Library Lockout
Unless you've spent the last few years with your head buried in a dusty hardcover, you probably know book ban debates are raging like never before. But are you also aware that the staunchest defenders of controversial graphic novels have no qualms about censoring authors of a different ilk? Each and every day, to wit, countless websites are stealthily blocked by American libraries.
This Is Personal
To be honest, I had no knowledge this was happening until I randomly heard an interview with former State Department insider Mike Benz. Upon reflection, it elucidated a confusing situation I had experienced roughly three weeks earlier in Coconino County, Arizona.
On the day in question, I was scheduled to meet with a source. I decided it would be beneficial to print off a pair of my articles related to the subject of our discussion. So, I made a beeline for the closest library branch and logged into one of their public computers. After about five minutes of trying to get any of the three installed browsers to connect to the dcequalizer.com website, I asked a nearby librarian for assistance. She, too, was unable to succeed on the desktop I had chosen. Fortunately, she had no issues performing the same task on her workstation.
In the moment, I speculated that some sort of firewall was making things play out that way. And it had to be relatively new, since I had never before encountered any problems pulling up The DC Equalizer when visiting that location.
Little did I know this nuisance was part of a grand agenda to squelch independent voices...
Testing The Theory
With eyes now wide open thanks to the Benz insight, I walked into a branch of the DC Public Library (DCPL) chosen arbitrarily. I repeated the same simple chore I had tried to perform in Arizona. Yet again, my attempt to directly interface with The DC Equalizer was rebuffed. [It should be stated that these same three browsers instantly displayed sites like ESPN, NPR, and PBS.]
What's truly interesting was that a Google search for "dc equalizer" was permitted and provided backdoor access. This added wrinkle launched me out of my chair to speak with the staff. As luck would have it, I found an extremely knowledgeable senior librarian who abruptly stopped talking mid-sentence once she began explaining her personal views of the library's filtering policy. Yes -- she censored herself presumably out of fear that her heartfelt opinion might jeopardize her job!
This woman quickly pivoted to inform me that these decisions were really under the purview of the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) and were enforced districtwide. She then pointed out how there was an appeals process to get sites unblocked. In her example, a med student needing research information could jump through hoops to retrieve forbidden material.
Without a doubt, the most mindboggling portion of our conversation pertained to the three offenses she articulated as being worthy of a DCPL website ban: gambling, hate speech, and pornography involving minors. This led me to ask if virtually all other pornography is acceptable. She affirmed this notion with two caveats: porn can't be consumed in areas where children are, and users can be asked to utilize a laptop (or pause when no device is available) if employees feel sexually harassed. To reiterate, the public library actively suppresses social commentary websites while offering a smorgasbord of accommodations to sickos who want to watch hardcore smut.
How It Works
After duplicating these results at another DCPL branch, I twice reached out to OCTO to inquire about their policies. My message focused on broadly establishing if they use a filter and getting advice on how to temporarily bypass blocks on sites that are inaccessible. It took ten days to get the briefest response -- wherein they merely told me to contact the "OCTO Web Team" at a separate email address without even the courtesy of carbon copying their internal partner.
OCTO's lack of attentiveness bolsters Benz's assertion. Still, is it actually possible that public libraries are using hidden browser extensions to blacklist and bury sites that've been deemed peddlers of misinformation by whatever corporate/governmental blob furnishes these products?
A look at the DCPL Internet and Wireless Use Policy page all but confirms it, in fact. They admit they "sometimes block useful material." It's easy to see how this disclaimer serves as a convenient shield from backlash when people learn that perfectly "suitable" perspectives have been relegated to the void.
But why does libraries do it? Paraphrasing their own language, DCPL is required to use repressive filters on their computers if they want to receive certain federal funds. For the record, we're not talking huge stacks of cash either. Basic research shows a scant 5%-10% of expenditures go toward computer stuff.
