In keeping with the topic of the day, here’s a report on internet filtering from the National Coalition Against Censorship which is admittedly, a bit dated, having been produced in 2001. But it gives an excellent overview of many of the issues and problems being discussed in the wake of the LPL debate. And an update of the report in 2006 shows that the same concerns with internet filtering software remain to this day.
Here are some examples of what happens when you filter:
- JH
The meeting of the London Public Library Board took place last night and from the morning-after article in the London Free Press, it sounds like the meeting didn’t go as smoothly for LPL CEO Anne Becker had hoped:
While the board meeting began with its chair, Svetlana MacDonald, cautioning members to listen to, not discuss, the issue, new board member and city councillor Nancy Branscombe quickly moved to rescind the filter program.
Told she had to give notice first, Branscombe, who didn’t attend the May meeting when the measure passed, suggested it be considered at the next board meeting, a direction that led four other board members to raise hands in support.
However, the filtering software is still going to be applied to the majority of adult computers in the library, as per Anne Becker’s recommendation, probably at least until the move is reviewed at the next Board meeting.
It is important to note, I think, that Anne Becker is not a librarian. She has an MBA and a background as an insurance executive. With a library school at its doorstep, the London Public Library could be a model for intellectual freedom, collections, programming, and innovative service. But no. Becker’s closing statement in the London Free Press article about the filtering critics not having “tested the software.” It seems that she’s missed the point entirely.
A participant on the link to an interesting article from genderIT about content regulation, censorship, and feminism:
Filtering software technology, regularly implemented to ‘protect’ internet users from the harm of pornography, has been known to over-block content on the internet, including information about women’s sexual and reproductive health. Women’s movements have struggled for many decades to articulate female sexual agency that is active, desiring and not necessarily appended to heterosexuality. Is it then useful, to call for censorship just when heterosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual female representations of sexuality are beginning to populate cyberspace, by naming them as the moral and legislative equivalent of pornography?
According to the Free Press article, that’s exactly what Roma Harris was talking about at the Board meeting. Was Anne Becker listening?
-SIO
We received the letter below from Lindsay Sage (Director, Marketing and Development, London Public Library) as a comment on the blog this afternoon. We are reposting it here to give it a wider audience.
-SIO
*****
London Public Library’s Internet Policy and Filtering Test Project
Update from the London Public Library
On behalf of the London Public Library (LPL), I am pleased to offer you the following information on our Internet Policy Review and Internet Filtering Test Project. As the LPL’s Director of Marketing and Development, I have been following your discussions with interest. We are keenly interested in, and appreciate, your feedback and insights on this issue and so, in the interest of transparency and to ensure you have the most comprehensive view on the test project, I am pleased to be able to offer you the following information. You will note that I have included contact information for members of our Senior Team at the end of this communication, and encourage you to continue to share your feedback with any one of them and with me. We have proceeded with this test project in good faith, working both to uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and to support our mission to create a community hub that is welcoming and comfortable for all of our customers. In the interest of transparency and anticipating our June 1 test start, we shared the following information with our community partners and stakeholders in the Library environment on May 17, 2007. Again, we welcome and appreciate your thoughts and feedback on this test project.
Best,
Lindsay Sage
Director, Marketing and Development
London Public Library
—
For the period of June 1 through October 31st, the London Public Library has undertaken a review of our Internet Policy, which includes our system-wide filtering practices. In order to do so, we will be temporarily changing the number of computers we filter, to examine and test the effects on the Library’s role as both a welcoming community hub and as an access point for information and ideas. Filtering in the Library is not a new practice. The Library has always filtered in certain areas, like in our Children’s Areas and our Employment Resource Centres. It is important to note that this test project is not about restricting access to information, but rather is part of an effort to mitigate the risk of unintentional exposure of customers to images that are not appropriate for a public space. It is very important to the Library that we provide a welcoming space and positive experience for all of our customers, while ensuring they have access to the information they need. Accordingly, a certain number of unfiltered workstations will still be available in the majority of our branch locations.
