The
concept of "clear and present danger" is a rationale for the limitation
of free speech originated in a majority opinion written in 1919 by
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Before the 20th century, most free speech issues involved prior restraint.
Starting in the early 1900s, the Supreme Court began to consider cases
in which persons were punished 'after' speaking or publishing. The
primary legal test used in the United States to determine if speech
could be criminalized was the bad tendency test. Rooted in English common law, the test permitted speech to be outlawed if it had a tendency to harm public welfare. One of the earliest cases in which the Supreme Court addressed punishment after material was published was 1907's Patterson v. Colorado
in which the Court used the bad tendency test to uphold contempt
charges against a newspaper publisher who accused Colorado judges of
acting on behalf of local utility companies.
Antiwar protests during World War I gave rise to several
important free speech cases related to sedition and inciting violence.
In the 1919 case Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court held that an antiwar activist did not have a First Amendment right to advocate draft resistance. In his majority opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. introduced the clear and present danger test, which would become an important concept in First Amendment law; but the Schenck decision did not formally adopt the test. Holmes later wrote that he intended the clear and present danger test to refine, not replace, the bad tendency test.
Although sometimes mentioned in subsequent rulings, the clear and
present danger test was never endorsed by the Supreme Court as a test to
be used by lower courts when evaluating the constitutionality of
legislation that regulated speech.
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress
has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a
nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are
such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured
so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected
by any constitutional right.
The Court continued to use the bad tendency test during the early 20th century in cases such as 1919's Abrams v. United States, which upheld the conviction of antiwar activists who passed out leaflets encouraging workers to impede the war effort. In Abrams, Holmes and Justice Brandeis dissented and encouraged the use of the clear and present test, which provided more protection for speech. In 1925's Gitlow v. New York, the Court extended the First Amendment to the states, and upheld the conviction of Gitlow for publishing the "Left Wing Manifesto". Gitlow
was decided based on the bad tendency test, but the majority decision
acknowledged the validity of the clear and present danger test, yet
concluded that its use was limited to Schenck-like situations where the
speech was not specifically outlawed by the legislature.
Brandeis and Holmes again promoted the clear and present danger test, this time in a concurring opinion in 1927's Whitney v. California decision.
The majority did not adopt or use the clear and present danger test,
but the concurring opinion encouraged the Court to support greater
protections for speech, and it suggested that "imminent danger" – a
more restrictive wording than "present danger" – should be required
before speech can be outlawed. After Whitney, the bad tendency test continued to be used by the Court in cases such 1931's Stromberg v. California, which held that a 1919 California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional.
The clear and present danger test was invoked by the majority in the 1940 Thornhill v. Alabama decision in which a state antipicketing law was invalidated. Although the Court referred to the clear and present danger test in a few decisions following Thornhill, the bad tendency test was not explicitly overruled,
and the clear and present danger test was not applied in several
subsequent free speech cases involving incitement to violence.
Dennis v. United States
Chief
Justice Fred M. Vinson reaffirmed the applicability of the doctrine of
"clear and present danger" in upholding the 1950 conviction of Communist
Party USA leader Eugene Dennis.
In May 1950, one month before the appeals court heard oral arguments in the Dennis v. United States case, the Supreme Court ruled on free speech issues in American Communications Association v. Douds.
In that case, the Court considered the clear and present danger test,
but rejected it as too mechanical and instead introduced a balancing test. The federal appeals court heard oral arguments in the CPUSA case on June 21–23, 1950. Judge Learned Hand considered the clear and present danger test, but his opinion adopted a balancing approach similar to that suggested in American Communications Association v. Douds.
The defendants appealed the Second Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court in Dennis v. United States. The 6–2 decision was issued on June 4, 1951, and upheld Hand's decision. Chief Justice Fred Vinson's opinion stated that the First Amendment
does not require that the government must wait "until the putsch is
about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is
awaited" before it interrupts seditious plots. In his opinion, Vinson endorsed the balancing approach used by Judge Hand:
Chief Judge Learned Hand ...
interpreted the [clear and present danger] phrase as follows: 'In each
case, [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the "evil", discounted by
its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is
necessary to avoid the danger.' We adopt this statement of the rule. As
articulated by Chief Judge Hand, it is as succinct and inclusive as any
other we might devise at this time. It takes into consideration those
factors which we deem relevant, and relates their significances. More we
cannot expect from words.
Importance
Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech
and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law
limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional
if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and
present danger". However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of
the Schenck decision was replaced in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio, and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an "imminent lawless action".
The vast majority of legal scholars have concluded that in writing the Schenck opinion, Justice Holmes never meant to replace the "bad tendency" test which had been established in the 1868 English case R. v. Hicklin and incorporated into American jurisprudence in the 1904 Supreme Court case U.S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams. This is demonstrated by the use of the word "tendency" in Schenck itself, a paragraph in Schenck
explaining that the success of speech in causing the actual harm was
not a prerequisite for conviction, and use of the bad-tendency test in
the simultaneous Frohwerk v. United States and Debs v. United States decisions (both of which cite Schenck without using the words "clear and present danger").
