The American Library Association campaigns against the USA's PATRIOT Act, even as it provides justification for Castro's persecution of Cuban librarians.

Dom Giordano, talk show host for Philadelphia’s radio station WPHT 1210-AM, interviewed American Library Association (ALA) president Michael Gorman on February 9. One of the issues addressed concerned the ALA’s policy towards governmental investigation of library patron’s reading materials. The interview was enlightening to say the least.

I learned from this interview that librarians are advised to ensure that any search warrants they receive from the FBI regarding records are legal. One has to wonder� — when were librarians assigned the responsibility to determine the legality of a search by law enforcement authorities?�

A review of the Constitution, Barron’s Law Dictionary, the Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, a textbook about criminal procedure, and the internet, did not locate one reference that librarians were part of the approval process for determining the reasonableness of searches. Nor did it reveal that librarians were considered independent or impartial judges, or magistrates, who determined if probable cause for a search warrant was appropriate.

Apparently, the American Library Association is the self-appointed sentinel of American civil liberties. Indeed, Mr. Gorman made the specious comment that totalitarian societies were those who investigated and determined what people were reading. He implied that the ALA’s policy was preventing totalitarian behavior by the government.

Gorman conveniently omitted that totalitarian societies investigated the political nature of someone’s reading material. Totalitarian societies policed the thoughts of its citizens.

The ALA policy concerns whether a librarian should comply with a search warrant� — issued by a genuine neutral magistrate, not a self-appointed one� — for authorities who want to determine if an individual is some fanatic who wants to plan or participate in a homicidal terrorist plot. This is not an investigation of an individual’s politics.�

The rationale for the ALA’s policy is more akin to the political correctness and thought police of some college campuses, where expressions of anti-abortion ideas or capitalism are not welcome. Furthermore, the ALA is rather selective about what they consider “intellectual freedom” and “protecting First Amendment rights.” For example, when it comes to pornography and minors in the library, the ALA policy is: “The primary responsibility for rearing children rests with parents. Governmental institutions cannot be expected to usurp or interfere with parental obligations and responsibilities when it comes to deciding what a child may read or view.”[1]

The ALA then states, “Parents who believe that the current state of society and communications make it difficult to shield their children must nevertheless find a way to cope with what they see as that reality within the context of their own family.”[2]

So the ALA feels it is the responsibility of individuals to protect their� children from pornography. However, it is the responsibility of librarians to protect citizens from laws enacted by their representatives?

Is this why the ALA opposed the Child Internet Protection Act?

If the soi-disants civil liberty centurions of the ALA believe they should be removed from determining what is pornography and what should be available to minors, then they should be consistent and remove librarians from terrorist investigations as well.

However, the ALA does not feel this way. Their resolution concerning the USA PATRIOT Act is very assertive. It states, “The American Library Association (ALA) opposes any use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information or to intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry…ALA considers that sections of the USA PATRIOT ACT are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users.”

From their webpage concerning the library and the PATRIOT Act they announce, “The USA PATRIOT Act…. expanded the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and law enforcement to gain access to…library records, including stored electronic data and communications. ….These enhanced surveillance procedures pose the greatest challenge to privacy and confidentiality in the library.”[3]

Not only do they express their disapproval of legislation enacted by the freely and lawfully elected representatives of the people of the United States of America, they drafted a policy, which states that they intend to resist enforcement of this law if they feel it is inappropriate.

Point number three of the ALA "Policy on Confidentiality of Library Records" recommends that librarians, “Resist the issuance of enforcement of any such process, order, or subpoena until such time as a proper showing of good cause has been made in a court of competent jurisdiction.” They then qualify this by stating, “….the library's officers will consult with their legal counsel to determine if such process, order, or subpoena is in proper form and if there is a showing of good cause for its issuance…”

By definition, a search warrant has been issued by an impartial and independent magistrate. Why is the ALA instructing their people to not comply with such warrants?

Another very pertinent question is: who are the “legal counsel” the ALA instructs librarians to consult? Are they Constitutional authorities or are they seeking advice regarding search warrants from� personal-injury attorneys?

The ALA also refers their members to the Library Bill of Rights, a policy adopted by the adopted in 1948 by the ALA Council. What is the ALA Council?

