Intellectual Freedom

The American Library Association’s Code of Ethics states that “II. We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.” Libraries foster a democratic society because they allow all forms of information to flow freely and provide many sources of information for whomever is doing the seeking. Libraries are not partial to censorship or one way of thinking. While there have been many occasions where this particular part of the Code of Ethics was challenged, in general libraries try to stay away from allowing anyone to dictate what may and may not be available at the library. The third rule in the Code of Ethics has to do with privacy: “We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received…” Thankfully, libraries see the benefit of privacy in the information age. Librarians are still eager to help anyone who asks for help in finding information that they seek, and are fiercely protective of a patrons’ right to privacy. My work in a public library has taught me just how important this relationship is between a patron and a librarian; survival of democracy depends upon an individual’s right to seek any information they wish without fear of reprisal. Democracy depends on a variety of opinions and ways of thinking; that’s how the checks and balances work. To deny the right to information would be to deny the very idea of democracy itself, and every one of the rules in the Code of Ethics from the American Library Association aims to make sure that there is never any confusion over whether or not information is free and open to anyone who wishes to find it.

I do not think people would stop using libraries if records became transparent, but I think there would be a sharp decrease in use based on principle alone. We value privacy even when we don’t think about how much protection we have. While working at the library, I have never heard a patron say “will anyone be able to view what I check out, or what I browse online?” They are comfortable in the idea that we would never jeopardize their trust by allowing just anyone to view what they check out. While there might not be a serious repercussions about checking out the new Mitch Albom novel, more politically or religiously charged books might cause a stir for some people with say, their jobs, or their extended family life. Even though no one ever brings up the privacy factor or even asks if their records are private, if one day, we were to hang a sign on the door that read “A notice to all patrons: records are now available to view publicly” there would be quite an uproar. I would foresee many people closing their library card accounts, and even more people being more careful about what they check out altogether. Library circulation would decreases dramatically, and foot traffic in general would probably be dismal. Overall, transparency in libraries would be a terrible idea; libraries pride themselves on being a beacon for those who seek information to do it discreetly and safely, and allowing that would most definitely stifle many people’s intellectual freedoms.

Sources:

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics