The Art of Defense

(I turned in the following reaction in my current library and information science course)

At first glance, some might wonder what connection might exist between the American Library Association (ALA) and the USA PATRIOT Act. Defending our country against evil terrorists who aim to murder innocent civilians and disrupt our democracy: who wouldn’t want to stop that? And what does that have to do with libraries? Of course, upon closer inspection, efforts to deter terrorists are hardly always as transparent as stopping a clearly evil force. FBI agents or other federal officials may be interested in obtaining patron records in order to monitor an individual’s reading or research habits. According to Jones’s article, the USA PATRIOT Act did not require that search warrants be obtained by first showing probable cause “that ‘library information was ‘relevant’ to the crime committed that was related to a terrorism investigation” (221). The FBI might even have been allowed to take Internet records without a warrant, and, perhaps most chillingly, “the PATRIOT Act prohibits the library from notifying the press, the patron under suspicion, or most other people that an investigation is under way” (although now some provisions have changed allowing librarians to notify supervisors and legal counsels if a letter has been served) (221). As currently as February 2011, three major provisions of the PATRIOT Act will be voted upon for reauthorization.

How do officials decide whose records necessitate an investigation? What if you merely have an Arabic name? Does that warrant suspicion? Or is there a direct causal link between terrorists and the material they view on the Internet that necessitates an immediate investigation? Obviously, this practice potentially infringes on patron privacy, which is a branch of free speech rights. Are these two practices mutually exclusive, or can a happy medium be found?

According to the ALA’s web site, the USA PATRIOT Act matters to libraries because “reading has always been one of our greatest freedoms. The written word is the natural medium for the new idea and the untried voice from which come the original contributions to social growth.” Many factors are at stake here. How does the government define offensive material? What types of patron records could arouse suspicions? Such seminal works of literature like 1984 warn us of the potential harm that government control can impose on free societies. While the idea of the PATRIOT Act is noble, the potential harm is frightening. What if the government decides that any resources related to communism should be closely monitored, much like this country witnessed during McCarthyism? Or more broadly, if, as Orwell and others have imagined, the government decides to invisibly monitor everyone? According to Eric Lichtblau’s article published in The New York Times in 2005, “Law enforcement officials have made at least 200 formal and informal inquiries to libraries for information on reading material and other internal matters since October 2001 [and] in some cases, agents used subpoenas or other formal demands to obtain information like lists of users checking out a book on Osama bin Laden.” While I doubt that these law enforcement officials investigated, say, elementary children writing a report, the possible danger of this practice is clear. These investigations foster a false sense of fear in the public, leading to untrue and potentially harmful stereotypes. And one has to wonder, how does knowing what suspects are reading lead us to a safer country? If checking out a book on Osama bin Laden makes one suspect, then we have already begun to lose our sense of freedom due to insensible paranoia.

We can argue instead that making materials available to all without fear of monitoring or punishment does make us safer. Fostering intellectual curiosity, exposing oneself to different ideas, and trying out new ideas: all of these are fundamental to the growth of democracy. Jones provides seven key ideas to help librarians retain ethics, even in the face of strict national security efforts. Perhaps the most effective is number five: “Librarians need to examine their hearts and consciences and demand of themselves that they separate their personal emotional responses from their professional responsibilities” (223). I think it would do all Americans good to remember this advice, as there can sometimes be a thin line between maintaining the security of our freedoms versus the seeming paradox of giving up freedoms in order to maintain the illusion of defending them.

Jones, B. (2009). “Librarians shushed no more:” the USA Patriot Act, the “Connecticut Four,” and professional ethics. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 58(6), 195, 221-3. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database

Lichtblau, Eric. (2005, June 20). Libraries Say Yes, Officials Do Quiz Them About Users. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com