Mediaboss Marketing

The Washington Commanders' decision to fine coach Jack Del Rio has sparked a reaction from prominent television personality Bill Maher.

The popular political pundit and late night show host spoke out on the decision to fine Del Rio $100,000 for his comments on the Jan. 6 insurrection.

"They fined him, the team fined him, $100,000 for this opinion. Fining people for an opinion. I am not down with that," Maher declared.

"I would like to, if I could talk to Mr. Del Rio, I think I could probably hopefully convince him a little bit that it was more than a dust-up. He also compares it a lot to the 2020 protests that were going on after the George Floyd murder. Okay," he added.

"I think I could also convince him there are really important differences between those two things. And actually, the attack on the Capitol was worse. Nevertheless, he has a right to be wrong. In America, you have the right to be wrong."

Of course, free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without repercussion from your employer.

Still, many are agreeing with Bill.

"Good for Bill. Its called freedom of speech," one fan added.

"While there are some exceptions not relevant here, non-governmental employers can fine, fire or demote employees if the say or do something the employer finds offensive or harmful to its brand. The first amendment (free speech) applies to the government, NOT private employers," another fan pointed out.

"Tend to agree with Maher.. Just shame the bejeezus out of him . Never mention his name without a reminder of his dismissal of 1/6. He can live in infamy But, dont penalize this time. If he keeps it up well, he needs a job out of the limelight.. up to owners," one fan suggested.

Where do you stand?

See the original post:
Bill Maher Criticizes Washington: NFL World Reacts - The Spun

Via Teleconference

5:05 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Okay. Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us this evening. Really appreciate you tuning in.

I just want to start this call with a quick reminder that this call is on background, embargoed until tomorrow morning at 5:00 a.m. Eastern. You may attribute the context of the call to a senior administration official. Today, you will hear from [senior administration officials].

And with that, Ill kick it over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, I was muted. Am I unmuted?

MODERATOR: Yes, youre back.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So sorry. Did you hear anything, because it seemed to do that and

MODERATOR: Nope.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay.

MODERATOR: Nope, were just starting.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, Im going to start again then, with apologies. And good evening.

The President made a campaign promise to convene a national task force to prevent and address online harassment and abuse. And this task force is charged with developing recommendations for federal and state governments, for technology platforms, schools, and other public and private entities.

Tomorrow, the Vice President is going to host an event launching the task force, and she will be joined by Cabinet officials, advocates, and, most importantly, survivors.

The task force is aims to address the growing problem of online harassment and abuse, which disproportionately targets women, girls, and LGBTQI+ people.

It will be co-chaired the task force will be co-chaired by the Gender Policy Council and the National Security Council. And it includes the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other heads of federal agencies and White House policy councils.

You know, just to take a step back about the why here, the President made this commitment because in the United States, one in three women under the age of 35 report being sexually harassed online, and over half of LGBTQI+ individuals report being the target of severe online abuse.

So what are we going to do? Within 180 days of launching, the task force is going to provide a blueprint for recommended steps the federal government can take to counter this issue, as well as suggestions for actions in partnership with the private sector and with civil society. And these recommendations will focus on increasing support for survivors of online harassment and abuse, as well as expanding research to better understand the impact and the scope of the problem, improve prevention efforts, and strengthen accountability for offenders and for platforms.

As you all well know, its imperative that we commit to better understanding and addressing the nexus between online misogyny and radicalization to violence.

You know, sadly, the the recent mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde highlight these links between online harassment and abuse, hate, and extremist acts. The Buffalo shooter, for example, was very explicitly radicalized online. And his manifesto espoused the great replacement theory, which is, of course, rooted in racism, misogyny, and xenophobia.

And thats just one example. We see this over and over again when we see issues of extremism and how they turn into violence.

The task force is just one element of the President and Vice Presidents strong commitment to unify communities and to tackle hate and violent extremism in all its forms.

Im going to turn this over now to [senior administration official]. [Senior administration official], over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, [senior administration official].

So, as [senior administration official] just said, tomorrow, Vice President Harris will launch the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse, which the Gender Policy Council and the National Security Council will co-chair. We also note that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, will be present, along with Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Sloane Stephens, the U.S. Open Tennis Champion survivor and mental health advocate.

