Skip to: Content
Skip to: Section Navigation
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

March/April 1999
Intellectual Freedom
Action News

Judith F. Krug, Editor

Associate Editors
Richard J. Matthews
Don Wood


Some Data . . .

Censored Internet Access in Utah? Or Filtered Dangerous Access?

New data throws some light on the controversy over whether to use filtering software in libraries. The meaning of the data, however, may have some people confused.

On the anti-filtering side of the debate . . . The Censorware Project recently released a study of sites blocked by Smartfilter, a commercial Internet filtering product used on Utah Education Network computers in virtually all of the state’s schools and some public libraries. The report, entitled Censored Internet Access in Utah Public Schools and Libraries, analyzed a month’s worth of log files created on the eleven “proxy servers” that filter access to Utah’s 40 school districts and at least 8 of its 70 library districts. A “proxy server” is a computer that examines requests for documents on the Internet and determines whether to fetch them. The report identifies what sites Smartfilter had actually blocked from Internet users, and documents the time of day when blocked access occurred. It also lists sites within the five categories of targeted content-namely criminal skills, drugs, gambling, hate speech, and sex-found to be wrongfully banned.

On the pro-filtering side . . . At a Washington press conference supporting Rep. Bob Franks’ new version of the proposed Children’s Internet Protection Act (see “Bills to Impose Filtering Conditions on E-Rate Subsidies Alive in House and Senate,” this issue), activist David Burt released a review of 503 incident reports concerning sexually explicit materials accessed by Internet users in libraries. The report, entitled Dangerous Access: The Epidemic of Pornography in America’s Public Libraries and the Threat to Children, is based on records obtained from freedom of information requests to various public libraries. The report categorizes incidents under headings such as adults accessing pornography, adults harassing library staff, and children accessing pornography.

Both Censored Internet Access in Utah Public Schools and Libraries and Dangerous Access were released in March. Shortly after the Utah study, Burt issued a statement denouncing it. The authors of the reports also discussed at length their findings and methods on the ALAOIF list.

Bills to Impose Filtering Conditions on E-Rate Subsidies Alive in House and Senate

On March 2, Representative Bob Franks (R-N.J.) introduced H.R. 896, a new version of the Children’s Internet Protection Act, requiring schools and libraries receiving federal e-rate subsidies to use filtering software to “protect” minors from sexually explicit materials on the Internet. Franks’ earlier version of the measure, H.R. 543, was identical to S. 97, introduced in the Senate by Senator John McCain (R-AZ.) on January 19.

H.R. 896 would require a library to certify that it uses filters to block material deemed “harmful to minors” whenever minors are online. In contrast, both H.R. 543 and S. 97 would require a library to certify that it uses filters on at least one of its Internet access computers; if it has just one computer, the library would be required to certify that it employs a reasonably effective alternative means to limit minors’ access to the forbidden material. All three bills would require schools to use filters.

The Franks-McCain bill.—H.R. 543 and S. 97.—is a more strongly worded version of the McCain bill considered by the last Congress. That bill.—the proposed Safe Schools Internet Act.—had not specified that required filtering software for Internet access computers ever actually had to be used. The Safe Schools Internet Act was enacted by the Senate in the closing days of the 105th Congress when it was attached as an amendment to an appropriations bill to keep the government running after the close of the fiscal year. The amendment failed, however, in the conference committee on the appropriations bill.

On March 4, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held hearings on S. 97. Candace Morgan, associate director of the Fort Vancouver (Wash.) Regional Library and president of the Freedom to Read Foundation, testified that the bill would deny schools and libraries local control over what approach best served the children in their communities.

Both H.R. 545 and H.R. 896 have been referred the House Committee on Commerce, which referred them to its subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection. The House has not yet held hearings. The full text of H.R. 545, H.R. 896, and S. 97 are found at http://thomas.loc.gov/.

