Censorship of leftist sites in Canadian libraries (reposted)

[Domitan]

I was in the public library (London, Canada) last week to check my email and check a number of sites. I was able to access DU, Americablog, and other sites. However, when I tried to access HuffingtonBlog.com, it said that it was inaccessible due to being an "extreme" website. I could not get into Buzzflash.com due to it being a "hate" website???!!?!?!? Interestingly, right-wing sites such as FreeRepublic, Instapundit and others were not censored as far as I know.

I'm going to write to the public library system to ask for their reasoning for this inane site blocking as well as the lack of balance (that is if they're so concerned about "politically sensitive" sites).

[nine23]

1. Please give us an email address/URL to the library...

...in due time, ie. after your next "intel" visit! We're at your service.

(By the way folks, this thread was originally posted in General Discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4184716)

I fucking HATE low-level censorship such as this. It's so...un-Canadian. (I also hate using the term "un-Canadian"...it's so...so...American.) At any rate, Canadian DU'ers, let's spam this library. HuffingtonBlog.com "extreme", and FreeRepublic is NOT? Bullshit. Something's very smelly here...this ain't Alberta.

[iverglas]

2. your guide to stirring it at the London public library

http://www.londonpubliclibrary.ca/static/generic/32

How to attend board meetings, etc. First you approach the staff ... and if you have to go to the board, bring a delegation. ;)

The London Public Library is "under the management and control of a board which is a corporation" (Public Libraries Act). Under provincial legislation, the Board is charged with seeking "to provide, in cooperation with other boards, a comprehensive and efficient public library service that reflects the community's unique needs."

I'm from London. Emphasis on the from.

The names of the board members don't seem to be on line. I can guess a few of them, or at least would probably recognize them when I saw them. Ah, North London.

Actually, I'll PM you some more specific info. Someone I knew long ago (we're talking 1969, back when we were both young and wild-eyed) is a library person at the university. I've seen on the net that he's been involved in local-history / working-class history efforts in London East (my old stomping grounds), which recently became so trendy. (Have you seen East of Adelaide, the book published about us great unwashed a few years ago? My maiden great-aunt worked at McCormicks, that model of hygienic industry, all her life, for instance.) Someone like him might be interested in the situation.

[CHIMO]

8. Perhaps This Might

Be a help.

Don't know if it what you might have been looking for but I found it from The City of London search.

http://www.londonpubliclibrary.ca/static/generic/40

Also found this site map. Haven't gone through it yet. Just starting.

http://www.londonpubliclibrary.ca/static/generic/115

Doug this out from a quick read. Hope that it might provide a starting point or reference.

Collection Development and Maintenance Policy

The London Public Library Board endorses as policy the Statement on Intellectual Freedom of the Canadian Library Association, which includes the following:

"It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those which some elements of society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable. To this end, libraries shall acquire and make available the widest variety of materials."

Complaints


The London Public Library Board is aware that some materials are controversial and may offend some patrons. Complaints about materials in the collection are directed to the appropriate librarian. If you wish, you may place a formal written complaint. The complaint is reviewed by the Senior Collections Librarian in consultation with the subject (or branch) librarian, and a written response is prepared for you.

If this response is not satisfactory, you may ask to appeal the decision to the Chief Executive Officer. If still not satisfied with the outcome, you may appeal to the Library Board.
COMPUTER USE AND INTERNET ACCESS
Internet Access Responsibilities


The Internet is a global, unregulated, constantly changing environment that is worldwide in scope. The Internet enables the Library to provide information that is held outside the confines of the physical collection.



2.1 The London Public Library endorses as policy the Statement on Intellectual Freedom of the Canadian Library Association. To provide users with choice, both filtered and unfiltered access is available. The Library is governed by the Canadian Copyright Act, the Criminal Code of Canada and other legislation governing access to expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity.



Users are responsible for the legality of any sites they access.

2.4 The Library provides Internet filtering software on workstations in children's areas. These filters block much of the material on the Internet that may be considered inappropriate for children.



Users should be aware, however, that no filtering product can block all such sites. The Library assumes no liability in the event that a user may reach such a site.



The Library does not restrict the access of children to any information, resources and facilities in the Library, unless proscribed by legislation. As with other library materials, children's access to the Internet and other electronic networks is the right and responsibility of parents or guardians. The Library does not assume the responsibility of limiting children to use of filtered workstations.


