-.DOCUNEST RESU4E,

.. 0...

ED'206,,325 IW.009 640.

AUTHOR Wheelbarger, Johnny J',.: Clouse, R. WilburnTITLE Legal Ramifications of Computerized Library Networks

and Their Implications for the Library Director.PUB DATE Apr 81 . 4 , ' ,

NOTE 20p.: Paper presented at the Annual Convention of theAssociation for Educdtionzl Communications and ___s

. Technologv-(Pliil Aadelfia, PA, April 6-10, 1981).

'EDPS PRY CEDESCRIPTORS

MFOI/PC01 Plus.Postage.Administratops: Censorship: *Computer OrientedPrograms: *Legal` Problems: *Legal `Responsibility;

, *Library Administration: *Library- Networks: LibrarySurveys: *Online Systems: Quegtionnaires'

ABSTRACTLegal questions, raided by recent developments in

computerized networks-and relating to censorship, liability,responsibility and other topics, were explored by means of aquestionnaire sent to ,a selected group .of librarians, networkpersonnel, and others. Designed to collect information about existinglaws and current problems', the questionnaire elicited opinions whichsuggest that (1) networks cannot refuse questionable titles, (2)

authors or publishers cannot demand the exclusion of titles from thedatabase, (3) the networks probably cannot refuse "insignificant"

-

ea t? flea,. (4) networks probably cannot refuse membership without* legitimate reasons, and (5) 411 parties have due proc ss rights in

dealing with parent networks. Limited amount of exp,e fence and thecomplete. lack of litigation in this area, however, ave the specificqUestions unanswered. A 30-item bibliography and the questionnaire .

are appended. (Author/RAP4)

O

.t

11P

16,

..

*****************************************I***************************** Reproductions supplied by !DRS are -the best that can" be. made. * -: -

.- * from the original document. ,. .,, .. .* .;..

***Ae*************************************0************************ .,, . .1

AO

,

Wheelbarger, Johnny J..: Clouse, R. WilburnTITLE _Legal Ramifications of Computerized Library Networks

and Their Implications for-the Library Director.PUB DATE

.DOCUNENT RESUNi

.

.

.

.

.

..-..

. .

*,,

tD'206-,325 IR'009 640

AUTHOR

Apr B1 . 4 ,

NOTE 20p.: Paper presented at the Annual COnvention of theAssociation for Educiitionzl Communications and __

. Technologv-(Philadelfoli4, PA, A'pril 6-10,'1981) -.

. .

IMPS PRICE MF011PC01 Plus.POstage.o,

r

DESCRIPTORS -Administrators:,Censorship: *Computer OrientedPrograms; *Legal- Problems: *Legalllegponsibility:

- 1

. *Library Administration: *Library 'Networks: LibrarySurveys: *Online Systems: QueetionnaireS 'v

.

ABSTRACTLegal qiiestions, raised by recent developments in

computerized networks-and relating to censorship, liability,respOnsibility and other topics, were explored by means of aquestionnaire sent to .a selected group ,of librarians, networkpersonnel, and others. Designed to collect information about existinglaws and current problems, the ,questiOnnaire elicited opinions whichsuggest that (1) networks cannot refuse questionable titles, GOauthors or publishers cannot demand the exclusion of titles from thedatabase, (3) the networks grobably cannot refuse "insignificant's:.

-

(4) networks probably cannot refuse membership without1c4 legitimate reasons, and (5) 411 parties have due proc ss rights in

dealing with parent networks. Limited amount of exge fence and thecomplete lack of litigation in this area, however, ave the specificqUestions unanswered. A 30-item bibliography and the questionnaireare appended. JAuthor/RA14)

.

. ,t

1*****************************************I**************;************** Reproductions supplied by EDS are 'the best that can'bemade.

from the original document. ****At******************************************************************

S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMEN-THASBEEPDOCED EXACTLY AS RESEIVED-FROTHE P ON-O-R-.OVVANIZATiON ORIGIN-

INC IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

r.

'LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF COMPUTERIZED LIBRARY_ NETWORKS

AND

THEIR:IMPLICATIONS FOR THE LIBRARY -DIRECTOR.

Johnny J. WheelliargerProfessor of Education, and

Director pf Learning ResourcesTrevecca Nazarene College.Nashville, Tennessee

e

and

. .

R. WilburmClouse

O

Assistant' Professor afLibrary Science, andAesistant Director for Administration,

John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Education.and.RUman Development. George Peabody College for Teachers

Nashville, Tennessee

1

"PERMISSJON TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

J.J. Wheelbarger

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

t-,

4

414

INTRODUCTION'

.