However, a subsequent essay by Zechariah Chafee
titled "Freedom of Speech in War Time" argued despite context that
Holmes had intended to substitute clear and present danger for the
bad-tendency standard a more protective standard of free speech.
Bad tendency was a far more ambiguous standard where speech could be
punished even in the absence of identifiable danger, and as such was
strongly opposed by the fledgling American Civil Liberties Union and other libertarians of the time.
Having read Chafee's article, Holmes decided to retroactively
reinterpret what he had meant by "clear and present danger" and accepted
Chafee's characterization of the new test in his dissent in Abrams v. United States just six months after Schenck. Schenck, Frohwerk, and Debs all resulted in unanimous decisions, while Abrams did not.
Brandenburg
For two decades after the Dennis
decision, free speech issues related to advocacy of violence were
decided using balancing tests such as the one initially articulated in Dennis. In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio,
which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and
free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the
use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.
Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas without restriction.
Viewed as an integral component of a democratic society, intellectual
freedom protects an individual's right to access, explore, consider, and
express ideas and information as the basis for a self-governing,
well-informed citizenry. Intellectual freedom comprises the bedrock for
freedoms of expression, speech, and the press and relates to freedoms of information and the right to privacy.
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.
The institution of libraries in particular values intellectual freedom as part of their mission to provide and protect access to information and ideas. The American Library Association
(ALA) defines intellectual freedom as "the right of every individual to
both seek and receive information from all points of view without
restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas
through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement can be
explored."
The modern concept of intellectual freedom developed out of an opposition to book censorship. It is promoted by several professions and movements. These entities include, among others, librarianship, education, and the free software movement.
Issues
Intellectual freedom encompasses many areas including issues of academic freedom, Internet filtering, and censorship.
Because proponents of intellectual freedom value an individual's right
to choose informational concepts and media to formulate thought and
opinion without repercussion, restrictions to access and barriers to
privacy of information constitute intellectual freedom issues. Issues surrounding restrictions to access include:
While proponents of intellectual freedom work to prohibit acts of
censorship, calls for censorship are valued as free speech. "In
expressing their opinions and concerns, would-be censors are exercising
the same rights librarians seek to protect when they confront
censorship. In making their criticisms known, people who object to
certain ideas are exercising the same rights as those who created and
disseminated the material to which they object." The first amendment right to voice opinions and persuade others—both for the exclusion and inclusion of content and concepts—should be protected.
History
The contemporary definition, limits, and inclusions of intellectual freedom primarily developed through a number of common law judgments by the United States Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment and policy statements of groups dedicated to the advocacy and defense of civil liberties.
Abrams v. United States (1919)
In his oft-quoted dissent on the free speech case of two defendants
convicted of inciting anti-war sentiment and action, Supreme Court
justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. aligns the freedoms of speech and expression with the freedom of thought as follows:
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly
logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a
certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in
law and sweep away all opposition . . . But when men have realized that
time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more
than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the
ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas. . . The
best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in
the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon
which their wishes can be safely carried out."
Whitney v. California (1927)
A case in which the Supreme Court sustains the conviction of a woman
for anti-government speech akin to terrorism. In his opinion on the
matter, Justice Brandeis delineates the role of freedom of thought to
inform free speech, attributing the value of intellectual freedom as a
civil liberty to the founders of the United States, asserting:
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of
the state was to make men free to develop their faculties. . . They
believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are
means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
A case in which the US Supreme Court deliberated whether a citizen's
Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights were violated when evidence to convict
him of bootlegging was obtained through wiretapping. Justice Brandeis
provides precedence for the inclusion of intellectual freedom as a
constitutional right in his dissenting opinion, claiming the US
Constitution's authors "recognized the significance of man's spiritual
nature, his feelings, and his intellect" and "sought to protect
Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their
sensations." Brandeis would ultimately argue for the right to privacy,
another important dimension of intellectual freedom, as an extension of
American civil rights.
United States v. Schwimmer (1929)
In the Supreme Court's upheld decision to deny citizenship to Rosika
Schwimmer, a Hungarian immigrant, because she refused to pledge to take
up arms to defend the United States out of her pacifist views and
beliefs, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. personally disagrees with
the defendant's views but professionally upholds Schwimmer's position
when he writes,
Some of her answers might excite popular prejudice, but if there
is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for
attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free
thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we
hate.
Library Bill of Rights (1939)
The American Library Association
adopts the Library Bill of Rights affirming "that all libraries are
forums for information and ideas." Originally a three-point declaration
to guide services in American free public libraries including statements
on "growing intolerance, suppression of free speech, and censorship,"
today the Library Bill of Rights includes six basic policies to guide
library services that affirm intellectual freedom.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Following World War II, the United Nations
adopts The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a "foundation of
human rights law" consisting of 30 articles on international freedoms
among the nations of the UN General Assembly.
