The digital closet   2014 - slideshare - aug 20
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

The digital closet 2014 - slideshare - aug 20

on

  • 280 views

Discriminatory filtering by agenda-driven vendors prevents access to information and websites about LGBTQ* minorities. Internet filters engage in viewpoint discrimination. They censor access, silence ...

Discriminatory filtering by agenda-driven vendors prevents access to information and websites about LGBTQ* minorities. Internet filters engage in viewpoint discrimination. They censor access, silence LGBTQ* voices, render them digitally invisible, and perpetuate homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia.

The Internet is the critical source of information for young people in the 21st century, particularly LGBTQ* adolescents and allies. Young people in poverty and those living in rural areas are the most vulnerable, so having access to the Internet solely through filters is dangerous to their mental, spiritual, and physical health.

Global information rights and social responsibility are essential foundations for universal human rights in 21st century digital environments.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
280
Views on SlideShare
279
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

https://twitter.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

The digital closet   2014 - slideshare - aug 20 The digital closet 2014 - slideshare - aug 20 Presentation Transcript

  • The Digital Closet: Discriminatory Filtering and LGBTQ* Information on the Internet Ethical Issues for Teachers, Librarians, & Parents Alvin M. Schrader, PhD Adjunct Professor, iSMSS [Institute for Sexual Minority Studies & Services], and Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta alvin.schrader@ualberta.ca www.ualberta.ca/~aschrade August 2014
  • This version has been updated with findings from several studies, including a 2014 ALA report, and news accounts of U.K. filtering Revised from original Slideshare upload entitled “The Digital Closet & Global Access to LGBTQ* Information: Ethical & Empirical Considerations for Schools, Libraries, & Parents” (July 14, 2014) Based on a presentation to the 2014 Information Ethics Round Table held at the University of Alberta on April 26, 2014
  •  Internet filtering ~ Internet content filters ~ LGBTQ* targeting by filters ~ viewpoint discrimination ~ filtering as censorship of websites and social media ~ LGBTQ* and other lawsuits in the U.S. ~ limitations of Internet filters  LGBTQ* – the rainbow community  LGBTQ* rights in the world  Library associations and Intellectual Freedom  Educational associations and LGBTQ* policies Outline 3 View slide
  • Introduction Global information rights and social responsibility are essential foundations for universal human rights in 21st century digital environments. 4 View slide
  • 5 Discriminatory practices perpetrated by Internet content filters prevent access to information about LGBTQ* minorities. Internet filters silence LGBTQ* voices, render them invisible, and perpetuate homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia.
  • What are Internet Content Filters? • A rudimentary form of artificial intelligence – software programs constructed by commercial vendors with unknown credentials and hidden agendas. • Designed to censor digital content considered “objectionable,” by targeting keywords, phrases, URLs, and subject blocking categories – determined by computer algorithms. • Other blocking methods are bandwidth consumption, protocols, file types such as .mp3, image files such as .jpg, dynamic categorization, and whitelists – often combined with security and firewall features. • Most filters block entire webpages and websites. 6
  • What are Internet Content Filters? (2) • Many libraries do not operate filters directly but are subject to state library, library consortium, or local or provincial/territorial/ state government systems of which they are a part. • Digitally literate users, especially young people, use proxies and other tools to circumvent filters. • Filters are black boxes resistant to transparency and public accountability. • Keyword lists, subject blocking categories, and other methods are individually selected and constructed by each vendor and are therefore highly idiosyncratic. 7
  • Why and How are Internet Filters Used? • Filters in schools and libraries (and at home) create false security and complacency among government officials, school and library administrators, teachers, librarians, and parents. • Government funding for Internet access in libraries and schools in the U.S. requires – or is believed to require – that filtering software be used. • IT administrators and school and library decision-makers typically set filters to the most restrictive levels. • Unblocking websites requires human intervention and usually requires justification to the IT administrator – a very intimidating prospect not only 8 for staff in schools and libraries but also for students and library users.
  • Flaws of Internet Content Filters • Filters are driven by extreme secrecy. • Blocking decisions and blocking content categories by vendors and programmers are value-laden, agenda-driven, idiosyncratic, non-standard, and secret. • Filters both overblock (false positives) and underblock (false negatives) at unacceptable rates, because cultural and linguistic dynamics transcend, and are always beyond the reach of, algorithmic functionality. • Filters are perpetually imperfect for both technological and cultural-linguistic considerations. 9
  • Flaws of Internet Content Filters (2) • No mass-imposed, one-size-fits-all filter will satisfy even the dominant elite because consensus is a fiction. • Mass-imposed filters privilege a narrow range of voices and render minority viewpoints invisible. • Filters impede ~ student and adult learning, freedom of inquiry, and the right to read; ~ violate the right of students and adults to access constitutionally protected information; and, ~ curtail student and adult development of critical skills for understanding and negotiating the digital world. 10