The recent development of computerized library networks is

.

bringing a new dimension to the flow of ideas.____The _UnitedStates/lips

had a tradition of intellectual freedom and a .firm iPgal faundatiOn to

41.

support that tradition. The computerized_dimension introduces new

possibilities foi the use or 'misuse of7-thiAofreedom.4

The advent of the lib'ra'ry network calls for a new look atd,ntel-

lectual freedom, related letgal questions and the specific implications

or the network:

One of the most signifi 4 nt-statements, concerning intellectual

freedom, to be found in American literature, was made by Chief 'Justice, .

Oliver Wendall Holmes. It bears repeatihg'here, 'Persecution,for the. -

expression of opinions 'seems to me prefectlY logidal. If youhave doubta

,

of your premises or your power'and want a certain result with all your

heart You'naturally.expresS your wishes in law and sweep away all

opition, To allow-opposition by speech seems tp indicate that you

think the speech impotent, is when a man says that he has squared the

circle, or that_you 4o riot care whole-heartedly for th4,esult, or that

you doubt either your pc0er oriyour premises. Bt when melt have realized

that time has upset many fighting faiths, they'may Ome to believe even

more than they believ the very foundations of thr pwri conduct that.

the ultimate good d sired.is better reached by'free trade in ideas. '

.

that the best test' of truth is the power of the thought to get itself

'accepted in the dompetieimi of the. market, and that truth is the only/

..,

ground.uponwhidh their Wishes safely can be carried put. /Thatat any

.

'rate it the theory of our Constitution. -It is an experiment,'a all. . .

..,

..

,

.

life is ah experiment. While that'experiment is part of our sy tem* `I

3. .

1

411

' I think we should be eternally vigilant against attemptstocheck

)611e9 expression of opinions tAat, we loathe and.believe to be fraught r

. ,4._

with death, unless they so,ftminently.threateiCimmediate interference.

i..

: -with the 1m:qui ancl.pres'sing purposesof the law that an immediate,.

check is required to saveOe country... Only the emergency_!that_makPs

.

it immediately dangerous to leave the cdr6Ction of evilcounsels to

(

. . .

.s_

time warrants making any exception to the sweeping command, "Congress , ..

shall,makeno law... abridging the freedom'of speech" (Konefsky, 1461)., .

. .

,

.

The purpose of thispaper is to relate thefrepdom of speech andt - . .,... .

related legal principles to library network applications..,tare data .

bases filled with the bibliofgraphic infdrmation of. vast nurthers ofA

4 * 1

materialS greatly enhances the availability and preservation of a

'S

_

'specific item. Are the usual, intellectual freedom;principles applicable

.

to the informatiOn contained in thedata:bases and/or to the larger,

.

volume of Information represented by-the respective.entries? Have

, 5,library 'directors. - And/or network repreEentatives,encoentered.legal problems

41 q

.in\i

this.arde. .Ais there been' litigation relating.sliecilicy-to

,computerized library networks? If so, what are th4 implications of the

,litigation? In the absence of answer's to theprevious qu4iticins, what

are the opinions of knowledgeable people concerning basic legal (applications?

i .)This study was designed to find answers to some of tbesq, questions.

tF . y ' r

% .Qr .,

4

r

t

4

4

f

I 5

METHODS AMYTROCEDURES4.

-.

/ The q4estiOnnaire illustrated in Appendix B was prepared And1,

sent, with the cover lettevoillustrated in Appendix A, to library.-:\ --

. ..directors, network representatives, and otherpexsons in positions to,.

s4-.. 4 ..._

be knowledgeablesoncerning the questions involved; Thereyere.,, r. , . t.

)

thirty-three questionnaires mailed:'

. k. K

;--

Sixteeri of'the petsonswho responded returned,Compieted.

questiodnair0,. SeverAl'persons responded withoilt completing;the .

.

questionnaires. Eachof the latter indicated some reason for feeling

that they' were notAqualified to state opinions.

f

0

,There was no litigation reported by any of the nesponies. The

comments includedlwere'very limited and:pee.med to reflect some.hesitandy.

11

We will cite each of the questions' and show the actual number...of_

..

responses to each of thepossible answers. This will be followed by..

''< I. -:.comments relating, to the respective question. ..

. . .

1. Can the networks refuse the inclusion of titlqs that include,ob--scenity orotiterinfIammatory terminology (suChvls advocating the..-

(overthrow of the government) in the:'.

aY actual 'wording of' the title? .