As [senior administration official] had noted, the task force, within 180 days, will provide a series of recommendations for how the federal government, in partnership with the private sector and civil society, can better combat online harassment and abuse.

And just to take a step back, the Vice President has had a long record, as many of you know, of standing up to hate and exploitation. From her days as Attorney General of California to her tenure in the U.S. Senate, and even starting out her career as a district attorney focused on sexual assault and child exploitation cases, shes led the fight against bad actors and has pioneered innovative ways to secure safety and privacy rights in the digital world.

Ill just focus on her attorney general record for a second. She successfully prosecuted one of the first-ever cases against tan operator of a cyber exploitation website. She also launched the Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit to prosecute individuals who infringe on the privacy rights of others. This unit was the first of its kind for the California Department of Justice at the time.

Furthermore, as Attorney General, she secured an agreement with the leading operators of tech companies that have mobile application platforms to enhance privacy protections basically, privacy agreements for millions of users on their smartphones, tablets, and other devices.

Her longstanding work in this area takes on an additional significance as the potential overruling of Roe may jeopardize data privacy.

As a senator, she introduced legislation that would have made these acts that we were just talking about a federal crime. So, she has led and will continue to lead the effort, along with the President, to dismantle cruelty, bullying, violence, and hate wherever it exists.

Back to you.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much, [senior administration officials]. With that, we will take your questions.

Great. First question, well turn it over to Chris with The AP.

Q Hi, everybody. I just want to make sure I understand whats happening tomorrow, specifically. It seems like whats going to be happening tomorrow is the announcement of a task force that will eventually issue recommendations, not were not going to get the recommendations tomorrow, if I understand that correctly.

And lastly, I just want to make sure I understand: What is the role of the National Security Council in this effort? And will we see Xavier Becerra there tomorrow, given HHSs role?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Chris. So the answer your first question is: Yes, this is the launch of a task force. Its actually its also its first meeting. So what we will be doing is also hearing testimony from experts and survivors. And the meeting will be attended by a number of the different agencies and White House offices that are part of the task force.

We will not see Secretary Becerra because hes not able to be there. But Surgeon General Murthy will attend in his place, as will Attorney General Garland.

The other question about the role of the National Security Council is: Yes, they will be co-chairing the council with us. And you know, the the reason for that is the obvious connections. Two things one is the obvious connection between online harassment and abuse and extremism, hate, and violent acts, and the threat that has caused.

One of the things that actually we will also be touching on tomorrow and announcing tomorrow is some research from the U.S. Secret Services National Threat Assessment Center under the Department of Homeland Security, which shows the nexus between online misogyny and domestic terrorism. So that just is one example of some additional things we will be announcing tomorrow.

And I feel like there was one more part of your question.

Q No, you got it. Just beyond that misogyny is connected to the Uvalde shooter that thats the connection there, right?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Yes.

Q Okay. Thats it. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Chris and [senior administration official].

Next, well turn it over to Kellen with the New York Times.

Q Hi, thanks very much. I was just wondering, and I know this is going to be the first meeting, but is there any sense of whether there are particular online platforms or social media sites, anything like that, that you expect to be the focus of this task force? Is there any any area in particular that youre going to be focusing on?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We are not focused on particular platforms. We are absolutely focused on the role of platforms and social media more generally, and the connections and their role. And as I said at the at the outset, there will be recommendations for the private sector and for civil society, but were not focused on any particular platform.

Q Got it. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next, well go over to Cat with the Washington Post.

Q Hey, thanks so much for taking the time to do this. I had two questions. Kind of following up on that, what role will major social media companies play in the task force and in the development of these recommendations?

And I also just wanted to ask you if you see any connection between the work the task force is doing and the work of the January 6th Committee on social media and extremism.

Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sorry. So, you know, as I noted, preventing and addressing all forms of GBV gender-based violence including online requires engagement and, really, partnership between the public and the private sectors. And, you know, many technology companies have expressed a commitment to improving user safety and addressing abuse on their platforms.

And so, we will be looking for opportunities to engage with industry experts and leaders who share that commitment to supporting survivors and preventing abuse, including by improving the safety and the design of their products and platforms.

