to the publisher or destroy the book. (See “Cambridge U. Press Agrees to Destroy Book on Terrorism in Response to Libel Claim” from the Chronicle of Higher Education.)

Critics claim that Mahfouz is attempting to silence critics by using British libel law. Unlike U.S. libel law, which recognizes First Amendment freedoms, and requires plaintiffs to prove statements about them are false, British law places the burden of proof on defendants, who must demonstrate the truth of their claims. (See “Saudi terror, British Censorship” at the Crossed Pond blog.)

Unless there is an order from a U.S. court, the British settlement is unenforceable in the United States, and libraries are under no legal obligation to return or destroy the book. Libraries are considered to hold title to the individual copy or copies, and it is the library’s property to do with as it pleases. Given the intense interest in the book, and the desire of readers to learn about the controversy first hand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep the book available for their users.

UPDATE: Inside Higher Ed provides an account about the decision of Yale University Press to stand behind an author and his book when a charitable organization filed a libel lawsuit over statements made in Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad. The group withdrew its lawsuit after Yale filed motions seeking to quash the libel suit and to receive legal fees.

Tags: Intellectual Freedom Issues by Deborah Caldwell-Stone
No Comments »

To date, 44 state library associations have endorsed the Resolution on the Use and Abuse of National Security Letters.

UPDATE 2/14/08: The Florida Library Association endorsed on February 8. Meanwhile, the California Association of Library Trustees and Commissioners endorsed on February 2.

UPDATE 1/11/08: The Delaware Library Association endorsed on November 14.

UPDATE 1/8/08: The Montana Library Association endorsed on January 8.

UPDATE 1/4/08: Pennsylvania (Nov. 29), Michigan (Dec. 6), and West Virginia (Oct. 4) have endorsed the NSL resolution, as has the New England Library Association (Nov. 16).

UPDATE 11/20/07, 10:56 a.m.: Two more state chapters have endorsed the NSL resolution: Kansas (Oct. 12), Utah (Nov. 9).

UPDATE 10/12/07, 4:13 p.m.: Three more state chapters have endorsed the NSL resolution: New York (Sept. 27), South Dakota (October 1), and Idaho (October 5).

UPDATE 9/28/07, 3:19 p.m.: On September 13, the Wyoming Library Association Executive Board voted to endorse the resolution – as did the members in attendance! On September 26, at its annual convention, the North Dakota Library Association endorsed.

UPDATE 9/27/07, 8:45 a.m.: On September 26, the Texas Library Association Executive Board voted to endorse ALA’s resolution concerning National Security Letters, while on September 23, the Alaska Library Association Executive Council did the same.

UPDATE 9/24/07, 3:36 p.m.: The Alabama Library Association endorsed the NSL resolution on September 19.

UPDATE 9/19/07, 11:55 a.m.: Add New Jersey and New Hampshire to the list! NJLA (Sept. 18) and NHLA (Sept. 18) have endorsed ALA’s resolution on NSLs.

UPDATE 9/13/07, 11:55 a.m.: Add Maryland, Virginia, and Wisconsin to the list! MLA (Sept. 11), VLA (Sept. 7), and WLA (Aug. 31) have endorsed ALA’s resolution on NSLs.

UPDATE 9/7/07, 1:27 p.m.: The Washington Library Association has adopted a resolution endorsing ALA’s resolution on National Security Letters.

UPDATE 9/6/07, 4:45 p.m.: At its August meeting, the Executive Board of the Oklahoma Library Association endorsed the NSL Resolution as passed by ALA Council in July.

UPDATE 8/28/07, 1:29 p.m.: On August 25, the Tennessee Library Association voted to endorse the NSL Resolution.

UPDATE 8/27/07, 1:29 p.m.: On August 24 and 27, the Oregon Library Association and the New Mexico Library Association, respectively, joined the list of state chapters endorsing the NSL Resolution.

UPDATE 8/17/07, 10:25 a.m.: On August 16, the Illinois Library Association joined the list of state chapters endorsing the NSL Resolution. Additionally, on 8/15, California Academic and Research Libraries – CARL – endorsed the NSL Resolution.

UPDATE 8/16/07, 2:38 p.m.: On August 15, the South Carolina Library Association endorsed the ALA Resolution on the Use and Abuse of National Security Letters.