_1. No (9) 2. Probabiymot (5) -3. No opinion (2)\\

4.- Possibly (0) 5. Yes (C)i.,

within the publication?,

1." No (7) 2. ,Probably 'not (6) 3,. No opinion (3)-,

4. Possibly (0) 5. Yes (0)fi

'

,

ents ,concerning this quesiton were: "With respect toII I II

.,

1and 2, that'is my opinion (author's note: each was answered ,"no"),

.;

since -no extensiiie argument (eitherobscene or treasonous).is included

0

' '

3

- 4

. .i . r4 ' , 4

N-----\in the title. Further, in order to :get the title published, ,the words

!. -. '. %

,included in Ihe bibliographical information would have already been ex-

_ -

posed to public.view for s time: 'No' xeans that my-opinion Is that. .

.

it Ys" so unlikely at ta.ba virtually impossible, Aut.1 know of..no court,.

, ,

.011,

I.am againscensorshig in.gentral for many reasons. The ex-

.

elusion of cataloging data is ..certainlY an extreme form of censorship -.

the rdfusaL to. even recognize the existence of.a piece%of material:;'.

.

- The data base at OCLC alreadicontains.cataroging records foretial,s' .

. , .

whicb4some.persons would consider pornography or inflammatory. That 4h.

no way requires the patron librariei to obtain those pieces,of material....-.

** , .05-

All the time-p'rovenbarguments against censor ship apply.doubly to data.

4., , 0 . ,

. - .-,., -, ' ' ...: .,.

V .base ebnsorshiw ---1

, - -....:

.

. In the absence of litigation, guestions.1, 2,, ,arid 5 are dependent'

on thebylaws: and dFganimation of th individual network"

. .

' , ,

..

.... : r"Your questions are addressed to'what conduct is permissible to

0

ftss.0

'netwoilcs In practical point of fact, what conduct is permissible..,

.', . " .. .

to networks will depend monk on.

the position taken,by the copyright

proprietors orthe Works included than on the policies and practices' s

'of the American Library Association." i

'c ... ,

"In this.connection, there is, no question that if otherwise

. -.

pervilfted by lat,.networks are -legally entitled to include in their'

. . ;''f

. -

c011ection'whateyer they deem appropriate," ,'.. 1 ,

;.

"You will see that most of the questions have 1;66 answered by

'probaBiY not;' is many instances the ideas you raide would be impossible

. :

4.,0, to police or monitor vissa-vis member activit

. .1 . -1 .

i.,

4

.

es.

*ft

4

t

..

,, .

Furthermore, the members of ..- are the network, and thisis an. _ ,_ _ __.__ _ ____ r

obvious fact. Monitorfng,input would result .in one member passing. :

..

. ,

.

judgement on the quality of another member's acquisition decision,

this is atighly unlikely sequence of events:" '

I.

I

-2. tan the network refuselications?

ci

he inclusion of."insignificantP pub-

1. No'(4) 2. PrObably not (5) 3. No 4inion'(1) ,

1.-

4. possibly (6) 5. Yes (0)

Comments:, "No''means that my opinion is that it is so unlikely

as to be virtually impossible, but I know of no court case."

"I know of no law Wich mandates that any libiary must include

'any given work or group of Workt Moreoyer, I know of no law which

clasiifies works a's"lnsigdificant'or 'inffammatory',,etc. These

are judgements which'ihe.iibrary and the'library network must make..."'.

f -6 ' .

(or-publisher) demand the exclusion of,

his titlebase? .

PtOhably,nol (8)-.--'..bi No opinion (1)

3. Canaft authorfrom" the data

1. ,No (5) '2.

4. Possibly (2) 5.4:Yea (0)

"I cannot imagirie a circumstance which wouldjusti4y it. Cane*

4

he require that a library not list thebook in the card catalog -,

0

though the-library had published'the book?"

"An author should have no more rightto exclude his work's -,

title from the dtta base.than frog a bibliographx."':.

"As you may know,.the subject of the inclusion of copyrighted

iN materli, in computers as part of thedatabases has been the.subject

.of great controversy and is presently the study of the ;Commission ono

New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works..."

.

r 4,..

"We anticipate that'with the, adoptionl,f the new tol3yright revision Q,.

I

0

o.