Articles 18 and 19 specifically affirm rights to freedoms of thought,
opinion, and expression, as well as the right to "seek, receive, and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers."
Lauterbach Award acceptance speech (1953)
In his 1953 acceptance speech for the Lauterbach Award for support of civil liberties, Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas
affirms that "safety of our civilization lies in making freedom of
thought and freedom of speech vital, vivid features of life" and
condemns "[r]estriction of free thought and free speech," labeling it
"the most dangerous of all subversions," and an "un-American act."
The Freedom to Read (1953)
The
American Library Association adopts The Freedom to Read, a key library
policy endorsing an individual's civil rights to free expression and
intellectual freedom through the exchange of ideas through reading and
writing. The ALA's The Freedom to Read
includes seven affirmations and responsibilities to protect an
individual's right to read as a basic tenet of democracy. In 1979, the
ALA expands upon The Freedom to Read, adopting The Freedom to View, a
policy which extends the understanding of intellectual freedom to
include the visual acquisition of information through visual media such
as art, video, movies, pictures, the internet, and more.
Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)
A case in which the US Supreme Court established the Imminent Lawless Action
standard. The Supreme Court overturned KKK leader, Clarence
Brandenburg's conviction of one to ten years in prison and a fine of
$1000 sentenced by the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County. The Court ruled that hate speech is protected under First Amendment rights as long as it does not incite violence. This ruling established the modern doctrine of clear and present danger
which determines what limits may be placed on First Amendment freedoms.
Only speech that directly incites lawless action may be restricted.
Intellectual freedom and librarianship
The profession of librarianship views intellectual freedom as a core responsibility. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions' (IFLA) Statement on Libraries and Intellectual Freedom
"calls upon libraries and library staff to adhere to the principles of
intellectual freedom, uninhibited access to information and freedom of
expression and to recognize the privacy of library user." IFLA urges
its members to actively promote the acceptance and realization of
intellectual freedom principles. IFLA states: "The right to know is a
requirement for freedom of thought and conscience; freedom of thought
and freedom of expression are necessary conditions for freedom of access
to information."
Individual national library associations expand upon these
principles when defining intellectual freedom for their constituents.
For example, the American Library Association
defines intellectual freedom as: "[T]he right of every individual to
both seek and receive information from all points of view without
restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas
through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be
explored. .... Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold,
receive and disseminate ideas."
The Canadian Library Association'sPosition Statement on Intellectual Freedom
states that all persons possess "the fundamental right ... to have
access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and intellectual
activity, and to express their thoughts publicly." This right was enshrined into law in 2004 in British Columbia, which grants protection against litigation for libraries for their holdings.
The ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom organizes the
relationship between librarianship and intellectual freedom into five
distinct categories:
The library user's access to information through a library collection
The librarian's professional responsibilities to select a diverse
collection of library materials for users and protect library users'
confidentiality and rights to privacy in their use of library materials
The librarian's personal rights to free expression and choices of
lifestyle and public participation without professional repercussion
The library's institutional role as an agent of social change, democracy, and education
The issue of advocacy v. neutrality for libraries and librarians
Libraries protect, defend, and advocate for intellectual freedom through a variety of organizations and resources.
Intellectual Freedom Committee
The
Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC) is a council committee of the
American Library Association (ALA), composed of 11 ALA members who are
appointed by ALA's Council to serve 2-year terms.
The Intellectual Freedom Committee functions as an advisory and
educational arm of the ALA's commitment to intellectual freedom. The IFC
recommends policies concerning intellectual freedom and censorship,
drafts guidelines for library professionals to advocate and defend
intellectual freedom including The Universal Right to Free Expression
and Importance of Education to Intellectual Freedom, and drafts policy
statements adopted by the ALA including several interpretation
statements on the Library Bill of Rights such as:
Access to Electronic Information, Services, and Networks
Access to Library Resources and Services Regardless of Gender or Sexual Orientation
Free Access to Libraries for Minors
Prisoners' Right to Read
Statement on Library Use of Filtering Software
The IFC drafts and submits statements to the ALA as part of the
committee's charge to "recommend such steps as may be necessary to
safeguard the rights of library users, libraries, and librarians, in
accordance with the first amendment to the united states constitution
and the Library Bill of Rights as adopted by the ALA Council [and] work
closely with the Office for Intellectual Freedom and with other units
and officers of the association in matters touching intellectual freedom
and censorship."
Formed in 1940 and originally titled 'Committee on Intellectual
Freedom to Safeguard the Rights of Library Users to Freedom of Inquiry,'
the committee has also been known as 'Committee on Intellectual
Freedom' before the currently titled 'Intellectual Freedom Committee.'
Following the ALA's formation of the IFC to promote intellectual
freedom on a national level, many regional and state library
associations have established additional intellectual freedom committees
on the state level.
Office for Intellectual Freedom
The
American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF)
serves as an administrative arm of ALA committees such as the
Intellectual Freedom Committee and the Committee on Professional Ethics.
