{"id":3649,"date":"2023-09-28T09:00:59","date_gmt":"2023-09-28T07:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/?p=3649"},"modified":"2023-09-22T11:36:51","modified_gmt":"2023-09-22T09:36:51","slug":"2023_universal_info_day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/2023\/09\/28\/2023_universal_info_day\/","title":{"rendered":"Day for Universal Access to Information: Libraries, Freedom, and the US Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why US Courts consider public library as the “quintessential locus” of information in a <\/strong>free and democratic society.<\/strong><\/p>\n

By Tomas Lipinski (Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee)<\/em><\/p>\n

Anyone following recent library developments is the United States is likely to have seen legislative efforts in various states to restrict access to LGBTQIA+ or Critical Race Theory-related content.<\/p>\n

Yet these challenges often do not have success in court. In one recent case, a Texas court ordered initially-restricted content be restored [Little v Llano County<\/em>, 2023 WL 2731089 (W.D. Tex.)], and in another, a new Arkansas law regulating content in public libraries was held unconstitutional [(Fayetteville Public Library v Crawford County Arkansas<\/em>, 2023 WL 4845636 (W.D. Ark.)].<\/p>\n

Why do courts protect a patron\u2019s access to a wide variety of content in public libraries?\u00a0 Such access is essential to a free and democratic population.\u00a0 It is so<\/em> essential that many courts have concluded that it is a Liberty Interest under the U.S. Constitution which cannot be deprived unless the requirements of Due Process are satisfied under the Fifth Amendment.[i]<\/a><\/p>\n

As the Texas court observed: \u201cFirst Amendment right to access to information in libraries, a right<\/em><\/strong> that applies to book removal decisions <\/em><\/strong>\u2026 many courts have held that access to public library books is a protected liberty interest <\/strong>created by the First Amendment.\u201d Little v Llano County<\/em>, 2023 WL 2731089, *8 (W.D. Tex.). The case is currently on appeal; Little v Llano County <\/em>(23-50224, 5th Cir., April 4, 2023). Oral arguments were heard on June 7, 2023. A decision is expected this fall.[ii]<\/a><\/p>\n

Texas court decided to \u201cfollow[] our many sister courts in holding that there is a protected liberty interest <\/strong>in access to information <\/em><\/strong>in a public library<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d Id. at *9.[iii]<\/a><\/p>\n

The nature of the public library Liberty Interest has solemn historical origins.: \u201cOur founding fathers understood the necessity of public libraries for a well-functioning democracy.\u201d Fayetteville Public Library v Crawford County Arkansas<\/em>, 2023 WL 4845636, *3 (W.D. Ark.). Over time, the public library emerged as the prime source of the supply of information in society – and the legal protections that support libraries endure in our changing information society. \u201cBy 1956, Congress formally acknowledged the need for all citizens to have access to free, public libraries by enacting the Library Services Act, which authorized millions of dollars in federal funds to develop and improve rural libraries and fund traveling bookmobiles to serve rural communities. Through public libraries, free access to knowledge became possible for all Americans, regardless of geography or wealth.\u201d Id.at *4 *footnote omitted). The Texas court observed similarly: \u201cSilencing unpopular speech is contrary to the principles on which this country was founded and stymies our collective quest for truth.\u201d Fayetteville Public Library v Crawford County Arkansas<\/em>, 2023 WL 4845636, *5 (W.D. Ark.).<\/p>\n

The Arkansas law used an \u201cappropriateness\u201d standard when considering challenges to library content, vested final authority for removal (and acquisitions) not with trained library professionals but with local officials, and removed the immunity for libraries from criminal prosecution for having library materials that are obscene or harmful to minors content. A public library belongs to the people, not the government that funds it.<\/p>\n