Government Appeals COPA Preliminary Injunction

On February 1, U.S. District Court Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr., of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a preliminary injunction in American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, saying the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their First Amendment challenge to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA or CDA II). His order enjoined the U.S. Justice Department from enforcing the act while the plaintiffs’ lawsuit to declare the COPA unconstitutional-and permanently enjoin the government from enforcing it-goes forward (see “Enforcement of Child Online Protection Act Barred for Now” in the January/February 1999, Action News). Rather than go to a trial to test Judge Reed’s finding about the merits of the plaintiffs’ case, the government has decided to appeal his order.

The notice of the appeal, which will go to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was filed on April 2. It likely will be heard in the fall.

Alternative to Flag Amendment

Opposing a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag desecration introduced in the 106th Congress by Representatives Randy Cunningham (R-CA) and John Murtha (D-PA), Sens. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) say they will introduce a bill criminalizing damage or destruction of government-owned flags or any flag “with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace.”

Mary Jane Collipriest, Bennett’s press secretary, reported to free! (The Freedom Forum Online) that Bennett “opposes any desecration of the flag” but worries a constitutional amendment might hurt free speech more than it protects the flag.

Daniel Wheeler, president of the Citizens Flag Alliance (CFA), a group founded in 1994 that supports the Cunningham-Murtha flag amendment and which maintains a list of flag-desecration incidents on its Web site, disagrees, saying the Bennett-McConnell statute does not cover the numerous incidents of flag-desecration.

At a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on March 23, People for the American Way (PFAW) refuted CFA’s contentions with an analysis of its arguments, showing the amendment is “unnecessary, unwise and should be defeated.”

PFAW told the subcommittee that the incidents CFA lists prove that most acts of flag desecration (47 out of the 72 listed) already are punishable under existing criminal statutes, such as theft, vandalism, arson, disorderly conduct, or public disturbance. Another 21 incidents, PFAW noted, involved expressions of political protest that are and should remain protected by the Texas v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that burning the United States flag was a protected form of symbolic political speech. Justice William J. Brennan wrote, “[T]he way to preserve the flag’s special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong...We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one’s own.”

If you wish to voice your opposition to a flag amendment, various means to contact your representatives and Senators can be found on the OIF Web site under “Intellectual Freedom in the News”.

Library Board Required to Pay Legal Fees in Filtering Controversy

On April 1, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia awarded attorney fees and court costs to the plaintiffs in Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of Loudoun County Library. They had prevailed in their constitutional challenge to the highly restrictive Internet filtering policy imposed on libraries in the Loudoun County library system. The plaintiffs, found to have been deprived of their First Amendment right to access speech in the library, were granted $69,881 of the $300,710 in legal expenses they claimed for their efforts. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the Internet content providers, was granted $37,038 of the $187,891 it claimed. Last November 23, Judge Brinkema had issued the final summary judgment in the case (see “Loudoun Filtering Controversy Concluded” in the December 1998, Action News).

According to Mainstream Loudoun, the court had determined that its attorneys were entitled to $207,744 in legal expenses. Judge Brinkema, however, reduced this figure by three-quarters to avoid creating a “budgetary nightmare” for the library. The court’s award was said to be an effort to strike a balance between sending the message that violating the Constitution is costly and setting a penalty that would not financially crush the library system.

Lawsuit Demanding Filtering Now on Appeal

On March 11, attorneys representing the plaintiffs in Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore filed a notice of appeal. This appeal follows the final decision of state Judge George Hernandez dismissing the complaint of Kathleen R., who sued the Livermore (CA) Public Library after her 12-year-old son allegedly downloaded sexually explicit images at a library Internet access computer. The mother asked that the library be required to block children’s access to sites that are “obscene” or “harmful to minors” (see “Final Decision in Lawsuit Demanding Filtering, Appeal Vowed” in the January/February 1999, Action News).

According to The Valley Times, a newspaper in Alameda County (CA), the attorneys for Kathleen R. said they would drop the appeal if legislation passes requiring libraries to filter Internet access. California Senate Bill No. 238, which would require all public libraries to use filtering software to block “children under 18 years of age” from “obscene matter,” is actively being considered.

It is estimated it will take between six months to a year before oral argument will be heard in the Kathleen R. appeal.

