We have been learning about Intellectual Freedom this semester. As SLIS students we have also learned about the importance of our patrons' privacy. I was thrilled when I read the article below, to learn Kennewick Public Library followed the state law that states, "Librarians and library employees shall not make available library circulation records to any agency of state, federal, or local government.....unless authorities provide a subpoena." Good for them!
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/06/11/1049770/privacy-of-library-patrons-tested.html#Comments_Container
The Kennewick Branch suspended a library patron/registered sex offender, after children complained to patrons and police that he was bothering them. The Library would not provide police with any information that required them to go into his personal circulation record. Some taxpayers were upset with the library because they felt the library should have handed over the information. The Library did what they were suppose to and kept the patrons information private.
We have learned about the importance of privacy. Although we may not always agree with our library patrons' actions, they still have rights. As Librarians and library employees, we have to be fair to all our patrons.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Blog IV: Freedom of Speech- but not if you are an opinionated correspondent for the White House
Journalist, Helen Thomas, retired immediately last week after she made a controversial comment to an Independent filmmaker. When asked about Israel, Thomas commented that they should "get the hell out of Palestine."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=douQvonGeqY&feature=related
Thomas begun her career in 1943, and covered the White House for more than 50 years. Known for covering all hot topic issues, and putting presidents in the "hot seat," she made a name for herself in journalism. She was the first woman to become president of the White House Correspondents Association, and held a front row seat in the briefing room. Since the beginning of this controversy, the Board stated they do not "police the speech of our members or colleagues." However, a special meeting was held after her statement to determine whether an opinion columnist should get front row seating. Helen Thomas apologized for her statement and retired from her journalism career.
I am only covering this story due to Free Speech. I am not saying I agree or disagree with Thomas' statement. I would imagine it is hard to work as a journalist and have to censor yourself when asked questions. Maybe she signed a contract that she could not give her views while working for the White House, but she is an opinion correspondent. She should be allowed to voice her opinion, as should we all. What are your thoughts? Should we have to censor our true beliefs and feelings because of our careers? Does that give us Free Speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=douQvonGeqY&feature=related
Thomas begun her career in 1943, and covered the White House for more than 50 years. Known for covering all hot topic issues, and putting presidents in the "hot seat," she made a name for herself in journalism. She was the first woman to become president of the White House Correspondents Association, and held a front row seat in the briefing room. Since the beginning of this controversy, the Board stated they do not "police the speech of our members or colleagues." However, a special meeting was held after her statement to determine whether an opinion columnist should get front row seating. Helen Thomas apologized for her statement and retired from her journalism career.
I am only covering this story due to Free Speech. I am not saying I agree or disagree with Thomas' statement. I would imagine it is hard to work as a journalist and have to censor yourself when asked questions. Maybe she signed a contract that she could not give her views while working for the White House, but she is an opinion correspondent. She should be allowed to voice her opinion, as should we all. What are your thoughts? Should we have to censor our true beliefs and feelings because of our careers? Does that give us Free Speech?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Blog III. Don't wear your rosary to school
The American Center for Law and Justice filed a law suit against Oneida Middle School. 13 year old, Raymond Hosier was suspended twice by violating a dress code policy. Oneida MS does not allow students to wear "gang related clothing."
Raymond wore a rosary to school and was suspended for a week after he refused to take it off or wear it under his shirt. He wore the rosary in memory of his brother who passed away holding it in a bicycle accident. Raymond returned to school wearing the rosary after his first suspension, and the school suspended him a second time. When the American Center for Law and Justice heard about this violation of civil rights and Freedom of Religion, they filed a law suit. A New York Federal Judge reinstated Raymond back to school until the hearing on June 11.
I'm alittle torn here. On one hand I believe that if the school policy states students can not wear gang related clothing such as........and listed exactly what can not be worn, then they had the right to suspend Raymond Hosier. If they did not have it in their dress code policy, they will have to revise it. They are going to have to be very specific!