STANDARDS
PROVISION OF INFORMATION SERVICE


London Public Library pledges:

• To provide access to the entire information resources of the library system whether on site or through referral
• To provide accurate and current information based on the resources available
• To respond to queries in a courteous and professional manner
• To honour patron inquiries in confidence
• To treat all questions seriously and without prejudice
• To respond to all information requests in a timely manner
• To provide referral, when appropriate, to external resources, agencies and organizations
• To provide the mechanism for continuous feedback from patrons

[applegrove]

3. Very disturbing.

[u4ic]

4. HuffingtonBlog.com?

is an advertisement page for godaddy.com.

Arianna's site is www.huffingtonpost.com.

Could that have been the problem?

[Domitan]

7. It was actually banned

but I mistyped it here at DU...regardless, it's no longer banned.

[HEyHEY]

5. I imagine they are blocked because complaints were made

Make a complaint about FR and see what happens.

[Domitan]

6. UPDATE

I've tested the library system here (it's consistent for all London libraries). The Huffington Post (I typed in the wrong URL when talking about it here but it was banned before) is no longer banned. However, Buzzflash.com and Michael Moore's website are still banned as hate websites. I checked other sites such as freerepublic.com, Rush Limbaugh's site, and Michael Savage's site. They're still accessible. Censorship is bad enough, but there's no sense of balance here among the censors.

Iverglas and others, thanks for the heads-up. I'll now go onto the next step.

[Domitan]

9. I sent this letter to the London Public Library

I've made use of many wonderful services from the London Public Library system such as books, dvds, videos, and web services. However, I ran across something that has really concerned me. Once in a while I would surf the internet using the London Public Library computers. I know that a good number of websites are filtered out to keep it children-friendly. I have no argument with inappropriate sites such as sex and hate websites not being accessible. However, my question relates to 2 websites that were listed as hate websites, which I do not feel deserve such labeling. I tried to access these two websites:

www.buzzflash.com
www.michaelmoore.com

These two websites were declared inaccessible due to being "hate websites". While both websites are of the left-wing persuasion in their opinions and the news they link to, there is no way that these two can be decreed as "promoting" hate. While many may find them disagreeable, that's no reason to ban these two websites. If the London Public Library is so concerned with preventing access to sites that have strong political viewpoints, why are these two left-wing sites singled out while their right-wing counterparts are not filtered out (e.g., www.rushlimbaugh.com ; www.michaelsavage.com ; www.freerepublic.com )?

Who makes the decision to arbitrarily declare some websites inaccessible due to being "hate websites"? What criteria does that person use?

Thank you for taking the time to address these issues.

xxxxxx

---------

I'll also contact the administration by phone this week.

[nine23]

10. Thanx for the update. Keep us posted; I'll keep checking in...

nt

[jim3775]

11. Some web blocking software is developed by RW/fundie groups

Or by people with major winger biases and sold as a normal consumer product. The library might not be aware of it.

[Domitan]

12. You're dead on!

check my message below

[Domitan]

13. Public library reply (it's the software producer's fault)

Hello XXX

Thank you for your good words about the many services at London Public Library that you enjoy.

You are correct - the Library uses commercial Internet filtering software to block access to "inappropriate" sites. This is in use on computers that are located in the Children's Library at the Central Library and also computers that are in immediate proximity to children's areas in our Branch Library locations. As it is a commercial product, we ourselves do not determine which sites are blocked and which are not - that is the work of the software producer.
One of the drawbacks in the use of Internet filtering software can be "over" blocking and I suspect that this is what is happening with the sites to which you refer.
Of course, these sites would be accessible on any of the non-filtered computers in the Library.

I am sorry that you have met with frustration in using Library computers. We have been pleased with the overall performance of the software we use and have had few to no queries over the last couple few years.

[CHIMO]

14. Good

I wonder if there would be any loss in funding if the principles that they agree to are not being met?

I don't think that it would necessarily apply to the childrens' library but it might.

The part that catches my eye is:

"The London Public Library Board endorses as policy the Statement on Intellectual Freedom of the Canadian Library Association, which includes the following:

It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those which some elements of society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable. To this end, libraries shall acquire and make available the widest variety of materials."

Sometimes libraries receive funding when they meet certain criteria.

At least as a minimum they should footnote the paragraph that sites are filtered by... Accountants and auditors love foot notes.
An additional question pops to mind is how many computers are in the childrens' area and how many are in the adult area? How many are in the adult only area?
Also since they state that they have few to no queries in that area I would request a statement on how many queries they have received or have them acknowledge that they do not keep records of these types of queries.

Anyway, you may have uncovered a sleeper here.

Good work.

[Domitan]

15. Found the name of the net filtering software!

The London Public Library uses NetSweeper http://www.netsweeper.com/ . This is a Canadian company located in Guelph, Ontario.