On the balance of competing needs in a democracy

 

The original column I wrote for this newsletter addressed the proposed federal legislation known as H.R. 3261, titled the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). This bill, along with its Senate counterparts, attempted to protect intellectual property rights and the many economic benefits which flow from the unique creativity we as Americans express. But as I wrote in my earlier version, consequences both intended and unintended were object lessons in teaching us to be wary of fixes that may compromise our traditional values of open inquiry, freedom of expression and personal liberty. There is no doubt that outright theft by copyright infringement by both foreign and domestic users is a huge and growing problem; amounts are in the many billions of dollars of revenue lost annually to the actual owners of the copyrights. The questions I asked readers to consider were: Will this legislation correct the problem and even if it does, will it also harm us in ways that most Americans would find unacceptable?

 

What forced my change of approach to this topic was the completely unexpected speed at which massive online protests against these bills materialized and how quickly proponents lost their initial fervor for passage. Rather than recapitulating the bills' intent - that's easily accessed from any national news source if one is not already familiar with it - I'd like to spend the remainder of this column examining the importance of what has just happened and what may be to come.

 

What we've seen in this outpouring of popular opposition to SOPA and its counterparts may have been the world's first electronic mass protest that actually worked. As the bills shed more sponsors and supporters by the hour, what quickly became apparent was the incredible power this relatively new tool can bring to bear on issues that deserve broad public discussion and consensus. When push came to shove, our representatives were not willing to maintain a position that was so diametrically opposed to that of the majority of very vocal constituencies. You can be sure the lesson was not lost on those leading the fight to pass the bills. If we as Americans are wise, we should take heed and do likewise.

 

For in the end, the issue is not about either side being right or wrong. The issue is the importance of re-establishing a process for allowing an inclusive and effective voice for all parties that legislation may impact. We were well aware of the cost imposed on commercial interests from online piracy; the bills' supporters made sure of that. What was not considered until rather late in the day was the impact this legislation would have on a host of non-commercial interests, including bedrock American values such as the democratic (small d) goal of free and open inquiry. As I wrote in that first column:

 

The Pasadena Public Library has joined libraries across the country in displaying a Stop SOPA banner on its website. This quiet yet symbolic act speaks directly to the fact that H.R. 3261 does not represent the broad interests of library users, seeking to make the access and enjoyment of online content less available and more fraught with the risk of serious legal sanction. We urge readers to consider the ramifications that passage of this bill would mean to them and join us in contacting their congressional representatives in opposition to its passage in its present form.

 

There is a dynamic tension that exists in a democracy between the rights of the individual and the rights of the collective. This tension has been further strengthened by the vast power that corporate interests wield in our society. Only an engaged and informed people can remain free as individuals by asserting their equal right to real representation when decisions are made that affect them. I am proud that American public libraries, including your Pasadena Public Library, were at the forefront in opposing the many real dangers this approach to online piracy holds.

 

These bills are still pending and proponents have not given up. What remains to be seen is whether good faith attempts to eliminate the bills' offending language succeeds. In the meantime, you can be sure that public libraries everywhere will maintain their vigilance in seeking to assure citizens that any final bill adopted will not be a poorly conceived trade-off of dollars for the personal liberties of Americans that we've enjoyed throughout our history.

  

Wayne Holt  

Interim Library Director