I am supportive of this draft. I particularly commend the IFC for inserting language about the harmful effects of mass surveillance on free expression.
The following insert appears on page three of the "marked up" version (bolding mind):
"There is no meaningful freedom for the individual without personal privacy. A society that does not respect the privacy of the individual will be blind to the erosion of its rights and libraries."
Did you mean "liberties" instead of "libraries"? That seems to make it flow better.
Thanks again for your work on this interpretation.
Alaska Chapter Councilor
Member, Depository Library Council
I concur with Councilor Cornwall that this interpretation is very strong and consistent with the intent of the LBR. You may think it slightly obsessive or compulsive, but I'm distressed with the term "market" in the sentence:
We believe that everyone benefits when each individual is treated with respect, and ideas and information are freely shared, openly debated and vigorously tested in the market of public experience. I've always found the "market of ideas" phrasing to be troubling because it implies ideas are inherently bought and sold as commodities. I would feel better if a different and cost neutral term could be utilized, i.e. "area, zone, bubble, thoroughfare, network," etc. of public experience
Mike Marlin California State Library Braille and Talking Book Library Sacramento, CA
Thanks for catching the Libraries/Liberties typo!
Thanks for the observation about "market." I can see the problem but for good or ill, "market" is the term used in several landmark court opinions ("free market place of ideas") affirming thevalue and necessity of free speech. So, until we get superceding precedents we're probably stuck with it.
ALA IFC Chair
J. Douglas Archer Reference & Peace Studies Librarian 109 Hesburgh Library University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 574-631-6656 voice | 574-631-8887 fax firstname.lastname@example.org | www.nd.edu/~jarcher