9

:

'5

.4.

bill, library networks will be placed under severe scrutiny g'y repre-

.'

set:tad:iris of copyright proprietO interests and we-would anticipateA .-

that a number of suits for copyright, infringement will be filed Where

copyrighted works are introdgced into a'netwdrk or into a data base

without the peiajsliamr-o4---the-proprietor.-".--

4. Doauthors,!publishers: library-tutions _(libraris and/or their

° networks, ett. have due processnetworks?

directe.Fs, library patrons, insti-pArent,prganizations),'regionalof rights,in dealing with *ent

1. No (1) 2. Probably Aot (0) 3.' No opinion (6)

4. Possibly (3) 5.- Yes (6)

:

"Ifsou mean by 'due process' access to legal action in the cage

of dispute, certainly, since all, of the persdine or organizations

are legal entities and subject to suit."

5 Can a network 'refuse membership to a quall.fied"

1. No (3) 2. Probably not (4) 3.

4. Possibly (3) 5. Yes (4)

.

institution?

No opinion (2)

(AuthOr's note: the answer checked on-the questionnaire A

accompanying this comment was possibly"..) "But not on a censorship.

basis. A network should definitely have the power to penalize or

expel a library which was abusing the system.."

do not knOW what 'qualified' means. If a network organized

itself for a limited purpose (to include only material on Sheakespeare)

.and,the school were qualified to teach-only home economics'-- well

you follow, me. On the other hand, there would have tobe a reason for. t

the network ,to want_to exclude the library --,and if it were not)

financial, I can't think.what it would be. There is a-problem 'right

now about. not-for-profit, educaeionalsnetworks givingserVice to

'for - profit companies but.we are hoping /to get this straightened out.

41*

ea,

.4

!.0

/

.e'

_ But otherwise, I feel that thOugti it may be 'a fiscally foolish thing

. .

-_for a library to get involved with a network too low.

acquisition

rate, etc.),-if the library paYs the necessary tariff, letlem-ioin,"

A

1

sc,

1

r

7

;

)

.41

SUMMARY

I

As indicated earlier, there were reports received concerning

actual litigation in relatiOn to any ofthe questions.

-Question one-drew-the strongest response. The opinions checked

. leaned mord toward,"No" than, on any other-question. lso, there were

...

more extensive comments made in relation to this-question t n to any,. .

, 9 NI, - .,

other, The comm ts.

tended to substantiate the negative reactions;

'%.. . .. .

expressed in,the op ions section.of the questionnaire. The sentimentr

.. .,

seemed to be that networks cannot and/or shouldnot refuse the inclusion

of tideeli that include obscenity or other inflammatory terminology.1 A

Reactions'td:oeition two included ,a wider range of opinions and :

,

fewer written comments, Some responses questioned the definition of

" 4"ipsignificant". This term was intentionally not defined i'with the hope

that each respondent would furnish his /her Own definition and respond

.. .. ,

accordingly. It appears that this was the basis used by mast and, i

general, it seems that the rOspondents werenot so.certain concerning ,.. .

'their answer to this question. ..,

,

Opinions and comments were not at strongly negative question

.

three as they were in question one, but there seemed9to be a rather

firm agreement that the'author or publisher Cannot demand the exclusion

of his title fian the data base.

Some of the iesponderits seemed to be

7

meaning- of "due process" in ,queStiva four.

.certainty usually- expregsed "no opinion "..

a satisfactory understanding of the legal.

unsure of the exact legal- ,

Those who reflected un-

Those witip seemed to reflect

conteg tendedto lean

toward a strong."yess" response.

1 0

.

t.

.4

Responses to.question.fivewere ficattergd: There seemed to, be

. recognition of *legitimate technica,Z,ior:ilisciplinary reasons for denfal

c. \ .

4 bof membership . ,In the . absence' legOimate reasons , there seemed 2o

. be a questioning attitude as to whether a network- can ,refuse membership

7

- to' an Ihatitution- if it chose to OQ" so .arbitrarily.v

a.

.66

;0

'cs

. ;

v

C

S-

4

C

r'

.4._/' 0"

t, to

4

lb 0

9

,

a

4

CONCLUSIONS

. ., ..- ..

'

ct,.

The specific questio ns dealt with in this study epparently'have,,

,

not yet leen

.4 ,

6 .r...

subject to litigation. There is some suggestion that\s. _.,.

"rlitigation will be forthcomink in some ofthese.arreas,

Opinion reflected in,the 'study

refase questionable tifles:,author or

47.4

s.uggest that: networks cannot

publishers cannot demand the

4-4excluSion of titles froM the datd base,` the network .probably cannot

t

refuse ninSigpificant"titles,hetworks probably 'cannot. refus4 membership

without legitimate reasons, and all parties probably hake due prOaess.a

rights in. dealing with parefit hetworks.

