Whose Community, Whose Values?

Ohio Libraries, Summer 2004 by French, Jeff

For the past several months, the Ohio Library Council has been embroiled in debate with Ohio legislators and Internet filtering proponents regarding Substitute Senate Bill 144, which could affect library policy and procedures relating to information access via the Internet and through audiovisual materials. The bill is currently in consideration by the Ohio House Juvenile and Family Law Committee.

The legislation currently has three provisions, specifically: it forbids libraries from using any state funding (LLGSF) for computers or Internet connections unless they install filters on their public computers with Internet access; it requires parental permission for a library to lend any motion pictures, or possibly any audiovisual materials and games, to minors; and it forbids providing minors with pre-paid adult entertainment cards, an issue that has no relationship to library services. A proposed amendment may require a ratings system for all audiovisual (AV) material. Whatever form the final bill takes, the filtering and AV requirements attempt to prevent public access to material that is obscene or harmful to minors. Libraries are aware of the faults of filtering, such as the overblocking of perfectly legitimate, legal material recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States, and are therefore concerned with the potential effects of this bill.

Throughout these debates regarding Sub. SB 144, proponents of the legislation, such as Citizens for Community Values (CCV), whose name strives to present their views as somehow representative of the values of our communities, have testified in favor of the bill. When a group purports to represent "community values," how should libraries respond? Who could argue against community values? After all, don't we strive to represent our communities?

Yes, but there is more to community values than that: simply put, their idea of community values is off the mark. CCV presents their views as if they were representative of the majority, even though that may not be true. They represent one aspect, and only one part of our communities' values. Even if it were true that they represent the majority view, the idea of the majority as representative of community values is still off the mark: the idea of community values is more complex.

A group like CCV cannot speak for community values as if they can identify one set of values to which libraries should respond. While they do represent one aspect of a community's multiple values, their beliefs cannot be used to interfere with the representation of the values of other people in libraries. Values are a spectrum of viewpoints, not a monochromatic solid. The views of CCV are merely one color in the rainbow of diversity of opinion. And it is that diversity of opinion that libraries are bound to recognize. We reflect and respond to community values, but not just the dominant or the most vocal. We strive to reflect all community values, all community interests, including those of the persecuted minorities, even those of the isolated individual.

When our country was founded, the authors of our Constitution recognized the danger that majority rule could overwhelm minority and individual rights. The point of the Bill of Rights is to protect individual and minority rights from being crushed under the weight of the majority. It is clear that the rights of the majority need no protection; their collective power can look out for their rights. The Bill of Rights is there to protect the liberties of individuals and minorities. Whether CCV represents the majority, then, is moot; they still do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others.

Just as the Constitution protects individual and minority freedom of speech, press and religion, so too must the library. Public libraries are agencies of the state government and are, therefore, bound by the Fourteenth Amendment not to violate any rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. As a result, we have a responsibility to serve the needs of all the viewpoints in our communities, including those view-points that may be objectionable to the minority, to the CCV, or to any group that claims to represent community values. While they may represent the values of their "community," our concept of community is necessarily greater.

Many of the groups testifying in support of SB 144 exhibit a clearly religious orientation. CCVs testimony in support of SB 144 referred to promoting "Judeo-Christian moral values,"1 and incorrectly maintains that our country was founded on these values.2 Furthermore, their Web site cites the Bible and their opposition to pornography and homosexuality. The Focus on the Family (FOF) Web site discusses "helping children know Jesus," also cites scripture, and encourages readers to "pray for Focus" and to donate money to "support the Ministry."3 The Web site of the Family Policy Council (FPC) cites the Bible and describes is proabstinence, anti-abortion, anti-Gay, pro-marriage views.4 The very names of Christian Coalition of Ohio and Catholic Conference of Ohio, who also testified on behalf of SB 144 on February 18, 2004, indicate that they are speaking from a religious perspective. These groups share a clear religious orientation. While they are free to promote their beliefs and positions, they are not at liberty to impose those beliefs on others. Their positions, in relation to the function of the library, clearly ignore the rights of other faiths. Our government was founded on the principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and our Constitution is designed to protect those rights. Libraries, as government entities, must remain neutral in the area of religion and its definition of morality. These groups seem to overlook the fact that there are other religions, that our country is made up of a plurality of beliefs that includes many faiths outside the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that those of other faiths, as well as those of no faith, enjoy the same First Amendment rights.