FREEDOM TO READ FOUNDATION NEWS
50 EAST HURON STREET, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611 PHONE (312) 280-4226
www.ftrf.org ● ftrf@ala.org ● www.ftrf.org/ftrfnews.html
Judith F. Krug, Executive Director
Vol. 29, No. 4–Vol. 30, No.1
John W. Berry, President
March 2005
Friends, Colleagues Remember Gordon Conable
Gordon M. Conable, President of the Freedom to Read
Foundation, died unexpectedly on January 12 in
Riverside, CA. Gordon said he became a librarian in
order to pursue his passions of free speech and First
Amendment defense.
At the American Library Association (ALA) Midwinter
Meeting in Boston, to which he was scheduled to travel
on January 13, Gordon’s friends and colleagues came
together to reflect how he influenced them both
personally and professionally. At the gathering, common
themes emerged: this was a man of fierce intelligence,
remarkable leadership abilities, and an unwavering
commitment to his profession and ideals; a man whose
eyes sparkled in the
middle of a fiery debate,
so his opponent knew he
was enjoying every
minute—both because of
the discussion of interesting ideas, and because
he was able to spend time
with a friend; a man who
cherished his family,
whose warmth and good humor unfailingly extended
everyone, whether longtime friend or new acquaintance.
Gordon was a member and leader of many state and
national organizations through the years. Certainly his
commitment to the Freedom to Read Foundation was
total. He was an FTRF member for 30 years, president
for seven, and also served as treasurer and vice
president. In 1996, Gordon received the Foundation’s
Roll of Honor award for his “exemplary service to the
cause of intellectual freedom.”
One of Gordon’s most shining moments came in 1992,
when as director of the Monroe County Library System
(MI) he withstood an intense controversy over
Madonna’s book Sex. His steadfastness during that
difficult period made him a hero to many.
Inside this issue of FTRF News…
 Victory in Ark. Harmful to Minors case, p. 2
 FTRF files briefs in Kaczynski, Texas
textbook, and Friends cases, p. 2–3
 Letter to Secy. of Education Spellings, p. 4
 Report to ALA Council from Boston, p. 4–7
The Foundation has established a page on our Web
site, www.ftrf.org, which contains links to several
pages, including ALA’s memorial resolution in
Gordon’s honor, tributes from his employer LSSI and
the Association of American Publishers, and obituaries
from around the country.
Gordon’s wife, Irene, a longtime Foundation member
herself, has asked that any gifts in Gordon’s name be
directed to the Gordon M. Conable Memorial Fund,
established by Freedom to Read Foundation to advance
the causes to which Gordon was most devoted and for
which he worked most passionately. In the first month
of its existence, the Conable Fund raised over $6,500.
If you would like to donate, please contact the FTRF
office at (800) 545-2433 x4226 or e-mail ftrf@ala.org.
Alternatively, you can send a check, payable to the
Freedom to Read Foundation, to the Gordon M.
Conable Memorial Fund, c/o Freedom to Read
Foundation, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. You
can also give online at www.ftrf.org. Notification of
gifts will be sent to Gordon’s family.
At the Midwinter Meeting, John W. Berry, at the time
vice president, was elected Foundation president;
Candace Morgan was elected vice president. Subsequent to Midwinter, former Trustee Eliza T. Dresang
was appointed Trustee through the 2005 Annual
Conference, when Conable’s term was to end.
Freedom to Read Foundation News
Vol. 29, No. 4–Vol. 30, No. 1
Slate for 2005 FTRF
Election Announced
Page 2
Harriet Selverstone
Pratt Institute SLIS
New York, NY
Tom Teepen
Thirteen candidates for the Freedom to Read Foundation
Board of Trustees have been slated for the 2005 election
by the Nominating Committee, composed of Trustees
John W. Berry, Candace Morgan, and Ginnie Cooper,
Chair. There are six vacancies on the Board to be filled.
Below is the list of candidates slated by the Nominating
Committee.
