Human Rights are not political views.

Since the results of the American election, many of us at FLIF have debated how to handle this and what our actions should be in the coming months.

Quite simply: FLIF stands by its mandate to defend intellectual freedom and stand up for social justice. We believe, as Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Hate speech is generally categorized as speech, gesture, conduct, writing or display which may incite violent or prejudicial action by disparaging or intimidating an individual or group. When a person is acting in an inflammatory manner by categorizing minority groups with negative attributes and perpetrating views that are deliberately harmful to said groups, the result is that the use of these words, expressions, gestures or displays cause and reinforce the subordination of these groups.

A presidential nominee calling for a registry of Muslims or a vice presidential nominee creating a law to jail same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses clearly meet these guidelines. Their words, especially when spoken from a position of power, are detrimental to civil liberties and used to justify violence towards minority groups. Citizens of a country should not be involuntarily placed on a registry based on the colour of their skin or their religion. Press outlets should not be denied access or threatened with lawsuits by government officials.  

Freedom of speech is a person’s protected right to criticize its government, not a government official’s right to disparage a populace. Human rights are not political issues, nor are they privileges to be doled out by a governmental official. They are to be protected against suppression and incendiary behaviours by all responsible citizens.

The actions of America's incoming government will not make people safer. In the short time since the election, hate speech and crimes have risen in America. We must stand together to defend human rights and freedoms against a government that is poised to discriminate against already marginalized groups.

The * Word

How far does "context" get us? In the case of one student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, it may not be very far. On January 16, 2014, the Huffington Post reported that in November 2013, "the UNL student senate debated and passed a resolution 'encouraging a broadly inclusive and welcoming campus' that concluded:

Be it resolved, that as senators... We pledge to remove derogatory terms from our vocabulary (that may or may not be purposely directed as offensive) in regard to a person's gender, age, disability, genetic information, race, color, religion, pregnancy status, marital status, veteran's status, national or ethnic origin, gender identity or expression, place of residence, political affiliation, or sexual orientation."

The article went on to disclose that in opposition to the senate's position, one student used a racial epithet while quoting comedian Chris Rock to make his argument. The student, Cameron Murphy, argued that such language is acceptable in certain contexts and if used by certain people. In response, the school has attempted to impeach the Senator on the grounds that "intolerance of intolerance . . . must include intolerance of intolerant terms." 

While UNL has subsequently failed to impeach the student Senator, there remains the problematic issue of where intellectual freedom and freedom of speech fit when struggling to fight intolerance and "isms" in our communities. 

Can we allow for an understanding of context when dealing with speech -- and indeed, materials -- that include terms that we now consider derogatory and hateful? Is there room for an understanding of time, place, and source? Or should there simply be a zero tolerance policy when it comes to such language? 

Should our goal be tolerance or respect and understanding?

Gagging the Canadian Military

The Ottawa Citizen reports that the Canadian Forces is requesting that its wounded members sign a form prohibiting them from criticizing the military on social media. The request comes from the Joint Personnel Support Unit (JPSU), which oversees support centres across the country with the aim of helping wounded soldiers. Their policy is intended to provide education to its "members and personnel on what constitutes the appropriate and inappropriate use of social media and the possible ramifications for a CAF member" (Pugliese).

Critics contend that the policy stifles freedom of speech and may "intimidate those who were injured and prevent them from speaking out about ill treatment," and that while military personnel are not required to sign the form, "most would feel compelled to do so . . . [and] if they step out of line and make controversial comments about how they have been treated by the Canadian Forces, the signed form would be among the first items introduced at their court martial" (Pugliese).

In its defense, the JPSU argues that "inappropriate use of social media has serious ramifications for the Canadian Forces as it can erode public trust and 'destroy team cohesion'" (Pugliese).

One question here is whether there has already been an erosion of trust between the Canadian Forces and its members.

Silencing Dissent

Stephen Harper's government continues to come under fire for its measures that have silenced scientists on a number of important issues, not least of all the environmental impacts of projects such as the Alberta oil sands. A recent editorial in The New York Times is very critical of the restrictions on academic freedom in Canada, pointing out that:

Science is the gathering of hypotheses and the endless testing of them. It involves checking and double-checking, self-criticism and a willingness to overturn even fundamental assumptions if they prove to be wrong. But none of this can happen without open communication among scientists. This is more than an attack on academic freedom. It is an attempt to guarantee public ignorance.

