We would live in peace and tranquility and no one would know anything

Alex Byrne

Living in Queensland through the years of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's conservative premiership, Derek Fielding was very active as president of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties which he played a significant part in revitalising. During the heady anti-Apartheid protests in Brisbane in the mid 1970s in particular, the Council played a critical role in defending the rights to protest and to public assembly. As Fielding noted, when discussing the part played by him and his colleagues in the Council:

... many of our preoccupations with civil liberties can be best clarified by an examination of the provisions of the United States Constitution and its amendments... [including] Prohibition of imprisonment without trial... Trial by jury... All citizens are assured of equal rights; Free exercise of religion... no abridgement of freedom of the Press, or of speech or of the right to assemble or petition... restrictions on unwarranted search or seizure of private property; Citizens are assured of proper legal procedures, including the right not to incriminate oneself; Excessive bail, excessive fines and cruel or unusual punishments are outlawed.[1]

This paper seeks to explore some contemporary issues of intellectual freedom of relevance to librarians and libraries and also to note echoes of Fielding's 'preoccupations' as discussed in his published papers. Its title is taken from a revealing and unusually lucid comment by Bjelke-Petersen that highlights the nexus between the right to know and the other freedoms which the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties defended so vigorously:

The greatest thing that could happen in the state and the nation is when we get rid of the media. Then we would live in peace and tranquility and no one would know anything.[2]

In contrast of course, Fielding argued that all thinking citizens must protect their freedoms and especially the need to access the information needed to make informed decisions in a democracy. In a broad commentary on rights to information,[3] Fielding expressed some cynicism about the capacity of the individual to claim such rights: 'even in democratic Australia, the rights of the individual can be merely what the government says they are' (p67). That concern fired his involvement in civil liberties.

Many of the issues with which he was concerned as a librarian from the 1970s to the 1990s that had implications for civil liberties continue to challenge us today. They included privacy (the confidentiality of library records, appropriate use of information supplied to agencies); ethical decisions in relation to donated papers which may be defamatory; the threat of defamation used to limit access to information; corporate and governmental pressure; freedom of information legislation; the role of public libraries; the implicit, but not codified, responsibilities of librarians; and copyright. This paper discusses some of the more prominent current issues with reference to Fielding's views.

The right of access to information
Growing recognition of fundamental human rights across the world has been demonstrated by the accession of most nations, even most of the most repressive, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other international instruments. IFLA has based the mandate of its Committee on Free Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) on Article 19 of the Declaration:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Fielding questioned the protection that such international instruments give the individual, and whether they provide any evidence that a right to access to information truly exists. Echoing the wording of the article mentioned above, Article 19 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that 'Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds...' Somewhat hyperbolically, Fielding judged that 'Even the most fervent advocate could not claim that the right to seek information includes the right to be able to find it'[4] suggesting that this article was aimed at permitting the free flow of information but without imposing any obligation on states to ensure that it would be provided to the individual citizen. However, this misses the full import of the phrase 'to seek, receive and impart information' which makes it clear that the article is intended to ensure that all may have unhindered access to information.

In that vein, the IFLA Statement on Libraries and Intellectual Freedom[5] begins by locating intellectual freedom as a fundamental human right and notes the two aspects of this right, the right to know and freedom of expression, both of which the library and information profession must promote and defend. In taking this approach, IFLA is encouraged by the longstanding endeavours of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom. That Office has used the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to defend access to information at many levels. Campaigns have extended from parent initiated book banning in school libraries to action in the Supreme Court against the infamous Communications Decency Act through which reactionary members of Congress sought to censor the internet.

Nevertheless, despite his quibbles about the instruments, Fielding's views were very much in sympathy with the spirit of the IFLA Statement which was published after his retirement. It adjures readers that 'Libraries provide essential support for lifelong learning, independent decision-making and cultural development for both individuals and groups'. It notes that libraries are endeavoring to 'make available the widest variety of materials, reflecting the plurality and diversity of society' and to 'ensure that the selection and availability of library materials and services is governed by professional considerations and not by political, moral and religious views'. It challenges librarians to nourish that growth by providing rich intellectual soil. These challenges lie within normal professional practice and sit comfortably within the responsibilities of libraries. But the IFLA Statement goes further, enjoining librarians to resist censorship beyond their own libraries, in the national interest. It encourages all librarians, not only to ensure intellectual freedom in their own libraries, but also to speak out against attempts to limit intellectual freedom in the wider community, in the fine tradition of Derek Fielding.