Principally charged with implementing ALA policies concerning
intellectual freedom, the OIF focuses efforts on intellectual freedom
education and coordination of intellectual freedom activities, events,
and organizations and views the "responsibility of the office to
recommend, develop, implement, and maintain a total intellectual freedom
program for ALA.
OIF functions include:
Banned Books Week, an annual event that celebrates the
freedom to read sponsored by publishing, bookselling, civil rights,
teaching, and library organizations associated with intellectual
freedom.
Frequently Challenged Books List, a database of challenged materials collected from news reports and individuals (often through the OIF's electronic Challenge Reporting Form.
Although the database provides information on banned books, challenged
books, frequently challenged authors, and challenged classics since
1990, the OIF asserts that they "do not claim comprehensiveness in
recording challenges as research suggests that for each challenge
reported there are as many as four or five that go unreported."
Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom (NIF),
a bimonthly digital publication serving as "the only journal that
reports attempts to remove materials from school and library shelves
across the country."
Intellectual Freedom Action Network (IFAN), an ad hoc,
grassroots group of volunteers who liaison between the national efforts
of the OIF and intellectual freedom issues within members' communities.
IFAN members monitor censorship issues in their communities and lend
support to anti-censorship and intellectual freedom instances through
civic involvement such as letters to the editor or political
representatives and/or attendance at public meetings and hearings
concerning intellectual freedom.
IFACTION, an e-list education forum on intellectual freedom issues and concepts that replaced the OIF's former print newsletter, Intellectual Freedom News.
Webinars, including a sizable archive of webinars concerning intellectual freedom issues.
Intellectual Freedom Round Table
The
ALA's Intellectual Freedom Round Table (IFRT) functions as a forum for
ALA members to participate in intellectual freedom initiatives and
efforts. The IFRT serves as a communication channel and promotional
group for ALA members seeking increasing participation and knowledge in
intellectual freedom concepts and issues. While the IFRT mirrors other
intellectual freedom organizations through monitoring, support, and
educational efforts, the IFRT provides more varied intellectual freedom
discussion forums for librarians in two ways:
Organizing state and local level intellectual freedom discussion programs and activities
Planning and sponsoring conference programs on topics related to intellectual freedom
In addition to encouraging and fostering a community of librarians
learning, promoting, and defending intellectual freedom principles, the
IFRT administers three intellectual freedom awards (see below) and
produces an Intellectual Freedom Report to members of the American
Library Association four times per year.
Freedom to Read Foundation
The Freedom to Read Foundation
was incorporated in 1969 by members of the American Library
Association. Although founded by ALA members, the FTRF is a separate
organization from ALA with separate membership focused upon the legal
defense of intellectual freedom for libraries, librarians, library
staff, and library trustees.
While the FTRF participates in intellectual freedom education efforts,
the FTRF primarily aims to "support and defend librarians whose
positions are jeopardized because of their resistance to abridgments of
the First Amendment; and to set legal precedent for the freedom to read
on behalf of all the people."
In the foundation's commitment to "the principle that the solution to
offensive speech is more speech, and the suppression of speech on the
grounds that it gives offense to some infringes on the rights of all to a
free, open and robust marketplace of ideas,"
the FTRF awards and distributes grants to aid intellectual freedom
litigation, directly participates as a party to intellectual freedom
litigation, and submits amicus curiae briefs in freedom of speech and
freedom of the press cases.
FTRF assistance to library staff whose jobs have been jeopardized due
to their defense of intellectual freedom "attempts to obviate the choice
between upholding intellectual freedom principles and" what lauded
librarian and library-science scholar Lester Asheim called "three square meals a day."
The organization's charter describes four purposes for the Foundation, including:
Promoting and protecting the freedom of speech and of the press;
Protecting the public's right of access to information and materials stored in the nation's libraries;
Safeguarding libraries' right to disseminate all materials contained in their collections; and
Supporting libraries and librarians in their defense of First
Amendment rights by supplying them with legal counsel or the means to
secure it.
LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund
The LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund provides financial assistance to librarians who are:
"Denied employment rights or discriminated against on the basis
of gender, sexual orientation, race, color, creed, religion, age,
disability, or place of national origin; or
Denied employment rights because of defense of intellectual freedom;
that is, threatened with loss of employment or discharged because of
their stand for the cause of intellectual freedom, including promotion
of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the freedom of librarians to
select items for their collections from all the world’s written and
recorded information, and defense of privacy rights."
Originally established by the Freedom to Read Foundation in 1970, the Merritt Fund now functions independently, governed by three trustees elected by donors to the fund.
The fund's namesake LeRoy C. Merritt participated in the defense and
advocacy of intellectual freedom throughout his life in a variety of
ways including authoring numerous intellectual freedom and
anti-censorship books and articles, editing the ALA's Newsletter on
Intellectual Freedom from 1962 to 1970, as the first recipient of the
Robert B. Downs Intellectual Freedom Award, and, donating the entirety
of the Downs prize to the Freedom to Read Foundation, as the FTRF's
first benefactor.