And I hadnt, quite frankly, thought about the connection to January 6th. This was really has been pretty laser-focused on online harassment and abuse and the connection to gender-based violence.

MODERATOR: Thanks, [senior administration official].

Next, well turn it over to Alexandra with Reuters.

Alexandra, I dont know if we cant hear you.

Okay, in the meantime, well turn it over to Ashley with Axios.

Q Hi, there. Thanks for having the call. You talked about ultimately developing best practices with civil society and the private sector, but will you will the task force be making any policy recommendations for Congress with the federal agencies?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We do anticipate making policy recommendations, as well as recommendations on additional research on the role of, as I said, private sector and civil society and programs.

And again, there will be a couple of additional announcements tomorrow. And so, that sort of forecasts, because, honestly, weve already started this work. And this task force is really the next thing in the line of working on all facets of this of this problem and the solutions to it. So, yes, I would say, in all of those categories.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next question, well turn it over to Brendan at Politico.

Q Yeah. Hi, guys. Thanks so much for doing the call. You know, I think particularly given, you know, it sounds like the involvement of the DOJ and the National Security Council and folks like that, I wanted to ask whether the White House has given any thought to privacy or, you know, like free speech concerns around this?

You know, Im thinking specifically of sort of the backlash that occurred around DHSs disinformation board, and I can imagine some of the same voices might raise concerns with this effort, you know, regarding the White House or the governments attempt to sort of, like, control speech online that some people might see as obviously hate speech or harassment or threatening violence and others might not see that way.

Are you guys thinking about those issues at all? And is that something that has crossed the White Houses radar so far? And do you guys plan to sort of dig into those issues at all, as you as you weigh a lot of these other questions?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, we are particularly focused on online activities that are illegal conduct, such as cyber stalking or non-consensual distribution of intimate images or targeted harassment, as well as, you know, the overlap with intimate partner and sexual violence online, and online abuse linked to the distribution of child sex abuse material and trafficking.

And these are obviously harmful and illegal acts that occur online. And there has been a strong bipartisan consensus that more has to be done to hold perpetrators and platforms accountable to prevent these harms.

We are very mindful of the of the First Amendment issues. But, you know, violent and threatening speech is not protected by the First Amendment. So, while we are going to carefully navigate those issues, were also going to remain laser-focused on the non-speech aspects. So, yes, that will be part of our work.

And I realized I actually forgot to mention you raised the National Security Council again, and I did realize there was one other piece I wanted to respond to in Chriss question, which is: Why is the National Security Council involved? For all the reasons weve already discussed. And also, I should just note that another thing we are doing is that the the National Security Council and we launched a Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse at the Summit for Democracy back in December, and sort of officially asked for partners at the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women in March.

And so, the State Department is continuing to expand that global partnership because, obviously, this work is important in a number of different countries around the world. So, that partnership the Global Partnership brings together countries and international organizations and civil society and the private sector to understand technology-facilitated gender-based violence around the world and to prevent and address it.

MODERATOR: Thank you, [senior administration official].

And our last question, well go to Tal at the SF Chronicle.

Q Hi, I have a quick procedural question and then an actual question. The procedural question is: Will you all be distributing a copy of the report you mentioned, tying misogyny to violence?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Our goal is to have a factsheet under a 5:00 a.m. embargo tonight. So well make sure everyone on this call gets that.

Q Okay, great. Thanks. And then my question you know, and I mean this with all due respect, but if this is a campaign promise, you know, were 18 months into the administration, I believe, you know, its youre announcing a task force that in six months will give recommendations that, of course, will then need to be enacted.

Im just wondering, you know: What took so long to stand up the task force? And, you know, should we take away a sense of urgency from, you know, this coming together, kind of, over such a long time?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What I would say about that is that this is, you know, sort of a midpoint in the work on online harassment and abuse. And I think, you know, [senior administration official] laid out the Vice Presidents long commitment to this.

You know, Im sure you know the Presidents long commitment to gender-based violence wherever it occurs. And, you know, between passing the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and taking on military sexual assault and, you know, other issues that are related, this is just part of our overall work to combat gender-based violence wherever it occurs.