Ergo, it's not cost-prohibitive to stick up for populist websites; many libraries just choose not to.*
Going one level deeper, organizations like DCPL are compelled to comply with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). By the name alone, it seems innocent enough, right? Well, it's not. Like many ideas that originate on Capitol Hill, it's the ones that sound benign that we should worry about the most. And this one is so twisted it's virtually been turned inside out.
CIPA, signed into law at the very end of the Clinton presidency, was the third foray aimed at restricting indecent content; the initial two were denied by the Supreme Court for trampling First Amendment rights. [Ahem!] This version snuck through largely because of the inconceivable influence one library-techie-turned-filtering-mercenary had on the appellate decision. The justices etched in stone a future where libraries who don't want to opt-out of the federal (and often state grant) gravy train can mask Internet categories as long as they don't block without remedy on an individual website basis. In other words, the door was thrown open to ostracization by vague association, complete with the built-in excuse of 'accidental' inclusions onto banned registries.
Ready for a profoundly infuriating detail? The American Library Association (ALA) and ACLU of two decades ago recognized how unconstitutional this was but have abandoned the battle ever since. Following their unsuccessful 2003 appeal, where an ACLU senior staff attorney called CIPA "unequivocally a form of censorship," they spun their loss as a quasi-win by dint of the ruling allowing adults to beg for withheld Internet forums. Of course, there is no guarantee that a draconian decision maker will oblige requests made by the subsection of customers willing to put forth the requisite time and effort. More importantly, it ignores the obvious reality that websites enter the public's blind spot when rendered invisible by the filter... not to mention all the negative connotations (regarding legitimacy, partnerships, et cetera) that quarantining content engenders.
Unfiltered Conclusion
Isn't it ironic that a Congressional act ostensibly intended to protect children from obscene material has banished opinion websites from the same lobbies where vulgarity still flows freely? According to one Maryland librarian I spoke with, "You can see porn here. People look at porn all the time. (We) have to let them."
A lot of groups deserve blame for authorizing this perversion of free speech. Our government and the highest court in the land are responsible for foisting these conditions upon us. Likewise, the ALA should be embarrassed for not only going along with it but for casting themselves as champions in the war against censorship.
Last but not least, are the companies that libraries allow to "exercise unknown and unaccountable influence" over who/what gets filtered and how/why it's done. As the ALA concedes, "Filters thus become the tool of bias and discrimination and marginalize users by denying or abridging their access to these materials." Furthermore, the ALA confesses, "This dilemma is exacerbated by the secrecy surrounding category definitions and settings maintained by the filtering industry, frequently under the guise of trade secrets." This business model has been known to kneecap media organizations that don't adhere to accepted media narratives. It's not uncommon for some of these 'solutions' to vigorously throw around terms like misinformation despite being culpable of dealing in it themselves. Yet they are the arbiters of the public square? Pure poppycock.
[FYI: I wrote an in-depth piece on the misinformation industry back in June. Lo and behold, The DC Equalizer is now on library naughty lists. That's one heck of a coincidence... and one I can't fully investigate because, in the ultimate paradox, filter vendors' terms of service effectually preclude critics from scrutinizing their products.]
It's all so disheartening. As I intimated to one affable librarian, it feels wrong for unseen wizards behind the curtain to mute a website created to support the downtrodden. True to form, her momentary mortification was washed away by a wave of adherence to protocol and procedure.
The mad-about-book-bans clan does not fight for writers like me. That much is clear. But it doesn't mean they never will, given a steady course of action. Instruct your friends to deploy this showstopping interjection any time they are within earshot of the holier-than-thou hypocrites:
"If you're so concerned about censorship, will you join me in petitioning just one of the innumerable libraries that are silently blacklisting thousands of online authors today?"
* Full credit should be given to the fraction of library systems that continue to eschew tainted money to maintain free speech.
Note: the post above may contain commentary reflecting the author's opinion.
This site does not render legal advice, nor does it intend to replace legal advice.