As the article notes, scientists across Canada have organized public protests against the actions of the Harper government, but this is an issue that has implications for everyone whose work may conflict with government policy, and as such, it is an issue that is too important to ignore.

Practice of Banning Books Still Going Strong

Just in time for Banned Books Week in the United States, there have been attempts to both ban books from school libraries and remove them from reading lists. Recently, Ohio Board of Education President Debe Terhar has stated that she wants to have The Bluest Eye, written by Toni Morrison, removed from state guidelines for schools. This book was also targeted in Alabama at the end of August when Senator Bill Holtzclaw sought to have Morrison's novel removed from school reading lists. Additionally, he has offered support to have the book removed from school libraries. He describes the book as "completely objectionable, from language to the content".

Even more distressing is the recent ruling by the Randolph County board in North Carolina to ban the Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison from school libraries, not just from reading lists. Regarding the novel, board member Gary Mason said that he "didn't find any literary value".

Books are great avenues for creating discussion about important issues. Who, if anyone, should be able to tell you what you can and cannot read? Sound off in the comments.

Sometimes You Have to Hold Your Nose

Recent controversy over the parodying of the "Don't Be That Guy" posters against sexual assault have found their way into the Edmonton Public Library. The group claiming responsibility for the "Don't Be That Girl" posters, Men's Rights Edmonton (MR-E) has been called into question for the campaign in recent days. It recently caught the attention of some Edmontonians using Twitter that MR-E plans on hosting a lecture on boys in education at the Stanley Milner branch of the library.

In response to concerns expressed on Twitter, EPL cited the Canadian Library Association (CLA)'s Position Statement on Intellectual Freedom:

. @KateBoorman @brittanyinyeg Like most Cdn public libraries we support the CLA's Statement on Intellectual Freedom: http://t.co/CbqW8Pzlm5
— Edm Public Library (@EPLdotCA) July 11, 2013

The ensuing conversation debated whether or not MR-E can be defined as a hate group, which would make it exempt from coverage by the CLA's statement. Certainly, this is debatable; however, at present, MR-E has not been designated as such in Canadian law. Thus, the group is still afforded protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and by extension by the CLA.

Whether you agree with the group's message or not, regardless of how offensive you may find it, part of the library's mandate is to provide a space where there is freedom to speak -- and the room for debate.

Wikipedia and Gender Bias

Over the last few days, a startling trend on Wikipedia revealed a gender bias. The page, American Novelists has been consistently edited so certain names were removed from this category and placed under a sub category, "American Women Novelists." Apparently, women novelists are being removed alphabetically, including notable writers such as Harriet Beecher Stowe, Ayn Rand, Ann Beattie, Djuna Barnes, Emily Barton, Jennifer Belle, Aimee Bender, Amy Bloom, Judy Blume, Alice Adams, Louisa May Alcott, V. C. Andrews, Mary Higgins Clark, and numerous others while obscure male writers remain. This recent attention to such practice led to a newly created page, "American Men Novelists" on April 27th, 2013. However, immediately on Wikipedia is a notice that this new category is now "considered being merged to American Novelists".

Amanda Flipacchi, who exposed this trend in The New York Times article, "Wikipedia's Sexism Toward Female Novelists" had soon afterwards faced a backlash on her Wikipedia page. There were 22 changes to her page within 24 hours to discredit her. While Wikipedia indicates that editors take a neutral stance in sharing information, there is hardly anything neutral about the removal of women novelists or that 91% of the contributors are male. Inherently, most entries will have a biased perspective. 

Gender Gap Stories offers anecdotes to why women do not edit or contribute on Wikipedia. This is highly discerning. Additionally, PCMag published an article on Wikipedia's gender gap, as illustrated in Knock Twice's infographic below:

Chicago Public Schools Remove Copies of Graphic Novel Persepolis

Many news outlets have reported on the removal of Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis from Chicago Public Schools (CPS). According to American Libraries, though the CPS CEO initially asked for copies of the graphic novel to be removed from both classrooms and libraries, the decision was quickly revised to include just classrooms. Even though the school libraries may retain their copies of Persepolis, some library organizations have criticized the decision to remove the graphic novel from schools. Barbara Jones, the Director of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom and Executive Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation, has written a letter to the decision-makers, urging them to reconsider their decision. In addition, the Freedom to Read Foundation has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for information from the CPS regarding the removal of Persepolis.

