Censorship: What we’re trying to say…Drafting the IFLA Statement on Censorship

Brent Roe
{"title":"Censorship: What we’re trying to say…Drafting the IFLA Statement on Censorship","authors":"Brent Roe","doi":"10.1177/0955749020954133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 25 August 2019, the Executive Committee of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) endorsed and published a new IFLA Statement on Censorship. The statement had been drafted by the IFLA Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) Advisory Committee over the course of the previous year. The present article describes the process of creating the statement, highlighting several questions that the committee had to consider along the way. For example, in choosing a definition of censorship, the committee decided to create one that was conceptually limited and linguistically neutral (in the sense of not simply borrowing the existing definition of a national association). As well, the committee needed to explain why censorship was problematic, essentially proposing that it offends against the library principle of equity of access to information. The committee also had to consider how to account for the apparent acceptability in most societies of some forms of censorship, in spite of the generally problematic nature of censorship, and proposed that, as suggested by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, some limitations on liberties may be permissible for the general welfare of society – though not to the extent that the general concept of FAIFE is significantly compromised.","PeriodicalId":431623,"journal":{"name":"Alexandria: The Journal of National and International Library and Information Issues","volume":"129 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alexandria: The Journal of National and International Library and Information Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0955749020954133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On 25 August 2019, the Executive Committee of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) endorsed and published a new IFLA Statement on Censorship. The statement had been drafted by the IFLA Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) Advisory Committee over the course of the previous year. The present article describes the process of creating the statement, highlighting several questions that the committee had to consider along the way. For example, in choosing a definition of censorship, the committee decided to create one that was conceptually limited and linguistically neutral (in the sense of not simply borrowing the existing definition of a national association). As well, the committee needed to explain why censorship was problematic, essentially proposing that it offends against the library principle of equity of access to information. The committee also had to consider how to account for the apparent acceptability in most societies of some forms of censorship, in spite of the generally problematic nature of censorship, and proposed that, as suggested by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, some limitations on liberties may be permissible for the general welfare of society – though not to the extent that the general concept of FAIFE is significantly compromised.
审查:我们想说的是……起草国际图联关于审查的声明
2019年8月25日,国际图书馆协会和机构联合会(IFLA)执行委员会批准并发布了一份新的国际图联审查声明。这份声明是由国际图联信息获取自由和言论自由咨询委员会(FAIFE)在去年起草的。本文描述了创建声明的过程,重点介绍了委员会在此过程中必须考虑的几个问题。例如,在选择审查的定义时,委员会决定创建一个概念上有限且语言上中立的定义(在不简单借用国家协会现有定义的意义上)。此外,委员会需要解释为什么审查制度是有问题的,从本质上说,它违反了图书馆公平获取信息的原则。委员会还必须考虑如何解释在大多数社会中某些形式的审查制度的明显可接受性,尽管审查制度具有普遍的问题性质,并建议,正如联合国《世界人权宣言》第29条所建议的那样,为了社会的一般福利,对自由的某些限制可能是允许的——尽管不是在FAIFE的一般概念显著妥协的程度上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信