Information Services Today

Chapter 35, “Intellectual Freedom,” addresses how the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—the right to intellectual freedom—is not only upheld but defended by today’s information organizations. In the information landscape, intellectual freedom is defined as the right to speak freely, receive or access the speech of others, and peaceably assemble, as well as the right to confidentiality and privacy. As director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom, James LaRue is in an excellent position to provide guidance on intellectual freedom. He explains intellectual freedom as it relates to the American Library Association’s Bill of Rights and how both relate to access, use, and engagement with all types of information organizations. Collection development policies can be key to maintaining intellectual freedom, and LaRue emphasizes the need for these policies to be free of bias, resist censorship, and represent all views. He further defends the request for reconsideration process as being one of the most effective tools against censorship as it allows information organizations to resist local outrage over library materials through a formal process.

Looking forward, LaRue notes the upcoming concerns for intellectual freedom, including the expansion of content and the opportunities, threats, and diversions attendant with this expansion. Specifically, he notes challenges in intellectual freedom such as the rise of self-publishing, hateful or fake content, and issues over net neutrality. Finally, he harkens back to the information organization’s most foundational defense: the fundamental right to read. LaRue leaves readers with strategies for advocating for intellectual freedom, provides a list of key cases that address intellectual freedom issues, and shares essential resources to help information professionals understand and defend intellectual freedom in the communities they serve.

The American Library Association defines intellectual freedom as the freedom to hold, receive, and disseminate ideas without restriction.¹ The Office for Intellectual Freedom states that intellectual freedom provides all information users “the right to seek and receive information on all subjects from all points of view without having the subject of one’s interest examined or scrutinized by others” and that “the role of libraries in America today is shaped by our constitutional legacy.”² The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants this right to intellectual freedom:

In the library context, the right of “free speech” encompasses four broad dimensions:⁴

The right to “speak freely.” Speech is protected whether it be aloud, in writing, or in music, film, or art. This is the commonly held understanding of intellectual freedom.

The right to receive or access the speech of others. This is a traditional function of the library and the foundation of collection development policies. This right includes the collection of religious speech as long as the collection does not favor one religion to the exclusion of others and political speech, even when it is “dissenting.”

The right to peaceably assemble.⁵ This protection guides the information organization’s public program and meeting policies. The information organization may provide limited public fora (free speech zones limited by time, place, and manner) in which even the most controversial or politically charged topics can be discussed.

The right to confidentiality and privacy. From “Right to Privacy,”⁶ an article written by attorney Samuel D. Warren and future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1890, information professionals have derived the implicit need to protect records of individual library use, including but not limited to circulation records, research requests, and internet use (see also chapter 34: “Information Privacy and Cybersecurity”).

This chapter explores intellectual freedom as it relates to access, use, and engagement with the library and information organization, its resources (including the resources created within), and the information professionals who work in these organizations. After completing this chapter, the reader should have an understanding of:

• intellectual freedom and the American Library Association’s (ALA) Library Bill of Rights,

• the importance of a collection development policy and a request for reconsideration process,

• the names and importance of some of the information profession’s key non-library allies,

• the relevance of six key trends that will impact intellectual freedom now and in the future, and

• the fundamental competencies required of today’s information professionals to be an effective advocate for intellectual freedom.

The ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC)⁷ was founded in 1940 after member Forrest Spaulding noted that “indications in many parts of the world point to growing intolerance, sup pression of free speech, and censorship affecting the rights of minorities and individuals.”⁸ In response to the events culminating in World War II and challenges around the nation to such works as Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck and Mein Kampf by Hitler, Spaulding drafted the “Library’s Bill of Rights,”⁹ which was approved by his board. A year later, he introduced it to the ALA Council, which amended and adopted it for the entire association.

The adoption of the Library Bill of Rights in 1939 marks the true beginning of ALA’s commitment to intellectual freedom. ALA has amended and re-affirmed the bill several times since then, with the last revision in 1996. ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC) is responsible for upholding the Library Bill of Rights and assisting the Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF)¹⁰ with offering interpretations of the bill (check out chapter 35: “Library Bill of Rights: Protections for LGBT” in the online supplement as an example of such interpretations).