  • Reasons to Oppose Internet Filtering • Outsourcing value systems that undergird democracy and human rights to anonymous third-parties is a poor model for ~ digital curricula and education; ~ individual student responsibility; ~ freedom of expression and the right to receive expressive communications; ~ social justice; and, ~ democratic citizenship. • The Internet is the critical source of information for young people in the 21st century, particularly LGBTQ* adolescents and allies. • Young people in poverty and those living in rural areas are the most vulnerable, so having access to the 11 Internet solely through filters is dangerous to their
  • LGBTQ* Communities and Filters • Filters engage in viewpoint discrimination. • Filers censor LGBTQ* information and websites. • Filters silence LGBTQ* minorities and make them digitally invisible. • Average coming-out age is 15, but of first self-awareness is 10, and the key factor is Internet access to information. 12
  • LGBTQ* Communities and Filters (2) • By denying access to LGBTQ* information, filters… ~ harm LGBTQ* and questioning young people; ~ impede adolescent identity formation and reinforce LGBTQ* negative self-concepts; ~ sustain and augment marginalization, stigmatization, discrimination, scapegoating, gay bashing, bullying and cyberbullying; ~ increase sexual health risks for gender and sexual minorities; ~ intensify “othering” (marginalizing) and compound addiction, depression, suicidality, and other mental health issues; ~ exacerbate the digital divide especially in rural and poor communities; ~ stifle public understanding and acceptance; ~ perpetuate invisibility and ignorance; and, 13 ~ obstruct and impede LGBTQ* growth into resiliency.
  • What is Resiliency? 14 • Resiliency is the ability to adapt to and bounce back from life’s changes, adversities, and setbacks. • When we are resilient, we are able to harness our inner resources to keep going forward. • Resiliency and mental health are intertwined.
  • What is Viewpoint Discrimination? • Restricting constitutionally protected speech 15 (discourse, text, images, all forms of human communication) based on the ideas and views expressed in that speech. • Overblocking errors in filtering functionality result in viewpoint discrimination.
  • Overblocking errors in filtering functionality result in viewpoint discrimination alt.sexy.bald.captain breast couple Super Bowl XXXI groin injury The Beaver [magazine] VictimsofPornography. org DirtyPicturesBand.com American Urological Assn TheSmokingGun.com online nursing exam Lesbian.org Implantinfo.com PFLAG SexHelp.com prescription drugs Hustler entry in Wikipedia WW II history website Moby Dick Dick Archie R. Dykes Medical Library 16
  • Netsweeper, a Canadian filter, initially classified the website of Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium, an LGBTQ* bookstore, as pornography. [Classification was changed in 2008 after being challenged] CyberSitter: “We filter anything that has to do with sex. Sexual orientation is about sex by virtue of the fact that it has sex in the name.” 17 Other examples of viewpoint discrimination
  • Content Blocking Categories Anti-Gay Filtering Practices Blocking categories constructed by various filters that deliberately hide LGBTQ* websites • Education.lifestyles • Lifestyle • Lifestyle and culture • Sex education • Sex education/sexuality • Sexuality • Sexual materials 18
  • Content Blocking Categories (2) Anti-Gay Filtering Practices Blocking categories constructed by various filters that explicitly name LGBTQ* websites • Gay/Lesbian Topics • Gay or Lesbian or Bisexual Interest • Homosexuality • LGBT 19
  • Example: Blue Coat Scope note on Blue Coat filter’s LGBT content blocking category states: “Websites that provide reference materials, news, legal information, anti-bullying and suicide prevention information, and other resources for LGBT people or that relate to LGBT civil rights…. [They] do not contain sexually explicit content and are generally suitable for viewing by all age groups.” 20
  • This is what Blue Coat actually does… Blocks: • The Advocate Magazine • good.as.you.org • bilerico.com • pamshouseblend.com • glsen.org • towelroad.com • GLAAD • AMERICAblog Gay • Human Rights Campaign • joshseefried.com Allows: • American Family Assn • National Org for Marriage • Family Research Council • Glenn Beck • Ann Coulter • Rush Limbaugh • Red State • Breitbart This filter is used by many U.S. schools 21 and the U.S. Pentagon
  • Filtering as Censorship – 2002 Kaiser Study A 2002 study tested how much impact 7 filters had on access to teen health information 22 • Symantec • SmartFilte r • Websense • AOL Parental Controls • BESS N2H2 • CyberPatrol • 8e6 See no evil: How Internet filters affect the search for online health information. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002 www.kff.org/entmedia/20021210a-index.cfm
  • Teen information websites about Gay Health were subjected to the most severe levels of censorship (60%), followed by sites about Condoms (55%) and Safe Sex (50%). See no evil: How Internet filters affect the search for online health information. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002 www.kff.org/entmedia/20021210a-index.cfm 23 Many other topics of critical importance to teens, of all identities, were also censored.
  • Teen health information blocked by the 7 filters Health Sites Blocked by Filters: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Chart-Pack.pdf (Chart 3, Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002) http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Chart-Pack.pdf 24