And, you know, what has the way that this task force has developed and Im sort of quite proud of the fact that its, I think, a very thoughtful group of people who are involved and the issues are sort of well-defined at this point is because it grows out of interagency work, which has been ongoing.

So, as I said, this is a public acknowledgement of the work that we are doing and, sort of, you know, the moment to say, Okay, weve been doing all of this interagency work. This brings it together, and that were asking for this report back within 180 days.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. And thanks, everyone, for joining.

Just a friendly reminder that this is under embargo until 5:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. Well be sure to share the factsheet, hopefully in the next few hours here. And please reach out with any questions.

5:25 P.M. EDT

See the original post:
Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on Presidential Action to Establish the Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse -...

Join the ALA Intellectual Freedom Round Table (IFRT) and the Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF) along with banned author David Levithan, library professionals, authors, and friends for this 2022 Freedom to Read Celebration, Merritt Fund fundraiser, and reception. The organizations will honor the recipients of the FTRF Roll of Honor Award, John Phillip Immroth Memorial Award, Gerald Hodges Intellectual Freedom Chapter Relations Award, and Eli M. Oboler Memorial Award.

Were excited to have author David Levithan launch the evening by sharing his remarks, and experience, with intellectual freedom and censorship. David is a childrens book editor and the author of several books for young adults, including Lambda Literary Award winner Two Boys Kissing; Nick & Norahs Infinite Playlist, Naomi and Elys No Kiss List, and Dash & Lilys Book of Dares (co-authored with Rachel Cohn); Will Grayson, Will Grayson (co-authored with John Green); and Every You, Every Me (with photographs from Jonathan Farmer). David was named the recipient of the Margaret A. Edwards Award for his contribution to YA literature. His newest book, Answers in the Pages, was released through Penguin Random House in May. This title has a timely topic as it addresses speaking up and coming out as parents lobby to ban a beloved book from the school curriculum.

The following 2022 intellectual freedom award recipients will be honored at the event.

Add the celebration to your Conference Scheduler.RSVP to attendEvent Date: Friday, June 24th at 7pm - 8:30pm ET.Location: Marriott Marquis, Univ of DC & Catholic UnivCost: Suggested Donation: $20.00 (checks and cash preferred) to benefit the Leroy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund (one free drink ticket included)

FTRF and IFRT wish to thank Penguin Random House for their generous sponsorship of the Freedom to Read Celebration.

About the Freedom to Read FoundationThe Freedom to Read Foundation has been working on behalf of librarians and others to protect the First Amendment for over 50 years. Because FTRF is a non-profit, the staff and trustees may also litigate on behalf of First Amendment issues, as well as educate and advocate. The FTRF board of trustees includes representatives from each of ALAs roundtables. This ensures that librarians representing all forms of library work can bring their voices and concerns to FTRF and carry back valuable information.

About the Intellectual Freedom Round TableThe Intellectual Freedom Round Table of the American Library Association provides a forum for the discussion of activities, programs and problems in intellectual freedom of libraries and librarians; serves as a channel of communications on intellectual freedom matters; promotes a greater opportunity for involvement among the members of the ALA in defense of intellectual freedom; and promotes a greater feeling of responsibility in the implementation of ALA policies on intellectual freedom.

About the Office for Intellectual FreedomEstablished December 1, 1967, the Office for Intellectual Freedom is charged with implementing ALA policies concerning the concept of intellectual freedom as embodied in the Library Bill of Rights, the Associations basic policy on free access to libraries and library materials. The goal of the office is to educate librarians and the general public about the nature and importance of intellectual freedom in libraries.

About the Merritt FundThe LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund was established in 1970 as a special trust in memory of Dr. LeRoy C. Merritt. It is devoted to the support, maintenance, medical care, and welfare of librarians who, in the Trustees opinion, are: Denied employment rights or discriminated against on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, color, creed, religion, age, disability, or place of national origin; or Denied employment rights because of defense of intellectual freedom; that is, threatened with loss of employment or discharged because of their stand for the cause of intellectual freedom, including promotion of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the freedom of librarians to select items for their collections from all the worlds written and recorded information, and defense of privacy rights.

Follow this link:
Freedom to Read Celebration, Supporting the Merritt Fund, and Featuring Banned Author David Levithan - ala.org

Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial Board| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Marsy's Law, intended for crime victims, now used to shield law enforcement

The Marsy's Law amendment, as approved by Florida voters, was intended to protect victims of crime. But it's being used to shield law enforcement.