The court commented that: \u201cBy virtue of its mission to provide the citizenry with access to a wide array <\/em><\/strong>of information, viewpoints<\/em><\/strong>, and content<\/em><\/strong>, the public library is decidedly not<\/strong> the state\u2019s creature; it is the people\u2019s<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d \u00a0Fayetteville Public Library v Crawford County Arkansas<\/em>, 2023 WL 4845636, *5 (W.D. Ark.).\u00a0 \u201cThe State is wrong on all fronts, starting with its treatment of Pico<\/em>. The Pico<\/em> case [Board of Education, Island Trees Union School District No. 26 v. Pico<\/em>, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)] does not stand for the proposition<\/em><\/strong> that there is no constitutional right to receive information<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d Id. at *20.\u00a0 The right to receive information is best accomplished through the free public library. As best said in the seminal Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Town of Morristown<\/em>, 958 F.2d 1242, 1255 (3d Cir. 1992) case: \u201cOur review of the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions confirms that the First Amendment <\/strong>does not merely prohibit the government<\/em><\/strong> from enacting laws that censor <\/em><\/strong>information, but additionally encompasses the positive right <\/em><\/strong>of public access to information and ideas<\/em><\/strong>. Pico<\/em> [Board of Education, Island Trees Union School District No. 26 v. Pico<\/em>, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)] signifies that, consistent with other First Amendment principles, the right to receive information <\/strong>is not unfettered and may give way to significant countervailing interests<\/em><\/strong>\u2026 this right\u2026 includes the right to some level of <\/em>access to a public library<\/strong>, the quintessential locus <\/em><\/strong>of the receipt of information.\u201d<\/p>\n

On this day celebrating access to information, let us celebrate the critical role that our public libraries play in that achieving a free and open society.<\/p>\n

[i]<\/a> \u201cNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militi[i]a, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of <\/em><\/strong>life, liberty<\/em><\/strong>, or property, without due process of law<\/em><\/strong>; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.\u201d<\/p>\n

[ii]<\/a> The restricted content in the Texas case were the following titles: Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent <\/em>by Isabel Wilkerson; Called Themselves the K.K.K: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group <\/em>by Susan Campbell Bartoletti; Spinning <\/em>by Tillie Walden; In the Night Kitchen <\/em>by Maurice Sendak; It\u2019s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health <\/em>by Robie Harris; My Butt is So Noisy!, I Broke My Butt!<\/em>, and I Need a New Butt! <\/em>by Dawn McMillan; Larry the Farting Leprechaun, Gary the Goose and His Gas on the Loose, Freddie the Farting Snowman<\/em>, and Harvey the Heart Has Too Many Farts <\/em>by Jane Bexley; Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen <\/em>by Jazz Jennings; Shine <\/em>by Lauren Myracle; Under the Moon: A Catwoman Tale <\/em>by Lauren Myracle; Gabi, a Girl in Pieces <\/em>by Isabel Quintero; and Freakboy <\/em>by Kristin Elizabeth Clark.<\/p>\n

[iii]<\/a> Other courts have come to similar conclusions: \u201cThe right<\/em><\/strong> of the public to use<\/em><\/strong> the public library<\/em><\/strong> is best characterized as a protected liberty interest <\/strong>created directly by the First Amendment<\/strong>. Since the right is not absolute, it can be lost for engaging in conduct inconsistent<\/em> <\/strong>with the purpose <\/em><\/strong>of public libraries.\u201d\u00a0 Doyle v. Clark City Public Library<\/em>, 2007 WL 2407051, *5 (S.D. Ohio) and Wayfield v. Town of Tisbury<\/em>, 925 F. Supp. 880 (D. Mass 1996) (4-month suspension <\/em><\/strong>from public library without a hearing <\/em><\/strong>in response to a disruptive event): \u201cthis court finds that Wayfield states a sufficient claim to support a finding that the suspension of his access<\/em><\/strong> to the library was a deprivation<\/em><\/strong> of a \u2018liberty or property right<\/em><\/strong>.\u2019\u201d Id. at 885.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Why US Courts consider public library as the “quintessential locus” of information in a free and democratic society. By Tomas Lipinski (Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee) Anyone following recent library developments is the United States is likely to have seen legislative efforts in various states to restrict access to LGBTQIA+ or […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":810,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[18164,11,17308],"class_list":["post-3649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-access-to-information","tag-copyright","tag-freedom-of-expression"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/810"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3649"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3649\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3654,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3649\/revisions\/3654"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}