Candidates for Freedom to Read
Foundation Board, 2005–2007
John W. Berry
NILRC: Network of Illinois Learning Resources in
Community Colleges
River Forest, IL
Therese Bigelow
Kansas City Public Library
Kansas City, MO
Jonathan Bloom
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
New York, NY
Susan Brynteson
University of Delaware Library
Newark, DE
Mary Kay Dahlgreen
Oregon State Library
Salem, OR
Journalist
Atlanta, GA
Mary Elizabeth (Ma’lis) Wendt
The New York Public Library
Bronx, NY
According to Foundation election rules, at least two,
and no more than three, candidates must be nominated
for each vacancy on the Board.
Persons who wish to nominate candidates by petition
should submit 25 signatures of current members of the
Foundation in support of each candidate. Names of
petition candidates, and the required signatures to
support each, must be received by the Executive Director of the Foundation no later than March 21, 2005.
Ballots will be mailed April 1 to all persons holding
paid memberships in the Foundation as of that date.
Updates
Arkansas “harmful to
minors” display law ruled
unconstitutional
David Gunckel
Sierra Vista Public Library
Mesa, AZ
Anne Heanue
Alexandria, VA
James G. Neal
Columbia University Libraries
New York, NY
Judith Platt
Association of American Publishers
Washington, DC
Jordan Scepanski
Zayed University
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
On November 16, 2004, U.S. District Judge Thomas
Eisele of the federal court in Little Rock, Arkansas,
struck down the provisions of the Arkansas Code
criminalizing the public display of books that are
inappropriate for younger minors but constitutionally
protected as to older minors and adults. The Freedom
to Read Foundation was a plaintiff in the case, Shipley,
Inc. v. Long, along with That Bookstore in Blytheville,
the American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression, the Arkansas Library Association, the
Association of American Publishers, the Comic Book
Legal Defense Fund, the International Periodical
Distributors Association, and the ACLU of Arkansas.
On January 11, 2005, Arkansas appealed Judge
Eisele’s decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Freedom to Read Foundation News
Vol. 29, No. 4–Vol. 30, No. 1
New Litigation
FTRF files amicus in
Unabomber papers case
In October, the Foundation partnered with the Society of
American Archivists (SAA) to file an amicus curiae
brief urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to
reverse a lower court’s decision allowing the
government to withhold public access to the original
writings of Ted Kaczynski, who pled guilty to the
“Unabomber” crimes. The government has refused to
release Kaczynski’s original journals, which he desires
to donate to the University of Michigan. The brief, filed
by the ACLU of Northern California on behalf of FTRF
and the SAA, asserted that the documents in question
should be preserved and made accessible to scholars,
researchers, and the public, without taking a position on
the how this objective is achieved.
The case, Kaczynski v. United State of America, is
currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.
Book organizations files
brief in Friends case
The Freedom to Read Foundation has joined the
Association of American Publishers, the American
Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Comic
Book Legal Defense Fund, and the Publishers Marketing
Association in an amicus brief submitted to the
California Supreme Court in the case Lyle v. Warner
Bros. The case, involving a sexual harassment claim by
a former employee of the company that produced the TV
show Friends, revolves around the question of whether
the often vulgar language in the writers’ room, used
among the sitcom’s writers during the creation of the
show, created a hostile workplace environment.
The initial lawsuit was dismissed but the state court of
appeals ruled that the plaintiff could take the matter to a
jury, which could hear arguments on whether the
writers’ discussion was “creatively necessary” for the
show.
Page 3
The Foundation’s brief is in support of the defendants,
Warner Bros., and argues that in a creative
environment that produces First Amendment protected
material, the imposition of a test to determine whether
the offending language was “necessary” to the creative
output has the effect of stifling the speech of the
producers and, ultimately, of distributors. The brief,
which refers to a more extensive amicus brief
submitted by the newspaper industry, focuses on the
effect the ruling would have on the book community,
specifically the ability of authors to create books with a
“free exchange of ideas and information during the
creative and editorial process,” threatening to lead to “a
diminution of works addressing sensitive topics.”
FTRF joins amicus in
Texas textbook appeal
FTRF filed an amicus brief in conjunction with the
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
and the National Coalition Against Censorship in
support of author Daniel Chiras and a group of students
and parents who are fighting the Texas State Board of
Education’s decision to reject Chiras’ textbook,
Environmental Science: Creating a Sustainable
Future. In refusing to adopt Chiras’ text for use in
Texas high-school environmental science classes, the
board said the textbook was “anti-Christian” and “antifree enterprise.”