He observed that the clear need for machinery to force governments to observe such rights means that 'a government must be willing to have its behaviour reviewed by an international committee on the complaint of one of its own citizens'.[6] This observation is again apposite following the refusal of the Howard government to co-operate with the United Nations Human Rights Commission or to welcome visits by its representatives.

Hindrances to access
Fielding argued that the 'case for a right to access to information in the twentieth century rests on the power which is now available to government and to wealthy business concerns to control and shape the information which is constantly fed to the general public'.[7] In his view, this tendency was exacerbated by the prevalence of economic determinism. That trend in public policy has resulted in reduced investment in libraries and education, reduced capacity to purchase resources and reduced staffing - trends which have continued over the two decades since his paper.

Other disturbing trends of 1980 which resonate today, appearing in almost every month's headlines, include: severe fiscal pressure on the ABC and allegations that it is biased; media manipulation through public relations consultants, defamation actions and commercial pressure; lack of media competition; the preoccupation of media with current affairs and events; and the resistance of bureaucracies to public scrutiny.

An increasingly significant hindrance results from the increased preference of Government to privatise formerly public facilities and services. Their operations, and often the privatisation agreements themselves, are cloaked in the secrecy of 'commercial in confidence'. Services which were previously subject to examination by the Auditor-General are now only subject to commercial regulation - even questions in Parliament are deflected by ministers as 'subject to contract'. In several cases, serious deficiencies in the quality and reliability of essential services and major charges against public funds have been masked. Recent examples include: the Intergraph ambulance dispatch system in Victoria, Adelaide Water, the Sydney Airport Railway, and the outsourcing of information technology by the Commonwealth. These become library concerns in that the issues are no longer debated in Parliament and reported in Hansard or available in public reports: consequently the general public cannot examine them and, in the longer term, researchers cannot easily analyse them.

Explicit censorship is another issue with which we must contend. In Australia, several states and the Federal Government have enacted legislation to impose penalties on those who make 'objectionable' (undefined) material available to minors via the Internet. The Federal Government's Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 is based on a combination of industry codes of practice, community education and administration by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. The Authority applies a classificatory system to materials which are the subject of complaints. The scheme places the responsibility primarily on the delivery channel. This involves every library which seeks to make Internet accessible services available and particularly those which serve minors, including school, public and university libraries.

We must defend the right 'to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas' by resisting censorship, even when it is well intentioned as are the requirements imposed under that Act. The Minister's Office has stated that in devising the current Commonwealth regulatory scheme, the Government intended to implement

a national, uniform... framework to meet the legitimate concerns and interests of the community while ensuring that industry development and competitiveness are not stifled by over-zealous laws... [and] apply those standards of content control as apply to conventional media.

The Office added that:

Definitions of prohibited Internet content... are not concerned in any way with limiting freedom of speech by restricting political or other discourse on matters of public interest.[8]

Notwithstanding these good intentions, it is a matter of concern that an Australian government would feel it necessary to prevent Australians reading or expressing their views, even on matters which the general community may find offensive. In fact, as has been recognised in evidence given to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee by the writer Linda Jaivin and sex researcher Katherine Albury, the legislation bans the representation of acts which are not in themselves illegal. Further, the line between censorship of material which offends against community standards and the restriction of 'political or other discourse on matters of public interest' is very thin - who is to say what is legitimately of public interest?

The Freedom House report Censor Dot Gov: The Internet and Press Freedom 2000[9] identifies Australia as free but is critical of attempts to restrict Internet access in other nations. It notes that governments may require special licensing and regulation of Internet use, limit Internet traffic to filtered government servers, remove controversial pages from websites, and even [sic] apply existing press laws to internet content. None of this sounds very different from the Australian scheme, except the stated intent.

We may think that there is little book censorship in Australia except for the most objectionably pornographic and violent publications. However, recent calls to remove the Harry Potter books from school libraries have shown that the urge to censor is not dormant. Fortunately, we have a long way to go to mirror the US experience where the books censored in public and school libraries include Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, Herman Melville's Moby Dick, Alex Comfort's The Joy of Sex, John Grisham's The Client, Toni Morrison's Beloved, AM Homes's Jack and Kevin O'Malley's Froggy Went A-Courtin'. The most common reason was 'conflicts with the values of the community'.[10]