C. A. Bridges, Tallahassee Democrat

In return for the immense amounts of unspoken trust and expansive authority that our society willingly gives to law enforcement and judicial agencies, those who wield such powershave a clear obligation to hold themselves to higher standards of transparency and accountability.

Unfortunately, the Sarasota County Sheriffs Office and the 12th Judicial Circuit State Attorneys Office are both failing to meet those standards in their joint effort to bar the Sarasota Herald-Tribune from publishing the names of two deputies involved in a fatal Aprilshooting in Sarasota.

And, equally unfortunate, both parties are beingempowered to shirktheir responsibilitiesby an emergency injunction, granted last Friday by Chief Circuit Judge Charles E. Roberts, that upheld their request to block the Herald-Tribune from identifying two deputies involved in the shooting of Jeremiah Evans, 58, while carrying out a court-ordered eviction at the Palm Place Condominium in Sarasota.

Related: Sarasota County deputy fatally shoots armed man during eviction, Sheriff says

It's ironic that the names of the two deputies along with a third who was presentwhen Evans was shot had previously been provided to the Herald-Tribune by the State Attorneys Office in response to a routine public records request for a letter in which prosecutors had ruled the shooting was justified.

But when the Herald-Tribune sought additional information regarding the case, the Sheriff's Officeabruptly moved to pursue the emergency injunction in tandem with the State Attorney's Office.

With these facts established,the following conclusionsare beyond debate:

The ruling, which granted the injunction with no notice to the Herald-Tribune, is an unconstitutional prior restraint of the press that is prohibited by the First Amendment in both the U.S. Constitution and Florida Constitution.

This fact was driven homein the emergency motion filed June 13 byCarol Jean LoCicero and James B. Lake, from the firm of Thomas & LoCicero in Tampa, on the Herald-Tribunes behalf to overturn the emergency injunction.

Freedom of speech means that its up to the Herald-Tribune to decide whether to report information in its possession, especially facts about such a significant matter as a fatal shooting by law enforcement, Lake told the Herald-Tribune.We fully expect that, once our arguments are heard, the injunction will be set aside.

The Sheriffs Office and the State Attorneys Office have poorly servedthis community by: a) citing Marsys Law, which is designed to prevent the disclosure of potentially sensitive details about victims of crime, to justify asking for the emergency injunction, and b) working in hurried, secretive and underhanded fashion to secure a court order to restrain the press from publishing the deputies names even though the press had lawfully obtained that information and isnt bound by Marsys Law.

In effect, then, the Sheriffs Office and State Attorneys Office are not only behaving as though the First Amendment, which clearly applies to the press, does not exist they are also using a state law that doesnt apply to the press as a weapon to muzzle a news organization and blatantly obstruct its ability to provide information that the public has aright to know.

This is inexcusable. And this is just plain wrong.

Its time forthe Sheriffs Office and State Attorneys Office to adhere to the elevatedstandards of transparency and accountability that they must meet. Its time for the emergency injunction to be dissolved, and for both agencies to show the proper respect for the publics right to be fully informed.

This editorial was written by Opinions Editor Roger Brown for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial Board.

Link:
Citizens have a right to know about Sarasota shooting case - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

First Amendment Resources | Statements & Core Documents | Publications & Guidelines

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.

One of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment gives everyone residing in the United States the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. The First Amendment allows individuals to speak, publish, read and view what they wish, worship (or not worship) as they wish, associate with whomever they choose, and gather together to ask the government to make changes in the law or to correct the wrongs in society.