The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the District
Court, which ruled that the school board could reject
textbooks if it disagrees with the author’s viewpoint
when its viewpoint discrimination is “reasonably
related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” The brief
from the Freedom to Read Foundation argues that the
First Amendment limits the discretion of school boards
with respect to curriculum decisions; the ideological
concerns alleged in the case at hand are not legitimate
pedagogical concerns; that the procedure the board
used was irregular and suggested constitutionally
impermissible motives; and that manipulation of
curriculum decisions for partisan purposes harms
public education and distorts textbook publishing.
The case, Chiras v. Miller, is pending before the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Freedom to Read Foundation News
Vol. 29, No. 4–Vol. 30, No. 1
Other News
FTRF joins letter protesting
Secretary of Education’s
action on PBS show
Below is the text of an open letter signed by the
Freedom to Read Foundation and others regarding new
Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings.
February 1, 2005
On her second day as Secretary of Education, Margaret
Spellings sent a letter to PBS in which she pressured the
network into canceling an episode of “Postcards from
Buster,” a children’s program intended to teach about
diversity. The program, which is about making maple
syrup and dairy farming in Vermont, features a
household headed by two women. Their relationship is
not defined, nor is sexual orientation mentioned.
Nevertheless, fearing that some “parents would not want
their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed
in the episode,” Ms. Spellings suggested PBS refund
federal money spent on the show and issued a warning
to PBS about future support.
Secretary Spellings has crossed a critical constitutional
line. The Supreme Court has recognized as “a bedrock
principle underlying the First Amendment, … that the
government may not prohibit the expression of an idea
simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or
disagreeable.” Nor can the Government “leverage its
power to award subsidies on the basis of subjective
criteria into a penalty on disfavored viewpoints,” or
employ the power of the purse “to have a ‘coercive
effect’… calculated to drive ‘certain ideas or viewpoints
from the marketplace.’”
The Education Secretary’s role is not to represent
exclusively the interests of only one group of parents
and impose one set of beliefs on everybody else, but to
foster the best possible educational environment for all,
including the children of gay parents. In a free society,
parents can decide for themselves and their children
what is, and is not, acceptable viewing. Some parents
may applaud the segment, others may condemn it; the
vast majority probably would not even recognize sexual
orientation as an issue.
Page 4
It is especially disheartening that PBS so readily agreed
to cancel distribution of the program. PBS officials
have not only demonstrated how vulnerable their
professional decisions are to political pressure, they
also have violated their mission to serve “all American
children.” In doing so, PBS disserves its audience and
undermines viewers’ right to make their own selections
from a diverse menu of choices.
The children who might have enjoyed the program and
learned something from it are the real losers.
National Coalition Against Censorship
American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression
Feminists for Free Expression
First Amendment Project
Freedom to Read Foundation
PEN American Center
Note: PBS officials claimed their decision not to
distribute the “Postcards from Buster” episode was
unrelated to Secretary Spellings’ letter. A number of
local PBS stations aired the episode independently.
PBS president and CEO Pat Mitchell announced on
February 15 that she would not stay on after her
contract expires in June 2006.
Report to Council
2005 Midwinter Meeting
Boston, Massachusetts
The Freedom to Read Foundation reports to the
American Library Association Council at each Annual
Conference and Midwinter Meeting. The following is
an edited version of the report presented at the 2005
Midwinter Meeting in Boston.
It is with great sadness that I present this report in the
place of our friend and colleague Gordon Conable,
who was President of the Freedom to Read Foundation
and an ALA Councilor. Gordon died unexpectedly this
past Wednesday, January 12, as he was preparing to
attend this meeting. Gordon was an unsurpassed
champion of intellectual freedom, a wise and generous
mentor to many, and a consummate librarian who was
a true leader of our profession. He gave many years of
dedicated service to FTRF, serving as Treasurer, VicePresident, and seven years as President.
