Post 5: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory & Intellectual Freedom

This case isn’t very recent, but I thought it was interesting. In 2006, Brigham Young University (which happens to be my alma mater) placed Physics professor Steven Jones on paid administrative leave after he made statements supporting the 9/11 truth movement. Dr. Jones published a paper and gave several speeches asserting that the World Trade Center towers collapsed because of demolition charges and suggesting that the US government may have been involved. At the time Dr. Jones was placed on leave, the university made this statement:

Physics professor Steven Jones has made numerous statements about the collapse of the World Trade Center. BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty. We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones. Furthermore, BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues. Owing to these issues, as well as others, the university has placed Dr. Jones on leave while we continue to review these matters.

Dr. Jones, who had taught at BYU for twenty years, ended up retiring shortly after being placed on leave. You can read more about this story here and here.  The American Association of University Professors and The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education were quick to criticize BYU's actions as a violation of intellecutal freedom.  What do you guys think?  Should Dr. Jones have been free to speak and write about his theory without facing repercussions from BYU?

Post 4: Is School Bullying Protected Speech?

Is School Bullying Protected Speech?  That’s the title of a recent segment on the O’Reilly Factor in which O’Reilly & John Stossel debated the issue. John Stossel also wrote about it on his blog.  When I saw the story of Phoebe Prince on the news, I was horrified.  The 15-year-old committed suicide after being bullied relentlessly at school and online.  In response to this & similar incidents, new anti-bullying laws are being enacted to protect kids.  Free speech is protected under the First Amendment, but not if it's harassment, and schools can place restrictions on minors' speech.  The ALA IF Manual explains, "Although minors do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, the Supreme Court has held that students' speech rights are not 'automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings'..." (386)  One law being proposed in Louisiana seems to go too far, though.  Stossel writes: 

Louisiana is now considering a law that would punish any online communication “with the intent to… cause emotional distress to a person seventeen or younger.” The penalty? Up to 6 months in jail. So if a 16-year-old e-mails her boyfriend saying he’s evil for cheating on her, she would be a criminal.

I’m glad I’m not the one trying to write the legislation here.  It’s difficult to draw the line so that you protect kids from bullying but don't go too far in restricting the right to free speech.  Stossel says that kids should be able to say I hate you, but not to call you up & tell you that at 3am because that would be harassment.  What do you guys think?

Post 3: Book Thief

There’s a post on Future Librarians for Intellectual Freedom about an interesting article: Mom checked out racy teen books from library—and she won’t give them back.  A woman who decided that Gossip Girl books her daughter checked out are inappropriate refuses to return them to the library.  She’s had them since 2008.  She doesn’t want them banned but demands they be labeled.  The library refused but did offer to put them in the adult section, which didn’t satisfy her.

I was really surprised someone would just take it upon themselves to remove books like that.  She says she wants a say in what circulates at the library because she’s a taxpayer.  What about all the other taxpayers who use the library and happen to like Gossip Girl?  If you don’t like it, don’t check it out or don’t allow your children to, but don’t prevent me from making my own choice about what I read.  It sounds like this lady definitely has the authoritarian personality and serious control issues described in the article by Dr. Fine about the mind of a censor.

Something that really hit me hard was that she used the library’s use of filters against them in her argument – “Harden questions how the library can enforce an Internet policy that restricts access to certain content but not place limitations on books.”  The library responded with the only thing it could, I guess.  It said that it has to abide by the CIPA rules since it accepts government funding.  I hadn’t considered how using internet filters undermines your argument for intellectual freedom when dealing with challenges to other materials. 

Post 2: Government Surveillance

Another thing that jumped out at me while I was exploring Electronic Frontier Foundation’s site concerned the PATRIOT Act. I had just read what the ALA had to say about the PATRIOT Act in the Intellectual Freedom Manual, that it’s a serious threat to library users’ right to privacy and has had a “chilling effect on freedom of speech, inquiry, and association” (50). All of the information I found on the ALA’s website was dated, with the most recent information being from 2007. I’m so frustrated with the rampant broken links on that site! I was wondering if there has been any more recent action by the ALA.

EFF recently filed a Freedom of Information Act suit seeking records from the Department of Justice about the “effectiveness, lawfulness, and misuse” of certain surveillance provisions of the PARIOT Act. These provisions will expire in February 2011 unless Congress reauthorizes them. EFF wants this information to be made public before the debate begins. While they are working to address these issues in the courts, the EFF also created the Surveillance Self-Defense site. The site explains the surveillance that government can conduct legally, and what citizens can do legally to protect their communications and the information on their computer. It seems like really good information for librarians, library users, and anyone concerned about government surveillance and privacy issues.

Post 1: Anonymous Speech Online

I hadn't heard of Electronic Frontier Foundation until I read Little Brother. It’s mentioned in the book, and I noticed in the author’s bio that Cory Doctorow previously worked there. On its website, EFF calls itself “the leading civil liberties group defending your rights in the digital world”. Since I’m writing a blog about intellectual freedom for this class, I had to check out their page on bloggers’ rights. I was particularly interested in their statement that the First Amendment guarantees bloggers not only the right to free speech, but to anonymous speech. We’ve been reading about free speech protection under the First Amendment, but I hadn’t thought about the right to speak anonymously being a protected right. They cite a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is, writing: “Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse...Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...It exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation...”

Some libel lawsuits, however, are challenging the rights of individuals to speak anonymously online. USA Technologies recently sued two individuals who criticized the company’s management on Yahoo! message boards. They attempted to get the posters’ identities from Yahoo! using a subpoena, and EFF helped stop that. There are limits to what you can publish online anonymously. Crossing the line into actual libel could mean that you’ll be forced to go public, but I agree with EFF that people shouldn’t be bullied by bogus lawsuits. They shouldn’t be afraid to be a critic or speak their mind online.

Information was gathered from the following pages on the Electronic Frontier Foundation website.

Anonymity

Bloggers' Rights

USA Technologies v. Stokklerk