WHAT ARE FAMILY-FRIENDLY LIBRARIES AND WHY SHOULD WE FEAR THEM?

Because of the influence groups like Family Friendly Libraries have had on Loudoun's current library Internet policy, a review of their philosophy will reinforce why Mainstream's opposition to the current Internet policy is so essential. [All quotes are from the FFL Website or handouts. Visit Family Friendly Libraries for more details.]

Karen Jo Gounaud's so-called Family Friendly Libraries (FFL) threaten our intellectual freedom by promoting restictive, repressive policies, all in the name of protecting children.

What are the Goals of FFL?

In addition to supporting full filtering for all library Internet users, Family Friendly Libraries wants to give "parents veto rights at the check-out end (with instructions encoded on computerized library cards specifying off limits Dewey decimal numbers, authors, titles)." FFL would also segregate large categories of books and other materials in special "parental advisory" areas to prevent children under 18 from accessing sexually explicit and violent sexual materials.

In this manner, "Any parent who wanted their kids to be exposed to anything and everything could do so - by accompanying his child to the restricted area and checking out the restricted materials with him...By contrast, opt-out (requiring constant parental monitoring) leads to library licentiousness in book displays and access policies."

FFL would change the libraries' materials selection criteria. Article One of the Charter for a Family Friendly Libraries System spells out the selection criteria FFL would use. It states that "As a branch of the government charged with protecting and preserving our society,...the library system clearly acknowledges the importance and superiority of the traditional family (defined as 'mother and father married to each other, committed to a lifetime, monogamous relationship')."

FFL would emphasize "traditional family and relevant values" and "...standards upholding traditional family values will take precedence." Although opposing views will not be excluded, "...there will be no mandate to give [them]...'equal time,' space and emphasis for the sake of 'intellectual freedom.'"

In other words, the libraries would make moral judgments in order to create collections where one point of view (FFL's) dominates, while stigmatizing patrons who choose to venture into the "restricted" areas.

Gounaud quotes Charles Donovan, Senior Policy Advisor from the Family Research Council (a religious right group), to illustrate her criteria: "...libraries should generally ‘seek scholarly balance on controversial topics.’ But he also cautions that ‘some things are so destructive to the bond of cohesion in a community or to its standards and laws that their right to balance don’t apply.’ For examples he cites 'books on bomb-building, hate tracts from the KKK and pornography.'"

Mainstream believes that keeping our children in ignorance is not the solution to society's ills any more than providing them with knowledge is the cause. Allowing a few individuals to make value judgments for all parents infringes on the rights of parents to take or send their children to a bigotry-free library.

What Motivates FFL?

A look at how the criteria would be determined is instructive. Gounaud states: "...the Creator has given us ABSOLUTE STANDARDS [her emphasis] to live by (like sexual purity) which is encoded in our LAWS (like the sodomy, adultery and fornication laws)...the principles of Creator-authenticated absolute standards for people and their government applies[sic] in ALL issues." To this end, Ms. Gounaud believes that the ideal library trustee "should be someone who understands that there is no constitutional mandate for the separation of church and state."

Despite this clear religious basis for determining criteria and FFL’s regular communication with and encouragement from the American Family Association, the Christian Coalition, and other religious right groups, Gounaud claims that her organization “is a secular, not a religious organization.” However, the goals of FFL dovetail nicely with the religious right agenda of changing public policy to promote their narrowly defined life style.

Opposition to books dealing with homosexuality recur frequently, for Gounaud believes taxpayers’ money should not be used to advocate “for an illegal lifestyle which endangers public health.” The campaign by the radical right to marginalize the homosexual community even more in order to use it as a wedge issue is supported by FFL policies. They often castigate the ALA for allowing too much positive information about gays and lesbians on the library shelves.

FFL wants to eliminate the American Library Association (ALA) which it describes as "an arrogant, monopolistic, lobbying special-interest group" which "is known nationwide as a pro-pornography group." Gounaud states: "Our ultimate goal is USA-wide replacement of ALA control with local citizen control, one community at a time." The ALA's Library Bill of Rights with its support of intellectual freedom is a major stumbling block for the FFL in their attempt to remove or restrict materials they deem inappropriate.

Be aware of what is happening in your library.

In addition to FFL’s nation-wide campaign, other “anti-porn” groups such as Enough is Enough, Answers in Genesis, and Citizens for Community Values are forming in many states. Some simply cause mischief, but The Tin Drum controversy caused by Oklahomans for Children and Families has demonstrated these groups are worthy of our concern and opposition.