Freedom to Read Foundation News
Vol. 29, No. 4–Vol. 30, No. 1
Page 5
Above all things, Gordon cherished and adored his wife,
Irene, and his son, Edward. He absolutely beamed
whenever he spoke of them. Our thoughts and prayers
are with them.
used to obtain information about persons not connected
in any way to terrorism, espionage, or criminal activity;
and the procedural rules governing the secret Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The Foundation has established a fund in Gordon’s
name, which will be used to advance the causes to which
Gordon was most devoted and for which he worked
most passionately. Irene has asked that any gifts in
Gordon’s name be directed to this fund.
We hope for similar success in Muslim Community
Association of Ann Arbor v. Ashcroft, the facial
challenge to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act,
which amends the business records provision of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to permit the FBI
to obtain all types of business records, including library
records, without a showing of probable cause. The
District Court heard oral arguments on the government’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint in
December 2003. We are still awaiting a decision.
Building on Gordon’s contributions and those of so
many others, the work of the Foundation continues. I
am pleased to report on the Foundation’s activities since
the 2004 Annual Conference:
THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND LIBRARY
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
The right to read and access information in the library
anonymously, without government interference, is a
bedrock of intellectual freedom. FTRF remains steadfast
in its efforts to defend this right by opposing portions of
the USA PATRIOT Act and other laws threatening
readers’ rights to privacy and confidentiality.
In one key challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, John
Doe and ACLU v. Ashcroft, we saw a judgment in
favor of the plaintiff, an Internet Service Provider (ISP),
who challenged an FBI-issued National Security Letter
(NSL) ordering the ISP to turn over certain user records.
On September 29, Judge Marrero of the Southern
District of New York ruled that the NSL provision in
Section 505 of the act, which permits the FBI to compel
the production of information without judicial review, is
an unconstitutional infringement on the rights assured by
the Bill of Rights. His decision is stayed pending the
government’s appeal. FTRF will continue to support the
plaintiffs as amici, joining ALA and ABFFE.
The Foundation, in partnership with the ACLU,
challenged the FBI’s refusal to respond to a Freedom of
Information Act request concerning the Bureau’s use of
Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act in ACLU v.
Department of Justice. The District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and in June,
the FBI began to release relevant records and documents. These include a memorandum showing that the
FBI invoked its Section 215 authority a few weeks after
Attorney General Ashcroft stated publicly that those
powers had never been used; internal FBI memos
advising agents that the USA PATRIOT Act could be
FTRF joined with other civil liberties groups in
opposing portions of the Intelligence Reform Act of
2004, which would have expanded law enforcement’s
ability to demand records without government review.
While some of the provisions FTRF opposed were
eliminated from the legislation, troubling provisions for
national standards for driver’s licenses were retained
and adopted as law.
This year, we anticipate a full debate over Section 215
and other provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act as the
2005 sunset date for Section 215 draws closer. The
ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee is urging
everyone to sign the Reader Privacy Petition
encouraging the amendment of Section 215; it is
available online at www.readerprivacy.org.
PRESERVING THE FREEDOM TO READ:
NEW LITIGATION
The Freedom to Read Foundation works to safeguard
everyone’s freedom to read, view, and listen by
participating in lawsuits brought to defend First
Amendment rights and the right to freely access
information. Since the Foundation last reported to
Council, it has joined in the following lawsuits:
Kaczynski v. United States of America: (See p. 2)
Chiras v. Miller: (See p. 3)
FTRF also is monitoring The Center and Hernandez
v. Lingle, a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of a
library user in Hawaii who was ejected from the library
by a security guard for viewing the website
www.gayhawaii.com. The guard relied upon a state
Freedom to Read Foundation News
Vol. 29, No. 4–Vol. 30, No. 1
Page 6
trespass statute that gives public officials broad powers
to ban individuals from using public spaces. FTRF is
not currently a party to this lawsuit.
September 6, the Texas Supreme Court issued its
opinion in favor of the newspaper. FTRF joined in an
amicus curiae brief supporting the defendants.
