The Library of Congress has blocked access on all of its computers to Wikileaks. This action was taken, according to the Library of Congress blog, in direct response to a memo from the White House Executive Branch. According to a New York Times article, the White House has since said that it issued no such directives to block Wikileaks in any government agency. I am unconcerned with the “he said, she said” childish finger pointing of the different arms of government. I don’t care who said what to whom in a memo, an email, or in a hallway conversation.
I am, however, gravely concerned that the leading library of the United States has willfully and arbitrarily blocked access to information. Blocking access to information, any information, is censorship. This action is unconscionable.
I condemn the Library of Congress action in every way, and like others I fully reject their attempt at justifications or defenses of their action. There is never a justification for blocking access to information in a library — never.
The Library of Congress’s decision is a violation of the First Amendment and a violation of the American Library Association’s Bill of Rights. Moreover, it is a violation of the professional ethics of librarians to always provide free access to all information. The Librarian of Congress has violated our ethics knowingly. I am horrified.
The documents leaked on Wikileaks have been posted on the free and open web for some time now, and are therefore pieces of open and free information on the web, as is all other information in the United States. These documents are not illegal. So why, pray tell, does anyone have the right to block access to them in a federal government institution?
In this case particularly, access to this information is even more critical to the continued success of an open democracy. The documents contained in the Wikileaks collections often expose the federal government’s dereliction of duty, incompetence, poor judgment, and even criminal actions. Exposing our government’s actions is a matter of concern for every single citizen. Is this not a golden case study for why we need freedom of information in a democracy? Is it not a golden opportunity for the Librarian of Congress to stand firm with his professional ethics, and say “Hell no, I won’t block access to information!” ?
Interestingly, there is already a functional problem with this decision for the Congressional Research Service within the Library of Congress. The CRS researches government and public information to inform lawmakers of current important issues. The CRS will now be unable to access Wikileaks to include the leaked material’s primary content in their reports to Congress. So now Congress won’t know what’s in Wikileaks? Oh yeah, that’s good for democracy.
The Progressive Librarians Guild has called for formal condemnation from the American Library Association. I second that motion. From the PLG’s post:
We call on the American Library Association (ALA) to condemn unequivocally this move by the Library of Congress to actively conspire in preventing access to information in the public interest. Blocking access to this published information is censorship, plain and simple, and supporting sanctions against reading is endorsing abridgment of intellectual freedom. The documentation’s open publication by an agency of the free press, Wikileaks, renders its government classification status irrelevant.
It would seem that someone was more concerned about saving his relationships with politicians than he was about upholding Constitutional rights and his professional ethics. This is a deeply disturbing precedent and an affront to all librarians everywhere.
The Library of Congress should be ashamed of its action of pure censorship, reverse the block immediately, and be censured by the American Library Association for malfeasance. I also encourage President Obama’s administration to get involved in the fray immediately. If Obama is still “committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government” as stated in 2009, then this is a perfect opportunity to re-emphasize that commitment.
December 6th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by WPL Reference Div and Brett Williams, Sara Renwick. Sara Renwick said: Censorship is censorship, especially when it's the Library of Congress – Reports that LoC blocked access to Wikileaks http://bit.ly/e6TFWx [...]
December 7th, 2010 at 12:30 am
Eloquently stated; sign me up.
December 7th, 2010 at 2:44 am
So they should allow children porn in LoC too? After all, it’s information and as you said, “blocking access to information, any information, is censorship”…
December 7th, 2010 at 3:09 am
“There is never a justification for blocking access to information in a library — never.” You know that is false, right? Though I suppose it depends on the definition of “information.”
“The Library of Congress’s decision is a violation of the … American Library Association’s Bill of Rights.” You know the ALA’s LBOR has no controlling effect anywhere, right?
“I am, however, gravely concerned that the leading library of the United States has willfully and arbitrarily blocked access to information.” You know the action was not arbitrary, right? You know the ALA willfully and arbitrarily blocks access to information from disinvited ALA meeting speaker Robert Spencer, and blocks access to other information, right?
