Filters in London, Ontario

Take a look at the filter issue heating up (LibrarianActivist.org) at the London Public Library.  Reprinted here is a thoughtful letter by Samuel E. Trosow.

From: Samuel E. Trosow

To: London Public Library Board Chairperson Svetlana MacDonald, Vice-Chairperson David Winninger, Board Members Gina Barber, Nancy Branscombe, Jerry Colwell, Jo Deslippe, Jan Lubell, Josh Morgan, and Joanne Tilly; CEO Anne Becker, and Board Secretary.

Re: Internet Filtering Policy - Request for Delegation Status at June 20, 2007 LPL Board Meeting

Dated: June 12, 2007

Through this letter I am requesting delegation status to address the London Public Library Board at its June 20, 2007 meeting on the topic of LPL’s Internet filtering policy.

By way of introduction, I am an Associate Professor at the University of Western Ontario holding a joint appointment in the Faculty of Information & Media Studies (FIMS), where I teach in the Library & Information Science program, and in the Faculty of Law.  I have a strong interest in public library policies pertaining to access to information and intellectual freedom, and I have been an active participant in the work of various library associations.  The purpose of this letter and my presentation to the Board is to express my concern about the Internet filtering policies being implemented at LPL, to request that the Board reconsider these policies, and to suggest possible alternative courses of action.

My understanding is that LPL is currently engaged in a process where additional computer terminals in the adult section will be filtered.  I have carefully reviewed the LPL’s Internet Policy Project Plan as well as other existing LPL policies and reports, and have reached the conclusion that the current plan to extend Internet filtering is unwarranted. It is not consistent with generally accepted values in the library community, such as the Canadian Library Association’s Code of Ethics and Statement on Intellectual Freedom, and it creates an unreasonable burden on your patrons’ rights to seek and receive information. This burden is not justified by the circumstances that have been presented, as there is no indication of any pressing problem in the library system that warrants such an extreme response. It is also evident that LPL already has several policies in place that would adequately address what limited concerns have arisen, and would do so in such in a manner that is less restrictive of the intellectual freedom and access rights of your patrons.

It is not clear what the problem is that the new LPL policy is addressing

Before undertaking any change in policy that would result in more filtering, there should be a clear indication of what the problem is that needs to be addressed.  The Internet Policy Project Plan as it was presented to the LPL Board does not adequately address this crucial threshold issue.  In passing there is vague reference to some patron complaints, which apparently have resulted from unintentional exposure to images on a computer:

We have received negative comments on an infrequent but regular basis from customers at Central and Branch locations about these types of incidences. Our mission statement and value promise assures customers that we will provide a welcoming environment for all people, such as families and children, and pays attention to the individual’s experience in the Library (Plan, p. 2).

This reference to “infrequent but regular” complaints doesn’t rise to the level of justification for a policy change of this nature. The problem identified here could just as easily be remedied by less drastic alternatives such as rearranging the furniture, placing privacy screens on terminals, or clearing the screen more frequently. While the Plan acknowledges some of these alternatives, it fails to explain why they are inadequate to the problem at hand and not being instituted before resorting to more drastic measures.

Adequate LPL policies are already in place

Taken together, existing LPL policies appear more than adequate to resolve the nature of the problem, such as it has been stated.

Thinking of the materials available on the Internet as an extension of your collection, LPL already has a written policy for dealing with patron complaints about inappropriate materials.  LPL’s Collections Management Policy sets out a procedure for resolving complaints and it does not seem to have been followed in the current situation:

Complaints

The London Public Library Board is aware that some materials are controversial and may offend some patrons. Complaints about materials in the collection are directed to the appropriate librarian. If you wish, you may place a formal written complaint. The complaint is reviewed by the Senior Collections Librarian in consultation with the subject (or branch) librarian, and written response is prepared for you. If this response is not satisfactory, you may ask to appeal the decision to the Chief Executive Officer. If still not satisfied with the outcome, you may appeal to the Library Board.

Were any formal written complaints received in this situation? If so, how were they responded to? Instead of addressing these questions, the Plan simply refers to infrequent complaints in a rather vague manner.

In addition, Section 4.2 of your patron Rules of Conduct applies to particular situations where a patron is making inappropriate use of the library’s computer services:

4. Accessing and Using Intellectual Content

Members of the public and staff are expected to abide by the laws and regulations of Canada and the Province of Ontario when using Library resources to access and use intellectual content.

