Freedom to Read

Prior to becoming a librarian, I took my First Amendment rights for granted. It wasn’t until I was involved in a book challenge at a local elementary school library that I realized that the freedom to read was important for everyone to be able to read what they wanted without censorship.

It is hard to imagine that the rights to free speech and free press remain far from universal.  Few countries even come close to the protections provided by the U.S. Constitution. Even in the United States, our freedoms are regularly challenged.

Fortunately, there are some organizations that defend our free speech rights. They include the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Association of American Publishers, and Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF).  The Freedom to Read Foundation was established in 1969 by the American Library Association (ALA)  “to promote and defend the right to read; to foster libraries as institutions wherein every individual’s First Amendment freedoms are fulfilled: and to support the right of libraries to include in their collections and make available any work which they may legally acquire.”

The Freedom to Read Foundation was created as the First Amendment legal defense organization of the American Library Association.

The Foundation’s charter lists four purposes:

• Promoting and protecting the freedom of speech and of the press;
• Protecting the public’s right of access to information and materials stored in the nation’s libraries;
• Safeguarding libraries’ right to disseminate all materials contained in their collections; and
• Supporting libraries and librarians in their defense of First Amendment rights by supplying them with legal counsel or the means to secure it.

The Foundation’s work is divided into two main activities:

• The allocation and disbursement of grants to individuals and groups primarily for the purpose of aiding them in litigation;
• Direct participation in litigation dealing with freedom of speech and of the press.

In 1967, the ALA created the Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) to monitor censorship, alert librarians to trends, and provide resource materials to local librarians to help them defend challenges to the books on their shelves. It was not long before the OIF realized that librarians needed expert legal support and thus the FTRF was created.

In the first year, the FTRF helped defend a state librarian in Missouri who had been fired after writing a letter to the local paper protesting the suppression of an underground newspaper. In the same year, the Foundation helped a librarian in Virginia who challenged the constitutionality of a religion course in the city schools.  The FTRF has filed many legal challenges over the years, especially in those situations where the core mission of libraries needed to be defended. For example, the Foundation has initiated many cases concerning challenged books. However, the FTRF most often appears in court through amicus briefs to support First Amendment claims against legislation and local policies that would restrict access to published material. The Foundation has been involved in numerous fights over the USA Patriot Act. While the FTRF’s work often involves national issues, the Foundation has also helped with community challenges as well.

The Freedom to Read Foundation website has sections with news and updates on current litigation. The most recent news deals with a recent influx of cases dealing with the issue of internet filtering programs and the Children’s Internet Protection Act. http://www.ala.org/groups/affiliates/relatedgroups/freedomtoreadfoundation

This summer, the Foundation recognized the loss of two pioneering authors.

Ray Bradbury died on June 5^th.  His novel Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian book itself about censorship continues to be challenged even 60 years after its publication.

Maurice Sendak died on May 8^th.  His Caldecott-winning book, Where the Wild Things Are, was a part of New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks, an FTRF case.  Because he deviated from the norms of children’s book illustration and writing, his work was controversial and challenged.

When the FTRF was formed, its board decided that the Foundation’s operating revenue would come from membership donations rather than corporate or large private contributions. Individual memberships are only $35/year, $10/year for students.

How To Contact The Freedom To Read Foundation

Freedom to Read Foundation

50 East Huron Street

Chicago, IL 60611

Telephone: 800.545.2433 ext 4226

ftrf@ala.org; http://www.ftrf.org/

As Ray Bradbury said, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

~Betty Thomas~

Free Speech or Criminal Act?

Image from guernicamag.com

Does the First Amendment protect those who lie about having received a military award or honor?  Or does such a lie fall outside of First Amendment protection along with the likes of obscenity, fraud, defamation, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct?

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on the Stolen Valor Act on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 to resolve a circuit split between the 9^th and 10^th Circuits.  A divided panel of the 9^th Circuit ruled that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional, reversing the court below.  A divided panel of the 10^th Circuit ruled that the Act is constitutional, reversing the court below.  The Court granted cert to the 9^th Circuit case involving defendant Xavier Alvarez, a politician who lied about receiving the Medal of Honor.

