Squeal like piggies, or remain silent as the grave

In my reference class last Thursday, we discussed the fine line between keeping our mouths silent or shouting about a patron’s book selection that could potentially lead to harmful problems toward him or others. But, do librarians have the right to object when we are ideally supposed to follow the golden rule of ethics and intellectual freedom?

With the ever-increasing use of the Internet and the publishing of books, the practice of protecting patron confidentiality comes into play. If patrons are using the library to research and view uncertain or unpopular information, it is questioned whether librarians have the moral obligation to inquire further into the situation or produce patron information if requested by an outsider.

If a patron checks out a book on suicide, does that automatically make the librarian think he or she may be contemplating the deed? Maybe or maybe not. Perhaps the patron is only doing a research project on suicide for a high-school or college course.

Let’s say that the patron’s high-school principal finds the book in his locker, therefore, demanding to know what other books the patron has checked out. In this situation, I believe freedom of privacy and intellectual freedom are being abused. No one has the right to this person’s library records.

However, if people subpoena and demand the patron’s records, it goes against the intellectual-freedom code. If librarians and outsiders do not value confidentiality rights, then the rules should be rewritten, as to not make them two-faced. There should be no exception to the code: All or none.

The chief purpose of libraries is to provide intellectual freedom where patrons have the guaranteed, written right to study and research without fear of persecution or question. If we break this freedom, we are being hypocritical.

I’m not sure what the correct answer is to this question because I have not encountered it yet. However, I think that though each case is different, ethics and intellectual freedom should be upheld no matter what the situation encompasses. If librarians and patrons cannot rely on those two fundamental foundations, then what is the purpose of a free library and community without interference?