Radio Station Seized by Police, Silenced by Government

B92, an independent radio station broadcasting from Serbia for almost ten years, was taken over by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s Council of Youth. Serbian police, accompanied by an officer of the court, ordered Sasa Mirkovic, B92’s manager, and other staff to vacate the station on April 2.

Since the NATO airstrikes began in March, and even after its radio transmissions were banned by the government and its operations severely restricted by police, B92 continued to broadcast news via the Internet and satellite.

Before it was silenced, B92 was reported to have had 15 million people visit its Web site. Support sites reported having 16,000 hits per day, and European radio stations had been rebroadcasting B92’s Internet audio signals.

In addition to seizing control of all independent press, the Milosevic government has closed many other independent radio and television stations, which belong to ANEM, a network established in 1996 by B92.

Mirkovic was replaced by a member of the Socialist Party of Serbia, Aleksandar Nikacevic.

Lent Receives Newman’s Own/PEN First Amendment Award

ReLeah Lent, the former adviser to Lynn Haven (FL) Mosley High School newspaper, Making Waves, will receive this year’s Newman’s Own/PEN First Amendment award.

Lent, who had sued the Bay County School District in 1998 for reinstatement in her position as advisor to Making Waves, was reinstated last June, but not as its advisor. Lent received a $120,000 settlement from the school board, and was reinstated at Mosley as a debate instructor and debate program sponsor, teaching two speech classes and three English classes.

Principal Bill Husfelt did not renew Lent’s contract, because, among other reasons, the newspaper’s content was “too negative.” He said he also was responsible for protecting Mosley students and teachers from “undue criticism.” He was referring to Lent’s allowing her student reporters to publish a satirical “what if” characterization of other students, such as “what if” a minister’s daughter was caught smoking.

Each spring, the PEN American Center awards the PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award, $25,000 and a limited-edition artwork, to a U.S. resident who has fought courageously, despite adversity, to safeguard the First Amendment right to freedom of expression as it applies to the written word.

To apply, contact PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award, PEN American Center, 568 Broadway, Suite 401, New York, NY 10012, or PEN’s Web site at http://www.pen.org/freedom/nomination.html.

ACLU Opposes Wichita Falls Resolution

According to Wichita Falls Coalition Against Censorship (WFAC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has agreed to officially oppose the resolution passed in February by the Wichita Falls City Council allowing petitioners to determine whether a book or publication in the “children’s areas” of the Wichita Falls (TX) Public Library (WFPL) should be removed and placed in the “adult areas.” The ACLU also will provide assistance to those who want to fight it in court.

The council adopted this resolution after of months of local debate over whether to remove Heather Has Two Mommies, by Leslea Newman, and Daddy’s Roommate, by Michael Willhoite, from the “children’s areas” of the Wichita Falls Public Library. Since both couples in these children’s books, one lesbian, the other gay, are depicted in loving relationships, some in the community believe the books promote homosexuality to children.

WFCAC has been informing the Office for Intellectual Freedom on the situation. For additional information, see the January/February 1999, Action News and WFCAC’s Web site.

Update on Byers v. Edmondson

Film director Oliver Stone was ordered to give a deposition on April 14 in Byers v. Edmondson, a case in which Sarah Edmondson and Benjamin Darras allegedly were inspired by his 1994 film Natural Born Killers to act out the violent behavior they viewed.

Edmondson has been sentenced to 35 years for shooting and paralyzing Patsy Byers, who later died of cancer; Darras was sentenced to life in prison for killing a Mississippi cotton gin worker, William Savage. Edmondson and Darras are said to have watched Natural Born Killers repeatedly. Edmondson told authorities the film, which portrays a couple who kill 52 people in three weeks, inspired her and Darras to commit similar crimes.

Attorneys for Stone and Time Warner, which produced and distributed Natural Born Killers, and those for the Byers family, including Patsy Byers’ husband Lonnie and their three children, are expected to ask that the hearing on the suit, scheduled for April 19, be postponed.

