Sunday, May 20, 2007
Interesting current IF debate
I came across this article (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/orl-raunchydvd1707may17,0,6950550.story?coll=sfla-news-florida) the other day and thought that it made some very interesting points. The article discusses the borrowing of rated R movies by public library patrons who are under the age of 17. The article highlights the debate as to whether or not those under 17 should be allowed to borrow rated R movies from a library when they would be unable to see the same movies in the theater. Now I firmly believe that librarians should not police what people are checking out and that this responsibility lies squarely with the parent but you have to admit, it is an interesting point. If a child would be unable to walk into a movie theater or video rental store and watch or rent a R-rated movie, why should they be able to walk into a library and to the same thing? I don't have a good answer for this quesion but am curious to know what others think. I believe that a healthy dialog and open debate may be the only way issues like this one are resolved.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue and Libraries - an update
I focused on the Swimsuit Issue scenario in this week's assignment and decided to investigate the fact that Sports Illustrated has stopped sending libraries and classrooms the swimsuit issue. I wanted to poke around a little deeper to see if they have amended that policy since the controversy.
In March of 2007, SI spokesperson Rick McCabe stated:
"Over the course of time, we've received feedback from some of those institutions saying it wouldn't be an acceptable thing for them to have or to share with their constituents, and the decision was made that this was one way to hopefully alleviate that issue."
This decision brought about quite a bit of controversy. Leslie Burger, ALA President released a statement stating "Limiting access to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue in response to alleged, anonymous, and amorphous expressions of concern is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of library users and an unwarranted attempt to censor the materials available in our nation’s libraries.” The New York Times, The Library Journal and numerous blogs picked the story up and many members of the library community weighted in on the situation. Sports Illustrated quickly realized they had made a mistake and will not be holding the issue back next year. I think this is a wonderful example of the library community coming together to fight for Intellectual Freedom. It shows just how powerful a community we are.
As an aside, I wonder what Mr. McCabe meant by "institutions." I would be curious to know if these institutions were public libraries or school libraries or libraries affiliated with some religious organization. It seems like a library concerned with the tenants of Intellectual Freedom would not contact Sports Illustrated with this concern.
In March of 2007, SI spokesperson Rick McCabe stated:
"Over the course of time, we've received feedback from some of those institutions saying it wouldn't be an acceptable thing for them to have or to share with their constituents, and the decision was made that this was one way to hopefully alleviate that issue."
This decision brought about quite a bit of controversy. Leslie Burger, ALA President released a statement stating "Limiting access to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue in response to alleged, anonymous, and amorphous expressions of concern is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of library users and an unwarranted attempt to censor the materials available in our nation’s libraries.” The New York Times, The Library Journal and numerous blogs picked the story up and many members of the library community weighted in on the situation. Sports Illustrated quickly realized they had made a mistake and will not be holding the issue back next year. I think this is a wonderful example of the library community coming together to fight for Intellectual Freedom. It shows just how powerful a community we are.
As an aside, I wonder what Mr. McCabe meant by "institutions." I would be curious to know if these institutions were public libraries or school libraries or libraries affiliated with some religious organization. It seems like a library concerned with the tenants of Intellectual Freedom would not contact Sports Illustrated with this concern.
Monday, May 7, 2007
IF issues abroad
I was just reading an article that made me realize just how lucky we are to live in a country where we can have an open debate regarding the content of books and other materials.
The Indian Supreme Court has just ruled that the government does have the authority to ban publications that endangers public order. The court stated “forfeiture of a newspaper, book or a document is a serious encroachment on the right of a citizen, but if the forfeiture is called for in the public interest, it must without a doubt have pre-eminence over any individual interest.”
I think this is an example of how "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The Indian government seems to be trying to protect their people for materials that may insight violence but one has to ask oneself where it will end. It seems that "endangering the public order" could be stretched to include many varying definitions and could possible extend far beyond the notion of insighting violence. The implications of a decision like this one have the potential to be very far-reaching.
The Indian Supreme Court has just ruled that the government does have the authority to ban publications that endangers public order. The court stated “forfeiture of a newspaper, book or a document is a serious encroachment on the right of a citizen, but if the forfeiture is called for in the public interest, it must without a doubt have pre-eminence over any individual interest.”
I think this is an example of how "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The Indian government seems to be trying to protect their people for materials that may insight violence but one has to ask oneself where it will end. It seems that "endangering the public order" could be stretched to include many varying definitions and could possible extend far beyond the notion of insighting violence. The implications of a decision like this one have the potential to be very far-reaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)