Intellectual Freedom Manual
The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom publishes the Intellectual Freedom Manual,
now in its ninth edition. Considered an authoritative resource on
intellectual freedom for library professionals, it is also of use to
members of the public who wish to stay informed of the most recent
policies and developments in the field. As well as providing an historical overview of the topic, it is divided into parts which cover key issues such as the Library Bill of Rights,
protecting the freedom to read, intellectual freedom and the law, and
preserving, protecting and working for intellectual freedom. Expanding on the new addition to the manual is the section on Privacy; an Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights
Collaboration between associated organizations
Many of the entities listed above collaborate with one another and other organizations including:
Association of American Publishers
American Booksellers Association
American Booksellers Association for Free Expression
Center for Democracy and Technology
Internet Education Foundation
Media Coalition
National Coalition Against Censorship
PEN American Center
state and regional First Amendment organizations
state library association intellectual freedom committees
intellectual freedom coalitions
Intellectual Freedom Awards
Robert B. Downs Intellectual Freedom Award
Since 1969, the Graduate School of Library and Information Science
(GSLIS) at the University of Illinois annually awards the Robert B.
Downs Intellectual Freedom Award. GSLIS faculty named this award for Robert B. Downs on his 25th anniversary as director of the School in honor of his role as a champion for intellectual freedom.
Downs, also a former President and Vice-President of the ALA, focused
his library career working against, and voicing opposition to, literary
censorship and authored many books and publications on topics of
censorship and intellectual freedom.
Awarded to acknowledge individuals or groups who have furthered the
cause of intellectual freedom in libraries, the Robert B. Downs
Intellectual Freedom Award is "[g]ranted to those who have resisted
censorship or efforts to abridge the freedom of individuals to read or
view materials of their choice, the award may be in recognition of a
particular action or long-term interest in, and dedication to, the cause
of intellectual freedom."
Eli M. Oboler Memorial Award
Since
1986, the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Round Table biennially sponsors
the Eli M. Oboler Memorial Award. Consisting of a $500 prize and
certificate, the award acknowledges "the best published work in the area
of intellectual freedom." The IFRT posthumously named this award for Eli M. Oboler,
a former Idaho State University librarian known as a “champion of
intellectual freedom who demanded the dismantling of all barriers to
freedom of expression.”
Oboler, also a former member and officer in numerous intellectual
freedom organizations including the Intellectual Freedom Round Table,
the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee, the Freedom to Read Foundation,
and the Idaho Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee,
authored over 200 publications, many on censorship and intellectual
freedom, including:
The Fear of the Word: Censorship and Sex. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1974.
Ideas and the University Library: Essays of an Unorthodox Academic Librarian. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1977.
Defending Intellectual Freedom: The Library and the Censor. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980.
To Free the Mind: Libraries, Technology, and Intellectual Freedom. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1983."
Awarded to acknowledge authorship in the area of intellectual
freedom, the IFRT considers "single articles (including review pieces), a
series of thematically connected articles, books, or manuals published
on the local, state or national level in English or English translation"
for receipt of the Eli M. Oboler Award.
John Phillip Immroth Memorial Award
Since
1976, the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Round Table annually sponsors the
John Phillip Immroth Memorial Award. Consisting of a $500 prize and a
citation, the award "honors the courage, dedication, and contribution of
a living individual, group, or organization who has set the finest kind
of example for the defense and furtherance of the principles of
intellectual freedom."
Upon his death in 1979, the award was renamed for John Phillip Immroth,
the founder and first Chair of the Intellectual Freedom Round Table.
The Immroth award differs from other intellectual freedom awards in
that it recognizes "extraordinary personal courage in the defense of
intellectual freedom."
Gerald Hodges Intellectual Freedom Chapter Relations Award
Since
1984, the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Round Table annually sponsors a
regional intellectual freedom award, currently named the Gerald Hodges
Intellectual Freedom Chapter Relations Award. Consisting of a $1000
prize and citation, the award "recognizes an intellectual freedom
focused organization that has developed a strong multi-year, ongoing
program or a single, one-year project that exemplifies support for
intellectual freedom, patron confidentiality, and anti-censorship
efforts."
The IFRT posthumously named this award for Gerald Hodges, a longtime
ALA officer who devoted his library career to his passion for both
intellectual freedom and chapter relations until his death in 2006.
In 2010 the Gerald Hodges Intellectual Freedom Award replaced the IFRT
State and Regional Intellectual Freedom Achievement Award which had been
annually awarded "to the most innovative and effective intellectual
freedom project covering a state or region."
AASL Intellectual Freedom Award
Since 1982, the American Association of School Librarians
(AASL), a division of the ALA, annually awards the Intellectual Freedom
Award. Consisting of a $2000 prize to the recipient and a $1000 prize
to the school library program of the recipient's choice, the award
honors a school librarian "for upholding the principles of intellectual
freedom as set forth by the American Association of School Librarians
and the American Library Association."