* * *

4.2 Members of the public must abide by the Criminal Code of Canada, and, specifically, Part V pertaining to sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct, including child pornography and obscenity, and Part VIII pertaining to offences against the person, including hate propaganda.

Finally, the LPL policy statement on Computer Use and Internet Access, like the Rules of Conduct, already deals with instances of misuse of the computer facilities and advises patrons that the rules can be enforced by library staff:

Library staff are entrusted with the obligation to ensure that all rules of computer use and Internet access are followed. Staff will advise patrons of appropriate conduct as required and state consequences of not following the rules of conduct should unacceptable behaviour continue or be repeated. Any person violating Library rules of computer use and Internet access risks suspension of Library privileges, exclusion from the Library for a period of time, and prosecution.

It is not at all clear, however, that there has even been any patron misconduct since reference is made to “unintentional” exposure.  Is there a persistent and documented problem occurring in the LPL system that cannot be adequately addressed within the framework of current policies? This question should be carefully analyzed and answered in the negative before proceeding with more restrictive alternatives such as filtering.

The problems with Internet filtering

While a full discussion of the negative implications of Internet filtering is beyond what can be included in a short presentation, the conclusion of the 2006 Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report published by the Free Expression Policy Project of the Brennan Center for Social Justice at the NYU Law School summarizes the issues well:

. . . the widespread use of filters presents a serious threat to our most fundamental free expression values. There are much more effective ways to address concerns about offensive internet content. Filters provide a false sense of security, while blocking large amounts of important information in an often irrational or biased way. Although some may say that the debate is over and that filters are now a fact of life, it is never too late to rethink bad policy choices (Executive Report, p. ii).

While the Brennan Report is focused on Internet filtering in the U.S. in the aftermath of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the resulting litigation brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Library Association (ALA), the general principles and documentation contained in the Report are applicable to the Canadian situation.  The extensive review of research on the performance of Internet filters supports the general conclusion that Internet filters are by nature imprecise, and often result in the blocking of content that patrons have the right to receive.

In contrast, the LPL Internet Policy Project Plan as it was presented to the Board does not contain an analysis of the performance of the filtering system provided by LPL’s vendor, does not contain any indication of how the blocking list is generated and maintained, and does not discuss how a patron might disable the filter if they so desire.

Conclusion and recommended actions

Under all of the circumstances, the conclusion that the LPL’s plan of extended Internet filtering violates basic principles of intellectual freedom and access to information is unavoidable. It is the type of policy that can result from reducing basic and fundamental values of librarianship to issues of “customer-service.”

In closing, I would make the following suggestions:

·       The Board should rescind its actions taken at the May Board meeting and refrain from installing filters on any additional computers in the adult sections of the Central and Branch Libraries. If the blocking software has been already installed, it should be removed.

·       Existing policies under which terminals in the adult sections are filtered should be reviewed for consistency with the policies and concerns raised in this letter.

·       Any further proposals for Internet filtering should be based on a thorough analysis of documented complaints and be vetted at a public participation meeting prior to implementation. Before instituting such measures, the public and the Board should be apprised of the methodology for how the proposed software constructs the blocking list, and how library staff and patrons may alter it.

·       Patron complaints should generally be subject to the existing policies on collections, patron behavior, and computer usage.

·       Staff should be requested to evaluate less restrictive measures such as rearranging the furniture, placing privacy screens on terminals, or clearing the content of terminals more frequently.

I hope that these suggestions are useful, as I believe they are sufficient to provide the quality of service in an appropriate environment that LPL strives to deliver to all of its patrons.  I look forward to speaking with you on June 20th. Please do not hesitate to contact me in advance if you have any additional questions or concerns I might address.

Submitted by,

Samuel E. Trosow, Associate Professor
University of Western Ontario
Faculty of Information & Media Studies / Faculty of Law

Comments

[SafeLibraries.org]

Mary,

I am happy you posted this here. And I'm happy you describe the issue as "heating up" as I was the one who raised legitimate issues at the LibrarianActivist.org blog. I will discuss something about Dr. Roma Harris's letter here that I did not raise at LibrarianActivist.org. But first, allow me to comment on Samuel E. Trosow's letter.