Free access to information
In a paper presented at the 1984 joint LAA/NZLA Conference in Brisbane, Fielding castigated librarians in Australia for woolly thinking in regarding information as a free good because its real cost is obscured through access without charge or subsidy. Well intentioned librarians further conflate libraries funded by the public and public libraries as well as payment by a library for service and payment by an individual to the library for service.[11]

This confusion is perpetuated in the English language version of the title of the IFLA FAIFE Committee, 'Free Access to Information and Freedom of Expression'. Illustrating one of the challenges of an international body, the committee's name is unambiguous in French - 'libre' not 'gratuit'. In emphasising that libraries must be libre or accessible without impediment, IFLA returns to the English-speaking world's original concept of 'free public libraries' as libraries which should be open to all. Over emphasis on all services and facilities being gratuit or without charge has been to the detriment of libraries. Too many, especially among public librarians, have sought 'high moral ground' in refusing to provide a service if it could not be provided without charge, thus denying the service to all rather than seeking ways of offering the service to all including the needy.

Nevertheless, it is extremely important that economic hindrances do not disempower the individual citizen as we have experienced with the access and processing fees levied under the various Australian state and federal freedom of information acts. Fielding noted that it would cease to be tenable to distinguish between access to printed resources without charge but at the cost of the user's time and access to electronic resources which saves the user's time at a charge. However, he asked what justification there could be for public libraries to provide electronic information with a subsidy when it could be obtained from a commercial provider and concluded

the extent to which access to information should be free is a political decision; the community must be persuaded that there is greater benefit to the community from publicly supported information services than from services supplied entirely through normal commercial market forces ... The survival of free access will not be ensured simply by an emotional belief that free public libraries are a 'good thing', but by clear statements of the circumstances in which the public interest requires that there should be free access to information.[12]

The role of public libraries
While Australian public libraries continue to attract strong patronage, local government authorities question the level of library provision they should offer to residents of their municipalities. Libraries are not immune from the questioning of what should be supported by the public purse, the questioning which has led to the privatisation of many utilities, commercial provision of public infrastructure and user pays approaches to public services. Despite some effective statements, Australian libraries have been timid to distinguish between services with community benefit and those which largely support private commercial gain. We have not effectively articulated our role in furthering the civil society to the wider Australian community.

Librarians must stand for the principle that every individual and all the peoples of the world have the right to access the information needed to live and prosper and the inalienable right to express their ideas and opinions. This intellectual freedom encompasses the essential principles of freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression. It has been stressed in the preamble of the UNESCO Public Library Manifesto:

Freedom, prosperity and the development of society and individuals are fundamental human values. They will only be attained through the ability of well-informed citizens to exercise their democratic rights and to play an active role in society. Constructive participation and the development of democracy depend on satisfactory education as well as on free and unlimited access to knowledge, thought, culture and information. The public library, the local gateway to knowledge, provides a basic condition for lifelong learning, independent decision-making and cultural development of individual and social groups.[13]

This ethic of universal access and commitment to the good of the community underlies modern librarianship. It is expressed through the development of appropriate and balanced collections and open access either directly to each library's primary clientele or indirectly via collaborative means.

The promise of technology
Fielding felt that new technologies showed promise of improving both information flow and access: the Monitor news service, Viewdata/Teletext inquiry system and bibliographic databases such as Medline and Ausinet. Perspicaciously, he noted that 'While problems of national censorship are avoided in that the data bases overseas cannot be censored by Australian authorities, any system which depends on government controlled communications such as TELECOM or OTC is vulnerable to such controls'.[14] In speculating about the possibility of using such technologies to provide the individual with access to desired information (such as 'his legal obligations when his tree falls on his neighbour's property, or what percentage swing in which seats would upset the government, or a simple or complex description of the theory of relativity, or details of accidents at nuclear power plants during the last twelve months'[15]) Fielding canvassed technological limitations, the effort required and the danger of government or commercial control. He suggested that mixed systems supported by a variety of bodies and operated on a public interest basis with publicly provided infrastructure would enable the citizen to access such information, but was doubtful that the necessary independence from influence would be achievable.

Despite his pessimism, the growth of the Internet has largely fulfilled his criteria for an information access system which is difficult for governments or big business to control or dominate. The efforts of China and other countries to limit their citizens' access to information are easily subverted by the technologically capable, although the mass of the population is denied access through poverty. Well intentioned attempts to censor access to pornographic, hate or other sites in countries from Australia to France are easily circumvented. This can pose difficult moral and ethical decisions when we are confronted with materials we find objectionable but, as librarians, we must come down on the side of freedom of access. To support censorship, not matter how well intentioned or apparently benign, is to risk intellectual freedom.

