IFLA/FAIFE

IFLA/FAIFE Workshop

"Taking a stand"

By Linda Wright
Director of Milford Town Library
MA, USA
August 2001

Free Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) Workshop II, "Taking a stand"

I am both flattered and a bit embarrassed to be asked to speak today. I am embarrassed because in handling the challenge that we had, we certainly made several mistakes. It also seems to me that what we did in Milford, Massachusetts anyone can do.

First, let me begin by saying that Milford is a town in central Massachusetts with a population of just over 25,000 people. I was hired as the library’s Director in March of 1997, just about the time that the Internet was being made available to the public on several computers in the library. Like many of my colleagues, I was both fascinated and frightened by the Internet and what it could provide. Stephen Balkam, Executive Director of the Internet Content Rating Association and a member of the COPA Commission, states, "The Internet changes everything. It upsets our notions of how things should be, how countries should be governed, how companies should be run, how teachers teach and children learn. It mixes up our conceptual framework of what we think we know about the world, about each other and about ourselves. It is liberating, exciting, challenging and terrifying all at the same time. It is technology as a social force and it is instantaneous and it is everywhere. No wonder the Chinese authorities want to keep it from its people." I would only add that it is not just the Chinese authorities that are interested in censoring the Internet.

Beginning in 1997, I took advantage of several opportunities to learn more about the Internet. I attended workshops sponsored by our state library association as well as national teleconferences. In each case, the discussion focused on freedom of information vs. protecting children from materials that are believed to be harmful to them. The issue of protecting children is certainly not new as a rationale for censoring. It is a powerful and persuasive argument. I also believe that most librarians are deeply committed to providing a safe environment for children in our libraries. In an effort to help people of all ages use the Internet effectively and safely, our library began doing weekly Internet workshops for the public free of charge. By late 1999, we had a total of 15 computers in the Children’s Room, the Young Adult and Adult sections of the library that the public could use to access the Internet and we had trained hundreds of people in how to use them. None of these computers were filtered according to a policy adopted by the Board of Library Trustees.

In January of 2000, a member of the Town’s Finance Committee, asked to speak to the Board of Library Trustees. He made some very inflammatory and unsubstantiated accusations. He claimed that children could get access to "snuff video" and "child porn" by using the Internet in our library. He called the library the "biggest purveyor of pornography in this town." He stated, as if it were a fact, "If there was a bookstore in town doing what the library is doing the Police would shut it down." He claimed that the library had no Internet policy – because there was no policy to restrict Internet access. Furthermore, he ridiculed the mission statement of the library that states: "We are dedicated to providing free, easy, equal and confidential access to all forms of human expression."

As a remedy for protecting children who use the Internet in the library, this man demanded that the library filter all Internet access computers immediately. The Board of Library Trustees was not sympathetic to this complaint, by someone who clearly did not know much about the library. Unfortunately, it was evident that they were not taking this man’s complaint seriously. It was clear from the Trustees’ responses that his outrageous exaggerations fell upon very unsympathetic ears.

After this complaint, we heard nothing more for several months. However, one week prior to the Annual Town Meeting in May the man sent a sent a letter to the editor of the local newspaper and sent a copy to the local radio station. The letter was read almost its entirety on radio as news that week, and so was the response that was submitted by the Board of Library Trustees. A month later, the letter appeared in the local newspaper and the response was printed two days after that. The response by the Board of Library Trustees included the following:

"The Milford Town Library, like most other public libraries, has had to re-examine its role in the community as technology has changed. What was once a depository for books has become a gateway to information. We now provide access to information sources that we cannot control.

Frankly, in this day and age, the library could not do its job without the Internet. Most of the time the Internet is used in the Milford Town Library for legitimate purposes. Can it be used for other purposes? We cannot deny that. Do filters work to protect children? They may work in homes, but in libraries we have learned that they do not. Filters will block current events and medical information that is very valuable, but will let you have access to pornography or other objectionable materials… They are not the safety net that most people hope. Furthermore, they are easy to override and get around – even by young children.

Does the Board of Library Trustees care about the safety of children? Yes, without question. We have an obligation to educate children and their parents about appropriate use of the Internet and the Milford Town Library is doing that all the time. We urge all parents to visit our "For Parents" page on our library’s web site www.infofind.com/library or come into the library for more information about child safety on the Internet."

It was about this time that the Town of Milford hired a new Chief of Police. The new Chief paid me a visit and took out a library card for himself. In the course of our discussion he asked if any of the library computers were filtered and when I responded, "no," he said, "That makes sense. You’re in the business of providing information to people, not restricting it."

Then one morning in June, much to my surprise, the radio station news announced that the Board of Library Trustees would discuss the Internet policy that evening at their regularly scheduled meeting. The item was not on the agenda, but the man who had complained in January showed up at the meeting and asked for another chance to speak. He discussed the research he had conducted. He stated that the only reason the Milford Town Library was not filtering was because the American Library Association was against filtering.

This time the Board of Library Trustees was much more attentive to his concerns and they were also prepared to respond. We had also done a great deal of research in the time that had elapsed. By this time independent research was being posted on the COPA Commission web site www.copacommission.org and one of the members of the Board of Library Trustees had tested filtering software on her computer at home. She told her first hand account about how her daughter was restricted from information she needed to complete a homework assignment on the anatomy of a dolphin. She was able to explain how filters work and what problems often occur with filtering software. Another member of the Board, who works at the High School Library Media Center, shared her knowledge of how students in the school easily get around the filters there. We also explained what we had been doing for more than three years to educate the public about Internet safety. Indeed, the Internet Policy of the Milford Town Library was not adopted solely on the basis of statements from the American Library Association.


After this meeting, two articles were published in the local newspaper. One headline read, "Library Keeps Internet Open: Free Speech Gives Free Reign to Internet Access." A few days later the paper ran an editorial entitled, "Libraries Should Monitor Child Access to the Net." The Sunday Newspaper ran an opinion column with the headline: "Librarians defend porn in the children’s section," and a cartoon that showed a store front with signs declaring "Peep Show!’ and "Cyber Babes!" and "Nudes Online, Raw!" with a woman explaining to a man, "No, this is the public library… the strip joint is around the corner." This opinion column and cartoon I later learned appeared in several other town newspapers all over the eastern part of Massachusetts because the local papers were all owned by the same publishing company.

Thankfully, most of our regular customers did not take the newspaper publicity seriously at all. They could see lots of computers in use when they entered our building and very little sign of people looking at "pornography" on these library computers. They began joking about "where are the computers with the porn?"

However, the press coverage and editorials made it more difficult to keep our spirits up during this time and I began calling on everyone I could think of who might help: the Central Massachusetts Regional Library System, the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Massachusetts Library Association and the American Library Association’s Office of Intellectual Freedom. People at all of these agencies and organizations were extremely helpful to us in providing sources of information and encouragement. We also received some letters from parents supporting the Board’s decision and these letters helped to bolster the Trustees’ convictions.

Sometime while all of this was happening, I got a call from a filtering sales person saying she had heard the news story on the radio and was sure that I was now in the market for a filter. I asked if there was a list of sites that their filtering software blocked. The question was evaded and not answered. (Most filtering software companies in the U.S. consider this proprietary information.) I asked how they defined pornography – was it all erotic material or just material that had been determined in my community to be obscene. I asked if sex education materials and information on sexually transmitted diseases would be available when the filter was turned on. I explained that for some children this is critical information and that many children are too embarrassed to ask a librarian for help in finding this information. I politely explained that if they had a filter that would not filter out speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, I would be interested in purchasing it. They didn’t call me back.

Just as I was beginning to feel confident that we had seen the end of this conflict, I received a call from one of the major Boston television stations. They were working on a story about libraries and the Internet. When they asked if I was willing to be interviewed by one of their reporters, I lied and said, "I’d love to!" During the next week I spent almost all of my time preparing for the interview and faxing information to the producer of the television news. And once again, I called on all the allies I could think of to help me prepare.

The television news crew spent more than 2 hours in our library. They interviewed me for 20 minutes as well as a Trustee, the Police Chief, and several library customers. The final product shown on the 11:00 news the next week was perhaps a minute long – they edited my 20-minute interview down using ½ of a sentence. They began the news story with the man who had lodged the original complaint back in January and also used a piece of the interview that they did with one of the Library’s Trustees. But, they used none of the interview with the Chief of Police. It is hard to say, but I believe that the end result was a much more balanced news story than would have been done if we had not reacted so positively.

Once again, just when we thought that we could rest a bit, the news began to carry stories about the CIPA requirements and how libraries would not be eligible for federal funds if we did not filter the Internet. Again, the local newspaper carried an editorial in favor of filtering the Internet. "Internet Access Not Guaranteed by the Constitution," was the headline this time. Our friends came forward to help again with responses to this editorial. Although some of my colleagues indicated "one shouldn’t argue with the people who buy ink by the barrel." I strongly believe that all of our efforts to respond to the press did pay off. Just as the Chief of Police summed it all up, "We are in the business of providing information to people, not restricting it."