CONTINUING LITIGATION
The Foundation is also involved in these actions:
The Foundation is involved in several other lawsuits
addressing First Amendment rights. I am pleased to
report the Foundation’s success in the following cases:
FCC petition for reconsideration: This petition
before the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) asks the agency to reconsider and reverse its
decision to impose penalties on NBC for airing an
allegedly indecent comment made by the singer Bono
during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards. FTRF is one
of several organizations that joined together to file the
petition after the FCC reversed its original order, which
had concluded that Bono’s comment, taken in context,
was not indecent or obscene. The petition also urges
the FCC to set aside new rules imposing more stringent
punishment on broadcasters for indecency. The petition
remains pending before the FCC.
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (formerly
ACLU v. Reno): On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld the injunction barring enforcement of the
Children’s Online Protection Act (COPA), a law that
proposes restrictions on Internet content deemed
“harmful to minors.” The Court concluded that the
plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that COPA
unconstitutionally burdens free speech, holding that
“content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal
penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive
force in the lives of a free people.” The Court returned
the case to the District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania for
a trial to determine whether COPA is the least restrictive
means of achieving the government’s goal of protecting
children from seeing sexually explicit materials online.
Video Software Dealers Association, et al. v. Maleng:
On July 15, Judge Robert Lasnik struck down the
Washington State law barring the sale or rental to minors
of any video game containing depictions of violence
directed against “public enforcement officers,” ruling the
law was an unconstitutional restriction on speech. FTRF
participated as an amicus curiae in the lawsuit with
other members of the Media Coalition.
Center for Democracy and Technology v. Pappert
(formerly Center for Democracy and Technology v.
Fisher): The Center for Democracy and Technology
succeeded in their legal challenge to a Pennsylvania
statute that allowed a Pennsylvania district attorney or
the state’s Attorney General to order ISPs—including
libraries—to block access to specified Web sites. On
September 10, the District Court struck down the law,
finding that it had resulted in the blocking of access to
more than one million wholly innocent Web sites while
having little effect on the approximately 400 child
pornography sites targeted by the law.
New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks: This defamation lawsuit
sought damages from an alternative newspaper in Dallas
after it published a satirical article critical of the
officials’ actions in jailing a 13 year-old boy. On
United States v. Irwin Schiff, et al.: After the federal
government successfully sought a temporary
restraining order against Irwin Schiff and his publisher,
Freedom Books, forbidding them to publish Mr.
Schiff’s book, The Federal Mafia: How Government
Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income
Taxes, the Foundation filed an amicus brief opposing
the court’s use of prior restraint against the book in
order to defend the principle that the First Amendment
protects even fringe opinions or beliefs. On August 9,
the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision affirming the
lower court’s order, that Schiff’s book is deceptive
commercial speech and, therefore, not protected by the
First Amendment.
Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et
L’Antisemitisme: French courts assessed monetary
penalties against Yahoo! and filed criminal charges
against its CEO for allowing the sale of Internet
auction items and the posting of book excerpts on its
Web site related to the Nazi regime. Such activities
violate French law but are fully protected speech under
the U.S. First Amendment. Two French organizations
initiated the legal action against Yahoo! in France and
won the initial lawsuit. Subsequently, Yahoo! filed
suit in the U.S. to obtain a ruling on the validity of the
French court’s order in light of its users’ First
Amendment rights. After the District Court judge
ruled that the First Amendment barred any enforcement
of the French court’s order in the U.S., the two French
groups filed an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. That court reversed the ruling on the
Freedom to Read Foundation News
Vol. 29, No. 4–Vol. 30, No. 1
grounds that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over
the French parties.
FTRF has now joined in an amicus curiae brief
supporting Yahoo!’s petition for rehearing or rehearing
en banc before the entire panel of judges serving on the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As detailed in earlier
reports, the FTRF board believes that the free expression
and intellectual property rights affected by the lawsuit—
both at home and abroad—must be rigorously defended.
[Update: On February 10, the Ninth Circuit ordered a
rehearing en banc. Oral argument is scheduled for
March 24, 2005.]
