The Intellectual Freedom Newsletter has succinctly summarized the inter-relationship of ensorship and intellectual freedom.

In basic terms, intellectual freedom means the right of any person to hold any belief whatsoever on any subject, and to express such ideas in whatever way the person believes appropriate. The freedom to express one's beliefs or ideas through any mode of communication becomes virtually meaningless, however, when accessibility to such expression denied to other persons (i.e., the intrusion of censorship). For this reason, the definition of intellectual freedom has a second, integral part: namely, the right of unrestricted access to all information and ideas regardless of the medium of communication used. Intellectual freedom implies a circle, and that circle is broken if either freedom of expression or access to the ideas expressed is stifled.

The importance of intellectual freedom to our nation's founding fathers was such that they made it the essence of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. This commitment did not then--and should not now--signify that intellectual freedom is an American birthright, sufficiently ingrained into our character so as to be more or less taken for granted. As noted by Robert B. Downs, in The First Freedom Today (1984),

The framers of the U.S. Constitution of 1787 were educated, highly literate, and widely-read men intimately acquainted with the centuries of struggle between tyranny and freedom that had been going on in England and more recently in America. The long record of oppression and suppression formed a backdrop as the leaders proceeded to build the government of the United States on the sovereignty of the people and their rights as citizens of a republic.

The Bill of Rights was challenged almost immediately by various elements of American society. In 1798, Congress enacted a series of Alien and Sedition laws in reaction to the threat to social order posed by the developments abroad in the wake of the French Revolution. In 1835, Congress defeated a proposal by President Andrew Jackson to enact legislation prohibiting the use of the mails for "incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection." In more recent times we have witnessed the specter of "McCarthyism."

While the examples cited above fall into the political realm, censorial attacks in the United States have been concentrated in other areas, most notably

social values and traditions

sexuality (more specifically, obscenity and pornography)

religion

language and profanity

 

Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood School Dist., 795 F. 2d 1368 (8^th Cir. 1986)

The student staff of the high school paper accsed the school district of First Amendment violations when the schol principal removed two pages from the school paper. The court ruled that the paper was a "public forum" and entitled to First Amendment protections.

Pico v. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Fre School District, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)

Students sought to prevent the school board from removing nine books (Slaughterhouse Five, The Naked Ape, Down These Mean Streets, Best Short Stories of Negro Writers, Go Ask Alice, Laughing Boy, Black Boy, A Hero Ain't Nothin' But A Sandwich, Soul On Ice) on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court held that, because the removal ensued out of the board'sdislike for the ideas presented, the students' First Amendment rights had been violated. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the books be returned to the library.

Pratt v. Independent School Dist. No. 831, Forest Lake, Minn., 670 F. 2d 771 (8^th Cir. 1982)

Junior and senior high school students brought action to force the school board to return the film version of the short story, "The Lottery," to the curriculum. The Supreme Court found the school board guilty of violating the First Amendment because the film was removed not for scenes depicting violence, but rather because the majority of the board found the film's religious and ideological themes offensive. The Court disagreed with the board's rationale that removal could be justified as a result of the availability of the story in print and audio formats. The Court ordered the film returned to the curriculum.

Bicknell v. Vergennes Union High School Board of Directors, 638 F. 2d 438 (2d Cir. 1980)

The plaintiff argued that the school board violated students' First Amendment rights by removing two books (Dog Day Afternoon, The Wanderers) from the library due to vulgarity and indecency of language. The court held that the school board did not violate the First Amendment and that the students and librarian had no right to a hearing prior to removal of the books. The court also held that young students have no constitutional right of access to materialdeemd inappropriate for young children by the school board.

Cary v. Board of Educ. Of the Adams-Arapahoe School Dist. 28-J, Aurora, Colo., 598 F. 2d 535 (10^th Cir. 1979)

High school teachers brought action against the school board which had banned ten books (A Clockwork Orange, The Exorcist, The Reincarnation of Peter Proud, New American Poetry, Starting From San Francisco, The Yage Letters, Coney Island of the Mind, Kaddish and Other Poems, Lunch Poems, Rosemary's Baby) from an elective reading list of 1,285 books. The court held that since teachers could not show that the board rejected these books either to promote a particular religious viewpoint or to exclude any particular type of thinking or book, exclusion was allowed.

Salvail v. Nashua Board of Educ., 469 F. Supp. 1269 (D.N.H. May 7, 1979)

Action was brought against the school board for removing Ms. Magazine from the high school library. The court held that the board failed to show sufficient government interest to warrant removal. The magazoine was ordered returned to the library.

