Blog Post #8

I have not served on a jury myself, but this story regarding courtrooms and Twitter got me thinking about what that experience would be like. This article on Cnet News mentions how courts are complaining about Twitter and blogs compromising the integrity of trials. In various cases, there have been multiple jurors found to have “tweeted” during and after trials, as well as having posted on blogs. Attorneys apparently check the sites and blogs of potential jurors (this made me cringe). Additionally, some jurors were caught using their iPhones and Blackberrys to do research. A piece in the NY Times says that jurors are not supposed to look for any other information regarding the case - that they must reach a verdict based solely on the evidence that is presented to them within the courtroom walls.

Although I don’t have experience with all of this, I think I agree that jurors should not be doing outside research. While I realize that not all the facts may be presented during a trial, and that someone may get frustrated and let their curiosity get the best of them, I also realize that not all jurors have access to the Internet. So, it would seem a bit alarming if some jurors were reaching a verdict based on courtroom evidence, while others used that in addition to what they Googled. And while I of course support intellectual freedom, and one's right to express opinions and impart information, it just doesn't seem right that jurors would blog or "tweet" about the trial. Aren't they not supposed to discuss it? Or are these blogs/Twitter really hurting anything? But I also admit that it would be impossible to know what all jury members were doing every minute of the day. Ideally, they would all take this duty seriously and be as honest and cooperative as possible. But with today’s technologies and the fact that people (generally) can both access and give information instantly, I can’t help but wonder if the court system will have to adjust their rules and regulations.

Blog Post #7

I found this article in the Seacoast Online, about the Portsmouth Public Library canceling the final installment of the Seacoast Peace Response and Palestine Education Network’s “Palestine Teach-In.” Previous to this, the library had held three of these meetings, which were meant to show the Palestinian side of the conflict. Organizers of the series believe this last meeting was cancelled because the topic was just too controversial, while the library director claims it was due to a scheduling conflict. If the meeting room was booked far in advance, as the director stated, then there shouldn’t have been a problem. Something doesn’t add up, but I realize I am only piecing this together from 1 news article.

According to the ALA’s Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights, meeting rooms should be made available “…regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.” Considering that the library already held 3 meetings in this series, and was surely aware of their controversial content, it seems that they did open up their facilities “on an equitable basis.” However, the Intellectual Freedom Manual highlights the Cornelius case, which held that “avoidance of controversy is not a valid ground for restricting speech in a public forum” (IFM 2006, 380). I can’t help but wonder about how affected the director was by the intensity of those first 3 meetings, and also about how influenced she may have been by angered individuals or groups in the community. If fear of confrontation or controversy were good enough reasons for librarians to not allow groups to use meeting rooms, or to not order certain materials, then I’m guessing shelves (and libraries) would be empty. I just hope that the director from the Portsmouth library didn’t actually back down. But then again, how big of a role should community standards play in all of this? It sort of weirds me out to think that decisions I make could possibly lead to so much unrest, but I just have to trust myself to make the best decisions.

Intellectual Freedom Manual. Chicago, IL: American Library Association-Office for Intellectual
Freedom, 2006.

Blog Post #6

This article from the NYT is about intellectual freedom and the access that convicted criminals have not specifically to libraries, but just to literature in general. It highlights a program called Changing Lives Through Literature (CLTL). According to the website, it is “an alternative sentencing program based on the power of literature to transform lives through reading and group discussion.” Felons and other offenders are given a choice, between participating in a book club/seminar, thus granting them probation, or going to jail. The only conclusive study, involving less than 100 people, showed that participants achieved half the recidivism rate of those that did not attend. And the program only costs $500 a head, as opposed to $30,000 a year for incarceration. But this program has apparently angered some parents, who say they are paying a lot of money for their kids to take the same classes that these felons are.

I guess I didn’t feel that way after really considering this program. (I did think of prison librarians - check out this article about them). Whether or not these inmates become experts on Fitzgerald or Shakespeare, I don’t know, and I don’t know that that is the point. I think more about intellectual freedom, and how the inmates are able to read (what is chosen for them), form opinions, and express themselves, and how the act of just getting together, connecting with other people, and looking at their situations objectively would all benefit them. And it seems like, or I would like to think, that they would learn more from these experiences, than from being locked up. Ultimately, it seems like the access that this program (and prison libraries) affords people could better prepare them for the adjustment to life after prison. But should felons and criminals be given this choice? Is someone’s intellectual freedom lost once they go to jail?