STATE HARMFUL TO MINORS LAWS &
INTERNET CONTENT LAWS
The Freedom to Read Foundation has participated as a
plaintiff in several lawsuits challenging state laws that
criminalize the distribution or display of materials
deemed “harmful to minors.” I am pleased to report our
success in Shipley, Inc. v. Long (formerly Shipley, Inc.
v. Huckabee). (See p. 2)
On October 5, the District Court granted summary
judgment to the government in Athenaco, Ltd. v. Cox,
a lawsuit challenging a Michigan statute that makes it
unlawful for any person to allow minors to examine
sexually explicit material that is “harmful to minors.”
Other organizations joining FTRF as plaintiffs include
ABFFE, the Association of American Publishers, the
Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and several Michigan
booksellers. The court based its decision on statements
made by the state’s attorneys, who claimed that the
statute should be narrowly interpreted and would have
limited effect on free expression. FTRF and its partners
have not filed an appeal.
The Foundation joined with several other plaintiffs to
file ABFFE v. Petro, a lawsuit challenging Ohio’s
amendment to its “harmful to juveniles” law that affects
both print and Internet content. On September 27, the
District Court sustained in part and overruled in part
both parties’ motions for summary judgment. The
parties are now waiting on an expanded opinion
explaining the court’s judgment.
FTRF and its co-plaintiffs won in PSINet v. Chapman
when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 24
upheld the permanent injunction forbidding enforcement
of Virginia’s Internet content law. After the Fourth
Circuit rejected the government’s petition for rehearing,
Page 7
the government decided not to seek an appeal before
the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision upholding free
expression rights is now final.
The State of Arizona has decided to appeal the
decision of the District Court awarding summary
judgment in favor of FTRF and other plaintiffs in
ACLU v. Goddard, which challenges the constitutionality of the state’s “harmful to minors” Internet content
law. The case is pending before the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
FUNDRAISING AND MEMBERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT
The Foundation Board members are intensifying our
efforts to increase membership, including encouraging
more ALA chapters, state school media associations,
and students to join the organization.
Challenges to the freedom to read are growing, and the
Foundation needs your support more than ever. To
become a member of the Freedom to Read Foundation,
please send a check to:
Freedom to Read Foundation
50 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611
You also can use a credit card to join the Foundation.
Call (800) 545-2433 ext. 4226 or visit us online at
www.ftrf.org to use our secure online donation form.
Respectfully submitted,
John W. Berry
President, Freedom to Read Foundation
Freedom to Read Foundation News (ISSN 0046-5038) is
issued quarterly to all members of FTRF. Regular membership in the Freedom to Read Foundation begins at $35.00
per year. Contributions to the Foundation should be sent to:
Freedom to Read Foundation, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL
60611. You also can join by phone at (800) 545-2433 x4226
or online at www.ftrf.org/joinftrf.html. All contributions are
tax-deductible.
The Freedom to Read Foundation is the First Amendment
legal arm of the American Library Association.
Freedom to Read Foundation News
Vol. 29, No. 4–Vol. 30, No. 1
Page 8
American Library Association  Office for Intellectual Freedom
LAWYERS FOR LIBRARIES
SOUTHEAST REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
Georgia Tech Hotel & Conference Center
May 4, 2005  Atlanta, GA
Co-sponsored by SOLINET and in conjunction with the
SOLINET Annual Membership Meeting, May 5-6, 2005.
Lawyers for Libraries Southeast Regional Training Institute is the sixth in an ongoing series
of Continuing Legal Education institutes intended to ensure that libraries throughout the
United States will have access to committed, informed attorneys who can provide clear
guidance and expertise when dealing with First Amendment issues. The topics to be
addressed include:
 Privacy & confidentiality 
 The USA PATRIOT Act 
 Internet filtering 
 Challenges to library materials 
 Minimizing liability 
These sessions—conducted by some of the preeminent attorneys in the field of library First
Amendment law—provide a wonderful opportunity for attorneys and trustees to learn the
laws, legal precedents, and practical strategies they need to help libraries. Librarians are
welcome, but must be accompanied by an attorney.
Cost: $395/person; $745 for two
Single/double at Georgia Tech Hotel: $149/night
Visit www.ala.org/lawyers, call (800) 545-2433 x4226, or e-mail
lawyers@ala.org to register or for further details.
For more on the SOLINET Annual Member Meeting,
visit www.solinet.net/events or call (800) 999-8558.