The Librarians Are Right
Published November 12, 2004
As a writer, author and editor I often do research into wherever my interest, the news, or curiosity take me. This should be my and every American's fundamental right without fear of being regarded suspiciously by my government. I therefore am in complete agreement with the American Library Association on this matter:
- As President Bush prepares for a second term and is making new appointments to his cabinet, the American Library Association (ALA) is calling for the President to nominate and Congress to confirm an Attorney General who can successfully balance national security with respect for civil liberties.
"The departure of John Ashcroft from the position of Attorney General provides a fresh opportunity to review the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, improve public accountability on how these new powers are being used and begin a real dialogue about how to balance national security and privacy rights in America's libraries," said ALA President Carol Brey-Casiano. "This law was passed at breakneck speed in the wake of an American tragedy. Now is the time to make necessary corrections."
The ALA has been a leading voice seeking to amend Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act [overview here]. Among the many changes in U.S. law and practice enabled by the act is the federal government's ability to override the traditional protections of library reading records that exist in every state. These laws provide a clear framework for responding to national security concerns while safeguarding against random searches, fishing expeditions or invasions of privacy.
"The right to read freely in our nation's libraries is grounded in the belief that people must be able to access information and ideas without fear of reprisal," Brey-Casiano said. "When librarians fight against provisions of the PATRIOT Act, we're fighting for the public."
In September, the ALA and other members of the book community presented to Congress petitions with more than 170,000 signatures gathered in the Campaign for Reader Privacy, www.readerprivacy.org. Efforts to amend Section 215 have drawn bipartisan support in Congress and in hundreds of cities and counties nationwide.
For more information on the PATRIOT Act and libraries, please visit www.ala.org/espy and www.ala.org/oif/ifissues/usapatriotact.
The booksellers were behind the petition drive as well:
- More than 500 bookstores sent a strong message to Washington on September 29 when the Campaign for Reader Privacy delivered petitions bearing over 185,000 signatures to members of Congress at a Washington press conference. The petitions, which urge Congress to restore the protections for reader privacy that were eliminated by the USA PATRIOT Act, were collected over a seven-month period in bookstores, libraries and the Campaign's Web site. At the press conference, Oren Teicher, chief operating officer of the American Booksellers Association, explained that booksellers were fulfilling a promise. "We promised our customers that we would present their signatures to Congress, and we are proud to fulfill that promise," Teicher said. "It is not just booksellers, librarians, publishers and writers that are urging Congress to restore the protections for reader privacy. The readers of America are demanding the right to read freely."
- The Librarians Are Right
- Published: November 12, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Books: News, Politics: Law and Rights
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
good ideas and info Hal, thanks
That was a very good post Eric. It carried a very clear and practical example of the importance of privacy, one of rights that your (I'm Canadian) founding fathers did not identify when they wrote the Bill of Rights, but which your Supreme Court has recognized.
Your president is right when he talks about the importance of the United States as a model for freedom for the rest of the world. His critics are right when they say that your president goes too far in fighting "world" terrorism.
I suppose that you can infer and imagine all sorts of things about people by a list of their reading material, but their choice of reading material is highly personal and private. Let's keep it that way.
Tony Dalmyn (aka Brave Kelso)
I don't want Federal agents kicking in my door with a search warrant based upon that fact that I may have purchased or borrowed some books at some point in my life that they arbitrarily felt "raised some red flags" or whatever.
While I can understand the reasoning behind such a law being implemented, I do not support it. It underminds some of our Constitutional rights to an extent.
But let's not hyperventalate and compare this to 1984 or a fascist regime or anything.
Let's not softpedal it either, RJ, by bringing up things like fascism and 1984 when no one else had.
It is a problem.
It is a whittling away at privacy and freedom.
The time to act is before "1984" is an apt comparison. If you wait that long, it will already be far too late to restore a form of government that will respect your individual freedoms.
Privacy is not necessarily the same as freedom. I'm glad to see one of the books linked above is David Brin's The Transparent Society. Brin argues quite persuasively that real transparency may be a better guarantee of freedom than privacy could ever be.
In a transparent society, if the government wants to look at your library records, it must do so only in a way that every citizen can openly examine.
"Let's not softpedal it either, RJ, by bringing up things like fascism and 1984 when no one else had."
Not in this post. Not yet.
But in other forums, Ashcroft and the Patriot Act have been compared to many things both fascist and totalitarian...
I guess I should visit the fever-swamps more often...it's great material!
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/22161)
While Ashcroft defended, and wanted to extend, the "Patriot" Act, it just gives government too much power.
In this case, one of the key problems is that the warrants are obtained from the secret FISA Court. Further, as long as the request for the warrant specifies "that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation" the judges can't deny it.
The only restriction is that the "investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. " Ashcroft was giving seminars on how to weasel on various requirements in the Act, so I don't see this as any sort of protection.
Gonzales would be worse: rather than just weaseling around laws, he simply claimed they did not apply to the president (and probably contributed significantly to enabling Abu Ghraib).
It's not a good thing, and once again, I strongly recommend that people write their Senators and House Representative I understand that as few as 2-300 letters and emails, as long as they aren't form letters, can sway a Congressman.