Gordon M. Conable Award
Since 2007, the Public Library Association
(PLA), a division of the ALA, annually awards the Gordon M. Conable
Award. Consisting of a $1500 prize and commemorative plaque, the award
"honors a public library staff member, a library trustee, or a public
library that has demonstrated a commitment to intellectual freedom and
the Library Bill of Rights."
Intellectual freedom under authoritarian rule
Intellectual freedom is often suppressed under authoritarian rule
and such governments often claim to have nominal intellectual freedom,
although the degree of freedom is a matter of dispute. The former USSR,
for example, claimed to provide intellectual freedom, but some analysts
in the West have stated that the degree of intellectual freedom was
nominal at best.
Intellectual freedom in democratic countries during times of crises
During
times of crises there is often debate within democratic countries as to
the balance between national security, a successful conclusion to the
crises and the maintenance of democratic civil liberties. This debate
often takes the form of to what extent a democratic government can
curtail civil liberties in the interest of successfully ending the
crises.
Canada
Such a debate existed in Canada during the Second World War. Since the First World War the War Measures Act
had existed as legislation in Canada to allow the government to operate
with greater powers during times of national crises, such as in
wartime. During the Second World War the federal Liberal government of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King enacted the measure by Order-in-Council. The War Measures Act and with it the Defence of Canada Regulations
were passed by the federal government in early September 1939. With
their implementation civil liberties, especially the intellectual
freedom of political dissenters, were curtailed. As well, in Quebec the Union Nationale government of Premier Maurice Duplessis enacted “An Act Respecting Communist Propaganda”, which came to be known as the Padlock Act.
It gave Premier Duplesis, as Attorney General of Quebec, the power to
close (hence padlock) any premises used for the purposes of “propagating
Communism or Bolshevism.” The Act was criticized by Eugene Forsey,
for example, as being far too broad in definition and that it gave the
Premier the power to suppress any opinions that he wished to. Forsey
cited examples of such abuse in the Canadian Forum.
All of these measures were criticized by writers in the Canadian Forum such as Eugene Forsey and Frank R. Scott and by the League for Social Reconstruction
in general; a group to which both Forsey and Scott belonged. Indeed,
during the Second World War the Canadian Forum printed an anonymous
monthly column outlining civil liberties abuses by Canadian authorities.
United States
In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks
issues concerning the suspension or reduction of civil liberties in the
name of national security have arisen. Legislation such as the Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 and the USA PATRIOT Act
(often shortened to the Patriot Act) of 2001 encroach upon intellectual
freedom rights to privacy and freedom of information to enhance
domestic security from potential terrorist threats and acts.
The Patriot Act in particular has come under fire from numerous intellectual freedom organizations. The Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) has criticized the Patriot Act as unconstitutional, especially
when "the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might
be intercepted incidentally," Additionally, the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) maintains that the lower standard applied to wiretaps "gives the
FBI a 'blank check' to violate the communications privacy of countless
innocent Americans". The American Library Association
(ALA) has partnered with American libraries in opposition to a
provision in Section 215 which allows the FBI to apply for an order to
produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect
against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
The "tangible things" that can be targeted include "books, records,
papers, documents, and other items".
Freedom, generally, is having the ability to act or change
without constraint. Something is "free" if it can change easily and is
not constrained in its present state. In philosophy and religion, it is
associated with having free will and being without undue or unjust constraints, or enslavement, and is an idea closely related to the concept of liberty.
A person has the freedom to do things that will not, in theory or in
practice, be prevented by other forces. Outside of the human realm,
freedom generally does not have this political or psychological
dimension. A rusty lock might be oiled so that the key has the freedom
to turn, undergrowth may be hacked away to give a newly planted sapling
freedom to grow, or a mathematician may study an equation having many degrees of freedom.
In physics or engineering, the mathematical concept may also be applied
to a body or system constrained by a set of equations, whose degrees of
freedom describe the number of independent motions that are allowed to
it.
Free will
In philosophical discourse, freedom is discussed in the context of free will and self-determination, balanced by moral responsibility.
Advocates of free will regard freedom of thought as innate to the
human mind, while opponents regard the mind as thinking only the
thoughts that a purely deterministic brain happens to be engaged in at
the time.
Personal and social freedom or liberty
Four Freedoms, a series of paintings meant to describe the freedoms for which allied nations fought in World War II.
In some circumstances, particularly when discussion is limited to
political freedoms, the terms "freedom" and "liberty" tend to be used
interchangeably. Elsewhere, however, subtle distinctions between freedom and liberty have been noted. John Stuart Mill,
differentiated liberty from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if
not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the
power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary
restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such,
the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the
rights of others.
Wendy Hui Kyong Chun explains the differences in terms of their relation to institutions:
Liberty is linked to human
subjectivity; freedom is not. The Declaration of Independence, for
example, describes men as having liberty and the nation as being free.