This project is timely, in terms of our policy review process, and is not in response to any particular incident. We have in the past experienced isolated incidents involving the unintentional exposure of customers to images that are inappropriate in a public space, and this review will simply allow us to continue to explore ways to strengthen our role as a community hub, welcoming for both individuals and families, and to balance this with our role in providing access to information and ideas of all kinds. Further, given the constant evolution of the Internet and the growing number of workstations in the Library, it behooves us to examine our policy. As the Library moves increasingly to be recognized as an important community destination, we need to be able to ensure our Internet Policy supports this position.
The filtering software, provided by Netsweeper, allows the Library to select filter criteria. In an effort to mitigate the risk of unintentional exposure to images that are inappropriate for a public space, extreme violence and sexually explicit images are being filtered. However, resources like sexual education sites are not impacted by this level of filtering.
It is important to note that filtering is not a 100% solution, but helps significantly in our efforts to reduce unintentional exposure to these images. Filtering works with most websites but does not apply to images downloaded by email or brought into the Library on external devices, i.e. USB drives.
Because public feedback is an important part of this test project, we will be offering the opportunity for interested stakeholders to attend a public forum this fall (date TBA), where individuals and groups will be able to request delegation status and provide feedback and insights on the project. The test itself will run until the end of October 2007. The months of November and December will be used to analyze the project data, including customer, staff and community feedback, and to make further decisions about filtering going forward. At that time, a report will be made to our customers, community partners and stakeholders in the Library community.
If you would like more information on the Internet Policy Review Project or would like to share your comments, which we welcome, we invite you to contact one of the following members of our Senior Team:
Anne Becker, CEO
519.661.5145
anne.becker@lpl.london.on.ca
Susanna Hubbard Krimmer, Director, Operations
519.661.5143
Susanna Hubbard.Krimmer@lpl.london.on.ca
Margaret Mitchell, Director, Quality Improvement
519.661.5134
Margaret.mitchell@lpl.london.on.ca
Lindsay Sage, Director, Marketing and Development
519.661.6403
lindsay.sage@lpl.london.on.ca
Many people are alarmed that the London Public Library is even considering putting Internet filters on its adult computers! This letter from Gavin Stairs follows those from Dr. Sam Trosow and Dr. Toni Samek. Please refer to our previous post “What You Can Do to Stop LPL Internet Filtering” and read our first post for a brief introduction to the issue. Please send letters and e-mails to the LPL Board to show your support for intellectual freedom! Their meeting is June 20th at 5:30 pm in the Friends of the London Public Libary Board Room at the Central branch (251 Dundas).
-SIO
*****
Dear Board Members of the London Public Library:
I was recently informed by Dr. Samuel Trosow of your impending deliberations on filtering of public access terminals (computers) at the LPL, to counter the availability of offensive material. Dr. Trosow was kind enough to send me a copy of his letter to you regarding this issue. I am in complete agreement with his position as stated in that letter, and immediately sent him a note to that effect, which he suggested that I send to you. Here it is, verbatim.
I am Gavin Stairs, a resident of London North Centre and an active patron of the LPL, especially the Masonville Branch. I also serve as the publisher of Pendas Productions, a poetry press in London. In my work I make heavy use of computers and the Internet, and in my previous careers, I was both a designer of computer systems and a user in a technical context as the Design Engineer of the University of Toronto Physics Department High Energy Physics Group for a decade and a half until 2000. I would classify myself as an expert user of computing equipment.
It is my experience that filters of the type used to restrict access to textual and other data on the Internet are susceptible to both false positive and false negative bias at a high rate, meaning that they tend both to exclude inoffensive material and include offensive material outside their intended functions. Where there is a strong desire to protect users, such as children, this may be acceptable when the filters are tuned to exclude as much as possible without regard to unintended exclusions of inoffensive material. However, it is much less acceptable in the context of adult use, where utility may be defined in terms of inclusivity of all relevant material in a given search, regardless of what unintended material may have to be winnowed by inspection. This is particularly true in the case of artists and sociologists who may be directly concerned with the otherwise offensive material itself, for purposes of legitimate study.