The Chicago Public Libraries has published a press release regarding this issue, explaining that the title has been singled out for “strong” content including torture.

NCAC Winning Short Films Announced

The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) is made up of about 50 not-for-profit organizations and associations. A full list of the organizations making up the coalition is available on the NCAC website. Though the various organizations do not all agree on all aspects of opposing censorship, all support the NCAC Statement of Concern:

“Freedom of communication is the indispensable condition of a healthy democracy. In a pluralistic society it would be impossible for all people at all times to agree on the value of all ideas; and fatal to moral, artistic and intellectual growth if they did.

Some of the Coalition's participating organizations reject all barriers abridging access to any material, however controversial or even abhorrent to some. Others reject barriers for adults, so long as their individual right of choice is not infringed. All of us are united in the conviction that censorship of what we see and hear and read constitutes an unacceptable dictatorship over our minds and a dangerous opening to religious, political, artistic, and intellectual repression.”

The winners of the 2012 NCAC Youth Free Expression Project film contest have recently been announced. NCAC has given youth 19 years of age or younger who are living in the United States the chance to participate in this contest since 2004. The theme for 2012 was book censorship - You’re Reading What?!?.  The 1^st place winning entry is a four minute film called “Waking” created by Eden Taylor Ames, which features a life-changing visit to the library. All winning entries are available on the NCAC website.

Human Library Events Recap

Local libraries and other centres across Canada, in partnership with the CBC, hosted a number of Human Library events on Saturday January 26. Events took place in Yellowknife, Surrey, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Windsor, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, and St. John's. In Edmonton, the event took place at the Stanley A. Milner branch of the Edmonton Public Library. The Edmonton Journal has written an article about the event and includes the perspectives of the “books” as well as the “readers.” An associate manager of Stanley A. Milner was also quoted, describing the purpose and importance of the event:

“An event like this provides people with the opportunity to have a conversation with a person they might not otherwise meet and to help them understand the world, maybe, in a different way.”

The CBC hosted live webcam chats with a variety of Canadians: Susan Ormiston, Measha Brueggergosman, Robert Munsch, Shad, Grace Park, Margaret Trudeau, and Tammy Marquardt. A recording of the sessions is available from the CBC.

Sweater Vest Sunday

Today is also Sweater Vest Sunday! Raise awareness of the need to report challenged material to the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) by wearing a sweater vest. Visit the OIF Blog to find out more about Sweater Vest Sunday and how you can show your support.

Remembering Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz was found dead at his Brooklyn apartment yesterday in an apparent suicide. At only 26, Swartz has a long list of achievements. A Wired article outlines his chief accomplishments:

When he was 14 years old, Aaron helped develop the RSS standard; he went on to found Infogami, which became part of Reddit. But more than anything Aaron was a coder with a conscience: a tireless and talented hacker who poured his energy into issues like network neutrality, copyright reform and information freedom.  Among countless causes, he worked with Larry Lessig at the launch of the Creative Commons, architected the Internet Archive’s free public catalog of books, OpenLibrary.org, and in 2010 founded Demand Progress, a non-profit group that helped drive successful grassroots opposition to SOPA last year.

A section of the Official Statement from his partner and family reminds us of his profound impact on promoting social justice and intellectual freedom:

Aaron’s commitment to social justice was profound, and defined his life. He was instrumental to the defeat of an Internet censorship bill; he fought for a more democratic, open, and accountable political system; and he helped to create, build, and preserve a dizzying range of scholarly projects that extended the scope and accessibility of human knowledge. He used his prodigious skills as a programmer and technologist not to enrich himself but to make the Internet and the world a fairer, better place. His deeply humane writing touched minds and hearts across generations and continents. He earned the friendship of thousands and the respect and support of millions more.

Swartz was facing a federal jury trial to begin on April 1, 2013 for 13 felony charges. The charges stemmed from his alleged actions related to downloading four million JSTOR articles from MIT. The prosecutors called these actions stealing and believe that he intended to share the articles on file-sharing sites and peer-to-peer networks. If convicted of the charges, Swartz could have been fined up to $1 million and faced up to 35 years in prison.

To learn more about Aaron Swartz, see the recent CBC News and New York Times articles. Information about the Internet activism he was involved in can be found at the Demand Progress website.

Challenges with Digital Music Matching Services

Many reports have recently surfaced about the new scan-and-match feature for Google Music. According to a Daily Mail article: “Scan-and-match is a free service that scans a user’s computer, giving them online access to the songs it finds, provided Google can match those songs on its servers. The service saves you the time of manually uploading your music to Google Music by scanning the files in your library and comparing them to songs in the Google Music library.”

An article from The Verge describes how some American users have been experiencing problems with this matching service: “explicit” songs are being replaced by “clean” versions in some cases, and others are findings that “clean” songs are replaced by “explicit” versions. Users are able to use a “Fix Incorrect Match” feature as a way to restore the original version of their songs.

Though some are criticizing Google for censorship because of the “explicit” for “clean” version swapping, the Verge reports that “Whether this challenge is simply inherent to music matching services or something else is at play remains unclear.” As previously stated, the service does seem to be swapping “clean” for “explicit” in some instances so the problems are not simply censorship. However, it is interesting nevertheless to consider how censorship affects users of online services such as music matching. Similar problems have been reported in the past for the matching services provided through iTunes Match and Amazon Cloud.

Fall IFRT Report Released

The Fall issue of the ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Round Table Report has been released. This report contains a number of stories and opinions on the topic of censorship in libraries, as well as a summary of current court cases on the freedom of expression. It also has a listing of the ALA committees and associations which address intellectual freedom and outlines how to get involved in these divisions.

See the ALA website for a listing of previous IFRT reports.

Classic Christmas Poem is Edited

There is just one month until Christmas! With this in mind, this post focuses on a recent controversy regarding a newly published edited version of a Christmas classic: Twas the Night Before Christmas (also known as A Visit from St. Nicholas). In this “updated” version, Pamela McColl, an anti-smoking advocate, edited out all references to smoking included in the Clement C. Moore original. The National Post has published an article on the debate surrounding these changes. While McColl views the edited version as way to protect children, others have criticized the move as censorship. Ann Curry, Gail de Vos, and Alvin Schrader, all from the University of Alberta, have spoken out to oppose the changes and are quoted in the article. Although the version is controversial, the book is available through Indigo and Amazon.ca.

Gail de Vos has reviewed the book for the magazine CM: Canadian Review of Materials.  In this review, she describes exactly how the book has been edited. According to the jacket cover, Santa Claus himself edited out the two lines which reference smoking. In de Vos’ opinion, the changes are detrimental to the development of children’s critical thinking skills. For more information on the book, see the book review.

Censorship and Self-Censorship of “Fifty Shades of Grey”

The Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF) recently added a blog post entitled Fifty Shades of Grey: Why Should We Care About a “Bad” Book?. Barbara Jones, the Executive Director of FTRF, discusses why we should resist attempts to ban materials that censors do not consider to have “literary quality.” The book “Fifty Shades of Grey” is used as an example in examining librarians’ professional values and practices as well as in thinking about the larger economic context. See the article for one librarian's thought-provoking view on book quality and censorship.

Barbara Jones has also written an article for the American Libraries Magazine on library self-censorship. Controversy in Fifty Shades of Grey discusses how collection development policies have been used by libraries to censor controversial material such as “Fifty Shades of Grey.” Though we are typically concerned with outside censorship, self-censorship is a related issue that we should reflect on as library and information professionals.

Plan for Internet Filter in Australia is Dropped

The Australian government has dropped plans to implement a nation-wide Internet filter according to the Sydney Morning Herald. A recent article outlines the history of the controversial plan and the action that will be taken in its place. The Internet filter began as an election promise and, according to the article, would have required Australian Internet service providers to block content on “child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and material that advocated terrorist activity” had it passed into law. The Australian government has instead opted to have the Internet service providers block individual websites related to child abuse.

Read the Sydney Morning Herald article or watch a related video for further information on the scrapped Internet filter plan.