Free will—the quality of being free from the control of fate or necessity—may first have been attributed to human will, but Newtonian physics attributes freedom—degrees of freedom, free bodies—to objects.
Freedom differs from liberty as
control differs from discipline. Liberty, like discipline, is linked to
institutions and political parties, whether liberal or libertarian;
freedom is not. Although freedom can work for or against institutions,
it is not bound to them—it travels through unofficial networks. To have
liberty is to be liberated from something; to be free is to be
self-determining, autonomous. Freedom can or cannot exist within a state
of liberty: one can be liberated yet unfree, or free yet enslaved (Orlando Patterson has argued in Freedom: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture that freedom arose from the yearnings of slaves).
Another distinction that some political theorists have deemed important is that people may aspire to have freedom from limiting forces (such as freedom from fear, freedom from want, and freedom from discrimination), but descriptions of freedom and liberty generally do not invoke having liberty from anything. To the contrary, the concept of negative liberty refers to the liberty one person may have to restrict the rights of others.
In
purely physical terms, freedom is used much more broadly to describe
the limits to which physical movement or other physical processes are
possible. This relates to the philosophical concept to the extent that
people may be considered to have as much freedom as they are physically
able to exercise. The number of independent variables or parameters for a system is described as its number of degrees of freedom.
For example the movement of a vehicle along a road has two degrees of
freedom; to go fast or slow, or to change direction by turning left or
right. The movement of a ship sailing on the waves has four degrees of
freedom since it can also pitch nose-to-tail and roll side-to-side. An
aeroplane can also climb and sideslip, giving it six degrees of freedom.
Degrees of freedom in mechanics describes the number of independent motions that are allowed to a body, or, in case of a mechanism
made of several bodies, the number of possible independent relative
motions between the pieces of the mechanism. In the study of complex motor control,
there may be so many degrees of freedom that a given action can be
achieved in different ways by combining movements with different degrees
of freedom. This issue is sometimes called the degrees of freedom problem.
"Freedom of Gait" in Dressage Theory (a concept in horse
training) refers to the horse's ability to reach his natural range of
motion (seen at liberty) under the rider. This can only be accomplished
if the rider has an independent seat. It must be established and
maintained in basic training and refers mostly to the biomechanical
articulation of the rear and front legs.
Some equations have many such variables. This notion is formalized as the dimension of a manifold or an algebraic variety. When degrees of freedom is used instead of dimension,
this usually means that the manifold or variety that models the system
is only implicitly defined. Such degrees of freedom appear in many
mathematical and related disciplines, including degrees of freedom as used in physics and chemistry to explain dependence on parameters, or the dimensions of a phase space; and degrees of freedom in statistics, the number of values in the final calculation of a statistic that are free to vary.
The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by United States PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt on Monday, January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:
Roosevelt delivered his speech 11 months before the surprise Japanese attack on U.S. forces in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
that caused the United States to declare war on Japan, December 8,
1941. The State of the Union speech before Congress was largely about
the national security of the United States and the threat to other democracies from world war that was being waged across the continents in the eastern hemisphere. In the speech, he made a break with the tradition of United States non-interventionism that had long been held in the United States. He outlined the U.S. role in helping allies already engaged in warfare.
In that context, he summarized the values of democracy behind the
bipartisan consensus on international involvement that existed at the
time. A famous quote from the speech prefaces those values: "As men do
not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone." In the
second half of the speech, he lists the benefits of democracy, which
include economic opportunity, employment, social security, and the
promise of "adequate health care". The first two freedoms, of speech and
religion, are protected by the First Amendment in the United States Constitution. His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional Constitutional values protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights. Roosevelt endorsed a broader human right to economic security and anticipated what would become known decades later as the "human security" paradigm in social science and economic development. He also included the "freedom from fear" against national aggression and took it to the new United Nations he was setting up.
Historical context
In
the 1930s many Americans, arguing that the involvement in World War I
had been a mistake, were adamantly against continued intervention in
European affairs.
With the Neutrality Acts established after 1935, U.S. law banned the
sale of armaments to countries that were at war and placed restrictions
on travel with belligerent vessels.
When World War II
began in September 1939, the neutrality laws were still in effect and
ensured that no substantial support could be given to Britain and
France. With the revision of the Neutrality Act in 1939, Roosevelt
adopted a "methods-short-of-war policy" whereby supplies and armaments
could be given to European Allies, provided no declaration of war could
be made and no troops committed.
By December 1940, Europe was largely at the mercy of Adolf Hitler and
Germany's Nazi regime. With Germany's defeat of France in June 1940,
Britain and its overseas Empire stood alone against the military
alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Winston Churchill, as Prime
Minister of Britain, called for Roosevelt and the United States to
supply them with armaments in order to continue with the war effort.
They also appeared on the reverse of the AM-lira,
the Allied Military Currency note issue that was issued in Italy during
WWII, by the Americans, that was in effect occupation currency,
guaranteed by the American dollar.
