Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 170

RESPONSE to Motion re 150 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's State Law Claims, 148 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Federal Claims filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (APP, )

ALA I Freedom to Read Statement

ALA

Page 1 of3

American
Library
Association

The Freedom to Read Statement
The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack. Private groups and public authorities in
various parts of the country are working to remove or limit access to reading materials. to censor content in schools, to label
"controversiar views. to distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors. and to purge libraries. These actions apparenUy
rise from a view that OUr nattonal tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to
counterthreats to safety or nattonal security. as _II as to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals. We, as
individuals devoted to reading and as librarians and publishers responsible for disseminating ideas, Wish to assert the public
interest in the preservation of the freedom to read.
Most attempts at suppression rest on a denial of the fundamental premise of damocracy: that the ordinary individual, by
exercising critk:al judgment, will select the good and reject the bad. We trust Americans to recognize propaganda and
mislnfonnation, and to make their own decisions about what they read and believe. We do not believe they are prepared to
sacrifice their heritage of a free press in order to be "protected" against what others think may be bad for them. We believe
they still favor free enterprise in ideas and expression.
These efforts at suppression are related to a larger pattern of pressures being brought egainst education, the press, an and
images, films, broadcast media, and the Internet. The problem is not only one of ectual censorship. The shadow of fear cast by
these pressures leads, we suspect, to an even larger voluntary curtailment of expression by those who seek to avoid
controversy or unwelcome scrutiny by govemment officials.
Such pressure toward confonnity Is perhaps natural to a time of accelerated change. And yet suppression is never more
dangerous then in such a time of social tension. Freedom hes given the Un~ed States the etesticity to endure strain. Freedom
keeps open the path of novel and creative solutions, and enables change to come by choice. Every silencing of a heresy,
every enforcement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal
wtth controversy and difference.
Now as always in our history, reading Is among our greatest freedoms. The freedom to read and write is almost the only
means for making generally available ideas or manners of expression that can inrtiaUy command only a small audience. The
written word is the netural medium for the new idea and the untried vOice from which come the original contributions to social
growth. It is essential to the extended discussion that serious thought requires. and to the accumulation of knowledge and
ideas into organized collections.

We believe that free communk:ation is essential to the preservation of a free soctety and a creative culture. We believe that
these pressures toward confonnity present the danger of limiting the range and variety of inquiry and expression on which our
democracy and our cuHure depend. We believe that every American community must jealously guard the freedom to publish
and to circulate, in order to preserve its own freedom to read. We believe that publishers and Hbrerians have a profound
responsibility to give validity to that freedom to read by making it possible for the readers to choose freely from a variaty of
offerings.
The freedom to read is guaranteed by the Constitution. Those w~h faith in free people will sland finn on these constitutional
guarantees of essential rights and will exercise the responsibilities that accompany these rights.

We therefore affirm these propositions:

1. It is in the public interest for publishers and libranans to make available the widest diver.Jity of views and expressions,
including /hose /hat are unodhodox. unpopular, orconsidered dangerous by the majority.
Creative thought is by definition new, and what is new is different. The bearer of every new thought is a rebel until that
idea is retlned and tested. Totalitarian systems attempt to maintain themselves in power by the ruthless suppreSSion of
any concept that challenges the established orthodoxy. The power of a democratic system to adapt to change is vastly
strengthened by the freedom of its citizens to choose widely from among conflicting opinions offered freely to them. To
sUfie every nonconformist idea at birth would mark the end of the democratic procass. Furthermore. only through the

http://www.a1a.orgla\a/aboutala/officesloiflstatementspolslflrstatementlfreedomreadstate...1112112011

ALA I Freedom to Read Statement

Page2of3

constant activity of weighing and selecting can the democratic mind attain lhe strength demanded by limes like Ihese,
We need to know not only what we believe but why we believe n,
2, Publishers, librarians, and bookseHers do not need to endorse every idea or presentation they make available, It would
conflict with Ihe public interest for them to establish their own political, moral, or aesthelic views as a s/andatri for
determining what should be published or circulated.
Publishers and librarians serve Ihe educational process by helping to make available knowledge and ideas required for
the growth 01 Ihe mind and the increase 01 learning, They do not foster education by imposing as mentors the patterns
of their own though!. The people should have the freedom to read and consider a broader range of ideas than those
that may be held by any single librarian or publisher or government or murch. It is wrong that what one can read should
be confined to what another thinks proper.