In July 1995, Patsy Byers sued Stone and Time Warner, alleging they were responsible for Edmondson injuring her because they intended Natural Born Killers to incite copycat crimes. Louisiana District Court Judge Robert Morrison dismissed the suit against Oliver and Time Warner in January 1997 because, he said, the First Amendment protected them and “the law simply does not recognize [such] a cause of action.” In May 1998, however, the Louisiana 1st Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that the First Amendment argument presented by the defendants was insufficient against the allegations presented by Byers’ attorneys. This appellate court relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit’s decision in Rice v. Paladin, the Hit Man case, which held that the publisher of a book providing instructions on how to carry out a contract killing could be liable for aiding and abetting a murder, and allowed that case to proceed to trial.

With an amicus brief joined by the Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF), Oliver and Time Warner petitioned the Louisiana Supreme Court in July 1998 to hear their case. They pointed out that “no court in American has ever held a filmmaker or film distributor liable for injuries allegedly resulting from imitation of a film” and argued that “the specter of such boundless liability would cause those who create movies, music, books, and other creative works to avoid controversial or provocative subjects.” In October 1998, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled 7-0 to deny their request. The defendants petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, and in March 1999, the Supreme Court also denied to hear their case. The Supreme Court petition was again supported with an amicus brief joined by FTRF. With the High Court’s denial, the case is proceeding to trial.

If Louisiana finds Stone and Time Warner liable for creating and distributing Natural Born Killers, the case undoubtedly will affect how and what authors and filmmakers create, and who or what could be liable for distributing or making available those works.

As Robert O’Neil, founder of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression told free! (The Freedom Forum Online), “The Natural Born Killers case in Louisiana is very worrisome because we argued that if the Hit Man concept prevailed, there was no logical reason why it could not be extended to works of fiction.”

The Book (Movie) Made Me Do It!

On Monday, June 28, during ALA’s 1999 Annual Conference in New Orleans, the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee and the Association of American Publishers, Inc./Freedom to Read Committee will present “The Book (Movie) Made Me Do It!: Is There a Causal Link between Reading and Viewing and Copycat Behavior?”

This panel discussion, scheduled from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m., will discuss whether there is a new limit to free speech being drawn in light of Byers v. Edmondson, a case brought against film director Oliver Stone and the producers of the 1994 film Natural Born Killers, that reading a book or watching a movie can cause “copycat” behavior. Also discussed will be how such a limit on free speech could affect libraries and television, movies, books, and other creative works. Audience participation will be encouraged.

Panel members are Peter Irons, professor of political science, University of California-San Diego, director, Earl Warren Bill of Rights Project, and Rodney A. Smolla, George Allen Professor of Law, T.C. Williams School of Law, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA. Moderating the discussion is R. Bruce Rich, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, counsel to the AAP Freedom to Read Committee. Introducing the program is Patricia S. Schroeder, president and chief executive officer, Association of American Publishers.

Consult the ALA Conference program book or call Nanette Perez in mid-May at the Office for Intellectual Freedom (800-545-2433, ext. 4223) for the program’s location.

Nolo Files Suit

On March 17, Nolo Press, a leading publisher of self-help law books and software, filed an Original Petition for Declaratory Judgment in Travis County District Court (Austin) against the Texas Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (UPLC). This action is a result of a letter written by the UPLC to Nolo in June 1997 citing Nolo’s do-it-yourself Living Trust Maker - 2.0 software and user’s guide as constituting “the unauthorized practice of law.”

Nolo reports it has been joined in its suit by six Texas Nolo customers, the Texas Library Association “on behalf of the many Texas public libraries that carry Nolo products and that understand the importance of these products to people handling their own legal tasks” and the American Association of Law Libraries “on behalf of the many Texas law libraries that consider Nolo’s products an integral part of their own collections.” The suit seeks a judgment that “Nolo’s books and software do not practice law and that banning Nolo[’s] products would violate the constitutional rights of all concerned.”

Nolo also reports it is bringing its case under the Free Speech and Press and Open Courts provisions of the Texas Constitution, which it says “provide even broader protections than the U.S. Constitution.” Nolo will attempt to demonstrate that “self-help legal publishing has a long history in the United States and in Texas,” and that the UPLC’s efforts to ban “useful books and software run contrary to [Texas’] traditions of independence and self-reliance.”

