Federal Depository Confusion

I have heard the term “federal depository library” thrown around many times, but until recently I only had a vague understanding of what that designation truly meant. I am fortunate to work in an academic library that also serves as a federal depository for government documents and I am continually amazed (and intimidated) by the huge collection of documents. That being said, I still didn’t fully understand the principles behind a federal depository library.

So, I did a little research and here is what I found…

The idea for a Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) began in 1813 when Congress passed a joint resolution to have copies of the House and Senate Journals (and other miscellaneous publications) printed and distributed to non-government libraries as a way to ensure that the American people had access to government information. Today, the FDLP has over 1,250 libraries of all shapes and sizes located across the country.

The FDLP is based upon these three principles:

* Federal Government information products within scope of the FDLP shall be made available to Federal depository libraries
* Federal depository libraries shall be located in each State and U.S. Congressional District to make Government information products more widely available
* Federal Government information in all media shall be available for the free use by the general public. (http://www.fdlp.gov/administration/handbook/160-introduction)

Apparently, the Government Printing Office (GPO) makes copies of government material and loans it to depository libraries. This material is still the property of the US Government, but is entrusted to depository libraries with the understanding that the library will facilitate public access. The main goal of depository libraries in Montana is to assure that government publications are accessible to all residents of Montana.

To Filter, or Not to Filter…

Although no one would deny that the Internet has forever changed the way we access information, not all would agree that this change is for the better. Unbelievably, it is a common belief that access to large amounts of information is not healthy…even for adults. The idea is that by viewing “inappropriate” material, intentionally or not, a person will be forever changed. Apparently, exposure to this material will cause significantly more harm than it’s censorship. The idea is basically that someone else knows what is best for the rest of us; someone else should decide what is appropriate and what is not. It was this belief that began the movement to place Internet filtering software in public libraries.

The first attempt at censoring Internet use in public libraries was in 1997 with Reno v the American Civil Liberties Union. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled against censorship and found the anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act to be a violation of the First Amendment. Hooray Supreme Court!!! Unfortunately, 3 years later Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, which in effect negated Reno v ACLU by requiring publicly funded institution to use Internet filtering. Boooo Congress!!!

The idea behind CIPA was to protect children from “illegal visual depictions accessible through the Internet”. On the surface this seems like a very noble endeavor, but the reality is not so cut-and-dry. The reality is that we are entrusting a software program to keep our children safe from the “terrors of the Internet”. No filtering program is perfect and children will inevitably find a way around any software if they really want to. It seems to me, that a better approach is the one that the ALA has adopted. The program promotes educating children (and adults) on Internet safety. Teaching children how to learn and play on the Internet safely will give them the skills necessary to ensure a lifetime of positive Internet experiences.