The Four Freedoms Speech was given on January 6, 1941. Roosevelt's
hope was to provide a rationale for why the United States should abandon
the isolationist policies that emerged from World War I. In the
address, Roosevelt critiqued Isolationism, saying: "No realistic
American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or
return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of
expression, or freedom of religion–or even good business. Such a peace
would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. "Those, who would
give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
The speech coincided with the introduction of the Lend-Lease Act,
which promoted Roosevelt's plan to become the "arsenal of democracy" and support the Allies (mainly the British) with much-needed supplies.
Furthermore, the speech established what would become the ideological
basis for America's involvement in World War II, all framed in terms of
individual rights and liberties that are the hallmark of American
politics.
The speech delivered by President Roosevelt incorporated the following text, known as the "Four Freedoms":
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world
terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a
healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world
terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in
such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit
an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the
world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium.
It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation.
That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new
order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a
bomb.
— Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the State of the Union Address to the Congress, January 6, 1941
The declaration of the Four Freedoms as a justification for war would
resonate through the remainder of the war, and for decades longer as a
frame of remembrance.
The Freedoms became the staple of America's war aims and the center of
all attempts to rally public support for the war. With the creation of
the Office of War Information (1942), as well as the famous paintings by
Norman Rockwell, the Freedoms were advertised as values central to
American life and examples of American exceptionalism.
Opposition
The
Four Freedoms Speech was popular, and the goals were influential in
postwar politics. However, in 1941 the speech received heavy criticism
from anti-war elements. Critics argued that the Four Freedoms were simply a charter for Roosevelt's New Deal,
social reforms that had already created sharp divisions within
Congress. Conservatives who opposed social programs and increased
government intervention argued against Roosevelt's attempt to justify
and depict the war as necessary for the defense of lofty goals.
While the Freedoms did become a forceful aspect of American
thought on the war, they were never the exclusive justification for the
war. Polls and surveys conducted by the United States Office of War Information (OWI) revealed that "self-defense", and vengeance for the attack on Pearl Harbor were still the most prevalent reasons for war.
Limitations
In
a 1942 radio address, President Roosevelt declared the Four Freedoms
embodied "rights of men of every creed and every race, wherever they
live."
On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt authorized Japanese American internment and internment of Italian Americans with Executive Order 9066,
which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas"
as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded."
This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were
excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and
much of Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, except for those in internment
camps.
By 1946, the United States had incarcerated 120,000 individuals of
Japanese descent, of whom about 80,000 had been born in the United
States.
United Nations
The concept of the Four Freedoms became part of the personal mission undertaken by First LadyEleanor Roosevelt regarding her inspiration behind the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,
General Assembly Resolution 217A. Indeed, these Four Freedoms were
explicitly incorporated into the preamble to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights which reads, "Whereas disregard and contempt for
human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the
conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings
shall enjoy the freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and
want has been proclaimed the highest aspiration of the common
people...."
Disarmament
FDR
called for "a world-wide reduction of armaments" as a goal for "the
future days, which we seek to make secure" but one that was "attainable
in our own time and generation." More immediately, though, he called for
a massive build-up of U.S. arms production:
Every realist knows that the
democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in
every part of the world... The need of the moment is that our actions
and our policy should be devoted primarily—almost exclusively—to meeting
this foreign peril. ...[T]he immediate need is a swift and driving
increase in our armament production. ...I also ask this Congress for
authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions
and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which
are now in actual war with aggressor nations. ...Let us say to the
democracies...
The Roosevelt Institute honors outstanding individuals who have demonstrated a lifelong commitment to these ideals. The Four Freedoms Award medals are awarded at ceremonies at Hyde Park, New York and Middelburg, Netherlands
during alternate years. The awards were first presented in 1982 on the
centenary of President Roosevelt's birth as well as the bicentenary of
diplomatic relations between the United States and the Netherlands.
Artist Hugo Ballin painted The Four Freedoms mural (1942) in the Council Chamber of the City Hall of Burbank, California.
New Jersey muralist Michael Lenson (1903–1972) painted The Four Freedoms mural (1943) for the Fourteenth Street School in Newark, New Jersey.
Muralist Anton Refregier painted the History of San Francisco (completed 1948) in the Rincon Center in San Francisco, California; panel 27 depicts the four freedoms.
Allyn Cox painted four Four Freedoms murals (completed 1982) which hang in the Great Experiment Hall in the United States House of Representatives; each of the four panels depicts allegorical figures representing the four freedoms.
In the early 1990s, artist David McDonald reproduced Rockwell's Four Freedoms paintings as four large murals on the side of an old grocery building in downtown Silverton, Oregon.
In 2008, Florida International University's Wolfsonian museum hosted the Thoughts on Democracy
exhibition that displayed posters created by 60 leading contemporary
artists and designers, invited to create a new graphic design inspired
by American illustrator Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms posters.