If librarians want to be the Fourth Branch of the federal government, does not the American public have the right to know who these unelected people are?�

Apparently, First Amendment activist, Nat Hentoff, a writer for the Village Voice, is not too happy with the ALA Council. Hentoff, who supports the ALA ‘s campaign against the PATRIOT Act, apparently believes the ALA Council� is comprised of� hypocrites. Hentoff wrote this for the March 4, 2004 edition of the Village Voice:

…while I am impressed by this assembly of mass indignation (about the PATRIOT Act)… there's something missing. So far as I know, in this congregation of freedom-to-read activists, not one on the list — except for PEN — has said or done anything about the torment that 10 independent librarians in Cuba are undergoing in Fidel Castro's gulag, along with 65 other pro-democracy dissidents rounded up in the dictator's crackdown in April last year. …The governing council of the American Library Association, an organization on the list, disgraced itself in January when it overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to a final report at its mid-winter meeting telling Castro to let the librarians out. Apparently there are members of the council who romanticize Fidel, as do some Hollywood celebrities.� [4]

Hentoff also wrote for the December 19, 2003 Village Voice that directors of the ALA and some members believe that independent Cuban librarians are lackeys of the US government. He also quotes one of the ALA’s governing council, Mark Rosenzweig, as saying, "we cannot presume that all countries are capable of the same level of intellectual freedom that we have in the U.S. Cuba is caught in an extremely sharp conflict with the U.S. . . . I don't think [Cuba] is a dictatorship. It's a republic.”[5]

Ironically, Rosenzweig is the Director of the Reference Center for Marxist Studies. Somehow, a Marxist civil libertarian seems like an oxymoron to me.

A January 2001 report by the ALA’s International Relations Caribbean Subcommittee incredibly concluded that, “While the civil oppression of individuals (Cuban independent librarians) ….appears to be documented by Amnesty International and other observers, it is not conclusive whether these conditions result from the denial of intellectual freedom or from anti-government activities by the persons involved.”

So if one is to understand this correctly, the ALA deems it permissible for the “civil oppression of individuals” to occur if it is the result of “anti-government activities” by those individuals.[6] Yet, the FBI investigating whether someone who reads Muslim terrorist publications, or books describing bomb making, or communicating with suspected terrorists is a threat to the Republic?

This report also quoted Ann Sparanese of the Englewood (N.J.) Public Library as saying, “Almost all the individuals operating these "libraries" identify themselves as dissidents and members of anti-Castro political parties. …she has seen no evidence of censorship or confiscation of books in her many visits to Cuba.”[7]

This is a revelation. Someone from the ALA claims that a communist dictatorship does not engage in censorship.

Others have criticized ALA’s hypocrisy. Only a few weeks ago, January 25, 2006, at the ALA midwinter meeting, author and National Public Radio commentator Andrei Codrescu, who was an invited speaker, chided the ALA for not condemning the imprisonment of Cuban librarians. Maine librarian Walter Skold is a co-founder of FREADOM, a coalition of — one might say — libertarian librarians who have campaigned for freeing the Cuban librarians. Skold has written for Front Page Magazine how some of the ALA membership sympathizes with Castro.

How can Americans believe that the ALA’s campaign against the PATRIOT Act is a product of its love of American� civil liberties, when many of the ALA membership admire one of the most terrible violators of civil liberties extant? The ALA has no credibility.

Is it that the ALA is not concerned about American civil liberties so much as they are making a political statement about Republicans, President Bush and the conservative value of Americans defending themselves from all threats foreign and domestic.

The ALA should heed the words of Franklin that so many of their members often misquote. Someone from the ALA needs to do an exegesis of Franklin’s words� reaffirming intellectual freedom, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

For it is not essential liberty that is being sacrificed, nor is it temporary safety. There is nothing temporary about being killed by a terrorist.

From November 10-12, 2003, the National Constitution Center conducted a poll in association with the Gallup organization. One of the questions concerned the PATRIOT Act. The question was “Do you think the PATRIOT Act goes too far, is about right, or does not go far enough in restricting people’s civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?” 45% said it was about right, while 20% said it did not go far enough. Only 25% said it goes too far.�

The ALA does not seem to have public opinion on its side. Of course, the liberal intelligentsia does not have much interest in the opinion of those they consider the hoi polloi anyway.

Maybe the ALA should heed the words of the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, who wrote in Federalist Number 3, "Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. … At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes."

Endnotes

� ^[1] Ret fm w/s http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htm#ifpoint11 2-12-06