“The Library of Congress’s decision is a violation of the First Amendment….” You know the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press…,” right?
“The Librarian of Congress has violated our ethics knowingly. I am horrified.” You are horrified when the ALA plagiarizes repeatedly, takes no action when library directors cover up the viewing of child pronography in public libraries, covers up child rape and blames the child, or when the ALA labels every single one of hundreds of people who bring book challenges under ALA policies as censors, right?
The issue is a serious one. I’ll need to look elsewhere to find serious discussion of the issue. I do like the graphic, though. It has some unusual visual effects.
December 7th, 2010 at 3:59 am
Fact is that secrets are hard to keep.Cork out of the bottle. post-it-all 1-to:world. Technology is a thread, it always was.. it always was unstoppable.
Maybe this technological evolution is a good thing. CrCrises and the cable gate shows government is not so much in control of the global society. We need proper steering mechanism to survive the global society we created with technology. Whould we have gone to Iraq over Weapons of mass destruction is we were part of the diplomatic cable discussion ? Will reading the cables prevent us from another stupid global decision based upon wrong leader ego’s/shortvision ? Probably our global society is in the long run better of with more transparency. Shutting down the discussion/web is not an option. Its like banning books.
You hackers made a point. You don’t need to be a stupid suicide soldier. The Press is really slow, on the core discussion julian asks for. Give the world some time to adapt and don,t spread AE21 files anymore. Showing military facilities is bad. Responsibility starts with yourself.
December 7th, 2010 at 4:18 am
[...] Censorship is censorship, especially when it’s the Library of Congress (librarianinblack.net) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Library of Congress Preserves Your Precious TweetsCelebrate National Library Week!Library of Congress adds Rumble This entry was posted in National Libraries and Web 2.0 and tagged Facebook, Flickr, Library, Library of Congress, Podcast, Twitter, Web 2.0, Webcast, Wikileaks, YouTube. Bookmark the permalink. ← Library and Archives Canada National Archives of Australia → LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
December 7th, 2010 at 7:33 am
I see this issue as a matter of clashed principles – the openness of a library versus LOC’s mission to serve Congress and its status as a government apparatus. i.e., As an agent of government it can’t break the law. So, to a certain degree, I sympathize with the people running the show at LOC: I’m sure there must be a few librarians there whose own professional ethics have clashed with this directive.
What really bothers me, though, is that this action makes government (let alone LOC) look like the stork sticking its head in the sand. However “confidential” the cables that have been made public in the Wikileaks controversy are, they now are a matter of public record, and to be sure, are being analyzed by tens of thousands of Americans on one level or another. But so long as they are not collected or accessed by LOC, then Congress, through CRS, is unable to research and report for themselves on what is of interest to their constituents and to the nation. It’s like the State Dept believes there is only one record of history out there and it’s the government record and that the public record is of little value. And that’s where we all lose, because the public voice has been diminished on account of a government action to ostensibly save face..
December 7th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Maybe a good thing …. We NEED proper steering mechanism to survive the global society we created with technology. Transparancy/involvism is needed. It’s urgend, at this moment our society has an obsolete 200 years old steering mechanism. How can a few wise people understand these complex global issues pending ? Would we have gone to Iraq over Weapons of mass destruction is we were part of the diplomatic cable discussion ?
Better of with more transparency ?
December 7th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Perfectly said! Thank you!
December 7th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Oh. Hell. No!!!!
December 7th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Agreed. There is no excuse for the Library of Congress’ position on this one.
December 7th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Well said, Sarah! No matter what one thinks of anything that WikiLeaks has done, it is certain that the Library of Congress’ decision to block any site at all is inexcusable.