4

4

4,

4,

0

St

4,

..

r

6 9

.,,,

"

A

1

O

I1

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.

Ashley, Pauf.P: Say-It Safely:. Legsl Limits in Publishing, Radio;

.and'Television. Seattle:' University of Wahingtof Press, 1966.

; De:,Bigelowf Robert P, (ed.). A publication of the Standing committee

11'

on law and techndlogy, AmericipBar Association. Computers

. .

and the. Law: An Introductory Handbook (second,edition).N

Chicago: OomFerce Clearing House, 4969.,t .

rBolick, Nancy. (ed.). Digest of State , and Federal

3,!, pof Handicapped Children. Third edition.

Laws:. Education

Reston, Virgipia:

ThetoungiPlovExceptionalChildren,' 1975.

'41

;.>1-

Brubacher, John.S. The Courts and 'Higher Education.

Jossey-BasS, -1971.

San Francisco:

.i ..

DOlbeare,'Ketnneth 1,1;?and Phillip E-Z,Hammond. The School Prayer

..>.

.

Decisions: Prom Court POlicy to Loeal Practice: Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press-, 1971.

4Fraa, John and Robert F.-Hogn. Obscenity,

" °.

gl!IiillTsachei- Champaign: National C'

of, EnglIsh;-1966.,

, -... e o

the 44

ncil of Teachers,

4

Freed. Roy 111%, Colputers and Law: A Reference Work. Fourth edition.

Boston:- Roy N. Freed, 1975.

A %1 ,

"...

}

S.

_

Gifis,Seeven,H. Law' Dictionary. Woodbury, New York: Baron's Ed-

ucationalucational Series, 1975.0

Gillett,' Margaret. Educational Technology. Toward Demystification.at

Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall of Canada, 1975.

,.

-- Ginger, Ann Fagan. The Law, the Supreme:,.Goutt, and the People's-

. dr . 4,'Rights. Woodbury, New York: Barroes,Educational,Series,,

41 ,- et

197

Guralynik,'David B. (ed.). Webdter's New Word Dictionary-of the

American Language. New-York:- Popular Library, 1973.

Holmes, Grace W., and Craig H. Norville (eds.)-. The Law. of Computers..

Ann Arbor:" Institute of Continaling Legal Education, 1971..- _

Hornby, D. rock. Higher'Educition Admission Law Service. Princeton:

Educational Testing Service, 1975.

Hfighes, Larry W., and Robert J. Simpson (eds.Y. Education and the Law

in Tennessee.' Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson Company, 4971..

.

1144.

Jackson, Percival E. The Wisdom of the Supreme Court. Norman:e.

University of Oklahoma PreSs 1962..

A

Johnston, JameS M.(ed.). Behavior Research and Technology in Higher

. .

:Education. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1975.

41#

4.-

12

*,... . ..

.. . . /.

.

Konefsky, Samuel J. The Legacy of Holmes and Brandeis. New orki

Collier BookS, 1961.

Konnert, William, and Willis Furtwengler. Due Process a d the Student

in Tennessee. Nashville: Bill Konnert and Wil is J. Furtwengler,

1974.

'LaMorte, Michael W., et. al.,Students' LegalR1 is and. Responsibilities.

Cincinnati: W. H. AndxSon Company, 197tc.

,>

./

2/

i.... .

., LaudicinaRobert, and Joseph L. .Tramutola.:/A(Legal Perspecti/ Ve for

Personnel' Administrators. Springfield, Minns: ,Charles C.

Thomas, 1974..

aMcFarlane, William H. and Charles L. Wheeler. Legal and Political

Issues of State Aid for:PrivSte Higher Education.. Atlanta:

Southern Regional Education Boar4, 1971.

Meethan, Roger. Information Retrieval.' New York:, Dou leday, 1970:`

e

,. .

Nolte,-MChester,1

and John Phillip Linn. 'School' Law for Teachers...."'.7

t .

Danville T e Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1964.

:O'Hara,William ., and John G. Hill, Jr.The Student/the College/

the Law.

,

;972. , .

f

Olumbia University, New York: Teachers College Preis,

13-

Two

Pasarow, Averill f. (ed.),...the Los Angeles Copyright Society, and the

UCLASchoOl of Taw. Copyright and Related Topics. Berkeley:

University 0 California Press, 1964.

Piele, Phillip K. (ed.). The Yearbook Of School 1975. Topeka:

National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, 1975,-

Siebert, Fred S. Free Press,and' Free Trial. Athens: University of

. Georgia Press,'1970.