Right to Read Defense Comm. Of Chelsea v. School Comm. Of the City of Chelsea, 454 F. Supp. 703 (D. Mass. July 5, 1978)

An injunctive order was sought requiring the school committee to return an anthology of poetry, Male and Female Under 18, to the library shelves. The court held that the removal, prompted by offensive language in some of the selections, did not serve substantial governmental interest and was, therefore, an infringement on the First Amendment rights of the students and faculty. The school committee did not show that the book was obscene, improperly selected, causing shelf space problems, etc. Accordingly, the court ordered the book returned to the library.

Minarcini v. Strongsville City School Dist., 541 F. 2d 577 (6^th Cir. 1976)

High school students brought a class action suit against their school district for refusing to approve certain books as texts and ordering that the books in question (Catch 22, by Joseph Heller; God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater and Cat's Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut) be removed from the library. The board's actions went against the daculty recommendation. The court found the school board to be within its rights in not selecting these books as texts but that they violated the First Amendment in removing them from the library.

Professions Concerned With Intellectual Freedom

It could easily be argued that education, librarianship, and journalism are the occupations most vitally concerned with the protection of First Amendment rights in view of (1) the frequency with which censorship occurs in these fields, (2) their potential vulnerability to censorship from both within and without, (3) the myriad forms of suppression experienced by professionals in these fields, and (4) the reliance of citizens upon these profesionals in the fight against censorship. On the other hand, governmental agencies--while responsible for the institution of the Bill of Rights and the protection of many human rights--have been perhaps the most efficient and far-reaching censors within the domestic scene.

A perusal of the anti-censorship organizations in the next section underscores the fact that each of these professions has evolved a sophisticated infrastructure for combating inrods against intellectual freedom. The developments taking place within librarianship over the past half century serve as a case in point for all professions concerned with the flow of information. During the thirties, the confluence of an extraordinarily high number of censoring activities and the growing maturity of the profession's prime unifying force, the American Library Association, led to the institution of the Intellectual Freedom Committee in 1940. The ALA body has been responsible for the development of policy statements as the need arises, most notably further interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights. These include Free Access to Libraries for Minors (1972), Administrative Policies and Procedures Affecting Access to Library Resources and Services (1982), Statement on Labeling (1951), Expurgation of Library Materials (1973), Diversity in Collection Development (1982), Evaluating Library Collections (1973), Challenged Materials (1971), Restricted Access to Library Materials (1973), Exhibit Spaces and Meeting Rooms (1981), and Library-Initiated Programs as a Resource (1982). Additional documents include the Policy on Governmental Intimidation (1973) and the Policy on Confidentiality of Library Records (1971).

The responsibilities of educating librarians and general public on the importance of intellectual freedom and implementing ALA policies in this area were transferred to the newly-established Office for Intellectual Freedom in 1967. The OIF's programs include publishing; the maintenance of exhibits at conferences, workshops, etc.; consulting; and the coordination of ALA's intellectual freedom activities with other agencies having similar concerns; e.g., state library association intellectual freedom committees, the Asssociation of American Publishers, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, and others.

In addition, ALA has created the following subgroups to assist in coordinating various policies relating to intellectual freedom:

the Intellectual Freedom Round Table (1973), which offers opportunities for ALA members to become active in the Association's intellectual freedom activities;

the Staff Committee on Mediation, Arbitration, and Inquiry (1971), which serves a quasi-judicial function in handling cases involving violations of the spirit of the Library Bill of Rights, tenure, professional status, fair employment practices, ethical practices, due process, etc.; and

the Freedom to Read Foundation (1969), which provides defense machinery (i.e., financial and legal assistance) enabling librarians to protect their jobs while in support of intellectual freedom as well as a device for concerned individuals andgroups to set legal precedents for the freedom to read.

 

The struggle between proponents and opponents of intellectual freedom is not only an ongoing process, but reaches into virtually every segment of American society. The issues most likely to elicit controversy--politics, social values and traditions, sexuality, and relgion--have stimulated the rise of individuals and groups espousing a diversified array of interpretations regarding the role First Amendment rights should play in contemporary life.

Generally speaking, the actions and ideas identified with these individuals and groups can be classified as either infringing upon or upholding the unqualified guarantees of the First Amendment. While few Americans would outwardly admit to being opposed to the U.S. Constitution--or, more specifically, the First Amendment--many contradict such protestations by means of the activities in which they are engaged.

The term "censor" evokes a picture of irrational, belligerent behavior. But such a picture can be misleading. It sould be argued that most censors are concerned citizens who are sincerely interested in the future well-being of their respective communities. However, one characteristic of censors and would-be censors is harder to defend.