Image from history.army.mil

The Act makes it a crime to falsely claim to have been awarded military honors or decorations and provides enhanced penalties for lying about the highest awards including the Medal of Honor.  Authored by a House Democrat, John Salazar, and co-sponsored by numerous Republicans and Democrats, the Act was passed in 2006 by unanimous consent in the Senate and a voice vote in the House after forty minutes of debate.  The “debate” consisted of consecutive speeches in support of the Act with more than one speaker referencing George Washington himself:  “Should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished.”  (See Volume 152 of the Congressional record Pages 22574-22577 available at THOMAS.)

Many amicus briefs were filed for both sides of the case.  The arguments for finding the Act unconstitutional rely on First Amendment free speech protection and warn against the dangers of criminalizing speech and the slippery slope of doing so.  Opponents of the Act include many news organizations who argue that such lies are better handled by exposing them to the public and allowing shame and humiliation to be the punishment instead of fines and jail time.  They warn of the chilling effect on truthful speech.

Supporters of the Act argue that it serves a compelling government interest in “preserving the integrity of its military honors system and conveying to the public the government’s gratitude towards those who have sacrificed for the country and fostering morale and valorous conduct within the military.”  Amicus briefs detail an extensive list of pretenders including executives, politicians, police administrators and authors.

The Justices peppered both sides during oral arguments but it appeared to many commentators that defense counsel, Jonathan Libby, a federal public defender from California, fared the worst during arguments as he conceded more than one key issues.  Justice Kagan asked what truthful speech would be chilled by the Act and Libby replied, “Your Honor, it’s not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech.”  After acknowledging that the government may criminalize lies that are intended to obtain something of value, Libby was asked by Chief Justice Roberts if Mr. Alvarez, a politician, benefitted from his lie.  He answered, “Perhaps, you Honor.”  Chief Justice Roberts replied that that was “an awfully big concession.”

Is Mr. Alvarez a criminal or is he just a liar?  Is the interest of the government compelling enough to outweigh the protections of the First Amendment?  Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech?  Or shall it?  A ruling is expected by summer.

Image from wemeantwell.com

~Mary Susan Lucas~

Special Edition: Free Speech and Animal Cruelty

As the year comes to an end, this will be the last post for Charlotte Law Library News until the new year.  This article is brought to you courtesy of Kim Allman, Circulation Manager.

On Tuesday, October 6^th the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what may become a significant legal ruling on issues of free speech and the language of  Title 18 U.S.C. § 48. In 1999, Congress passed a law that was primarily aimed at “crush videos” which depicted women in high heels or bare feet stomping small animals to death. § 48 deals with depictions of animal cruelty and the scope of the law is broadly written. The first case to be tried under the new law was United States v. Stevens, 533 F.d 218 (3^rd Cir. 2008).

Defendant Robert J. Stevens was arrested for the sale of videos depicting pit bull dog fights that had been filmed in Japan where dog fighting is legal. Stevens had edited the footage together and distributed it for sale through various underground publications and had advertised the videos in Sporting Dog Journal. Stevens was tried and convicted under § 48 and given a sentence of 3 years which was almost two times more than the one term served by NFL player Michael Vick, who had was convicted of conducted dog fights. Attorney Patricia Millet appealed Stevens’ sentence on the grounds that § 48 as it is currently written violates constitutional free speech.

The justices weighed into counsel’s arguments by asking pointed hypothetical questions as to what constitutes a depiction of animal cruelty and what does not? Justice Roberts asked what would be the difference between Stevens’ video and that of videos that were meant to be educational, or political, or religious in content yet showed animals being killed or harmed. Justice Roberts cited the animal rights organization PETA as an example. Justice Sotomayor asked Attorney Neal Katyal who was counsel for the state as to where he would draw the line on free speech in Steven’s video which was promoting dog fighting, and that of documentary film maker David Roma, who had produced a film against dog fighting that was far more graphic in its depictions. Justice Breyer sought to have counsel define if films of hunting or fishing could not be considered depictions of animal cruelty. Justice Scalia brought up films of bull fighting which is legal in Spain but illegal in the United States, “…what if I am an aficionado of bullfights and I think, contrary to the animal cruelty people, I think they ennoble both man and beast, and I want to persuade people that we should have them?”

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this case. The transcript makes for interesting reading and gives significant insight regarding the issues. You can read the transcript at:  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-769.pdf What do you think about this issue?  How do you think the court will rule on this case?

-Kim Allman-