The right to speak and the right to publish under the First Amendment has been interpreted widely to protect individuals and society from government attempts to suppress ideas and information, and to forbid government censorship of books, magazines, and newspapers as well as art, film, music and materials on the internet. The Supreme Court and other courts have held conclusively that there is a First Amendment right to receive information as a corollary to the right to speak. Justice William Brennan elaborated on this point in 1965:

The protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from Congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful.I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right.The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to receive information is a fundamental right protected under the U.S. Constitution when it considered whether a local school board violated the Constitution by removing books from a school library. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipients meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom. Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)

Public schools and public libraries, as public institutions, have been the setting for legal battles about student access to books, the removal or retention of offensive material, regulation of patron behavior, and limitations on public access to the internet. Restrictions and censorship of materials in public institutions are most commonly prompted by public complaints about those materials and implemented by government officials mindful of the importance some of their constituents may place on religious values, moral sensibilities, and the desire to protect children from materials they deem to be offensive or inappropriate. Directly or indirectly, ordinary individuals are the driving force behind the challenges to the freedom to access information and ideas in the library.

The First Amendment prevents public institutions from compromising individuals' First Amendment freedoms by establishing a framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities regarding free expression and the freedom of belief. The First Amendment protects the right to exercise those freedoms, and it advocates respect for the right of others to do the same. Rather than engaging in censorship and repression to advance one's values and beliefs, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis counsels persons living in the United States to resolve their differences in values and belief by resort to "more speech, not enforced silence."

By virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech and intellectual freedom also applies to state and local governments. Government agencies and government officials are forbidden from regulating or restricting speech or other expression based on its content or viewpoint. Criticism of the government, political dissatisfaction, and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are nearly always protected by the First Amendment. Only that expression that is shown to belong to a few narrow categories of speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law.

The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms because they are private entities.

Clauses of the First Amendment | The National Constitution Center

First Amendment FAQ | Freedom Forum

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition: Common Interpretations and Matters for Debate | National Constitution Center

First Amendment - Religion and Expression | FindLaw

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that some individuals, groups, or government officials find objectionable or dangerous. Would-be censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove information they judge inappropriate or dangerous from public access, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone. It is no more complicated than someone saying, Dont let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it!

Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. Article 3, Library Bill of Rights

Challenged Resources: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2019)A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others.ALA declares as a matter of firm principle that it is the responsibility of every library to have a clearly defined written policy for collection development that includes a procedure for review of challenged resources.

Labeling Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2015)The American Library Association affirms the rights of individuals to form their own opinions about resources they choose to read, view, listen to, or otherwise access. Libraries do not advocate the ideas found in their collections or in resources accessible through the library. 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 (2019)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. Q&A on Labeling and Rating Systems

Expurgation of Library Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2014)Expurgating library materials is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. 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).

Restricted Access to Library Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2014)Libraries are a traditional forum for the open exchange of information. 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

Library Bill of Rights (1939)Adopted by ALA Council, the Articles of the Library Bill of Rights are unambiguous statements of basic principles that should govern the service of all libraries. (printable pamphlets)

Freedom to Read Statement (1953)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 (1999)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 (2019)Guidelines for librarians, governing authorities, and other library staff and library users on how constitutional principles apply to libraries in the United States.

Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q&A (2007)

Social Media Guidelines for Public and Academic Libraries (2018)

These guidelines provide a policy and implementation framework for public and academic libraries engaging in the use of social media.

Intellectual Freedom Manual (2021)Edited by Martin Garnarand Trina Magi with ALAs Office for Intellectual FreedomThe 10th edition manual is an indispensable resource for day-to-day guidance on maintaining free and equal access to information for all people

Journal of Intellectual Freedom and Privacy (2016 - present)Edited by Shannon Oltmann with ALA's Office for Intellectual FreedomPublished quarterly, JIFP offers articles related to intellectual freedom and privacy, both in libraries and in the wider world.

True Stories of Censorship Battles in America's Libraries (2012)By Valerie Nye and Kathy BarcoThis book is a collection of accounts from librarians who have dealt with censorship in some form. 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.

Beyond Banned Books: Defending Intellectual Freedom throughout Your Library (2019)By Kristin Pekollwith ALAs Office for Intellectual FreedomA level-headed guide that uses specific case studies to offer practical guidance on safeguarding intellectual freedom related to library displays, programming, and other librarian-created content.

Lessons in Censorship: How Schools and Courts Subvert Students' First Amendment Rights (2015)By Catherine J. RossLessons 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. Areas of assistance include policy development, minors rights, and professional ethics. Inquiries can be directed via email to oif@ala.org or via phone at (312) 280-4226.

Excerpt from:
First Amendment and Censorship | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues