ALA revamps intellectual freedom guidelines

You can find them here: <a href="">Intellectual Freedom Manual</a> They cover the below issues: * Minors and Internet Interactivity: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (new) * Importance of Education to Intellectual Freedom: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (new) * Access to Digital Information, Services, and Networks: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (revised) * Labeling and Rating Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (revised) <!--break--> <blockquote>I was most surprised by their full-throated support for al-Qaeda and sharia law in American libraries. As well as the right of sex offenders to kidnap and devour our children at Nancy Pelosi's house at taxpayer expense. And the recommendation that families be forced to watch pornography together. </blockquote> <em>Just playing. That one's for you, Dan. Enjoy. </em>


Funny! Thanks!

On a serious note, I was wondering if there might be a problem with the ALA's new "interpretations." Basically, the ALA says nothing should be kept from children, while almost every single online safety information provider says that will lead to problems.

I do not know more than that at the moment, but the thought occurred to me that I should ask such sources whether the ALA guidelines may present a child safety issue.


Basically, the ALA says nothing should be kept from children, while almost every single online safety information provider says that will lead to problems.

I'd like to see your data please. No, this is not sarcasm, this is actual interest because what I have doesn't consistently agree with that assessment and I'd like to know where that idea is coming from for an upcoming paper.


Understood. Let me answer more fully tonight. Basically, as I indicated, I'll have to confirm if what I said is accurate with the various sources., for example, is one such source. As to what the ALA said, just read the ALA's new interpretation that is the subject of this blog post. My reading says anything goes. Yours may be different. But again, I said I need to confirm first with the sources. The only reason I said anything now was in response to Anonymous's funny comment about me in the original blog post, otherwise I would have checked first.


It does look like "anything goes" but on a meta level that makes sense to me. When it comes to local control patrons really seem to hate national guidelines that can't ratchet to their personal tastes. A filter system for Seattle would be seen as too lenient in Columbus. A filter system for Dallas would highly annoy San Fransisco even if kids are kids pretty much wherever you go. What I'm mostly looking at paper-wise is how individual professional judgment and assessment counts, and I can't think of a better example then this topic.

Fine. Thanks fine. But I follow online safety experts. What they say is different from what the ALA says. I will confirm with a few that that is their own view as well. Since you are researching this, may I suggest you do the same, though I am likely to blog about this if/when I'm done.


The ALA recognizes that a great deal of things can or should be kept from children. The ALA also believes that the government (public libraries) have no business being parents.

Dan, why do you think that the government should parent children and not their parents? That sounds like socialism. You're not a socialist, are you?

There are lots of child safety issues in public places, like a library and the internet. That's why parents are the best protection. I don't understand why you want the government to be parents and not the parents themselves. Are you saying that big, Nancy Pelosi government is better than America's parents and families? Hmm?

? I made a simple comment basically saying I needed more information. I do not know why you are ascribing to me what "Anonymous" wrote. ?

I have to also wonder why you jump on me immediately and start talking about "socialism." The issue is the ALA's new IF interpretations. Let's stick to the issues.

I don't think the government should tell parents how to parent their kids. But apparently Dan thinks that government-purchased filters are more effective than parental oversight.

Dan, can you explain your affection for state-parenting instead of familial parenting? Because the ALA says explicitly in their IF documents that the parents choice of viewing material is paramount because the parent the first and most important voice in these matters.

What else do you want the government to "take over" from parents?

.. that kids have the same educational rights to view porn that adults have and that filtering computers based on age is a violation.

we block porn, but unblock for adults. according to this, we can't deny a request from a child to unblock for porn (um, "fornication research").

[this interpretation could lead to barring kids without adults] present to supervise their time in libraries.

if libraries can't play parent, then parents may be forced to be parents.

if libraries can't block any Internet site, nor can they deny unfiltered Internet access to kids based on age, the I can see how a library could keep kids out who don't have a guardian with them to supervise their library time.


"For the library to add ratings to nonprint materials if they are not already there is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to post a list of such ratings with a collection or to use them in circulation policies or other procedures. These uses constitute labeling, "an attempt to prejudice attitudes" (Labels and Rating Systems), and are forms of censorship."

so our Teen area and Children's area and Adult area are censorship. we can't move the kids' dvds away from the adult DVD section. and we can't keep kids from checking out R-rated movies. only parents can do that.

The ALA wants parents to supervise their kids, but without any assistance from librarians by us shelving items in age-appropriate areas.

If parents who are unable or unwilling to be parents to their children feel that they are not up to the task of being parents, then perhaps the local social services office is the best stop. Or, perhaps, the first call library staff should make in a case where a parent thinks they're child has been "exposed" to something objectionable.

Why are parents responsible for everything a child does except inside a public library?