Intellectual Freedom
Jan. 14th, 2004 03:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyblossomFrom The American Library Association's statements on Censorship and Intellectual Freedom:
Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.From the Canadian Library Association postion paper on Intellectual freedom:
Intellectual freedom is the basis for our democratic system. We expect our people to be self-governors. But to do so responsibly, our citizenry must be well-informed. Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas.
Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.
Censorship occurs when expressive materials, like books, magazines, films and videos, or works of art, are removed or kept from public access. Individuals and pressure groups identify materials to which they object. Sometimes they succeed in pressuring schools not to use them, libraries not to shelve them, book and video stores not to carry them, publishers not to publish them, or art galleries not to display them. Censorship also occurs when materials are restricted to particular audiences, based on their age or other characteristics.
In most instances, a censor is a sincerely concerned individual who believes that censorship can improve society, protect children, and restore what the censor sees as lost moral values. But under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, each of us has the right to read, view, listen to, and disseminate constitutionally protected ideas, even if a censor finds those ideas offensive.
Censors might sincerely believe that certain materials are so offensive, or present ideas that are so hateful and destructive to society, that they simply must not see the light of day. Others are worried that younger or weaker people will be badly influenced by bad ideas, and will do bad things as a result. Still others believe that there is a very clear distinction between ideas that are right and morally uplifting, and ideas that are wrong and morally corrupting, and wish to ensure that society has the benefit of their perception. They believe that certain individuals, certain institutions, even society itself, will be endangered if particular ideas are disseminated without restriction. What censors often don’t consider is that, if they succeed in suppressing the ideas they don’t like today, others may use that precedent to suppress the ideas they do like tomorrow.
The primary responsibility for rearing children rests with parents. If parents want to keep certain ideas or forms of expression away from their children, they must assume the responsibility for shielding those children. Governmental institutions cannot be expected to usurp or interfere with parental obligations and responsibilities when it comes to deciding what a child may read or view.
All persons in Canada have the fundamental right, as embodied in the nation's Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. This right to intellectual freedom, under the law, is essential to the health and development of Canadian society.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 12:52 pm (UTC)*admires*
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 01:16 pm (UTC)am so amused by their tactics.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 01:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 01:08 pm (UTC)And I lurve that icon. I need me something like that.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 01:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 01:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 01:43 pm (UTC)So yes. Intellectual freedom should only apply to certain people in certain situations. Or something. ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 01:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 05:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 02:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 02:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 02:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 03:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 03:41 pm (UTC)*loves*
*loathes fandom_scruples with raging incoherent fury*
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 05:14 pm (UTC)Well, I was going to post something myself, but I felt that the ALA summed it up pretty well. Oh, i got your card yesterday. *squeeees* I love it!!!
*smooches*
judy blume jk rowling and and and censors
Date: 2004-01-14 05:50 pm (UTC)I really, really adore you for quoting this, it's as if someone saw fandom_wank on their flist and started writing away about f_s. I personally find it both hilarious and ridiculous. First of all, as it has been said many times before, it is up to the PARENTS to decide what their children to read or not, and if parentol controls are not put in, it is not really the writer's fault. The fact that the mod of f_s says what we write is trash, or at least, imply it, makes me furious. Just because one person believes in something does not make it official, a fact, or true. It is only an opinion and they should express it in more private ways, or at least, express them without bringing a whole community, a whole universe into it, because, if this is about the internet, what about the world outside?
What about the books? There are many young adult books children get access to, that make them learn more about themselves and their bodies and distinguish the feelings they are having, although none quite above the PG-13 rating. This opinion that, "EVERY SINGLE NAUGHTY FIC SHOULD BE LOCKED AWAY" is impossible. Since these are our journals, I feel we can do whatever we do with them, and if little kiddies come in, that's their problem, not ours. J.K. Rowling has been censored in many libraries, because religious people believe she is satanic, and most of them have never even read the books. This is basically the same, except with the banner, "I read banned fics" plastered all over that little pinthingy. If one person believes in a foolish thing that ten other people believe in, it is still a foolish thing.
Err...yeah.
Re: judy blume jk rowling and and and censors
Date: 2004-01-14 05:51 pm (UTC)Re: judy blume jk rowling and and and censors
Date: 2004-01-14 06:57 pm (UTC)Whatever, they can do what they like. I've gone far enough to 'protect' children from my odd thoughts. Parents can take it from there.
Thanks for your thoughts on the issue. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 05:56 pm (UTC)if you don't mind, i'd be ganking this and putting it in my own lj :D
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 06:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 07:55 pm (UTC)go you, you radical librarian, you!
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 10:17 pm (UTC)It is both scary and sad.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 02:21 am (UTC)(I hope it makes sense)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 11:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 12:07 pm (UTC)I might also add, that Canada is a signatory on the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which encourages children and adults to work in partnership with each other rather than excluding children from active citizenship.
Is the US a signatory on this global document? Nope.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-20 10:47 am (UTC)Recently, many of my friends are into slash and
I don't see why people just can't turn away when they see fic. They have to be a dramawhore in a fandom, community or whatever. It's their freedom to not look, to switch the channel or to not see a film.
I also wish parents did more parenting instead of leaving it up to the government to implement ratings systems or anything else in the media. This tells the parents they don't have to take the time to sit with their child and explain to them what is right and what is wrong or go to a film with them to be supervised.
My parents took me to Rated R movies before the age of 17 (with one of them going with me), let me watch what I wanted to on cable as long as I used my good judgment. My parents also supervised me with the television. (this was the 1970s and 1980s)
I'm not seeing that today. :(
I'm now afraid for children on the 'net - not becuase of NC17 fic, but because of predators who are posing as teens but are in fact adults who want to exploit and/or harm them via any IM service or email message. :(
The fic is the least of any parents worry IMHO.