Tolerance
In a diverse community such as we find in today's Australia at the millennium, tolerance must be our watchword. But this is not a namby-pamby anything goes kind of tolerance. It is strong tolerance which recognises the need to tolerate both the opinions of others and the expression of those opinions but equally demands toleration of one's own views. It is a tolerance founded in respect and willingness to engage in vigorous debate. It is not an attitude which stigmatises other's views, as in the dismissal of the work of Henry Reynolds' and his colleagues as 'black armband' history - not opposing views as 'white blindfold' history - but rather encourages engagement to seek understanding.

As Fielding noted, this may involve us in ethical decisions in relation to donated papers which may be defamatory, and in many other spheres. Upholding such high ethical standards can be very demanding for both individuals and institutions. It requires strong collegial support backed by vigorous professional bodies such as IFLA or the ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom.

The dangers are well illustrated by an example from another 'developed' country, France. In 1997, the National Front won power in a number of municipalities in the south of France. The newly elected councils demanded that their libraries should cease to offer 'left wing' publications, including some daily newspapers, but should offer instead publications associated with the National Front. In the ensuing furore, the libraries were accused of 'left wing' bias, the councils arguing that they were advocating balance. The matter has calmed somewhat since the libraries showed that they could not cancel the newspapers as they had long term subscription contracts and also agreed to stock the publications sympathetic to the National Front. It has not, however, gone away. For all the librarians involved, it meant leaving their jobs as conditions became intolerable.

But it is not only in other countries that such events can occur: we have had a sobering reminder in the last few years that we Australians are perhaps not as tolerant as we thought we were. The voices of intolerance have been raised in the guise of One Nation,[16] a new political party which revives the rhetoric we have seen so many times in our past: 'Australia for the White Man' as was emblazoned on the masthead of The Bulletin and embodied in the policies of the Australian Labor Party in earlier times. Its manifesto echoes that of M. Le Pen's National Front in France, La Rouche in the United States and similar parties in many nations.

Even without One Nation, we would have to query our national commitment to tolerance and equality. Seven years on from the Report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody[17] we continue to experience a high rate of Aboriginal deaths in custody. Meanwhile state governments hesitate to implement the Commission's recommendations and vociferously advocate 'truth in sentencing', 'mandatory imprisonment' and 'three strikes and you are out' legislation - measures which impact inequitably on indigenous peoples, dramatically increasing their rates of incarceration. With the notable exceptions of the National Archives and some libraries, including the Library and Information Service of Western Australia (LISWA), few of us have addressed the consequences of the Report's recommendation in regard to access to information. LISWA and some other state libraries, in particular, attempted to develop effective strategies to address the issues raised in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander protocols for libraries, archives and information services[18] including: issues of content and representation, approaches to cataloguing and classification, consultation and involvement, staffing, and education and training. However, despite the commitment of many Australians to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, effective library programs in this area remain the exception.

Professional practice
Concern with such societal issues cannot be divorced from professional practice. They go hand in hand as Derek Fielding demonstrated through his work with the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties which paralleled his contributions as University Librarian and through such bodies as AACOBS. In fact, as Fielding argued, librarians are particularly well placed to assist the work of civil libertarians through our understanding of the processes of government and administration and our access to sources of information. [19]

Libraries have tended to focus on the procedures and technologies with limited attention given to political and ideological barriers. For example, an otherwise excellent, recently published guide for new library and information professionals includes no mention of issues of intellectual freedom and censorship except for passing references to the 'tensions between freedom of information and personal privacy (and protection from offensive material)[20] and to the controversial outsourcing of materials selection to Baker & Taylor by the Hawaii State Public Library System in 1996. The discussion of ethics focuses on the development of professional competence.

In some nations and periods, libraries have had an explicit ideological role as, for instance, in the USSR.[21] Furthering such policies, Rudolf Malek, the very great Czech librarian, reported with pride on how the libraries of Communist Czechoslovakia had expunged inappropriate materials and replaced them with suitable socialist materials. .[22] Similarly, during the same Cold War period in the USA some libraries felt that they should not hold the subversive works of Marx and Lenin - while others felt that there was a need 'to know your enemy. [23] Libraries have often been seen as instruments of the state, as institutions which exist only to further the views and values of the government in power. Many libraries, particularly in Eastern Europe, are currently wrestling with such legacies.

