Library Lie

Daniel says:

Re:…Section 215 has never been used.
Absolutely, Section 215 has not been used on libraries since it was passed two years ago. Commentators who say otherwise are mistaken or misleading.

If it’s true that “ALA needs Aschroft more than Aschroft needs the notorious Section 215,” then the logical thing to do would be endorse passage of the “The Freedom to Read Protection Act” and move on. If this provision hasn’t aided the fight against terrorism in two years, then it doesn’t belong on the books. Some future president or FBI chief might make unwelcome use of it.

Like Tomeboy, I don’t recall ALA outrage at the proposed antiterror (Father of PATRIOT?) legislation under Clinton, but that could be a reflection of the fact the PATRIOT-Like provisions were soundly defeated by Congress. It was bad law then and continues to be bad law now.

It’s also important to remember that opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act and similar security legislation is multipartisan. Republican Butch Otter is not anti-Republican — he tried to strip out funding for sneek and peek searches. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski is not anti-Republican, and she has one of the best PATRIOT Amending bills out there. The CATO Institute has published several oppositional reports to our recent anti-terror legislation.

If people (and I’m not singling Tomeboy out) want to defend the PATRIOT Act and general gov’t intrusiveness, they should be pointing out the legislation’s strengths, terrorists caught, and civil liberties protections provided rather saying — ooh! Bad Librerals! Bad Terror Fellow Travellers. In a free society, the burden of proof for eroding the Bill of Rights rests with those who propose greater government powers, not with those who wish to conserve our freedoms.

Daniel says:

Re:…Section 215 has never been used.
Tomeboy,

Before I forget yet again, I’ve been meaning to ask you about your signature block for over a month now. Did some specific question lead to the answer of “Thank you no, I’d rather not hear about your precocious cat Sebastian or Vulcan language dipthongs.” Just what are dipthongs anyway?

On the topic of your last post, I’ll grant you that ALA has done some stupid things lately out of political motivation. I don’t think we should have been absolutist on CIPA. I personally would have no problem filtering children’s terminals to preserve unfiltered access for adults. I could go into reasons why I don’t believe that filters work, but that would drag this post further off topic than it needs to be. The point is that ALA’s “No filters, anywhere, ever!” played directly into the hands of Dr. Laura and Mr. Burt.

However, and we’ll have to agree to disagree on this, I find the ALA’s stand on PA to be principled and not politicized. Remember, a lot of the flap over Section 215 came before Atty Gen Ashcroft’s admission that 215 hadn’t been used. Because of the secrecy provision of 215, ALA did not have reason to believe that records WEREN’T being obtained and acted proactively on behalf of their patrons.

As for the Cuban librarians, I haven’t been following the story in enough detail to have a completely informed opinion. My impression is that whether or not these folks in private houses are “professional librarians” or not, ALA could and should have passed a resolution supporting the right of all people in Cuba to obtain information and reading material of their choice. Intellectual freedom isn’t just for librarians, and it would have been nice for ALA to acknowledge that.

Of course, if we’d strike down the travel and trade embargos imposed in 1961 that haven’t brought down Castro, a lot more Cubans would have access to a lot more dangerous ideas and people. Kind of like how when ordinary East Germans were allowed to freely travel to the west, the communist regime just couldn’t stand. It toppled under the free exchange of people, goods and ideas.