It appears to me the gist of his argument is that filters are "not consistent with generally accepted values in the library community, such as the Canadian Library Association’s Code of Ethics and Statement on Intellectual Freedom, and it creates an unreasonable burden on your patrons’ rights to seek and receive information." The second portion of his sentence about the "unreasonable burden" is essentially one of the same arguments made by Dr. Roma Harris. Therefore, I have the same answer as I did at LibrarianActivist.org.

The first part of his sentence, however, is revealing. He says talks about filters not being consistent with "the library community." This is the kind of attitude I see again and again. I see in this a total disconnect from the people this person should be serving, namely, the local community.

Today I spoke with a library trustee in Pueblo, CO, USA, where the library just decided to chuck aside existing practice and switch to allowing children to borrow any video, no matter the rating. The ALA's Library Bill of Rights was cited as the reason. I asked him if he and his fellow trustees asked the community first if the community wanted to switch from the existing community standards to those promoted by the top leadership of the American Library Association. The answer? No. He said they all get the newspaper and if they have any complaints, they can raise them if they wish.

And in my own community, I asked the library trustees for help in drafting a public question to place on the ballot as to whether the public wanted library filters or not. I was told the public was "not sophisticated enough" to understand the legal issues involved. So no help was provided and no question was ever asked.

I may be wrong, but I see pure arrogance in these kinds of statements. The issue should not be how filters are viewed by "the library community." We all know where it stands, even in the face of US v. ALA and the like. The issue is really what's best for the community, and when librarians display such blatant arrogance, one has to question if the community is being served or if the ALA or, in this case, the Canadian equivalent is being served.

By the way, Trosow's suggestion that "[s]taff should be requested to evaluate less restrictive measures such as rearranging the furniture, placing privacy screens on terminals, or clearing the content of terminals more frequently" completely ignores that these techniques fail spectacularly. For example, one reporter on TV showed how the "privacy screens" are essentially useless, and the librarian was at a loss for words. And less restrictive measures totally fail to stop paedaphiles from attacking children.

Now back to Dr. Roma Harris. I think you'll find this interesting.

That document to which Dr. Harris links at citizenlab.org (that I read for the first time after posting on that other blog) appears to be from the very case I cited as evidence filters work and don't block health-related info too much, just as the ACLU expert and the Court said and ruled. Yet she is using it basically to claim the filters *do* block too much health-related info.

Now I'm not going to dig into it more than that, but it appears it is possible the folks in Canada may have an issue with a doctor in a prominent position *purposefully* misleading the public. I do not know that, though. I'll leave it for the Canadians to decide if that's worth investigating.

But why is she citing something from the case that may be taking the opposite view of what was ultimately ruled while not disclosing that the case ruled differently than the document she asserts to support her erroneous claims? Curious, huh? I've reread what she has to say about that document and the context in which she applies it. Personally, I find it is totally misleading where she does not disclose the final ruling in that case, ACLU v. Gonzales.

I'm glad I mentioned ACLU v. Gonzales at that other blog, not realizing at the time that she just took a small piece of it to mislead the public and the London Ontario Public Library Board, or at least so it seems to me.

Interesting, no?

[Sabina]

Mr. Kleinman's summary of the "Final Adjudication" of the ACLU v. Gonzales case is blatantly incorrect. Kleinman wrote: "ACLU expert and court agrees Internet filters are about 95% effective." There is one mention of 95% in the Final Adjudication and it is on page 35: "Based upon the testimony of Dr. Cranor, which I accept, I find that filters generally block about 95% of sexually explicit material. Cranor Testimony, 10/24 Tr. 55:8-23."

Ninety-five percent of sexually-explicit content is very different from "Internet filters are about 95% effective." Ninety-five percent of sexually-explicit material filtered out provides no measure of overblocking -- that statistic on its own does not in any way suggest that blocking of health information is NOT taking place! Nor does it address any of the issues about access for "women, GLBTQ populations, radical thinkers, dissenters, suspect communities, women, the girl-child, and so on" as outlined by Dr. Toni Samek on the LibrarianActivist blog.