Regardless of specific motives, all would-be censor share one belief--that they can recognize "evil" and that other people must be protected from it. Censors do not necessarily believe their own morals should be protected, but they do feel compelled to save their fellows. (Intellectual Freedom Manual)

Those opposed to censorship, likewise, may be motivated by anynumber of a diverse set of factors, including personal values, professional commitments, a political agenda, business interests, etc. These motivations may produce an inherent clash within a given individual or group. For example, liberals are not neceesarily above resorting to censoring activities; on the other hand, conservatives may be opposed to the majority of infringements upon First Amendment rights. The dilemma faced by feminists with respect to pornography illustrates the complexity of the censorship phenomenon. While those within the movement are unanimous in their assessment of pornography as degrading in its treatment of women as sex objects, groups such as the Feminists Anti-Censorship Task Force consider any attempts at undercutting the First Amendment to represent an even greater evil. Other organizations--e.g., Feminists Against Pornography--are willing to risk categorically compromising intellectual freedom in order to enhance the likelihood of realizing the movement's aims. Such a nod in favor of expediency would appear to typify the modus operandi of most individuals and groups practicing some form of censorship.

Allowing for variations according to outlook, goals, and programs, the following groups generally advocate censorship in one form or another:

Accuracy in Academia

Accuracy in Media

Action for Children's Television

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

American Baptist Home Mission Society

American Coalition for Traditional Values

American Legion

American Renewal Foundation

Back in Control (California)

Board for Brotherhood Concerns

Boy Scouts of America

Brethren in Christ Church

California League Enlisting Action Now

Christian Voice

Citizens for Decency Through Law

Citizens for Excellence in Education

Concrned Women for America

Daughters of the American Revolution

Eagle Forum

Educational Research Analysits

Florida Coalition for Clean Cable

Freedom Council

Illinois Baptist State Association

John Birch Society

Legion of Decency

Liberty Federation

Morality in Media

NAB Code Review Board

National Association of Christian Educators

National Board of Review of Motion Pictures

National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures

National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting

National Coalition Against Pornography (Cincinnati)

National Federation for Decency (Tupelo, Miss.)

National Legal Foundation

National Organization for Decent Literature

National Woman's Christian Temperance Union

Nw York-Connecticut Americans for Morality

New York State Pro-Family Coalition

Parents Music Resource Center

Parents Watching the Schools

Religious Alliance Against Pornography

Religious Roundtable

Save Our Schools

Texans for America

Women Against Pornography

 

AAUP Commission on Academic Freedom and Pre-College Education

American Association of School Administrators

American Booksellers Association

American Civil Liberties Union

American Federation of Teachers

American Library Association

American National News Service

American Newspaper Publishers Association

Americans for Constitutional Freedom

Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication

Association of American Publishers

Council for Periodical Distributors Associations

Freedom of Expression Foundation

Freedom to Read Committee

International Reading Association

Magazine Publishers Association

Media Coalition

National Cable Television Association

National Coalition Against Censorship

National Council of Teachers of English

National Council of the Social Studies

National Education Association

People for the American Way

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Speech Communication Association

Characteristics Of A Censor

Doctrinaire; committed in his/her own mind to following one true path to building a better world.

Belief in one's personal superiority over others, particularly regarding the ability to choose between right and wrong.

Little or no understanding of the forces of history; i.e., all censoring activities have taken on a negative cast with the passage of time.

No sense of humor in carrying out this particular mission.

Tendency to go to the top, administratively speaking, in seeking a favorable outcome.

Seeks out like-minded allies during the campaign process.

Lack of patience with the reconsideration process likely to be employed by the library.

Frequently finds fault with a small part of an entire work; e.g., a certain four-letter word on page 242.

A natural leader in the community; it takes a reasonable amount of intelligence and self respect to initiate a complaint of this nature.

 

Before episodes of censorship occur:

Establish professional credentials in work setting.

Form alliances with individuals and organizations possessing a similar commitment to 1^st Amendment principles.

Secure support for a comprehensive Collection Development Policy.

Sponsor workshops, in-house training, etc., aimed at fostering an awareness of intellectual freedom concerns.

Develop an awareness of the support network available to anyone caught up in a censorship battle (e.g., the mass media, professional associations, government consultants, legal advisers, publishers whose material is being suppressed).

If the material in question is part of the library, the complainant should be directed to the head librarian.

Ask complainant to fill out a Reconsideration of Materials Form.

Advise complainant that the re-evaluation process will take a certain number of days (preferrably under one week in duration). Set up a meeting for the announcement of your final decision.

Inform principal and other key administrators of the situation. Assure them that you will pass along your decision prior to any further dialogue with the complainant.

Delegate at least a portion of the information gathering and decision making functions to a committee composed of librarians and faculty (possibly even students at a high school level).

Announce decision to complainant (Princial may insist on doing this). If this individual does not appear to be please about the decision, advise him/her of the available options for further complaint.