On the other hand, I understand the reason he wants to wear the rosary. His brother passed away and that is the closest thing he has. You think, why should i have to hide it?
Teens are going to rebel, especially if there are emotional ties. If the school had "rosary" stated in the dress code policy, he has a right to be suspended....because he could still wear it under his shirt, or in his pocket. He is still wearing it. I also think that schools, at least in my district, are quick to suspend. Maybe if the parent was aware that the school would suspend him a second time, she could have called the school and scheduled an appointment with the principal. Explaining how the death is affecting her son and wearing the rosary helps, may have prevented the second suspension.
I didn't comment on Freedom of Religion because although I believe in the right to your own religion...as a Catholic i was always taught you don't wear a rosary as jewelry...lol.... (that is probably old school - because now it is fashionable.)
Raymond wore a rosary to school and was suspended for a week after he refused to take it off or wear it under his shirt. He wore the rosary in memory of his brother who passed away holding it in a bicycle accident. Raymond returned to school wearing the rosary after his first suspension, and the school suspended him a second time. When the American Center for Law and Justice heard about this violation of civil rights and Freedom of Religion, they filed a law suit. A New York Federal Judge reinstated Raymond back to school until the hearing on June 11.
I'm alittle torn here. On one hand I believe that if the school policy states students can not wear gang related clothing such as........and listed exactly what can not be worn, then they had the right to suspend Raymond Hosier. If they did not have it in their dress code policy, they will have to revise it. They are going to have to be very specific!
On the other hand, I understand the reason he wants to wear the rosary. His brother passed away and that is the closest thing he has. You think, why should i have to hide it?
Teens are going to rebel, especially if there are emotional ties. If the school had "rosary" stated in the dress code policy, he has a right to be suspended....because he could still wear it under his shirt, or in his pocket. He is still wearing it. I also think that schools, at least in my district, are quick to suspend. Maybe if the parent was aware that the school would suspend him a second time, she could have called the school and scheduled an appointment with the principal. Explaining how the death is affecting her son and wearing the rosary helps, may have prevented the second suspension.
I didn't comment on Freedom of Religion because although I believe in the right to your own religion...as a Catholic i was always taught you don't wear a rosary as jewelry...lol.... (that is probably old school - because now it is fashionable.)
Monday, May 24, 2010
Blog II: Facebook and Privacy
Many users are upset with Facebook and their lack of privacy. In a recent poll, 60% are willing to delete their Facebook profiles due to personal information being shared.
Founder Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook will soon announce changes to their privacy settings, that will make it easier for users to have more control over their personal information that is shared. (what?!? you mean my information is being shared with other people than my "friends"?!?)
What many users may not realize is that personal pictures, information, and statuses are shared and easily able to access. Facebook now, after all this time, will make it easier for its 400 million users to determine who gets to view their personal information. Why didn't Facebook, and other companies for that matter, think about that before? Unfortunately, many social networking companies did not think about privacy and security issues from the start and it is now hurting them in the long run. What was Facebooks excuse? Zuckerberg said the site is growing so fast and it had to keep up with the fast pace. That's no excuse to not think about privacy and security.
What is Facebook going to do now? Remove a program that shares users ID and other information to advertisers. Yeah, i bet many -if not half of the 400 million users did not know that when you click on an advertisement on Facebook, all your personal data is given to that company. Fortunately, the Federal Trade Commission was called to investigate Facebook's privacy tools. The FTC is now going to start working on a privacy framework for these social networking sites. How long did this take? Shouldn't this have been thought of before? A new bill is going to limit how much data is collected from advertisers without user consent.
And it seems that once a user is on Facebook, it is hard to delete an account. Why is that? It should be as simple as a "delete" button. Facebook requires users to submit a request to have their profile deleted and even that takes up to 14 days. Within the 14 days, if the user logs on, their request to delete is canceled.