4

Swihart, Stanley J., andBerl F. Hefley. Computer Systems in the

Library: A,HandbOok for Nada ers d Designers. Los Ahgeles:

Melville Publishing Company, 1973.

A

Tapper, Colin. Computers and the Law. London: Weidenfeld and

'Nicolson0 19

Thayer, Frank, et. al. Legal

Foundation Press, 1962.1 i

'

C tr.61 of the Press: Brooklyn: The

.16

/ 0

or

pf

, ry

14

1

.6.

I

4

aX,17/1,e,ige

r...!"0.2%. JAW_ .

7,

r

. t, . .

li 1,

,..

I am collecting information for &course that I ain taking at GeorgePeabody College for Teachers.

As the director pf a-library that has recently been accepted as amember of SOLINET, I am interested in the legal. implications of variousquestions relating to library networks. My:primary interest is actualcourtroom litigation. Beyond that I am interested in-relevant laps thatare presently in effect locally'or.nationaily and practical problems,that networks orttheir Members.have confronted in these areas.

My questions concerning litigation relating to computerized librarynetworks and as f011ows: 1 .

1. Can-the networks refuse the inclusion of titles that.include obscenity or' Other, inflammatory termpology(such as advocating the overthrow of the government)

_ inthe:.

4 a) actual wording of the title?b)0-ithin the publication?'

2. Can the network refuse the inclusion of "insignificant"publications?

-'3: an an author (or publisher)' deMand the exclusion of hisle from the data base?'

4. What-afe theimplications for procedural;dU e'procetg for:authors, publishers, library directors, library patrons,-institutions (librarieg and/or their parent organtations).'regionalnetworks, parentinetworks, etc.?

7

Appendix A 15

-17

..

lb.

(

-S

\

2-. ,

C

'Y. Can the network" refuse membership to a,"qualified"-institution? If so,-on whit bases?' Are propertyrights involve here?

.

I would like to ask you to complete the enclosed questionnaire and return,it to, me in 'the envelope provide&o.- There is a place on page three for you toinclude-your name and address, if you so desire.

Thank youloryour cooperation. 4'

JJW/tac

Ua

0

.0

sr,

Sincerely,

Johnny-J. Wheelbarger, Ed.D:

1Director of Learn rig Resources /'

I

18

4

C

'

1,6 .

QUESTIONNAIRE: LITIGATION RELATING TO COMPUTERIZEDLIBRARY NETWORKS

Opinions,

In the abscence of litigation lending clear directions in each of the following,please indicate what you think on each of the issues by checkOt the, answerthat most nearly reflects your opinion.

'1. Can the networks refuse the inclusion pf.titles-that include obscenityor othei inflammatory teplinology (su* as advocating-'the overthrow

.of the .government) in the: 0

. )

a) actual wording of the title?

1. No ( ) 2. probably not (.1 ) 3. No Opinion (

4. Possibly. ( ) 5. Yes. ( )

b) within the publication?

No ( ) 2. Probably not ( ) 3. No opinion (

4. Possibly ( ) 5. Yes ( )

.

2. Can the network refuse 6he inclusion of ,"insignificant" publications?,

1. No ( ) 2. Probably not ( ) 3., No opinion '

4.: Possibly ( ) 5. Yes ( . )

Can an author (or publisher) demand the exclusion'of e'title fromthe dSa base? ,

r. No ( ) 2: Probably not ( )' 3. No opinion I (. )

4. Possibly (. ) 5. Yes (

4. Do'authors,. piiblishers,library directors; library patr il, institutions .

(libraries and /or theit-parent organization ), regional.etwarke.,.etc.

1 have due ptocess'kights in dealing with pare t 'networks?

. . . 4 .

. y1. No '( ) '2. Probably nbt "( ) 3. 'No opinion *C. ''.)

,.

4:. PobsibW(. ') . 5. Yes ,(' ) (

i5. Can a netwdrk refuse membership 'E, a "qualified" institution?..

. . .

pobably not ( .).3.-.4TO opinion:- ( '):

. 4. Pbssibly ) 5 'A.b-X .e

. .

19

Appendix B '17

.

I/

t.

4O

LITIGATION

20

Please list any court cases, that. you may.8e aware of, that have Attempted toretelve any of these questions. Include as much information as possibleconcerning the resolution of the case and bibliographical ,citations that may

. be used for further references.

I-

e

I,.

18'

4-

a

O

,