3, It is contrary to the public intems! for publishers or librarians to bar access to writings on Ihe basis of the personal
histoty or political affllialions of the author.
No art or literature can flourish if it is to be measured by the political views or private lives 01 its creators, No society of
free people can flourish that draws up lists of writers to whom it will not listen, whatever they may have to say,

4, There IS no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed
suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression.
To some, mum of modem expression is shocking. But is not mum 01 lije itself shocking? We cui off hlerature althe
source if we prevent writers from dealing with the stuff 01 lije. Parents and teamers have a responsibility to prepare the
young to meet the diversitY 01 experiences in life 10 which lhey will be exposed, as they have a responsibility \0 help
them leam to think critically for themselves. These are affinnative responsibilities, not to be discharged simply by
preventing them from reading worlls for which they are not yet prepared, In these matters values differ, and values
cannot be legislated; nor can maminery be devised that will suit the demands 01 one group without limiting the freedom
01 others,

5, II is not in the public In/emst to force a reader to accept Ihe prejudgment of a label chataCterizing any expression or Its
author as subvemjye or dangerous.
The ideal of labeling presupposes the existence of Individuals or groups with wisdom to datermine by authority whet is
good or bad for others. II presupposes that individuals must be directed in making up their minds about the ideas they
examine. But Americans do not need others 10 do their thinking for them,

6, It is Ihe msponslblJity of publishem and librarians, as guatriians of Ihe people's freedom to read, to contest
encroachments upon that freedom by Individuals or groups seeking to Impose their own standatris or tastes upon the
community at laTge; and by the government whenever It seeks to reduce or deny public access to pubHc infol1Tlalion.
It is inevnable in lhe give and take of the democratic process that the political, the moral, or the aesthetic concepts 01 an
individual or group will occasionatly collide with those 01 another indMduai or group. In a free society individuals are free
to determine for themselves what they wish to read, and each group is free to determine what it will recommend 10 its
freely associated members. But no group has the right to take the law into its own hands, and to impose its own
concept of politics or morality upon other members 01 a democratic society, Freedom is no freedom if it is accorded only
to the accepted and the inoffensive, Further, democratic sociBhes are more safe, free, and creative when the free flow
01 public infonnation is nol restricted by govemmental prerogative or self-censorship.
7, It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians to give fuN meaning to the freedom to read by providing books that
enrich the quality and diversity of thought and expression. By the exercise of this affil1Tlatlve responsibility, they can
demonstrate that the answer to a "bad" bOOk Is 8 good one, Ihe answer to a "bad" idea is a good one.
The freedom to read is of lillie consequence when the reader cannol oblain matter fil for Ihal readers purpose. What is
needed is not only the absence 01 restraint, but the positive provision of opportunity for the people 10 read the best thai
has been thought and said, Books are the major channel by which the intellectual inheritance is handed down, and Ihe
principal means 01 no testing and growth. The defense 01 the freedom 10 read requires 01 all publishers and librarians
the utmost 01 their facuHies, and deserves 01 all Americans the fullest of their support.

We state these propositions neither lighlly nor as easy generalizations. We here stake out a lofty claim for Ihe value of the
written word. We do so beCllu&e we believe that il is possessed of enormous variety and usefulness, worthy of cherishing and
keeping free. We realize that Ihe application of these propositions may mean Ihe dissemination of ideas and manners 01
expression that are repugnant to many persons. We do not state these propositions in lhe comfortable belief that what people
read is unimportant. We believe ralher thai what people read is deeply imporian~ thai ideas can be dangerous; but that the
suppression 01 ideas is fatal to a democratic society. Freedom itsetf is a dangerous way 01 life, but nis ours,
This statemenl was originally issued in May 01 1953 by the Westchester Conference of the American Library Association and
the American Book Publishers Council, whim in 1970 consolidated with Ihe American Educational Publishers Insutute to
become Ihe Association 01 American Publishers,

http://www.ala.orglalaiaboutalalofficesioiflstatementspolslftrstatementifreedomreadstate...

11121/2011

ALA I Freedom to Read Statement

Page 3 of3

Adopted June 25,1953, by 1he ALA Council and Ihe AAP Freedom to Read Committee; amended January 28, 1972.; January
16,1991; July 12, 2000; June 30,2004.

A Joint Statement by:
American Library AsSOCiation
Association of American Publishers

Subsequently endorsed by:
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
The AssQcjation of American University Presses, Inc,
The Children's Book Council
Freedom to Read Foundation
National Association of College Stores
National CoalRlon Against Censorship
National Council of Teaciher. of EOOlish
The Thomas Jefferson Cemer for the Protection of Free Expression

Related Files
• Freedom to Read Statement

Related Links
• Adobe Reader
American Library Association ISO E Huron, Chicago IL 60611 11,800,545,2433
2011 C American Library Association

http://www.a1a.org/alalaboutalalofficesloiflstatementspolslftrstatementifreedomreadstate...1112112011