Call of Duty: Collection Management
Earlier this month, the board of the Paterson Free Public Library in New Jersey voted to institute a ban on users playing first-person shooter video games in their library. The ban is an attempt to prevent young users from imitating violent behavior.
Well, it’s not even a proper ban: the library cannot block access to the games because the electronic system is shared with other libraries. It’s more of an institutional rule for nagging teenagers. The ban is based on an unofficial policy in which library staff members would go up to young users and suggest they stop playing the game. From Patersonpress.com’s coverage:
The voted was prompted by a petition from library staff members who had been following an unofficial practice of discouraging youths from playing the games. “They would say, ‘C’mon don’t you have some homework to do instead of playing this,’” said [library director Cindy Czesak].
Do they also comment on other patrons’ content choices? If a librarian came up to me and suggested I had something better to do I would flip (actually let’s be serious I would immediately faint from embarrassment and never return to that library/town again).
Czesak believes that the instituting the ban is their “responsibility to the kids of the community.” It is not clear what exactly the Paterson Library hopes to accomplish with this ban other than making a specific group of people (kids and teenagers who want to play legal video games) feel unwelcome. While it may seem like the “responsible” choice to the Paterson Library, it seems they are running the risk of turning the targeted users off of libraries. A user’s experience of a library shouldn’t be “that place where I was judged for being young and playing video games.”
In response to the ban, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) sent a letter, which was co-signed by The Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Association of American Publishers and The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, to the Paterson Library. The full text of NCAC’s letter is available on their website.
Video games are protected speech under the First Amendment and, as such, cannot be regulated or restricted by public officials in response to concerns about their message or content [NCAC].
Video games are not illegal, although there are viewing and purchasing restrictions for rated M and Adults Only games. A library can have a use policy that follows these ratings, but singling out a specific type of user or a specific type of game is problematic. It makes assumptions about the user, and based on those assumptions it denies her access to legal information. Is it not reasonable for a library to police what content users decide to use. Free access to information, even in the form of a video game, is a fundamental part of any library’s mission. As the letter from NCAC points out,
It is no more acceptable for a library to ban access to certain kinds of video games than it would be to selectively remove other lawful materials. Library patrons, including young people, have a First Amendment right to make their own decisions about literature, art, informational materials, and entertainment without having those choices limited by the subjective views of library officials.
The heart of this issue is the ongoing struggle between freedom and responsibility for information access. It is not a new problem for libraries, but technology presents new challenges for a library to consider. When the type of technology in the library allows you to access anything (like any computer with an internet connection), where does a library draw the line between unacceptable and acceptable content? Some things make sense to sort out, like sites hosting illegal content. But in regulating content that falls in grey areas, like content that is illegal to those under a certain age or legal but sometimes offensive, a library may cross into censorship by trying to play it safe. Besides denying users access to information, bans like the one at Paterson Library create a negative environment where only some information-seeking behavior is acceptable while others are not. Technology allows for access to all kinds information that may be important to users; libraries shouldn’t been seen as closing access down by devaluing one type of information (video games) or a certain group of users (youths).
It’s not the librarian’s place to assume there is something better a user could be doing. Just by being there, a patron is doing the best possible thing for the library: using it. Playing video games is certainly not a traditional use of a library, but the role of libraries has changed and continues to change. Part of that is due to the way new technologies and the Internet have affected the access and consumption of information. A library is not just for books anymore: now we see new and exciting iterations of “library” that combine traditional knowledge-seeking with new technology. The 4th Floor project at the Chattanooga Public Library is a great example of a positive, non-traditional space where users can engage with information in any possible way. The most important thing is that, whatever the collection or content, a library remains a positive, non-judgemental space. Rules like the ban at Paterson could drive away people who may not have use of this kind of technology at home, or hey, just want to play a video game. It’s not enough just to provide access to technology and information, the environment must also be receptive and welcoming of any kind of user.
Note: This post originally appeared on a private blog for my Information Technologies class at Pratt SILS.