Ethical concerns in librarianship have extended to the duty to the client, societal responsibility, impartiality and accuracy as well as the more general expectations about honesty, integrity, etc. The challenge to foster informed choice in the face of complex professional, technological, environmental and moral issues brings libraries and information services into prominence. The capacity of the general public to choose competent professional advice on personal and community questions without assistance is limited. While there is increasing reliance on independent statutory bodies for regulatory purposes, independent information is sought through the media for issues of current public importance but through libraries and other information services for longitudinal, background and personal matters. Provided their services are truly independent, unbiased and accurate, both promote 'consumer power'.

Increased litigiousness has had many consequences including defensive over servicing and significantly increased costs for professional practice. For libraries, it has meant both a requirement to be even more careful in providing information and increased the importance to many clients of the information provided.

As discussed above, and also noted in many other areas of professional practice, there is a question of 'Who pays?' Libraries, not only public but also academic and public authority, have been traditionally funded by the community. Increasingly, however, there are questions about the extent to which the community or government is willing to pay, raising questions of affordability and equity in access to services. For library professionals, this means decisions in which our ethics become instrumental.

Conclusion
Derek Fielding's career as a university librarian and his strong commitment to civil liberties should inspire us all. We should not imagine that limitations on intellectual freedom and civil liberties are only to be found under repressive regimes: they can and do occur in our own country. This is not to say that we should ignore the brave endeavours of our colleagues in other nations, such as the courageous fighters for a civil society in post-Communist Russia and other Eastern European nations. They need our support, as do those who are seeking to rebuild shattered communities in Timor, Kosovo and elsewhere. The issues touched upon in this paper should concern us as we go about our daily professional lives. They should concern our institutions and our associations and be topics of discussion at our conferences and in our publications.

Librarians should be known as the advocates and defenders of human rights. We should not strive simply to make better websites or implement better processes. We should be contributing to the creation of a better, fairer and more democratic society, in our own country and elsewhere. We should actively resist measures, however well intentioned, which will abrogate the rights of our fellow citizens and actively work to create a better informed and freer society - a society in which we can live in harmony and all will be able to know all we need to know.

Notes
[1] D Fielding 'Librarians, civil liberties and privacy' Australian Library Journal, Vol. 7 no 12 1978 pp 181-189
[2] J Bjelke-Petersen In 'The Best of Badinage', Business Review Weekly 1986.
[3] D Fielding 'Up the Right Channels? Patterns of Information Flow' in Changes and Exchanges P White (ed) Lindfield School of Library and Information Studies Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education 1980 pp 67-92
[4] Fielding 1980 op cit p 69
[5] International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions 1999 IFLA Statement on Libraries and Intellectual Freedom The Hague IFLA. See http://www.ifla.org
[6] Fielding 1980 op cit p70
[7] Ibid p73
[8] Letter from the Office of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts April 2000
[9] Censor Dot Gov: the Internet and press freedom 2000 Freedom House 2000 http://www.freedomhouse.org
[10] R P Doyle Books Challenged or Banned 1997 Chicago American Library Association 1997. Also available at http://www.ala.org/bbooks/
[11] D Fielding 'Future Roles of Public and Private Sectors' in Libraries: After 1984: Proceedings of the LAA/NZLA Conference Brisbane 1984 Sydney LAA 1985 pp 465-477
[12] Ibid pp 475-476
[13] Unesco Public Library Manifesto Paris 1994. See http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/
[14] Fielding 1980 op cit pp 87-88
[15] Ibid p88
[16] Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, established 1997 http://www.onenation.com.au
[7] Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: National Report 1991 Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service. Also available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/rciadic/
[18] A Byrne et al Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Protocols for Libraries, Archives and Information Services Canberra Australian Library and Information Association 1994. Also available at http://www.ntu.edu.au/library/protocols.html - [no longer available: 7/11/2001]
[9] Fielding 1978 op cit
[20] S Corrall & A Brewerton The New Professional's Handbook: Your Guide to Information Services Management London Library Association Publishing 1999 p 12
[21] B P Kanevskii 'Library', Great Soviet Encyclopedia New York Macmillan Vol 3 1973 pp 707-708
[22] R Malek 'Czechoslovakia' in International Federation of Library Associations Committee on Library Work with Children Library Service to Children Lund, Bibliotekstjanst 1963.
[23] F J Mosher (ed) Freedom of Book Selection: Proceedings of Second Conference on Intellectual Freedom Whittier California 20-21 June 1953 Chicago ALA 1954.