Kinda makes me rethink my Facebook account. When I signed on years ago, I didn't think my personal information would be passed on. I thought it would be a great way to stay connected to friends and family in different states. I also didn't think of how hard it would be to delete an account. That makes me wonder what they are up to....
Founder Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook will soon announce changes to their privacy settings, that will make it easier for users to have more control over their personal information that is shared. (what?!? you mean my information is being shared with other people than my "friends"?!?)
What many users may not realize is that personal pictures, information, and statuses are shared and easily able to access. Facebook now, after all this time, will make it easier for its 400 million users to determine who gets to view their personal information. Why didn't Facebook, and other companies for that matter, think about that before? Unfortunately, many social networking companies did not think about privacy and security issues from the start and it is now hurting them in the long run. What was Facebooks excuse? Zuckerberg said the site is growing so fast and it had to keep up with the fast pace. That's no excuse to not think about privacy and security.
What is Facebook going to do now? Remove a program that shares users ID and other information to advertisers. Yeah, i bet many -if not half of the 400 million users did not know that when you click on an advertisement on Facebook, all your personal data is given to that company. Fortunately, the Federal Trade Commission was called to investigate Facebook's privacy tools. The FTC is now going to start working on a privacy framework for these social networking sites. How long did this take? Shouldn't this have been thought of before? A new bill is going to limit how much data is collected from advertisers without user consent.
And it seems that once a user is on Facebook, it is hard to delete an account. Why is that? It should be as simple as a "delete" button. Facebook requires users to submit a request to have their profile deleted and even that takes up to 14 days. Within the 14 days, if the user logs on, their request to delete is canceled.
Kinda makes me rethink my Facebook account. When I signed on years ago, I didn't think my personal information would be passed on. I thought it would be a great way to stay connected to friends and family in different states. I also didn't think of how hard it would be to delete an account. That makes me wonder what they are up to....
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Blog I: I Support Google!
According to Newsweek, Google strives to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible." It has been all over the news how China wanted Google to censor its search results. Although Google tacitly complied for a time, they eventually withdrew services from China. By withdrawing services, Google is protecting their status as a happy company at peace with its values. They no longer want to "bow down to government pressure to censor results." Even though the company will lose billions of dollars in future profits, they stand behind their mission to provide information to all without censorship.
As a major business company, I believe that says a lot about Google. They are keeping their users best interest at hand. They are willing to lose billions of dollars, because they believe in the First Amendment, and the right to give users free access to information without censorship.
The withdraw of Google in China is similar to libraries. Libraries believe in providing access on every type of material, regardless of content. Although there are times we are faced with challenges, we too have to think of our patrons and the First Amendment. We fight to keep books on the shelves, and materials available to all without censoring. I support Google for not censoring in China, and I support all libraries that do not censor! Let's give people the right to receive the information that they want.
Leonsis, Ted. How to build a happy company. Newsweek: April 12, 2010.
Liu, Melinda. China's mixed signals. Newsweek: April 5, 2010.
As a major business company, I believe that says a lot about Google. They are keeping their users best interest at hand. They are willing to lose billions of dollars, because they believe in the First Amendment, and the right to give users free access to information without censorship.
The withdraw of Google in China is similar to libraries. Libraries believe in providing access on every type of material, regardless of content. Although there are times we are faced with challenges, we too have to think of our patrons and the First Amendment. We fight to keep books on the shelves, and materials available to all without censoring. I support Google for not censoring in China, and I support all libraries that do not censor! Let's give people the right to receive the information that they want.
Leonsis, Ted. How to build a happy company. Newsweek: April 12, 2010.
Liu, Melinda. China's mixed signals. Newsweek: April 5, 2010.
~Welcome~
Hi! Welcome to my blog on Intellectual Freedom. I am a graduate student at IUPUI, working on a Master's degree in Library Science. As a librarian, it is my job to provide access to information, without any restrictions, to all. With that in mind, I will be posting information that supports Intellectual Freedom and the First Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