As reported in the October issue of IFAN, following frustrated attempts to learn specifics about unauthorized practice of law charges raised by the State of Texas, on July 24, Nolo Press filed a lawsuit in the Texas Supreme Court to compel the UPLC to disclose what documents it has relating to the charges, as well as information about the committee’s rules and procedures, the membership of its subcommittees and meeting schedules, agendas, and minutes. Not disclosing this information, Nolo argued, violates fundamental principles of open government and due process. The Supreme Court heard the case in October 1998, but has yet issued a decision.

For the latest information, see Nolo Press.

IFC’s 1999 Spring Meeting

The Intellectual Freedom Committee held its Spring Meeting on March 26–28 in Skokie, Illinois. Its agenda included topics ranging from an update on the March 12 meeting on filtering software, arranged by ALA President Ann Symons—where members of the intellectual freedom community came face to face with representatives of filtering and Internet software development firms—to a discussion about enhancing the connection between the association’s many programs concerning children/young adults and the profession’s intellectual freedom policies addressing those same age groups.

The IFC discussed at length the status of ALA’s Resolution on the Use of Filtering Software in Libraries. The committee unanimously concluded that no alteration should be made to that resolution, which affirms that use of filtering software to block access to constitutionally protected speech violates the Library Bill of Rights. To clarify the resolution and its import, the IFC has begun to draft a document to give further guidance to libraries applying the policy statement.

The committee took the first steps to prepare the sixth edition of the Intellectual Freedom Manual. As with all previous editions, the IFC will review all intellectual freedom policies, including Interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights and other statements, to ensure their vitality.

The IFC addressed the recent report of the ALA Outsourcing Task Force and the Council directive to the committee to review that report and its recommendations, and determine appropriate action. The IFC began to frame issues to evaluate the report according to principles of intellectual freedom. Those issues concern privatization, selection of library resources, reconsideration, and cataloging. A full report will be given at the upcoming Annual Conference.

In addition to the above, the committee discussed the changing relationship between the Intellectual Freedom Committee and the Intellectual Freedom Round Table, as well as the proposal for Annual Conference programming and the Congress on Professional Education.

Oklahoma City Settles Lawsuit Over Tin Drum Seizures

Oklahoma City has agreed to pay $400,000 in attorney fees to the Video Software Dealers Association, the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, and an Oklahoma City video store, Southwest Video Rentals, the plaintiffs in Video Software Dealers Association, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City (the Tin Drum case), for violating the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, which protects the “personally identifiable information” of video store customers.

The suit originated in July 1997 following the seizure by Oklahoma City police of all copies of the 1979 Academy-Award winning German film Tin Drum that could be found in local video outlets, the public library, and homes of those who had rented the video.

A month earlier, Oklahomans for Children and Families (OCAF), believing the film was pornographic, had requested the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Library System to remove Tin Drum from its collection. Because the library refused to do so, an OCAF member checked out the video and asked Oklahoma State District Court Judge Richard Freeman to determine if the film was obscene. Judge Freeman ruled that Tin Drum, for depicting a then 11-year-old actor, David Bennent, with a then 24-year-old actress, Katharina Thalbach, in implied sexual acts or in observing her in a sexual activity with another, violated Oklahoma’s child pornography statute.

On October 21, 1998, U.S. District Judge Ralph Thompson ruled that the scenes in question portrayed in Tin Drum were part of a bone fide artistic work and do not warrant the film’s “subjection to the criminal penalties of the child pornography statute.”

Kids Have Rights/Parents Have Responsibilities/Librarians Have Ulcers!

What do we mean when we say parents should guide their own children’s use of the library, and how do parents feel about that? Come explore who is responsible for a minor’s use of the library, especially since the advent of public access to the Internet.

