In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced.
Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows. In modern times, censorship refers to the examination of media including books, periodicals, plays, motion pictures, and television and radio programs for the purpose of altering or suppressing parts thought to be offensive.
The offensive material may be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to the national security. Home Site Map Who Decides? How and Why? The presence of books and other resources in a library does not indicate endorsement of their contents by the library. Likewise, providing access to digital information does not indicate endorsement or approval of that information by the library. Labeling systems present distinct challenges to these intellectual freedom principles.
Rating Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights Libraries, no matter their size, contain an enormous wealth of viewpoints and are responsible for making those viewpoints available to all. However, libraries do not advocate or endorse the content found in their collections or in resources made accessible through the library.
Rating systems appearing in library public access catalogs or resource discovery tools present distinct challenges to these intellectual freedom principles. Expurgation as defined by this interpretation includes any deletion, excision, alteration, editing, or obliteration of any part s of books or other library resources by the library, its agent, or its parent institution if any.
Attempts to restrict access to library materials violate the basic tenets of the Library Bill of Rights. Complete list of Library Bill of Rights Interpretations. Freedom to Read Statement A collaborative statement by literary, publishing, and censorship organizations declaring the importance of our constitutionally protected right to access information and affirming the need for our professions to oppose censorship.
Libraries: An American Value Adopted by ALA Council, this brief statement pronounces the distinguished place libraries hold in our society and their core tenets of access to materials and diversity of ideas. Guidelines for Library Policies Guidelines for librarians, governing authorities, and other library staff and library users on how constitutional principles apply to libraries in the United States.
These guidelines provide a policy and implementation framework for public and academic libraries engaging in the use of social media. Divided into seven parts, the book covers intralibrary censorship, child-oriented protectionism, the importance of building strong policies, experiences working with sensitive materials, public debates and controversies, criminal patrons, and library displays. Ross Lessons in Censorship highlights the troubling and growing tendency of schools to clamp down on off-campus speech such as texting and sexting and reveals how well-intentioned measures to counter verbal bullying and hate speech may impinge on free speech.
Throughout, Ross proposes ways to protect free expression without disrupting education. The staff of the Office for Intellectual Freedom is available to answer questions or provide assistance to librarians, trustees, educators, and the public about the First Amendment and censorship.
Inquiries can be directed via email to oif ala. Maxwell , but the Court has been reluctant to uphold gag orders , as in the case of Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart In Chaplinsky v. Since the backlash against so-called political correctness, however, liberals and conservatives have fought over what derogatory words may be censored and which are protected by the First Amendment. In its early history, the Supreme Court left it to the states to determine whether materials were obscene.
Acting on its decision in Gitlow v. New York to apply the First Amendment to limit state action, the Warren Court subsequently began dealing with these issues in the s on a case-by-case basis and spent hours examining material to determine obscenity. In Miller v. California , the Burger Court finally adopted a test that elaborated on the standards established in Roth v.
United States Miller defines obscenity by outlining three conditions for jurors to consider:. In the s, some individuals thought anti-war songs should be censored. In the s, the emphasis shifted to prohibiting sexual and violent lyrics. In general, rap and hard-core rock-n-roll have faced more censorship than other types of music.
Caution must be used in this area to distinguish between governmental censorship and private censorship. Courts have not interpreted the First Amendment rights of minors, especially in school settings , to be as broad as those of adults; their speech in school newspapers or in speaking to audiences of their peers may accordingly be censored. Advancing technology has opened up new avenues in which access to a variety of materials, including obscenity, is open to minors, and Congress has been only partially successful in restricting such access.
Parental controls on televisions and computers have provided parents and other adults with some monitoring ability, but no methods are percent effective. In general, sedition is defined as trying to overthrow the government with intent and means to bring it about; the Supreme Court, however, has been divided over what constitutes intent and means. In general, the government has been less tolerant of perceived sedition in times of war than in peace.
The first federal attempt to censor seditious speech occurred with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts of under President John Adams. These acts made it a federal crime to speak, write, or print criticisms of the government that were false, scandalous, or malicious. Thomas Jefferson compared the acts to witch hunts and pardoned those convicted under the statues when he succeeded Adams.
In in Schenck , the government charged that encouraging draftees not to report for duty in World War I constituted sedition.
In the s and s, World War II and the rise of communism produced new limits on speech, and McCarthyism destroyed the lives of scores of law-abiding suspected communists.
The Smith Act of and the Internal Security Act of , also known as the McCarran Act , attempted to stamp out communism in the country by establishing harsh sentences for advocating the use of violence to overthrow the government and making the Communist Party of the United States illegal.
As a means of fighting terrorism, government agencies began to target people openly critical of the government. These detainees were held without benefit of counsel and other constitutional rights. The George W. Bush administration and the courts have battled over the issues of warrantless wiretaps , military tribunals, and suspension of various rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate acceptable conditions for holding prisoners of war.
Certain forms of speech are protected from censure by governments. For instance, the First Amendment protects pure speech, defined as that which is merely expressive, descriptive, or assertive. The Court has held that the government may not suppress speech simply because it thinks it is offensive. Even presidents are not immune from being criticized and ridiculed.
Less clearly defined are those forms of speech referred to as speech plus, that is, speech that carries an additional connotation. This includes symbolic speech , in which meanings are conveyed without words.
In T inker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , the Court upheld the right of middle and high school students to wear black armbands to school to protest U.
One of the most controversial examples of symbolic speech has produced a series of flag desecration cases, including Spence v. Washington , Texas v. Johnson , and United States v. Eichman Despite repeated attempts by Congress to make it illegal to burn or deface the flag, the Court has held that such actions are protected.
0コメント