Lecture (rapide) de Jones 2009 Protecting Intellectual Freedom in your Academic Library
Jones, 2009, Protecting intellectual freedom in your academic library : scenarios from the front lines, Office for Intellectual Freedom, Chicago : American Library Association
(p. 17) Encadré sur le cas de Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957) où la Cour suprême des USA a déclaré l’importance de la liberté académique dans l’université.
(p.50) Dans son premier chapitre, Jones précise :
Scholarly communication is a new term for the ancient practice of researching, creating, publishing, and disseminating scholarship. All academic libraries are currently working on a set of activities usually related to this field. These include creating institutional digital repositories for scholarship created by faculty and students on a particular campus and dealing with a host of intellectual property challenges brought forth by the particular problems in a digital environment. The phenomenal rise in cost of scholarly journals has lead to the open-access mouvement, encouraging faculty to retain their copyrights and publish in free, peer-reviewed, publicly accessible web journals.
As the field of scholarly communication continues to develop, it is clear that there are numerous intellectual freedom issues contained within its initiatives. Institutional repositories are subject to the same privacy issues as other library resources. Today’s intellectual property laws, which increasingly restrict open access, are prompting many First Amendment experts to consider the chilling effect of copyright. And the prohibitive costs of library materials have a direct impact on academic library access and services.
(p. 54) le droit de recevoir de l’information fait partie du premier amendement de la Constitution des USA, selon plusieurs décisions du plus haut tribunal du pays:
Griswald v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
The Court’s subsequent opinion in Griswald v. Connecticut further developed the contours of the right to receive information, identifying « the right to receive, the right to read and the freedom of enquiry » among the rights protected by the First Amendment.
Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) – citation directe de la décision:
The protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from Congressional abridgment those equally fondamental rights necessary to make the express guarentees fully meaningful. I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right. The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.
Board of Education v. Pico (1982):
A lawsuit challenging a local school board’s decision to remove several books from its high school library resulted in Board of Education v. Pico, a seminal 1982 Supreme Court opinion that explicitly recognized the right to receive information in a library. Observing that the First Amendment plays a role in protecting the public’s access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas, the Court held that « the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient’s meaningful exercise of his own right of speech, press and political freedom. » It further identified the school library as the principle locus of the student’s freedom « to inquire, to study and to evaluate. »
Martin v. Struthers (1943) ;
Ce contenu a été mis à jour le 8 juin 2012 à 14 h 29 min.