Last night I couldn’t sleep. Partly because I knew I had a lot of work to finish up today and I was nervous about it. Partly because I had woken up from a bad dream in which I completely forgot about my neighbor’s fifth cat (which doesn’t exist) when I fed them this weekend and it was dead. But mostly because I started reading Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow. In the wake of another extension of the powers of the Patriot Act I found it an especially interesting read, particularly with the controversy over the “secret interpretation” of Section 215, which is said to give the FBI much wider surveillance powers than some lawmakers believe we would be comfortable with, were we to know. Creepy, and not unexpected.

The interesting thing is, in Little Brother, the main character is a teenager who is a computer whiz with some great leadership skills. When the Patriot Act, surveillance, and protecting the people goes too far, it is the teens who mobilize and shout not to trust anyone over 25! However, while I was reading it I was thinking that teens and people in their early twenties are much less likely to care about their privacy than we did when we were their age and now. Many teens and young adults post everything about their lives on Facebook with little care as to who sees it, according to many of the articles we have been reading. Then again, maybe it’s just the good for nothing teens I know and my 34-year old attitude problem. What do you guys think – would teens be likely to notice or care if DHS increased surveillance? Or did Doctorow simply transfer his Gen X mentality into the body of a present-day teen?

One of my tasks as a graduate assistant this past semester has been to keep tabs on any library related issues brought up before the state assembly. The majority of them were budget issues that were obviously important, but not really that interesting. One guy, however, proposed a bill that immediately put my back up. His name is David Yarde and he is a representative from District 52, just north of Ft. Wayne. House Bill 1100 read as follows:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SOURCE: IC 35-42-4-14; (11)IN1100.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 35-42-4-14 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 14.
(a) As used in this section, "registered sex offender" means a sex offender (as defined in IC 11-8-8-4.5)whois required to register under IC 11-8-8.
(b) A registered sex offender who knowingly or intentionally enters a public library (as defined in IC 36-12-1-5) commits sex offender library trespass, a Class D felony.
(c) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the registered sex offender:
(1) entered the public library on an election day for the purpose of voting; and
(2) spent no more time in the public library than was necessary for the registered sex offender to vote.

In plain language the bill meant to bar sex offenders from public libraries. Luckily this bill died in committee, never being brought to the floor. Likely someone did a fast internet search and found that the Supreme Court had already struck down a similar law in New Mexico. I emailed Representative Yarde to ask what had prompted his authorship of the bill, genuinely hoping that there was at least an incident that provoked this bill and that it was just an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to an individual’s behavior. I have yet to hear back from the representative beyond a form letter assuring me that he pays attention to all comments. If he or his staff ever do email me back I will update his blog with his comments.

But I bet nothing happened, and this was just an easy-to-author bill that he assumed would make him look good and that no one would argue against. After all, who wants to be supportive of sex offenders? And I am just as sickened and disgusted by rapists and child molesters as everyone else; but if we are to have a democratic society then we have to provide everyone with the same rights. If a person has served their time for their crime and are allowed to walk free again, we cannot suddenly decide to restrict their access to information. People who are already living on the margins of society do not get better if we decide to marginalize them even more – they get worse. Anyone who has gone to prison has a difficult time finding a job. Someone who has gone to prison and has to register as a sex offender has a crazy difficult time finding a job and living their lives on the up and up. Imagine them trying to do it without access to a public library!

As it says on page 37 of the Intellectual Freedom Manual, "A democratic society operates best when infomration flows freely and is freely available, and it is the library's unique responsibility to provide open, unfettered, and confidential access to that information. With information available and accessible, individuals have the tools necessary for self-improvment and participation in the political process." How can we expect people to get better when we deny them the tools they would need to better themselves and participate in society?

What do you guys think? I can’t imagine a logical argument for banning all sex offenders from all public libraries, but does anyone want to give it a shot?