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.
The United Nations upholds intellectual freedom as a basic human right through Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which asserts:
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: banned books, book burning, and challenges to literature censorship and attempts to censor including, but not limited to book censorship, film censorship, censorship of music, censorship of maps, censorship of individual words, censorship of comic books, and video game censorship self-censorship by authors, editors, journalists, or library materials selectors internet filtering through content-control software internet filtering through internet censorship internet safety legislation and initiatives such as Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and Neighborhood Internet Protection Act (NCIPA) net neutrality government information and freedom of information laws Issues concerning barriers to privacy of information include: data mining surveillance data protection and information privacy laws and practices confidentiality of library users' records of access legislation that suspends civil liberties in the name of national security such as the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act 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."Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 626 (1919)
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."Whitney v. California," 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
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."Olmstead v. United States," 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
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."United States v. Schwimmer," 279 U.S. 644 (1929)
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.Human Rights Law, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/hr_law.shtml 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 One Un-American Act. Nieman Reports, vol. 7, no. 1 (January 1953): p. 20)
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's Position 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.
Many other national library associations have similarly adopted statements on intellectual freedom.
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