Parry Aftab, lawyer, parent, and author of A Parents’ Guide to the Internet, will present her perspective on these questions. Reacting to her presentation will be a panel of librarians consisting of Steven L. Herb, head, Education Library, Pennsylvania State University Libraries, State College, PA, and chair, ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee; Pamela R. Klipsch, Youth Services Librarian, Hayner Public Library District, Alton, IL; Susan E. Oliver, Principal Librarian, Tampa - Hillsborough County Public Library, North Tampa Branch, Tampa, FL; and Jill K. Patterson, Senior Librarian, Glendora Public Library, Glendora, CA.

Introducing the program, scheduled for Saturday, June 26, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. during the 1999 Annual Conference, will be IFRT Chair Carolyn Caywood, Virginia Beach Public Library, Virginia Beach, VA.

Consult the ALA Conference program book or call Nanette Perez in mid-May at the Office for Intellectual Freedom (800-545-2433, ext. 4223) for the program’s location.

IFRT offers the links found on its Web site at http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ifrt_prg.html as background information for the program and as a resource for all who want young people to use the Internet safely and sensibly.

Celebrating the LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund

Dr. LeRoy C. Merritt was one of the library profession’s staunchest opponents of censorship. He was a chairperson of the California Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee and a member of the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee. Editor of the American Library Association’s Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom from 1962 to 1970, he was the first recipient of the Robert B. Downs, Intellectual Freedom Award, His book, Book Selection and Intellectual Freedom was published in 1970 by H.W. Wilson. Dr. Merritt’s career included public and college library work. During this twenty-four years as a library school professor and dean, he inspired many students and librarians to resist censorship.

Since 1970, The LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund has provided financial assistance for the support, maintenance, medical care, legal fees, and welfare of librarians who have been discriminated against or denied employment rights because of gender, age, race, color, creed, sexual orientation, place of national origin, and defense of intellectual freedom.

The Merritt Fund is supported entirely by donations from concerned groups and individuals-to date it has received no grants or funds from outside groups.

Working librarians are encouraged to defend the public’s rights to access all kinds of information in all formats. When librarians respond to this plea and take steps to defend the public’s rights, some of them lose their own rights and end up unemployed or pressured to act in ways contrary to their beliefs and the policies of their professional associations. That is when these librarians need financial aid for lawyers, filing fees, and other expenses. The trustees of the LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund urge you as advocates of intellectual freedom and the right to read to contribute to the fund established in honor of the first recipient of the Robert B. Downs Intellectual Freedom Award, Dr. LeRoy C. Merritt. Funds raised go directly to librarians who place their jobs in jeopardy in order to protect everyone’s right to read.

Please support the Merritt Fund by sending a check, made payable to The LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund, to

LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund
50 E. Huron Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611

Note: Because the Fund makes grants directly to individuals, donations are not tax-deductible.

You may contact the Merritt Fund trustees at:

Bernadine Abbott Hoduski, Senior Trustee, 100 North Lamborn, Helena, MT 59601-4623; H: (406) 449-9974; F: (406) 449-9974; e-mail: ber@initco.net

Deborah Jacobs, City Librarian, Seattle Public Library, 1000 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1193; O: (206) 386-4102; F: (206) 386-4119; e-mail: jacobsd@halcyon.com

Pamela Bonnell, Director of Library Services, Waco-McLennan County Library, 1717 Austin Avenue, Waco, TX 76701-1741; O: (254) 750-5946; F: (254) 750-5940; e-mail: pbonnell@ci.waco.tx.us


Intellectual Freedom Action News (formerly Memorandum) (ISSN 0734-3086) is published monthly by the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. Distributed free to the Chapter Intellectual Freedom Committees, the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee, the Division Intellectual Freedom Committees, the Freedom to Read Foundation of Trustees, and Intellectual Freedom Action Network members. Available on subscription for $25.00 per year. Subscription and editorial mail should be addressed to the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, 50 E. Huron, Chicago, IL 60611, (312) 280-4223, or to e-mail to dwood@ala.org. This publication is available online at http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ifan_pub.html.


Links to non-ALA sites have been provided because these sites may have information of interest. Neither the American Library Association nor the Office for Intellectual Freedom necessarily endorses the views expressed or the facts presented on these sites; and furthermore, ALA and OIF do not endorse any commercial products that may be advertised or available on these sites.



0:0