Intellectual freedom is rooted in the First Amendment. There are many significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions that address free speech—too many to cover here. Textbox 35.1 lists some of the most notable court cases mentioned in the Office for Intellectual Freedom’s “Notable First Amendment Court Cases.”¹²

TEXTBOX 35.1

Notable First Amendment Cases

The Right to Read Freely

• Counts v. Cedarville School District¹³

• Evans v. Selma Union High School District of Fresno County¹⁴

• Rosenberg v. Board of Education of City of New York¹⁵

• Todd v. Rochester Community Schools¹⁶

• Minarcini v. Strongsville (Ohio) City School District¹⁷

• Creamer v. Bureau of Police for Morristown¹⁸

• Case v. Unified School District No. 233¹⁹

Minor’s First Amendment Rights

• Interactive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al.²⁰

• American Amusement Machine Association, et al., v. Teri Kendrick, et al.²¹

The Internet

• American Library Association v. U.S. Department of Justice and Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union²²

• United States, et al. v. American Library Association, Inc. et al.²³

• Mainstream Loudoun, et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library²⁴

Freedom of Expression in Schools

• Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District²⁵

• Zana v. Warsaw (Indiana) Community School Corporation and Warsaw School Board of Trustees²⁶

• Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico²⁷

• Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education²⁸

Right to Privacy and Anonymity

• Stanley v. Georgia²⁹

• McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission³⁰

• Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton³¹

Obscenity and Indecency

• Miller v. California³²

• Butler v. Michigan³³

• Ginsberg v. New York³⁴

• New York v. Ferber³⁵

• American Booksellers Assoc., Inc. v. Hudnut³⁶

Those who do not follow intellectual freedom law are often surprised to discover that:

• parents’ rights also have boundaries over their children’s right to read and speak,

• the only thing that was found illegal in the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was the transmission of images that fall into the categories of child obscenity, obscenity, and harmful to minors.

Following the Library Bill of Rights and interpretations, the most important documents guiding information professionals in their support of intellectual freedom are the collection development policy and request for reconsideration process.

Collection development policies³⁷ typically state the library’s policy for making a good faith effort to avoid bias, resist censorship, and represent all views when selecting and curating content, within the limits of budget, space, and public interest (see also chapter 29: “Information Policy” and chapter 24: “Managing Collections”).

A recurrent question about collection development is this: What is the difference between selection and censorship? In brief, collection development seeks to match available funds to general goals and community interest. Censorship avoids content because of specific topics or perspectives. As stated in the Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A, “Selection is an inclusive process. . . . Censorship is an exclusive process.”³⁸

Yet information professionals recognize that sometimes there is systemic bias that skates along the edge of censorship. That is, often popularity is at least partially due to being advertised. This favors the larger companies, which may bear undue influence over topics. Also, some viewpoints—books by or about diverse populations, for instance—have trouble surfacing in existing power structures. On the other hand, not every heavily advertised book or movie is successful. Finding a representative sampling of the content of our culture is a dynamic endeavor and remains more of an art than a science.

The request for reconsideration process is among the information profession’s most potent tools to resist censorship. When challenges arise to library materials, leaders may succumb to pressure, reacting too quickly to local anger or outrage, choosing to remove materials to resolve the problem as rapidly as possible. A request for reconsideration helps guide the process while protecting the intellectual freedom of the community served, and should include at least the following:

File a formal challenge. The person filing the complaint fills out a “Request for Reconsideration” form,⁴⁰ in which the item or service is identified, and the nature of the complaint recorded. Alternatively, the complaint might be some other public demand, such as a letter to the editor or plea at a public meeting.

Report the challenge to the Office for Intellectual Freedom.⁴¹ The purpose is twofold. First, the Office of Intellectual Freedom can help the information professional gather any supporting materials that may be needed, such as reviews, history of previous challenges, advice, media statements, and more. Second, these reports enable ALA to better track and report on emerging trends across the country. Confidentiality of the original report, other than the title and reason for challenge, is assured, unless explicit permission is granted to talk about other details, such as type of library and state in which the challenge occurred.

Establish a review committee. The makeup of a review committee varies by type of institution. But the idea is this: away from the pressure of the moment, the committee or administrator reviews the item or service in its entirety (e.g., by reading the whole novel, considering the entire lecture series, etc.) and then thoughtfully considers the item in light of the collection development policy. Finally, the committee makes a recommendation to the institutional leader. Typically, the choices are: retain (keep it as is), reclassify (move to another location), restrict (place in a special collection or require permissions), replace (update with a more current title), or remove (withdraw from the collection). Restriction and removal are often clear recommendations for censorship.

Accept or reject recommendation. The institutional leader accepts or rejects the recommendation.

Appeal the decision. The decision may be appealed to some higher public entity. The appeal is typically reviewed by a school or public library board, whose decision is ordinarily final, unless challenged in court.

Information organizations that do not have a collection development policy and a request for reconsideration process are by far the most likely to fall prey to censorship, followed only by those organizations that have them, but do not follow them. Adoption of these two processes is the single best defense that an information organization has against censorship.

Information organizations in the United States have a unique mission in regard to the First Amendment in terms of providing equal access to all, opposing censorship, and ensuring public access to organized content. To fulfill these roles, ALA has established not only the Office for Intellectual Freedom and the Intellectual Freedom Committee but also the Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE)⁴² and the Intellectual Freedom Roundtable (IFRT).⁴³ COPE deals with practical applications of the Code of Ethics in much the same way as the IFC explicates the Library Bill of Rights. Defense of intellectual freedom is a key ethical concern (see also chapter 30: “Information Ethics”). IFRT provides a forum for the discussion of many intellectual freedom issues and oversees or participates in the granting of awards to IF champions (check out chapter 35: “List of IF Awards” in the online supplement).

Moreover, ALA chapters⁴⁴ often have their own intellectual freedom committees. Many information professionals begin their intellectual freedom work through the association committees, or IFRT, then work their way over to the IFC and COPE. Through their ongoing discussions, publications, and programs offered on the web and at conferences, these allies maintain a professional focus on the importance of intellectual freedom issues and help cultivate successive generations of leaders (see also chapter 37: “Leadership Skills for Today’s Global Information Landscape”).

Libraries, information organizations, and professional organizations are not the only defenders of intellectual freedom. There are many external allies who demonstrate both commitment and advocacy to defending intellectual freedom, such as the Freedom to Read Foundation,⁴⁵ Banned Books Week Coalition,⁴⁶ and many others (learn more about these allies in chapter 35: “External Allies for Intellectual Freedom” in the online supplement). It is the responsibility of the information professional, personally and institutionally, to support and work with as many of these allies as they can, depending, of course, on their time, overlapping interest, and resources.

What is on the horizon of intellectual freedom? Here are six key trends that will profoundly affect the landscape of intellectual freedom in the next decade:

See also chapter 3: “Librarianship: A Continuously Evolving Profession” for more trends that will impact the information landscape, including intellectual freedom.

Before 2008, publishing in the United States was dominated by a few large publishing houses, now aggregated into the Big Five (Penguin Random House, Macmillan, HarperCollins, Hachette, and Simon & Schuster). They also dominated public library purchasing. Together, the Big Five and other mainstream publishers generated approximately 300,000 new ISBNs a year.⁴⁷

Things have changed. While mainstream publishing continues to produce about 350,000 new ISBNs a year,⁴⁸ the volume has been almost equaled by small and independent presses, which are now able to create and distribute their books electronically. These bypass the barriers of print production and distribution.

The greatest increase in publication has occurred in self-publishing. According to Bowker (an organization which tracks publishing activity in the United States), “ISBN registrations for self-published titles have grown more than 375 percent since 2010, climbing from 152,978 ISBNs to 727,125 ISBNs.”⁴⁹ The output of new titles carried by Amazon, Smashwords, and other emerging publishers and distributors now outstrips the number of new titles from mainstream and small and independent publishers combined.⁵⁰ There are several reasons for this growth. First, this growth of self-published works is due to the rise of electronic publishing generally, which allows books to be produced and distributed swiftly. Second, this growth of self-published works is due to the increased share of revenue for the author, generally 70–85 percent for self-published titles compared to 8–15 percent in mainstream publishing.⁵¹

However, self-published work presents several challenges. First, self-published work is often published as e-books through providers that do not sell to libraries. A second challenge is that, even if available to libraries, the self-published work often skips the usual gatekeeping of traditional publishing because the author put the work on a platform and sold it directly to customers. In other words, there is no agent, acquisitions editor, or publisher to copyedit, market, or promote the work in publisher catalogs. There are also no book reviews authored by librarians. An example of this situation is Fifty Shades of Grey, which, as a self-published book series, bypassed traditional editorial review processes and challenged mainstream publishing in new ways.⁵²

Most of the challenges now reported by American libraries still concern the ostensibly vetted content from the mainstream publishing world. What will happen as more and more breakaway titles come not from the typical suppliers of library materials but from an increasingly wide-ranging field that no longer goes through the publishing gatekeeping process? There is the potential for increased challenges to these works, but also the chance for these works to represent changing demographics of authors and readers alike.

As America’s population diversifies, libraries must respond to the changing needs of the communities they serve (see also chapter 5: “Diversity, Equity of Access, and Social Justice”). If the library’s collection does not reflect a range of diverse cultures and identities, and users can find few books in the library about people that look or act like them, they will conclude that the library simply is not interested in them and is not “theirs.” This absence of diversity in most library collections reflects the lack of diversity in the information profession’s traditional publishing partners; it is also an intellectual freedom issue (see textbox 35.3). Information professionals and the profession at large need to seek out and build new systems of review and acquisition to ensure that libraries offer a broader and more inclusive range of content to meet the diverse interests and needs of the communities they serve.

In addition to fundamental demographic shifts, two social and political changes are currently shaping the cultural landscape: child-rearing styles and polarization in political stances.

The first trend is the difference in child-rearing styles, which has been pronounced from generation to generation, and has implications for the content that information organizations make accessible. For example, while baby boomers had to check in at home at key times (e.g., dinner, nightfall) and Gen-Xers (also referred to as “latchkey children”) were often home alone, Millennials had supervised playdates and regimented sports activities. Child-rearing styles continue to evolve, with the next generation’s parents complaining about sexual content in books read by high school seniors who are or vote.⁵⁶ The overwhelming percentage of challenged content in the library’s collection tends to come from parents and tends to target content of interest to newly literate children and coming-of-age teenagers.

A second trend has to do with increasing polarization of political stances and the implications this has for the role of information organizations in providing balanced information and fighting against censorship. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, repeated accusations of “fake news,” statements that the mainstream media is “the enemy,” and calls for more stringent libel laws have raised the specter of censorship. Brexit (the withdrawal of Great Britain from the European Union) and the rise of far-right groups in France, Germany, Holland, Turkey, and elsewhere may mark a broader, global shift. What is the obligation of information professionals in such a tense time? The answer is clear: to continue to uphold the value of intellectual freedom in library collections and programs.

All types of educational institutions are fielding challenges and pressures that have implications for intellectual freedom.

One of the biggest issues in the intellectual freedom arena is challenges to materials in K–12 classrooms and school libraries. In fact, schools have long been hot spots for public challenges to school library and curricular materials (see also chapter 6: “Literacy and Media Centers: School Libraries”). In one respect, that is not surprising. Unlike other types of libraries and institutions, public schools are “in loco parentis”—acting in place and on the behalf of parents. Parents assume the institution will enforce their own personal values—even when those values conflict with those of other parents.

Among the most frequent censorship activities reported to the OIF involve principals and superintendents who receive a single verbal complaint and then unilaterally withdraw books from a school library or curriculum. The School Library Journal reported that 19 percent of public schools around the country still do not have policies for collection development, requests for reconsideration, or challenges to educational materials.⁵⁷ In such cases, short of public pressure, which often exposes the school librarian or teacher to employer discipline or punishment, there is not much that can be done. Even when policies are in place, it may take the threat or reality of a lawsuit to preserve intellectual freedom.

This trend is exacerbated by the continuing decline in the number of trained school librarians in the country. Often politically isolated in their districts, their positions are first to be cut when money is tight. They are replaced (if they are replaced) with computer technicians or volunteers. These replacements do not understand collection development policies, reconsideration practices, or the responsibility to report censorship attempts to the Office for Intellectual Freedom.

Another trend in the school environment impacting intellectual freedom is the battle to retain K–12 textbooks that do not shy away from the darker or controversial parts of United States history. The economics of textbook sales require the key markets of Texas and California. For many years, largely under the two-person operation of the Gablers who challenged the content of textbooks under consideration by public schools,⁵⁸ Texas succeeded in spooking textbook publishers away from any discussion of religion, American bigotry, or minority rights. Now, there is some evidence that even novels may not survive; at least one school district, fielding a challenge to The Kite Runner,⁵⁹ is considering replacing all novel-based instruction with an electronic platform that only features snippets of the books, likely pruned of “offensive” content.

American colleges and universities are not immune. While few report challenges to textbooks and academic library materials, there are several trends that challenge intellectual freedom.

Among them are the firing of, or withdrawal of job offers for, professors who are seen as politically incorrect. This has been true even for tenured professors, and even for articles written for scholarly publications (see textbox 35.4).

Another trend is the invitation, then disinvitation or cancellation, of controversial speakers. Most of them have been conservative speakers, such as Milo Yiannopolous⁶⁰ and Ann Coulter.⁶¹ Student groups protest the speaker and threaten or (in the case of Yiannopolous) actually do commit acts of violence.⁶⁴ Library-initiated programs “should not be proscribed or removed [or canceled] because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval” of the contents of the program or the views expressed by the participants, as stated in Article II of the Library Bill of Rights;⁶⁵ however, many of these programs are not initiated by libraries or presented in library buildings.

A related trend is “trigger warnings.” Some professors and students think it is perfectly reasonable that a professor should announce verbally or in the class syllabus that some difficult topics will be discussed. Announcing that an English class will be showing a film with war scenes might seem prudent for students that are war veterans. Others see this sensitivity to the possibility of class content “triggering” personal trauma (about issues as varied as spiders or death)⁶⁶ a repudiation not just of intellectual freedom, but of education.

The same positions are taken about the idea of “safe spaces,” places on campus in which no one says anything challenging or offensive about, for instance, the Islamic faith, or in which no one other than people of color are allowed to congregate. Some would argue that this is merely correcting, through the provision of sanctuary, of historic bigotry or oppression. Others see it as the politics of victimization and a new call for segregation.

PEN America, in a 2016 study And Campus for All,⁶⁷ found that, generally, support for intellectual freedom was falling among college students. The same study noted rising support for social justice, righting historic wrongs, and greater inclusivity as a community and a culture. But free speech and justice are not opposites, although they may on occasion come into conflict. Free speech means the same rights are offered to every voice, even those who say things that may be controversial.

The promise of internet technologies can be seen in the unrivaled access to information—whether through text-message-based newspapers in India or tweets in real time from people amid riots. One element of the early internet was the promise of a democratization of publishing, with everyone able to speak and find willing listeners. This trend identifies intellectual freedom issues related to the continuing rise and evolution of the internet and social media.

One challenge is the type of information that people share. While much valuable information is shared, some voices may spew hate speech, overwhelm earnest discourse with crudity and personal attacks, or threaten personal violence. Some people may simply be uninformed and barely articulate, but others may deliberately mislead and manipulate. Sorting out the real from the fake—the truth from the noise—is increasingly difficult.

Another challenge is the issue of net neutrality. Net neutrality aims to ensure that internet service providers provide consumers with access to content and applications on an equal basis, rather than creating “fast lanes” for some kinds of preferred traffic. In other words, net neutrality “is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet.”⁶⁸ Without net neutrality, internet providers could prevent users from accessing certain websites, or even redirect them to other websites preferred by the internet provider in order to prevent the user from accessing a site the provider does not want the user to access (e.g., a competitor site). While the Obama administration demonstrated a strong commitment to net neutrality, the “Trump FCC”⁶⁹ threatens it. Information professionals should remain aware of these trends and the potential interference of the information user’s right to access information.

Another version of the same problem is filtering: software, governed by proprietary algorithms, that permits or prevents people from accessing information through our internet connections. Since the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA),⁷⁰ libraries that accept federal money (e-rate and some grants) are required to install filtering. The selection, installation, and maintenance of such filters are often made by non-librarians, and reach far beyond the restriction of images that fall into the categories of child pornography, obscenity, and harmful to minors. While ALA does not recommend the use of filters, in some states filtering is required by state law. Others may choose or be forced by their governing authorities to accept the money. In 2017, the Intellectual Freedom Committee’s Privacy Subcommittee created “Guidelines to Minimize the Negative Effects of Internet Content Filters on Intellectual Freedom.”⁷¹ At this writing, some politicians are pushing the idea that all public wireless networks, all internet service providers, and even all internet-capable devices, should be required by law to be filtered.⁷² Encryption—secure connections between your browser and a particular website—is a necessary function of library catalogs and personal web surfing habits.⁷³

The internet remains the frontier of intellectual freedom. It continues to have almost unimaginable power to assist information professionals in the fulfillment of their mission; misused, it compromises user privacy and withholds or manipulates information for financial or political gain (see also chapter 34: “Information Privacy and Cybersecurity”).

The last trend concerns advocacy efforts to demonstrate the value of libraries in the internet age by focusing on intellectual freedom (see also chapter 27: “Communication, Marketing, and Outreach Strategies”). With OCLC’s From Awareness to Funding,⁷⁴ information professionals began to grasp that their marketing over the past generation has served to increase the library’s use, but use has little correlation with support. Going forward, information professionals must assert a proposition of value—and intellectual freedom is at the core of it.

In the area of advocacy for intellectual freedom (see also chapter 28: “Advocacy”), information professionals have several key approaches.

Participation in local media. Information professionals should always work to develop strong and positive ties with area journalists and reporters. Providing a steady stream of calendar information and promotion of the organization is one approach. But there is another level of participation. Many information professionals write regular newspaper articles. Some host radio or cable TV shows. Being a relaxed and familiar presence on media outlets helps information professionals get out the word of our importance to the intellectual vitality of our communities.

Outreach. Libraries are respected institutions, with buildings that reflect the values of a community. But information professionals need to recognize that they must also leave the building and advocate for the freedom to read at schools, business meetings, churches, political events, civic clubs, social groups, and other community gatherings. This means more than just showing up, giving a spiel, and leaving. True advocacy for the value of intellectual freedom means the management of relationships and working to make the community better in many ways. Those relationships will matter when there is a library challenge.

Litigation. ALA and the Freedom to Read Foundation⁷⁵ join with publishers, the ACLU, and others to file amicus briefs (friend-of-the-court statements) to articulate how various laws violate free speech.

In today’s wired culture, there is constant competition for attention. To secure that mindshare and to build an awareness of brand, it is important for information professionals to understand and apply what a half century of brain research has revealed: we need to know how to tell short, compelling stories about the extraordinary value of the right to free inquiry, then anchor those stories in succinct data and a compelling phrase. A good example is the messaging that ALA has adopted:⁷⁶

Information professionals must understand, claim, and proclaim their history as defenders of the First Amendment. Professional competencies in addressing issues related to intellectual freedom require a persistent mindfulness and recommitment to these ongoing issues—as well as the trends that impact everyday decisions (see textbox 35.5). To that end, information professionals need to not only adopt and regularly review their library’s collection policy but also think critically about the choices that they make in day-to-day purchases, the in-filling of collection gaps, and the weeding of outdated and unused content. They must be close social observers and understand the impact of technology on society.

To remain vibrant and vital, libraries and other information organizations must be players in emerging systems of publishing, news, public discourse, and social change. Libraries are keepers of a value essential to individual fulfillment and civic engagement and improvement. They must continue to offer common ground for the minds and hearts of our communities and our nation, where everyone has a seat at the table, and everyone is heard.

NOTES

1. “Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q&A,” American Library Association, 2017, http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/faq.

2. Office for Intellectual Freedom, Intellectual Freedom Manual (Chicago: American Library Association, 2010), 3.

3. First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Legal Information Institute, accessed June 17, 2017, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment.

4. “The Universal Right to Free Expression: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” American Library Association, accessed September 24, 2017, http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8662.

5. Jenny S. Bossaller and John M. Budd, “What We Talk about When We Talk about Free Speech,” Library Quarterly 85, no. 1 (January 2015): 26–44.

6. Samuel D. Warren and Louis B. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, 1890, accessible at http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html.

7. American Library Association, Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC), 2017, http://www.ala.org/aboutala/committees/ala/ala-if.

8. “First Library Bill of Rights?,” American Library Association, 2016, http://www.ala.org/tools/first-library-bill-rights; cited in Louise Robbins, Censorship and the American Library: The American Library Association’s Response to Threats to Intellectual Freedom, 1939–1969 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996). The Library Bill of Rights has evolved over the years, with several revisions and amendments, as well as interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights.

9. American Library Association, “Library Bill of Rights,” 2016, http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill.

10. American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom, 2017, http://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/oif.

11. Office for Intellectual Freedom, Intellectual Freedom Manual: Ninth Edition (Chicago: American Library Association, 2015).

12. “Notable First Amendment Court Cases,” American Library Association, 2017, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/courtcases.

13. Counts v. Cedarville School District, 295 F.Supp.2d 996 (W.D. Ark. 2003).

14. Evans v. Selma Union High School District of Fresno County, 222 P. 801 (Ca. 1924).

15. Rosenberg v. Board of Education of City of New York, 92 N.Y.S.2d 344 (Sup. Ct. Kings County 1949).

16. Todd v. Rochester Community Schools, 200 N.W.2d 90 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

17. Minarcini v. Strongsville (Ohio) City School District, 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1976).

18. Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242 (3d Cir. 1992).

19. Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 908 F. Supp. 864 (D. Kan. 1995).

20. Interactive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al. 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003).

21. American Amusement Machine Association, et al., v. Teri Kendrick, et al., 244 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2001); cert.denied, 534 U.S. 994; 122 S. Ct. 462; 151 L. Ed. 2d 379 (2001).

22. American Library Association v. U.S. Department of Justice and Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d. 874 (1997).

23. United States, et al. v. American Library Association, Inc. et al., 539 U.S. 194, 123 S.Ct. 2297, 156 L.Ed.2d 221 (2003).

24. Mainstream Loudoun, et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 24 F.Supp.2d 552 (E.D. of Va. 1998).

25. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d. 731 (1969).

26. Zykan v. Warsaw (Indiana) Community School Corporation and Warsaw School Board of Trustees, 631 F.2d 1300 (7th Cir. 1980).

27. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982).

28. Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education, 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1987).

29. In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 55, 22 L. Ed. 2d 542, 89 S. Ct. 1243 (1969).

30. McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d. 426 (1995).

31. Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Colo. Sup. Ct., 2002).

32. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d. 419 (1973).

33. Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 1 L. Ed. 2d 412, 77 S. Ct. 524 (1957).

34. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 62, 20 L. Ed. 2d 195, 88 S. Ct. 1274 (1968).

35. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982).

36. American Booksellers Assoc., Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985) (Easterbrook, J.), aff’d., 475 U.S. 1001, 106 S.Ct. 1172, 89 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986).

37. See an example of a Collection Development Policy at Madison Public Library’s website, http://www.madisonpubliclibrary.org/policies/collection-development.

38. “Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A,” American Library Association, 2017, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/faq#ifpoint13.

39. Charles Robinson, Give ’Em What They Want! Managing the Public’s Library (Chicago: American Library Association, 1992).

40. Find examples at: San Francisco Public Library, https://sfpl.org/pdf/about/administration/sfpl073.pdf, and Madison Public Library, http://www.madisonpubliclibrary.org/policies/request-reconsideration-of-library-materials.

41. “Challenge Reporting,” American Library Association, 2017, http://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/report.

42. American Library Association, Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE), 2017, http://www.ala.org/groups/committees/ala/ala-profethic.

43. “Intellectual Freedom,” American Library Association, 2017, http://www.ala.org/ifrt/.

44. “Chapters,” American Library Association, 2017, http://www.ala.org/groups/affiliates/chapters.

45. Freedom to Read Foundation, http://www.ftrf.org/?page=about.

46. Banned Books Week, http://www.bannedbooksweek.org/.

47. Bowker, “Report from Bowker Shows Continuing Growth in Self-Publishing,” 2017, http://www.bowker.com/news/2016/Report-from-Bowker-Shows-Continuing-Growth-in-Self-Publishing.html.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Bowker, “Print ISBN Counts, USA Pubdate 2002–2013,” 2017, http://media.bowker.com/documents/isbn_output_2002_2013.pdf.

51. Alanna Brown, “Why Indie Publishing Beats a Mainstream Book Deal,” September 7, 2013, Huffingfton Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luxeco-living/why-indie-publishing-beat_b_3563203.html.

52. Peter Osnos, “How ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ Dominated Publishing,” August 28, 2012, Atlantic, August 2012, https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/08/how-fifty-shades-of-grey-dominated-publishing/261653/.

