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?

Blog Post #5

Has anyone heard about all the mess going on with the read-aloud technology and the Kindle? Roy Blount Jr., president of the Authors Guild, wrote an op-ed in the Times yesterday about it, and how because it has this new text-to-speech technology, authors should be fairly compensated for it - that Amazon cannot offer this service since copyright-holders are not participating. "What the guild is asserting is that authors have a right to a fair share of the value that audio adds to Kindle 2’s version of books." The Guild has caused quite a stir. The National Federation of the Blind accused them of trying to limit their access.

Authors already get paid for the sale of their books on Kindle. So with audio rights, this means they would get paid more? And wouldn't this mean that Amazon would have to end up charging users more for the reader? It seems this would limit access for people, financially. What about those who use it because they are blind or visually impaired? And then there are the people who simply choose not to use this feature of the Kindle. Maybe Blount is just trying to get authors and publishers an even bigger piece. And just how much control should a creator have over their information? I'm allowed to read aloud to myself in the comfort of my own home. Authors aren't strolling into classrooms, library storytimes, and bedtimes, demanding a fee for their stories having been read aloud. So why get paid for this? Isn't the key difference the fact that this is text-to-speech, that it does not involve a person reading it aloud, properly (like on an audiobook)?

And really, I don't think a computerized voice is going to be confused with one such as those you could find on an audiobook. For those that listen to audiobooks, I'm sure that many are still going to go to the library and get their free David Sedaris audiobook, where he is actually reading one of his books, rather than choose to hear some computer voice. Then again, this is only the beginning of this text-to speech technology on the Kindle 2. With more money being put into read-aloud technology, perhaps it will advance to the point where it will sound just as good as audiobooks. Until then, I'm not sure I fully understand why Blount is so upset.

Blog Post #4

This article made me think of community standards and censorship. The St. Louis County Library has made the decision to put additional labels saying “high school” on teen books that contain sexual content. In addition, signs will be placed throughout the teen section, explaining that these books are meant for 9th-12th graders. Area group Citizens Against Pornography (CAP) had complained about certain books. The titles in question were said to “contain graphic depictions of homosexual and heterosexual sex acts not suitable for young readers.” The article mentions that some people feared teens would fantasize about these depictions (as if they can’t do that otherwise), and that they might even lead to an increase in STDs.

“Charles Pace, St. Louis County Library executive director, said the purpose of the labeling system is not to prevent people from checking out materials…” But this community has undoubtedly heard about CAP protesting these books, and that letter ‘P’ leaves quite an impression - these books might as well be labeled “porn.” I am guessing that this labeling system will prevent at least some people from checking these out altogether – even if their kids are old enough. And unfortunately there may be others, who may not want or think to take the time to review these books themselves, who will rely only on these labels in making their decisions.

I wonder if these labels are just going to draw more attention to the items, and cause more kids to want to check them out. I also think about the authors of these books, and how they intended them to simply be Young Adult or Teen books, and would perhaps not be thrilled with these extra labels and their possible implications. I know that these books were not actually removed, but in a way, it still seems like censorship. By applying these labels to them, they're sort of removing them from all other teen books.

Stanley Fish recently authored a piece in the NY times entitled,
The Two Languages of Academic Freedom. Fish discusses Professor Denis Rancourt of the University of Ottawa, and how he was suspended from teaching, banned from campus, and arrested for trespassing. The Board of Governors has now recommended his “dismissal with cause,” which, from what I’ve read, seems to be that he drastically altered course content, and used, what the university apparently feels were ineffective teaching methods. Heroism or irresponsibility?

Rancourt said that higher education had oppressed students, and so advocated critical pedagogy. He believed in what he called “squatting,” where you take a class and transform it into something else, a practice he felt would make the university “a place of greater democracy.” Rancourt had (and still has) a number of students who respected him and enjoyed his classes, while others complained that he allowed debates to veer off topic. Calling himself an anarchist, Rancourt did not grade his students – or rather, he told students the first day of class they all had an A+.

Intellectual freedom involves the freedom to impart information and express one’s opinions, though, I think academic freedom is a slightly narrower concept, in that one always has to be respectful of others and their views. (Librarians also have to consider academic freedom when doing library instruction). Of academic freedom, the AAC&U says that “faculty are responsible for establishing goals for student learning,” for cultivating the “intended learning,” and for “assessing students’ achievement.” Academic freedom also includes one’s right to determine what is taught in a classroom. I cannot speak as to how effective Rancourt was in these or any other areas. But if Rancourt was imparting information in his classroom that he believed was relevant, and if (some) students believed they were learning something, then perhaps he did nothing wrong. Maybe the university is simply turned off by those radical types. Or was he being disrespectful to his institution, colleagues, and students?

IF Post #2

Here is a story about YouTube and copyright issues. A woman took a video of her toddler walking around their living room, then stopping to dance to a Prince song. She named her video after the song, innocently (or so she thought) posted it on YouTube, and then was notified of its removal, due to the takedown notice that YouTube had received from Universal Music Group. She filed a counternotice, and eventually sued Universal for misrepresentation, saying that her video was a protected fair use of the song, that her “First Amendment rights were being violated.” She ended up winning the suit, with the judge emphasizing the necessity for copyright owners to first make a good-faith evaluation before throwing around takedown notices.

I won’t go into too much detail here, but check out the section of the article called Safe-Harbor Battle. Safe-harbor has to do with Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, something that is supposed to protect the online companies (basically, they won't be held responsible for what users post, as long as they follow certain rules - they'll have a safe harbor). Additionally, I looked elsewhere for some info on Section 512, and it seems pretty confusing.

It’s clear that technology has changed dramatically since Congress enacted this. There are just so many postings going up every hour - is it really possible to patrol every single one? And automated systems, just like internet filters, are not always reliable. I’m not exactly sure what the solution is, but something has to change…the laws/acts, the industry’s rules, etc. It's obvious that the entertainment industry, legislation, and technology are not on the same page. The end of the article mentions a compromise, not just amongst the above groups, but also with the users. Considering the popularity of user-generated content sites like YouTube, hopefully a solution or compromise will come soon so that the users (who certainly aren’t going anywhere) can continue to enjoy them.

Check out the DMCA at www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf. Section 512 starts on page 8.

IF Post #1

I found a story in the news (article #1, article #2) that brought up the issues of censorship, book removal, and ethics. In sum, libraries in southeast Queensland were forced to pull self-published, apparently 'pornographic' books from their shelves, books that did not pass through their federal classification board (CB) to be classified (I have not seen these books, and therefore cannot comment specifically on their contents). The books were both by Charles Kevin, and contained graphic descriptions of mother-son and brother-sister sex. Kevin shipped his books off to multiple libraries throughout Australia, and apparently at least some institutions accepted them. A library spokeswoman mentioned having to revise policies “to flag self-published books without classifications.” How did they miss these? While reading about this, I wondered if these libraries had any sort of request for reconsideration or review process for those books that were challenged that had passed through the classification board. Also, if the classification board hadn't yet reviewed these books, then who decided they were pornographic (librarians, residents)?

Kevin said he should be free to write these books, and that librarians should monitor who is checking out adult books. I strongly disagree with librarians having to monitor what people are checking out, as librarians should resist censorship. I agree with his right to write what he pleases – but librarians also have the right to choose not to carry his works. Librarians are ethically obligated to provide access to quality resources, materials, and services. This involves thoroughly evaluating and cataloging all material (something that these libraries admitted not doing with Kevin’s books), before making them accessible to patrons.

Hello blog!

I will be posting here more often for the Intellectual Freedom class. I've learned a bit about this issue in a couple of other classes, and am eager to delve deeper into it. Having worked in a public library for quite some time, I was exposed to various aspects of IF, such as book challenges, Internet filters (specifically how often they failed to block adult material), and additional labeling of materials.

I look forward to hearing about everyone else's experiences and viewpoints-this class is going to be super cool.

This picture is from my past job as a Circulation Aide II at the Tippecanoe County Public Library. We kept ourselves busy.