UPDATE 8/15/07, 10:00 a.m.: Two additional states have endorsed the ALA resolution, California and Iowa, bringing the total number of states to 16!

UPDATE 8/14/07, 9:00 a.m.: Since this item was initially posted, more states have been added to the list. To date, 14 state library associations have endorsed the ALA resolution: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

At the 2007 ALA Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., the ALA Council unanimously adopted a Resolution on the Use and Abuse of
National Security Letters:

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association condemns the use of National Security Letters to obtain library records; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association urges Congress to pursue legislative reforms in order to provide adequate protection for each library user’s Constitutional right to be free from unwarranted and unjustified government surveillance, including:

* Judicial oversight of National Security Letters (NSLs) requiring a showing of individualized suspicion and demonstrating a factual connection between the individual whose records are sought by the FBI and an actual investigation;

* Elimination of the automatic and permanent imposition of a nondisclosure or “gag” order whenever an NSL is served on an individual or institution;
* Allowing recipients of NSLs to receive meaningful judicial review of a challenge to their NSL without deferring to the government’s claims;
* Increased oversight by Congress and the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice over NSLs and FBI activities that implicate the First Amendment; and
* Providing for the management, handling, dissemination and destruction of personally identifiable information obtained through NSLs; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the ALA communicates this resolution to the Offices of the President and Vice President, Congress, ALA members, and state chapters; and that ALA urges its members, state chapters, and all library advocates to ask Congress to restore civil liberties and correct the abuse and misuse of National Security Letters.

To date, 10 state library associations have endorsed the ALA resolution: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

If your state library association has considered or is planning to consider a similar resolution, please contact Jonathan Kelley at jokelley(at)ala.org and Nanette Perez at nperez(at)ala.org.

For more information on National Security Letters, visit OIF’s page on the USA PATRIOT Act.

Also see: ALA Press Release on NSL Resolution

Tags: Privacy by Jonathan Kelley
No Comments »

Congress’ passage and President Bush’s signing this past weekend of the FISA Wiretapping Bill met with significant controversy from various civil liberties organizations. Below is a roundup of articles about and responses to the bill.

Articles on the signing

From Reuters:

The Congress yielded to President George W. Bush on Saturday and approved legislation to temporarily expand the government’s power to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order in tracking foreign suspects. Civil liberties groups charged the measure would create a broad net that would sweep up law-abiding U.S. citizens. But the House of Representatives gave its concurrence to the bill, 227-183, a day after it won Senate approval, 60-28. The measure would authorize the National Security Agency to intercept without a court order communications between people in the United States and foreign targets overseas. The administration would have to submit to a secret court a description of the procedures they used to determine that warrantless surveillance only targeted people outside the United States. The measure is to expire in six months. Lawmakers are to come up with permanent legislation in the meantime.

Also see articles from the Washington Post and the New York Times, which reported:

Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Critical response

The ACLU’s website blared “Congress Caves to Bush on Spy Laws,” condemned the Senate for its passage of the bill, and its legislative director Caroline Fredrickson dissected the bill in the Huffington Post :

See ACLU’s “Myths and Facts” for a more detailed analysis.

From the Center for Democracy and Technology:

“Congress should be focusing on restoring checks and balances to intelligence surveillance, not on authorizing more warrantless wiretapping of communications that involve people in the United States,” CDT President Leslie Harris said. If there is a person in the United States on the line, court authorization should be the rule.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said (before the vote):

It’s highly irresponsible for Congress to even consider this proposal before uncovering the truth about the still-shadowy spying program. In recent weeks, Congress has made strides towards more vigorous oversight and authorized subpoenas for key information, but the proposed bill would short-circuit such scrutiny.

The Washington Post’s editorial:

To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law — or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions.

Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald:

Yet here they are, after refusing to legalize warrantless eavesdropping prior to their midterm victory, allowing this legislation to pass now that they are in the majority. It is as politically self-destructive as it is unconscionable on the merits.

UPDATE: See how your Senators and Representative voted.

Roll Call Vote on S. 1927, A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes.

In the Senate

In the House

Summary

UPDATE #2

Wired:

In short, the law gives the Administration the power to order the nation’s communication service providers — which range from Gmail, AOL IM, Twitter, Skype, traditional phone companies, ISPs, internet backbone providers, Federal Express, and social networks — to create possibly permanent spying outposts for the federal government.

Tags: Privacy by Jonathan Kelley
No Comments »