Does Blocking Hardcore Internet Pornography Violate Intellectual Freedom?

The American Library Association states that "Access to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to the librarian or the user."⁸ But why should public libraries contain offensive materials? Even taxpayers who support the right to read offensive materials may not support paying for that material with tax dollars. Librarians may have to explain to their community why all viewpoints, including offensive viewpoints, have a place in the library. Below are three major arguments for allowing offensive materials in libraries.

Respect For Individual Dignity
One major argument for exposing people to all viewpoints, including offensive ones, rests on respect for the individual's dignity. If librarians get into the business of 'protecting' patrons from dangerous views, they would be taking a paternalistic attitude towards their patrons, which disrespects patrons' dignity as autonomous individuals.

The problem with applying this argument to the Internet pornography debate is that for a large contingent of the library's clientele, paternalism is arguably appropriate. For children, especially, protection is not necessarily a denial of dignity. Libraries and communities want to protect children not only from pornography itself, but from sexual assault by the small percentage of pornography users who will act out what they view.

Social science data is fairly persuasive: violent hard-core pornography harms viewers and their victims. This doesn't mean that most hardcore pornography viewers will commit crimes. But nor should librarians dismiss Internet pornography as harmless. They should take seriously those patrons who feel disturbed, angry, and unsafe in the presence of such content. The goal of Internet filtering is not just protecting pornography users from what's bad for them. The bigger concern is protecting children from potentially violent pornography users. For these reasons, the appeal to individual dignity might not move the patron who's concerned about Internet pornography.

The Democratic Society
A second intellectual freedom argument is that "government by the people" requires citizens to be well-informed about political and social issues. Thus, keeping information from people prevents them from participating in democratic society. In response to the question "Why should my tax dollars pay for access to offensive materials?" the ALA recommends this answer, "Taxes support free inquiry that allows citizens to inform themselves so they can fully participate in our democracy."⁹ The New Hampshire Library Association, which opposes the use of Internet filters in libraries, supports its Internet policy by saying it "believes that a democracy can only succeed if its citizens have access to the information necessary to form opinions and make decisions on issues affecting their lives."¹⁰

The argument that democracy requires intellectual freedom is very moving, for it appeals to our great history and deepest values as Americans. Unfortunately, it is not an obvious argument for nonpolitical speech. That the public knows details of Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs arguably has some value for democracy, but access to hardcore pornography does not seem to make most people more informed in their voting, lobbying, or their other political activities. If librarians use the democratic society argument, they will need to explain the political value of hardcore pornography to their patrons.

The Free Marketplace of Ideas and The Search for Truth
The third and perhaps most effective intellectual freedom argument appeals to the search for truth. John Stuart Mill argued that the most rational belief comes from the consideration of all the facts and arguments on all sides of an issue. Only in a free marketplace of ideas will true and justified belief triumph by standing up to tests from competing ideas and arguments.¹¹

The ALA likewise rejects censorship, partly to support people's search for truth: "Libraries are the information source in our society. They link individuals with the knowledge, information, literature, and other resources people seek. It is never libraries' role to keep individuals from what other people have to say."¹² The ALA has also written: "We are a diverse society and what offends one, enlightens another. Moreover, citizens have long found it wise to remain informed about opinions and ideas they oppose. The free marketplace of ideas cannot be partitioned and still function."¹³

This argument, however, has its flaws. For example, you could ask if most pornography users are really on a search for truth. Also, does pornography deserve to be called a "resource"? At face value, the appeal to intellectual freedom as an argument against filtering is unconvincing. To make the argument work, librarians must either (a) better articulate the informational value of hardcore pornography and how it helps the search for truth, (b) articulate how access to hardcore pornography promotes individual dignity, (c) articulate how access to hardcore pornography supports citizens' participation in a democracy, or (d) come up with some other justification.

Next:
Does Internet Filtering Software Violate Intellectual Freedom?

Previous > Table of Contents