NSLS Blogs

Home » Blogs » Ad Lib: Advocacy for Libraries

RSS

Ad Lib: Advocacy for Libraries

February 28, 2007

Call To Action!

ILA has shone the Advocate Signal into the sky, and it’s time to respond! This action alert just hit my inbox:

ILA Update # 4
ACTION ALERT

Call Judiciary I, Civil Law Committee Members Now!
Please contact the following members of the Illinois House of Representatives Judiciary I, Civil Law Committee and urge them to vote against Mandatory Internet Filters on Public Library Computers House Bill (HB) 1727.

HB 1727 was introduced on Thursday, 22 February 2007 by Representative Kevin Joyce, D-35, Worth….

Representative Joyce introduced the last mandatory Internet filter legislation in 2005 that would have mandated Internet filters on all government funded library computers. This more tailored proposal, HB 1727, could be part of his effort to divide and conquer the library community by targeting just public libraries. Other bills could and have been targeted at the academic community and school library community (House Bill 1226). The bill could be heard by the committee as early as Wednesday, 7 March 2007.

You can find out who is on Judiciary I here. NSLS legislators on the committee include Reps. Julie Hamos, Lou Lang, Sidney Mathias, Elaine Nekritz, and JoAnn Osmond.

Need some talking points? ILA’s got you covered:

The Illinois Library Association (”ILA”) opposes House Bill 1727 which would require installation of mandatory Internet filters on all public library computers. This comprehensive ban on free access to the Internet would apply to even computers used exclusively by adults. ILA supports local control. Local officials –library trustees, librarians, and other professional library staff – are the most qualified to decide how Internet access should be provided to their patrons. House Bill 1727 overrules all local decisions and imposes a “one size fits all” approach. In contrast, ILA supports House Bill (HB) 660 and Senate Bill (SB) 1472, which mandates schools to teach Internet safety to students.

ILA opposes mandatory filters because:

Filters Hurt Libraries!
This legislation is an unfunded mandate that overrides local control. This legislation even places libraries at risk for civil suits by “any citizen,” fines, and perjury prosecutions. Even if the library prevails in all these suits, the library would incur attorneys’ fees and costs to defend claims filed under the legislation.

Filters Don’t Work!
Study after study has demonstrated that filters consistently block important information on science, health, political, and social issues and regularly allow objectionable material to get through. This creates new liability for libraries.

Filters are Expensive!
Paying for filters diverts scarce resources from limited technology budgets. Money that could go to buying more computers, and paying for more reliable and faster Internet access. Typical network installation is $10,000, plus about $3,000 per year. This is enough to buy twenty computers and pay for Internet access.

Filters are Inflexible!
Filters don’t know if the person using the computer is 5, 21, or 65. This “one size fits all” approach treats adults, even senior citizens, like elementary school children. The user doesn’t even know what they are being prevented from accessing. We can’t expect patrons to ask to unblock computers when they don’t know what that particular filter has blocked.

Filters are Biased!
Private companies and groups with commercial, political, or religious agendas design filters to block what THEY find objectionable, including political candidates, social causes, basic health information, and even information on their own product’s faults.

Filters Hurt the Poor!
Less wealthy communities are the most in need of technology because more of their patrons lack these resources at home. This legislation forces less affluent areas to choose between filling this need or spending money just to block access.

So there you go. Give your legislators a call, and once you’ve talked to them, let us know how it went either here in comments or on the Advocacy CoP.

posted by Alan at 11:41 am | Comments (0)

We Accept It! We Reject It!

ILA has weighed in on upcoming state legislation: the most recent ILA update spells out which bills ILA supports, which it opposes, and which it’s neutral on. All told, there are nine supported bills, eight opposed bills, and five neutral bills. To break it down simply:

ILA supports bills regarding Public Library District Annexation, the Open Meetings Act, the Public Library District Act, petition requirements for library board candidates, the state library’s Literacy Advisory Board, mandatory Internet safety education, and tax cap flexibility.

ILA opposes bills regarding expanded and extended tax caps, mandatory computer filters (including the infamous social network site ban), registered sex offenders’ access to libraries as voting facilities, and changes to the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund.

ILA is neutral on bills regarding appropriations for a state library partnership, the Illinois Library Records Confidentiality Act, and libraries being provided with lists of area sex offenders.

So there’s a lot of stuff in there—some of it more exciting than others, but all of it important. Check out ILA Update #3 for the nitty-gritty details on all of these.

posted by Alan at 8:55 am | Comments (0)

February 22, 2007

Legislators vs. Social Networks, Rounds Two and Three

It’s the legislation that won’t go away.

ILA has let us know about a bill that was introduced to the Illinois General Assembly by Palatine’s Matt Murphy:

Senate Bill 1682

Creates the Social Networking Web site Prohibition Act. Provides that each public library must prohibit access to social networking Web sites on all computers made available to the public in the library. Provides that each public school must prohibit access to social networking Web sites on all computers made available to students in the school. Provides for enforcement by the Attorney General or a citizen. Amends the State Mandates Act to require implementation without reimbursement. Effective January 1, 2008.

And now we learn that, last Friday, Rep. Mark Kirk has brought back his Deleting Online Predators Act:

Kirk’s bill appears to be identical to a version of the House proposal that earned overwhelming approval last summer. It would require schools and libraries that receive a certain breed of federal subsidies known as E-Rate to certify that they are blocking access to any “commercial social networking Web site or chat room unless used for an educational purpose with adult supervision.”

ALA has not been shy about their position on the issue, and you shouldn’t be either. Take a minute to contact Sen. Murphy and Rep. Kirk to let them know where you stand on this issue.

There’s even a direct opportunity to approach Sen. Murphy: Tonight, from 5:00 – 6:30, he will be hosting an online discussion on his blog to address this issue, and why he thinks it’s important. It’s too bad Sen. Murphy’s sense of irony isn’t more finely honed, though… He could’ve had this meeting on MySpace.

posted by Alan at 8:32 am | Comments (3)

February 1, 2007

No School Librarian Left Behind

By way of the School Library Journal, we learn that ALA is trying to use the pending reauthorization of No Child Left Behind to help school libraries:

The American Library Association (ALA) is lobbying lawmakers to ensure that the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act includes a provision that all K–12 schools have a state-certified media specialist.
…
“We want school library media specialists to be considered ‘highly qualified,’” Sheketoff adds. “We want the language to say that every school should have a state-certified library media specialist.”

This is an interesting use of federal legislation, and a logical expansion of NCLB from the library perspective. There’s no formal legislation in place, but this will be one to keep an eye on in coming months.

posted by Alan at 1:46 pm | Comments (0)