The text of the interpretation is published in the Intellectual Freedom Manual, ninth edition (2015), part II, chapter 1, and on the ALA website.
Out of a long and emotional debate about support for sanctions—including books and informational materials—against South Africa, a new interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights was created. Modeled after Article 19 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “The Universal Right to Free Expression” advocates the free flow of information within all countries and across national boundaries.
In 1989 the ALA was asked to support the Association of American Publishers (AAP) in its efforts to end the book boycott against South Africa. The ALA Council asked the Intellectual Freedom Committee for its recommendation. Concurrently, the Social Responsibilities Round Table had proposed a set of guidelines for librarians interacting with South Africa that was opposed by the IFC. The debate within the ALA over South African policy was emotional, vigorous, and sometimes vituperative. It became clear that no extant ALA policy provided an adequate framework from which to respond fully to the complicated questions about international intellectual freedom and human rights raised during the course of the debate.
To address this glaring need, in 1990 the IFC began work on a policy on the international free flow of information. The new policy was to provide a secure foundation from which to respond to the AAP’s request and from which to address other issues of international intellectual freedom. The drafters used Articles 18, 19, and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as models for the new policy.
In January 1991 the IFC considered comments on the “Free Flow of Information” draft. The title of the interpretation was changed to “The Universal Right to Free Expression,” and the IFC voted to seek endorsements of other ALA units and to present the interpretation to the ALA Council. On January 16, 1991, the ALA Council voted to adopt the policy.
“The Universal Right to Free Expression” was reviewed by the IFC in 1999–2000, 2004–5, and 2008–9 as part of its ongoing periodic review of all interpretations. No changes were recommended. Grammatical edits were made to the interpretation during the 2004–5 policy review.
During its 2013–14 review of ALA intellectual freedom policy statements, in light of recent revelations about massive government surveillance, the Intellectual Freedom Committee recommended substantial revisions to the interpretation. The committee added language about the right to privacy and made revisions to reflect the threats posed by commercial interests as well as governments.
It added the following phrase to the end of the first sentence: “ … without interference and without compromising personal privacy.” It also added language from Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor or reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The committee inserted the following sentence after the quotations from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
On December 18, 2013, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution reaffirming that the right to personal privacy applies to the use of communications technology and digital records, and requiring the governments of member nations to “respect and protect” the privacy rights of individuals.
The paragraph beginning with the sentence “We know that censorship, ignorance, and limitations on the free flow of information are tools of tyranny and oppression” was replaced with the following paragraph:
We know that censorship, ignorance, and manipulation are the tools of tyrants and profiteers. We support the principles of net neutrality, transparency, and accountability. We maintain that both government and corporate efforts to suppress, manipulate, or intercept personal communications and search queries with minimal oversight or accountability, and without user consent, is oppressive and discriminatory. The technological ability of commercial and government interests to engage in the massive collection and aggregation of personally identifiable information without due process and transparency is an abuse of the public trust and inimical to privacy and free expression. We believe that everyone benefits when each individual is treated with respect, and ideas and information are freely shared, openly debated, and vigorously tested in the market of public experience.
The committee also inserted language about privacy and about corporate interests in several subsequent paragraphs. The ALA Council approved all changes on July 1, 2014.