December 7th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
LiB, I love you, but I have to disagree on principle if not on the point at hand. The same ALA party line that says “always provide free access to all information” would also deny access to circulation records in the name of patron privacy, and probably all of us agree with that as a necessary exception. Is freedom of information the only moral high ground, ever? That said, I think it is pretty silly for LC to lock the barn after the horse is stolen, especially since it can only lock one of a thousand doors in the first place.
December 7th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Malin – As pornography” is not a legal term, I assume that you mean material of a sexual nature, usually legally referred to as “obscene and harmful.” And yes, I actually do believe that libraries should provide completely unfiltered access to all information (as long as it is not illegal, such as child sexual videos and photos are) not only in the Library of Congress, but in every other library. Why? Because who gets to decide what is going to get blocked? You? Me? A software algorithm? A liberal company? A conservative company? There is no one right answer that works for everyone, largely because there is no clear legal definition of what actually is obscene and harmful. And also because it’s impossible to accurately filter out “just the naughty stuff” that you think you can filter out. For every single thing you filter successfully, something you don’t want through will get through and something that should be accessible will be blocked. That is the problem. While “obscene and harmful” material is not illegal, the display of it is illegal in public places, which libraries are. If a library user displays this material on a computer monitor, then he or she is breaking the law and should be dealt with promptly by law enforcement–not by some misguided attempt using technology that doesn’t work.
Mr. Kleinman – You are a frequent commenter on my blog, but of course only when I mention filters…so you can grind out your fear-mongering inaccurate statements and attempt to argue with me. If you have an axe to grind with the American Library Association, do so with them. I hold no ALA elected or appointed positions. And you know — anyone who tries to take a book out of a library *is* a censor.
David – I’m intrigued as you say that libraries would “deny access to circulation records.” But libraries don’t do that. If a court issues a proper warrant or other court order for that information, then the information is provided. If a police officer just walks in asking for it randomly off the street with no documentation, then no, a library should not and generally does not give that information.
December 8th, 2010 at 3:36 am
LIB says, “And you know — anyone who tries to take a book out of a library *is* a censor.”
But in reality, see, for example, “Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week,” by Judith Krug, Curriculum Review, 46:1, Sep. 2006. Judith Krug says:
“On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn’t fit your material selection policy, get it out of there.”
LIB says, “[S]o you can grind out your fear-mongering inaccurate statements….” Given what Judith Krug said, how would you describe “And you know — anyone who tries to take a book out of a library *is* a censor.”? Does “fear-mongering inaccurate statements” come to mind? Judith Krug is clearly *not* a censor. The “fear-mongering inaccurate statements” on this blog post are yours, not the ALAs, hence I addressed my comments to you.
And, LIB, feel free to address me as “Dan.”
December 8th, 2010 at 8:51 am
The reason the government blocked the information is that the information is classified SECRET (all-caps verbatim from gov’t classification handbooks) and is known to come from a source marked SECRET. Federal employees can lose their jobs for mishandling classified information, or transferring known-classified information to unclassified computer systems. A leak does not declassify the information — so, for example, if I knew some of the information (let’s say Iraqi oil contract kickbacks) from the cables was classified, but I had also seen it in the New York Times sourced to something other than the cables, I could say “I can’t comment on my official knowledge of the situation, but the NYT cited source XYZ, and they estimate that Iraq will get $8M in contract kickbacks this year.”
I would not be allowed to say “Well you can go look it up on Wikileaks and see everything I’ve seen,” and I would absolutely not be allowed to furnish you with a copy of the Wikileaks data once I knew it was marked SECRET.
Once you understand that classified information is a form of privileged/private communication, akin to HIPAA records or lawyer-client privileged conversations, you might begin to understand why the U.S. Government is blocking access to it. The part that is unusual is that it is a privileged conversation between two arms of the State. When access to private information is blocked by private entities like hospitals it seems fair and just; it’s harder to understand why the State can claim the same privilege, but it can and does.
December 8th, 2010 at 9:45 am
You went trouble trouble talk about the Constitution, and yet you repeatedly called our government a Democracy. While I agree with your main point, People have got to start getting these things right. We are a Republic.