53. “Publishing Statistics on Children’s Books about People of Color and First/Native Nations and by People of Color and First/Native Nations Authors and Illustrators,” Cooperative Children’s Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2017, https://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pcstats.asp.

54. “Where Is the Diversity in Publishing? The 2015 Diversity Baseline Survey Results,” Lee and Low Books (blog), 2017, http://blog.leeandlow.com/2016/01/26/where-is-the-diversity-in-publishing-the-2015-diversity-baseline-survey-results/.

55. Lesli A. Maxwell, “U.S. School Enrollment Hits Majority-Minority Milestone,” Education Week, August 20, 2014, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/08/20/01demographics.h34.html.

56. Vanessa Remmers and Louis Llovio, “Va. House Backs Bill Requiring Parents Be Notified of Sexually Explicit Materials,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, February 6, 2017, http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/va-house-backs-bill-requiring-parents-be-notified-of-sexually/article_7a534d3d-2f07-5882-bf6b-213d6266567b.html.

57. “School Library Journal on Self-Censorship: 2016 Controversial Books Survey,” School Library Journal, 2017, http://www.slj.com/features/self-censorship/.

58. Douglas Martin, “Norma Gabler, Leader of Crusade on Textbooks, Dies at 84,” New York Times, August 1, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/education/01gabler.html.

59. Sono Wasu, “Students Question Why Popular Novel Is Removed from Gilbert School’s Curriculum,” 2017, http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/gilbert/students-question-why-popular-novel-is-removed-from-gilbert-schools-curriculum.

60. Kasia Kovacs, “Inflammatory and Turned Away,” Inside Higher Ed, October 21, 2016, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/10/21/several-universities-cancel-appearances-conservative-writer-milo-yiannopoulos.

61. Susan Svrluga, William Wan, and Elizabeth Dwoskin, “Ann Coulter Speech at UC Berkeley, Canceled, Again, Amid Fears for Safety,” Washington Post, April 26, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/04/26/ann-coulter-speech-canceled-at-uc-berkeley-amid-fears-for-safety/?utm_term=.8c9ff293b604.

62. Ward Churchill, “‘Some People Push Back’: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” 2017, http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html.

63. Anthony Cotton, “Fired Colorado Professor Loses Supreme Court Appeal,” Denver Post, September 10, 2012, http://www.denverpost.com/2012/09/10/fired-colorado-professor-ward-churchill-loses-supreme-court-appeal/.

64. Madison Park and Kyung Lah, “Berkeley Protests of Yiannopoulos caused $100,000 in damage,” 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html.

65. American Library Association, “Library Bill of Rights,” 2017, http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill.

66. “Common Trigger Warnings,” Privelege 101, 2017, http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html.

67. PEN America, And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Free Speech at U.S. Universities (New York: PEN America, 2016), accessed September 23, 2017, https://pen.org/and-campus-for-all-diversity-inclusion-and-free-speech-at-u-s-universities/.

68. “Net Neutrality,” Public Knowledge, 2017, https://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality.

69. “What Is Net Neutrality?,” American Civil Liberties Union, June 2017, https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/internet-speech/what-net-neutrality.

70. “Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA),” Federal Communications Commission, 2017, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act.

71. “Guidelines to Minimize the Negative Effects of Internet Content Filtering on Intellectual Freedom,” American Library Association, 2017, http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/filtering/filtering_guidelines.

72. PEN America, And Campus for All.

73. “Let’s Encrypt,” Linux Corporation, 2017, https://letsencrypt.org/.

74. OCLC, From Awareness to Funding: A Study of Library Support in America (Dublin, OH: OCLC, 2008), http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/reports/funding/fullreport.pdf.

75. Freedom to Read Foundation, 2017, http://ftrf.org.

76. “Libraries Transform,” American Library Association, 2017, http://www.ala.org/transforminglibraries/libraries-transform-campaign.

77. Bethe Gutsche and Brenda Hough, Competency Index for the Library Field (Dublin, OH: OCLC, 2014), 10, https://www.webjunction.org/content/dam/WebJunction/Documents/webJunction/2015-03/Competency%20Index%20for%20the%20Library%20Field%20(2014).pdf.

35 Intellectual Freedom

NOTES