If a personal context is useful, let the reader inspect the reject and inbox files in his or her own email account to observe how inefficient the filter is at catching all the junk, while passing all the intended mail. In an account like mine, where the email address is widely known because it has been available for many years from various sources on the Internet, I receive a large volume of mail, not more than 10% of which is valuable, while about as much junk fails to get filtered, and a percent or so of good messages have to be retrieved from the junk mailbox. This is after a long period during which the filters have been tuned by training with real messages.
The filtering rate on images and audio is even less impressive. Much of the failures in the email message filtering reported above comes from the practice of including large amounts of masking text and the use of images to convey text, where the message is effectively masked from the filter. Such techniques are also available to web sites.
Regardless of the technical efficiency of textual and other filters, they will always exclude a certain number of websites and messages because of their legitimate use of objectionable language, as any survey of literature will show. The same might be said of non-textual material. This is an intractable problem at the current level of sophistication of such tools, and one may speculate that it will remain so for a long time.
Unless filters in use on a system like the LPL are constantly monitored for these failures, and continually tuned for new threats and overly aggressive filtering, they are highly likely to interfere with the use of library facilities by serious researchers. I therefore deplore the blind application of such devices to all access computers in the library. If there is a demonstrated need for such filtered terminals, let them be so labelled and made available separately from unfiltered terminals, which should be made available to any adult library patron desiring an unbiased research capability. Moreover, there must be an informative effort made to distinguish these two, so that patrons are not misled.
It is my opinion that a simplistic approach to such filtering is inappropriate to any library in which any form of research is to be done. While some of the branch libraries may be used predominantly by recreational readers and families including small children, they also have a certain number of patrons whose purpose is likely to suffer to some degree from such bias. It would be an unfortunate restriction on their use of library facilities to force them to resort to the Central facilities, or to exclude them entirely.
I therefore strongly support Dr. Trosow’s position in this matter, and urge the library to take a deeper look at their policies regarding filters on public access terminals.
Sincerely,
Gavin Stairs
Publisher, Design and Production Manager
Pendas Productions
Watch the Canadian library community rally to the defense of intellectual freedom in London ON! In short: the London Public Library is thinking about putting Internet filtering software on some of their adult Internet-access computers. More information in yesterday’s post and a letter posted earlier today from Dr. Sam Trosow.
Again, if you can, please attend upcoming LPL Board meeting on June 20th at 5:30 pm in the Friends of the London Public Libary Board Room at the Central branch (251 Dundas).
-SIO
*********************
17 June 2007
Dear London Public Library Board,
By way of introduction, I am an Associate Professor at the School of Library & Information Studies, University of Alberta, where I have taught since 1994. I am the author of the books Intellectual Freedom and Social Responsibility in American Librarianship, 1967-1974 (McFarland Publishing, 2001) and Librarianship and Human Rights: A Twenty-first century guide (CHANDOS – Oxford – Publishing, 2007). I convene the Canadian Library Association’s Advisory Committee on Intellectual Freedom. I am a member of the Canadian Association of University Teacher’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. I serve on the Book and Periodical Council’s Freedom of Expression Committee. I am a founding member and first convenor of the Association for Library and Information Science Education’s Information Ethics Special Interest Group. Given my background, I am writing to this letter in order to express my deep concern over the London Public Library’s movement to place a filter on some of the library’s adult Internet access stations. Please accept this statement as an informed request that you please reconsider this disturbing pending curtailment of freedoms in your community.
From the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) and its human rights stance (as reflected in its myriad of statements, resolutions, and urgent press releases, including its Internet Manifesto), on down to the Canadian Library Association (CLA), intellectual freedom is the first core value of librarianship. It is encoded into the CLA Code of Ethics (1976), which first directs Canadian librarians to uphold the CLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom (1974). It is part and parcel of what librarians stand for, including those who live and labour under the Ontario Library Association (OLA) banner.