December 8th, 2010 at 10:46 am
One of the problems that this block could be solving is that being a government institution they cannot allow still classified documents to enter their unclassified computers and systems. Just because the information is out on the internet does not remove the classification.
While I agree that libraries should allow free access, having the potential of a system being confiscated and all data on that system being wiped due to some user going to the site is a high price for that freedom.
Sometimes these decision to block may not be that they don’t want users to view the material but the consequences of that material being viewed on their systems.
December 8th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Just a thought: “all information” is absurdly broad. Circulation records? Individual voting records? Medical records? Troop movements in war? Military codes? Nuclear launch passwords? Individual browsing histories? Social security numbers? Credit scores? Kiddie porn?
I mean, I certainly support the idea that libraries should maximize access to information so long as they simultaneously attempt to minimize harm. There is a balance to be struck, but “all information all the time” is a little ridiculous. This Wikileaks issue is a contentious one: there is a fair argument, even if I personally disagree, that these secret documents constitute legitimate government secrets and shouldn’t be openly disclosed. And “the cat is out of the bag” isn’t exactly the strongest argument to refrain from restricting access to them by any legal means. There are good arguments to support the open distribution of the Wikileaks files, but I don’t think you’ve made one here.
December 12th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
[...] o podobnym tonie możemy przeczytać na blogu Librarian in Black, gdzie autorka potępia decyzję i wręcz oskarża Bibliotekę Kongresu o łamanie [...]
December 13th, 2010 at 10:05 am
[...] his own micropayment service, Flattr. Champion of free speech and media freedom Library of Congress blocks access to WikiLeaks from all Congress [...]
December 16th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Mr Kleinman, in reality, the full Judith Krug quote is this:
“On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn’t fit your material selection policy, get it out of there. But materials that adhere to the material selection statement that every school has, and that have been duly selected, we would fight alongside every librarian and every teacher to keep the books available.”
For you to so casually snip the tail of that quote to serve your purposes is inherently dishonest. The meaning changes entirely in the completely context of the quote, yet you parade the first two sentences as a ringing endorsement of book removal. It’s not.
Also, with all due deference to Judith Krug, she is not the sole arbitrator of what is censorship and what is not censorship for the entire profession.
December 18th, 2010 at 11:12 am
JR (#16) and also Rick (#18) have said it perfectly; the information may be ‘out there’ but it is not declassified. Therefore a government library really has to abide by confidentiality issues.
January 2nd, 2011 at 8:06 pm
[...] Censorship is censorship, especially when it’s the Library of Congress (librarianinblack.net) [...]
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:46 pm
[...] This is the first thing that came to mind reading of censorship in US libraries. [...]
January 30th, 2011 at 11:53 am
You know, Julian Assagne himself acknowledges there’s a time and a place for censorship:
http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/julian-assange-interviewed-by-the-brazilian-people
Daniel Ikenaga – Which information should be secret in your definition?
Julian Assagne – We often hear this type of question. However, it is better to rephrase it as follows: “who should be forced by the state into keeping information of a particular type from the rest of the population?” The answer to this question is clearly not everyone in the world and nor should it be, we believe, all persons in a particular state. Rather, say, your doctor is responsible for keeping your medical records secret under most (but not all) circumstances.
February 11th, 2011 at 6:52 am
[...] the Library of Congress | Librarian in Black Blog – Sarah Houghton-Jan.” Librarian in Black. http://librarianinblack.net/librarianinblack/2010/12/censorship-is-censorship-especially-when-its-th… (Accessed December 18, 2010).Ingram, Mathew. 2010. “Like It or Not, WikiLeaks is a Media Entity: [...]
March 1st, 2011 at 1:41 am
Very nice. but the lack of exposure like this is sad
July 21st, 2011 at 11:31 pm
We depend on technology right? Every information is spread on the net. But if it’s secret then don’t write, tell, or record it. Then it won’t leak. Probably