Furthermore, the comment about the "pure arrogance" of librarians who would reject having a ballot question to address Internet filtering is misdirected. Any comment that someone is "not sophisticated" enough to have a valid opinion is of course arrogant -- but that library administrator's comment doesn't address the issue at hand and to suggest it was the single and full response to Mr. Kleinman's proposal for a referendum on filtering software undermines the argument. In what cases does a referendum decide what goes and what doesn't go? Do we vote on rights? I don't think Internet filtering should be decided by a majority vote by the public. Just as I don't think there should have been a vote on if we should say the Lord's prayer in public schools or if people should have access to universal medical care. Likewise, intellectual freedom is not something we vote on: it's part of the rights package we're handed for being humans (with privileges, of course -- universal human rights are many things but universal).

I think it's far more arrogant to install a filter than it is to give members of the public the tools with which to analyze the information they get over the Internet and ensure their children are protected from online predators. It's also arrogant of Mr. Kleinman to misquote a court decision.

Filters block access to information. As the Brenner Centre for Justice concluded in its 2006 revision of its 2001 "Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report": "Despite the superficial appeal of filters, they are not a solution to concerns about pornography or other questionable content online. Internet training, sex education, and media literacy are the best ways to protect the next generation."

Finally: "What’s improper is that librarians do no work harder to make available at least portions of over seven eighths of the Internet." Yeah well -- we're too damn busy trying to protect access to that first eighth.

[SafeLibraries.org]

Ah! Spirited debate! Excellent!

Sabina, have you read ACLU v. Gonzales? Filters are so effective that COPA was found unconstitutional precisely because filters are so effective. Yes, I used 95%, but I guess to make you happy I should have used a number of glowing statements made by the ACLU and the Court about the efficacy of filters.

You cited as evidence of your claim that filters are not effective a 2001 report revised in 2006 while ACLU v. Gonzales is from 2007 and is even based on recent ACLU expert testimony. Certainly one cannot argue that the ACLU is prejudiced in favor of filters; after all, the ACLU was one of the losing parties in US v. ALA. Therefore, your evidence is not persuasive and is quite literally out of date.

Oh, and your concern for overblocking is merely raising an issue already asked and answered in US v. ALA. But I suppose referring to it does confuse the average person who may not have read US v. ALA, so I can understand why the issue and others like it continue to be raised again and again by those opposing filtering.

Regarding my comments about the "Deep Web," your response was to make a joke about it. It was a cute joke actually. Quite funny. But it did not address the issue of librarians effectively blocking access to 87% percent of the Internet by not providing guidance on how to access it.

Regarding my comments on the arrogance of some librarians, you agreed! Here, here! But you then say it was misdirected because you can't poll the public on rights such as intellectual freedom. I agree with you completely!

However, you are guilty of your own misdirection here. Such a poll would not be on intellectual freedom. Your claiming it would be is essentially you rewording the argument in your favor. But, in reality, intellectual freedom is not the issue. The issue is the very material that the US Supreme Court says there is a "legitimate, and even compelling" interest in keeping children away from. It is totally appropriate to keep children from such material. Several SCOTUS decisions have said so. The ALA expressly disagrees with these decisions, and apparently so do you. Is the SCOTUS in violation of intellectual freedom? Is SCOTUS "arrogant"? Keeping inappropriate material as the SCOTUS cases discuss out of public libraries is not a violation of intellectual freedom.

Further, libraries are created by statute. The statues define the libraries. The statutes almost uniformly define libraries in a way that implicitly excludes inappropriate material. When libraries act outside the law of their enabling statutes to allow in inappropriate material, are their no consequences? Is intellectual freedom supposed to override those statutes so now libraries may provide inappropriate material at taxpayer expense despite the law just because some people keep shouting intellectual freedom? And, back on point, when libraries act outside their enabling statues, is there no recourse to control the libraries? Is it not allowed that citizens should be able to vote on whether libraries should use filters to stay within the enabling statutes under which the libraries were created by and on behalf of those citizens in the first place?

Thank you for commenting, Sabina. Everyone, please keep up this spirited debate.

[PC]

The 'legitimate issues' raised at LibrarianActivist.org were in fact misrepresentations and distorted interpretations of Internet filtering cases undertaken by the ACLU.

In the interests of protecting Intellectual Freedom, the ACLU does not support Internet filtering for adults patrons of public libraries. The cases and arguments presented by the ACLU at this post speak for themselves.