As professional librarians worldwide know all too well, Internet filters are notoriously semantically, technically, and ideologically flawed. All filters (and their creators and purveyors) both provide a false sense of security and are not favourable to minority groups and disenfranchised individuals (women, GLBTQ populations, radical thinkers, dissenters, suspect communities, women, the girl-child, and so on). The library must not condone this misleading form of technology with its embedded targeting. If you want your library to remain welcoming to all, then you will have a clear conscience with open Internet access. To move from this solid democratic ground, is to erode the role and standing of your library in your community – and by extension in the broader community.
The Canadian library community and its sister communities are watching this development closely. Because what you propose is not a small step down. It is the tip of a very slippery slope. What does the future hold for your collection, your meeting room use, and your sponsorships? Is your library one of the last bastions of public space in your community? How many other spaces in London exist where people are really supported in being true to themselves, no matter what their religion, thought, age, association, dissent, race, philosophy, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nation of origin, citizenship, class, ideology, and so on?
I would be more than pleased to work with your library staff in order to provide some professional development in the area of intellectual freedom and the paramount need for it in library rhetoric and practice at a time when the global community is threatened evermore by just the opposite. Indeed, Amnesty International has just released a warning that the Internet “could change beyond all recognition†unless action is taken against the erosion of online freedoms. This is termed a “virus of repression.†[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6724531.stm] I urge you not to participate in the growing negative global campaign against the free flow of information. The free flow of information is a key condition for education. London Public Library should be as proactive as possible about providing current, quality, multilingual and multi-format sustained education for Internet use – and for as diverse a range of community members as possible. In the long run, those hands that work for lifelong education hold far more hands than those of censors.
Finally, I would like to point out that the CLA’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom directly references and supports the Canadian Charter. What more needs to be said?
Sincerely,
Dr. Toni Samek
St. Albert, Alberta
Cc:
Dr. Sam Trosow (University of Western Ontario)
Dr. Alvin Schrader (Canadian Library Association)
Franklin Carter (Freedom of Expression Committee)
James Turk (Canadian Association of University Teachers)
Below is Dr. Trosow’s request for delegation status at the upcoming London Public Library board meeting. He was granted this status and will be speaking at the June 20th, 5:30 pm meeting in the Friends of the London Public Libary Board Room at the Central branch (251 Dundas). Please attend if you’re in the city! For more information about what’s going down in London, please have a read through yesterday’s post.
-SIO
***********************
To: London Public Library Board Chairperson Svetlana MacDonald, Vice-Chairperson David Winninger, Board Members Gina Barber, Nancy Branscombe, Jerry Colwell, Jo Deslippe, Jan Lubell, Josh Morgan, and Joanne Tilly; CEO Anne Becker, and Board Secretary.
Re: Internet Filtering Policy - Request for Delegation Status at June 20, 2007 LPL Board Meeting
Dated: June 12, 2007
Through this letter I am requesting delegation status to address the London Public Library Board at its June 20, 2007 meeting on the topic of LPL’s Internet filtering policy.
By way of introduction, I am an Associate Professor at the University of Western Ontario holding a joint appointment in the Faculty of Information & Media Studies (FIMS), where I teach in the Library & Information Science program, and in the Faculty of Law. I have a strong interest in public library policies pertaining to access to information and intellectual freedom, and I have been an active participant in the work of various library associations. The purpose of this letter and my presentation to the Board is to express my concern about the Internet filtering policies being implemented at LPL, to request that the Board reconsider these policies, and to suggest possible alternative courses of action.
My understanding is that LPL is currently engaged in a process where additional computer terminals in the adult section will be filtered. I have carefully reviewed the LPL’s Internet Policy Project Plan as well as other existing LPL policies and reports, and have reached the conclusion that the current plan to extend Internet filtering is unwarranted. It is not consistent with generally accepted values in the library community, such as the Canadian Library Association’s Code of Ethics and Statement on Intellectual Freedom, and it creates an unreasonable burden on your patrons’ rights to seek and receive information. This burden is not justified by the circumstances that have been presented, as there is no indication of any pressing problem in the library system that warrants such an extreme response. It is also evident that LPL already has several policies in place that would adequately address what limited concerns have arisen, and would do so in such in a manner that is less restrictive of the intellectual freedom and access rights of your patrons.
It is not clear what the problem is that the new LPL policy is addressing
Before undertaking any change in policy that would result in more filtering, there should be a clear indication of what the problem is that needs to be addressed. The Internet Policy Project Plan as it was presented to the LPL Board does not adequately address this crucial threshold issue. In passing there is vague reference to some patron complaints, which apparently have resulted from unintentional exposure to images on a computer:
We have received negative comments on an infrequent but regular basis from customers at Central and Branch locations about these types of incidences. Our mission statement and value promise assures customers that we will provide a welcoming environment for all people, such as families and children, and pays attention to the individual’s experience in the Library. (Plan, p. 2).
This reference to “infrequent but regular†complaints doesn’t rise to the level of justification for a policy change of this nature. The problem identified here could just as easily be remedied by less drastic alternatives such as rearranging the furniture, placing privacy screens on terminals, or clearing the screen more frequently. While the Plan acknowledges some of these alternatives, it fails to explain why they are inadequate to the problem at hand and not being instituted before resorting to more drastic measures.
Adequate LPL policies are already in place
Taken together, existing LPL policies appear more than adequate to resolve the nature of the problem, such as it has been stated.
Thinking of the materials available on the Internet as an extension of your collection, LPL already has a written policy for dealing with patron complaints about inappropriate materials. LPL’s Collections Management Policy sets out a procedure for resolving complaints and it does not seem to have been followed in the current situation:
Complaints
The London Public Library Board is aware that some materials are controversial and may offend some patrons. Complaints about materials in the collection are directed to the appropriate librarian. If you wish, you may place a formal written complaint. The complaint is reviewed by the Senior Collections Librarian in consultation with the subject (or branch) librarian, and written response is prepared for you. If this response is not satisfactory, you may ask to appeal the decision to the Chief Executive Officer. If still not satisfied with the outcome, you may appeal to the Library Board.
Were any formal written complaints received in this situation? If so, how were they responded to? Instead of addressing these questions, the Plan simply refers to infrequent complaints in a rather vague manner.
In addition, Section 4.2 of your patron Rules of Conduct applies to particular situations where a patron is making inappropriate use of the library’s computer services:
4. Accessing and Using Intellectual Content
Members of the public and staff are expected to abide by the laws and regulations of Canada and the Province of Ontario when using Library resources to access and use intellectual content.* * *
4.2 Members of the public must abide by the Criminal Code of Canada, and, specifically, Part V pertaining to sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct, including child pornography and obscenity, and Part VIII pertaining to offences against the person, including hate propaganda.
Finally, the LPL policy statement on Computer Use and Internet Access , like the Rules of Conduct, already deals with instances of misuse of the computer facilities and advises patrons that the rules can be enforced by library staff:
Library staff are entrusted with the obligation to ensure that all rules of computer use and Internet access are followed. Staff will advise patrons of appropriate conduct as required and state consequences of not following the rules of conduct should unacceptable behaviour continue or be repeated. Any person violating Library rules of computer use and Internet access risks suspension of Library privileges, exclusion from the Library for a period of time, and prosecution.
It is not at all clear, however, that there has even been any patron misconduct since reference is made to “unintentional†exposure. Is there a persistent and documented problem occurring in the LPL system that cannot be adequately addressed within the framework of current policies? This question should be carefully analyzed and answered in the negative before proceeding with more restrictive alternatives such as filtering.
The problems with Internet filtering
While a full discussion of the negative implications of Internet filtering is beyond what can be included in a short presentation, the conclusion of the 2006 Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report published by the Free Expression Policy Project of the Brennan Center for Social Justice at the NYU Law School summarizes the issues well:
. . . the widespread use of filters presents a serious threat to our most fundamental free expression values. There are much more effective ways to address concerns about offensive internet content. Filters provide a false sense of security, while blocking large amounts of important information in an often irrational or biased way. Although some may say that the debate is over and that filters are now a fact of life, it is never too late to rethink bad policy choices (Executive Report, p. ii).
While the Brennan Report is focused on Internet filtering in the U.S. in the aftermath of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the resulting litigation brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Library Association (ALA), the general principles and documentation contained in the Report are applicable to the Canadian situation. The extensive review of research on the performance of Internet filters supports the general conclusion that Internet filters are by nature imprecise, and often result in the blocking of content that patrons have the right to receive.
In contrast, the LPL Internet Policy Project Plan as it was presented to the Board does not contain an analysis of the performance of the filtering system provided by LPL’s vendor, does not contain any indication of how the blocking list is generated and maintained, and does not discuss how a patron might disable the filter if they so desire.
Conclusion and recommended actions
Under all of the circumstances, the conclusion that the LPL’s plan of extended Internet filtering violates basic principles of intellectual freedom and access to information is unavoidable. It is the type of policy that can result from reducing basic and fundamental values of librarianship to issues of “customer-service.â€
In closing, I would make the following suggestions:
• The Board should rescind its actions taken at the May Board meeting and refrain from installing filters on any additional computers in the adult sections of the Central and Branch Libraries. If the blocking software has been already installed, it should be removed.
• Existing policies under which terminals in the adult sections are filtered should be reviewed for consistency with the policies and concerns raised in this letter.
• Any further proposals for Internet filtering should be based on a thorough analysis of documented complaints and be vetted at a public participation meeting prior to implementation. Before instituting such measures, the public and the Board should be apprised of the methodology for how the proposed software constructs the blocking list, and how library staff and patrons may alter it.
• Patron complaints should generally be subject to the existing policies on collections, patron behavior, and computer usage.
• Staff should be requested to evaluate less restrictive measures such as rearranging the furniture, placing privacy screens on terminals, or clearing the content of terminals more frequently.
I hope that these suggestions are useful, as I believe they are sufficient to provide the quality of service in an appropriate environment that LPL strives to deliver to all of its patrons. I look forward to speaking with you on June 20th. Please do not hesitate to contact me in advance if you have any additional questions or concerns I might address.
Submitted by,
Samuel E. Trosow, Associate Professor
University of Western Ontario
Faculty of Information & Media Studies / Faculty of Law
According to this report to the London Public Library Board meeting for May 16, 43% of the library’s Internet access computers are already filtered. They propose to increase the number of filtered station and find a way to implement filtering on their wireless network. To quote, “the majority of machines in public space will be filtered.”
The problem at the library (”on an infrequent but regular basis”) is that some patrons are complaining about being exposed to sexual and/or violent images on computer screens as they pass by them. The solution to this problem, as most libraries in the country have already found, does not require a restriction of intellectual freedom (and where it’s a matter of rearranging furniture and adding privacy screens, it’s often cheaper than software!).
The LPL’s 3-page report also reveals a lack of built-in public consultation in the process. They say there will be a “feedback mechanisms for the public and staff” but it doesn’t sound like anyone’s encouraging a debate about intellectual freedom. If Internet filtering is under consideration, the public should have input about which computers (if any) need to be filtered, what alternatives to filtering might be, and what different filters actually filter out and what they allow to pass by. Lest you think this might just be an experiment to see how patrons react, they’ve included this gem as part of their project: “Deveop good communications strategies that provide messages on this issue that enable positive responses both internally and externally.” Good, a sales pitch. Come to think of it, I didn’t see the words “intellectual freedom” mentioned in the report at all….hmm…
Here are some good resources on Internet filtering:
Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report - from The Free Expression Policy Project
The Southern Ontario Library Service has a nice big set of resources and links.
MIT Student Association for Freedom of Expression’s Information about Labeling and Rating Systems
PeaceFire: Internet filter circumvention! You know the LPL staff are activists when they start handing little slips of paper with this web address to their patrons…
The Use of Filtering Software in Public Libraries - a memo from a Florida attorney. U.S.-based, but interesting. Includes this nugget: “The problem should be solved by partitioning-off Internet terminals to prevent conflicts over taste and preference.”
Ann Curry’s 2002 study “What are Public Library Customers Viewing on the Internet?” — from the Brantford Public Library. She did a similar study in 2000 on the Burnaby Public Library.
And, of course, the ALA “affirms that the use of filtering software by libraries to block access to constitutionally protected speech violates the Library Bill of Rights.”
It will be interesting to see what happens. The next LPL Board meeting is on June 20th at 5:30 pm in the Friends of the London Public Libary Board Room at the Central branch (251 Dundas). According to the meeting’s agenda, UWO’s Dr. Sam Trosow (Faculty of Information and Media Studies & Faculty of Law) and Dr. Roma Harris (University Vice Provost & Faculty of Information and Media Studies) have delegation status and will be speaking at the meeting. If you’re in London, please try to attend and contribute to the discussion!
On a side-note, I think it’s important to take note of the LPL’s use of the term “customer” to the exclusion of any other — their choice of wording is indicative of their approach to service: rather than being a place to discuss the nature of intellectual freedom with their patrons, they aim to be a “comfortable” space for [appropriate] customers. Good libraries have always made me a little uncomfortable.
-SIO
Mind Freedom asks the questions that don’t make it into the mainstream media about the potential link between violent behaviour and anti-depressants. Here’s their statement on the tragic event at Virgina Tech.
And more articles on this issue from The Public Library of Science and The Guardian.
Finally, info on how anti-depressant prescribing is being targeted at youth in The Peoples Voice.
April 20.07 - PC
Can documents in reference to an ongoing lawsuit be published and distributed online? Judge Cogan and subsequently Judge Weinstein of Brooklyn thought not, according to the injunctions they issued to lawyer Jim Gottstein for the recall of all Eli Lilly documents he had distributed related to the inappropriate usage and marketing of Zyprexa, documents that Gottstein reportedly obtained through a subpoena in support of another lawsuit.
Out in the blogosphere, this injunction has been coined ‘Judge Tries to Unring Bell Hanging Around Neck of Horse Already Out of Barn Being Carried on Ship That Has Sailed’ source: TortsProfBlog
Aside from the “this is absurd” interpretation so aptly described by the TortsProf, is it even legally tenable? The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has lent its support to the distribution of the documents, which according to the NYT contained evidence that Eli Lilly suppressed information about side effects and marketed the drug against FDA approval for ‘off label’ uses.
Mind Freedom also supports Gottstein’s position that the documents are not eligible to be sealed due to the public’s right to safety and the fact that the documents do not in fact contain proprietary or trade secret information. Mind Freedom and the Alliance for Human Research Protection have defended what they consider to be the right to free speech in court hearings on Jan 16 and 17, 2007 and now await Judge Weinstein’s decision, expected soon.
The website most implicated for the distribution of the documents was a wiki at zyprexa.pbwiki.com. At the moment, this and all other sites are complying with the injunction.
Can you say “[down with] censorship†and “public safety†and “whistleblower protection�
Good, altogether now!
-PC
Feb. 18.07 update…
Evelyn Pringle reports in Counterpunch on Judge Weinstein’s Feb 13.07 decision to enforce a permanant injunction to prevent circulation of the documents.
Mar.1.07 update …
Mind Freedom reports a mixed decision - Judge Weinstein recognizes importance of upholding free speech, permitting websites to post the documents. But Weinstein enacts a permanent injunction against the original ‘conspirators’. Link.
To follow up on our last post on net neutrality, here is a good intro video called “Human Lobotomy.” In the vid, Sir Tim Berners-Lee (founder of the Internet) gives this definition of network neutrality: “if I pay to connect to the net, with a given quality of service — and if you pay to connect to the net with the same or a higher quality of service — then you and I can communicate across the net with that quality of service.”
For more resources, please check out our previous post on the topic or visit neutrality.ca. Thanks Danielle!
-SIO