  • The 7 filters blocked access to these specific health information websites for teens… www.femalehealth.com [female condom website] www.gayhealth.com www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/ www.hivchannel.com/prevention/safesex/ www.teenwire.com [Planned Parenthood teen website] www.youngwomenshealth.org/spherpes 25 See no evil: How Internet filters affect the search for online health information. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002 www.kff.org/entmedia/20021210a-index.cfm
  • Filtering as Censorship – 2009 South Dakota Public Libraries Study 26 50% of libraries had been asked by patrons to unblock filters Patrons’ reasons varied – hotmail, dating services, drug research for prescriptions, school project research “Does Filtering Stop the Flow of Valuable Information?: A Case Study of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in South Dakota,” by Candice Spurlin and Patrick M. Garry, Patrick. South Dakota Law Review, 2009
  • Filtering as Censorship – 2011 ACLU campaign Don’t Filter Me! The American Civil Liberties Union launched a campaign to test access through school computers to 8 well-known websites ~ 5 gay-affirmative sites ~ 3 anti-gay (“pray-away-the-gay”) sites Don’t Filter Me! American Civil Liberties Union, 2011 https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/dont-filter-me-final- repo2r7t
  • • Day of Silence • It Gets Better Project • The Trevor Project • GSA Network • Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education -N--e-t-w--ork • National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality • People Can Change • Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays 28 Websites tested for Don’t Filter Me! Don’t Filter Me! American Civil Liberties Union, 2011 https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/dont-filter-me-final- report
  • Findings by Don’t Filter Me! 29 ~ Filters blocked the pro-LGBTQ* websites ~ Filters allowed the anti-LGBTQ* websites Don’t Filter Me! American Civil Liberties Union, 2011 https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/dont-filter-me-final-report
  • Findings by Don’t Filter Me! (2) These filters were found to engage in LGBTQ* viewpoint discrimination • Blue Coat Systems • Fortiguard • Lightspeed Systems 30 • M86 Solutions • URL Blacklist • Websense Don’t Filter Me! American Civil Liberties Union, 2011 https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/dont-filter-me-final-report
  • Filtering as Censorship – 2012 AASL Study A 2012 study found that 94% of U.S. schools use a filter to censor “objectionable” online content. Over half of U.S. schools said that filters: ~ impede student research ~ discount the social aspects of learning ~ go beyond U.S. CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act) requirements 31
  • U.S. schools use filters to block various social networking media ~ social networking sites- 88% ~ im/online chatting - 74% ~ online gaming - 69% ~ video services - 66% School Libraries Count 2012! Supplemental Report on Filtering, American Association of School Librarians, 2012 ala.org/aasl/filtering-schools 32
  • Filtering as Censorship – 2012 U.S. National Technology Access Survey 33 Public libraries not applying for federal E-rate discounts to avoid compliance with legally required CIPA filtering: Urban - 44% (61 “2011-2012 Public Library Funding and Technology Access Survey: Survey Findings and Results,” by John C. Bertot et al., Information Policy & Access Center, June 19, 2012 libraries) Suburban - 30% (350 libraries) Rural - 28% (532 libraries) Overall - 29% (944 libraries)
  • Filtering as Censorship – 2013 PEW Study A study of U.S. middle and high school teachers found that 97% of schools employ: Internet filters, and Cell phone use policies, and Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms. Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project, 2013 http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teachers-and-technology 34
  • 1/3 of all surveyed teachers say filters have a major negative impact, but the % varies depending on who and where they teach: ~ lowest income students . . . . . . . . . . . . 49% ~ students in large metro areas & cities . 37% ~ students in small towns . . . . . . . . . . . . 28% ~ highest income students . . . . . . . . . . . . 24% How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms. Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project, 2013 http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teachers-and-technology 35
  • Filtering as Censorship – 2010 & 2013 Surveys by Project Tomorrow 36 Belief that their access to the Internet and websites is inhibited by filters and firewalls: 45% - teachers, 2010 36% - teachers, 2013 48% - students grades 6-8, 2013 58% - students grades 9-12, 2013 Project Tomorrow, “Speak Up National Findings,” May 2010 www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU09UnleashingTheFuture.pdf Presentation at the National Symposium, American Library Association and Google, Inc., Washington, DC, July 29-30, 2013. In: Fencing Out Knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection Act 10 Years Later, by Kristen R Batch, American Library Association, June 2014
  • Filtering as Censorship – 2013 Rhode Island Schools Study Rhode Island schools block 89 categories of digital “Social Opinion” category – blocks websites of the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the National Organization for Marriage, and Planned Parenthood, and other content deemed “controversial, inappropriate, or time-wasting” “Obscene/Tasteless” category – blocks “explicit graphical or text depictions of such things as mutilation, murder, bodily functions, horror, death, rude behavior, executions, violence, and obscenities” 37 content, for example: American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, “Access Denied: How Internet Filtering in Schools Harms Public Education,” February 2013 http:// riaclu.org/images/uploads/Access_Denied- _How_Internet_Filtering_in_Schools_Harms_Public_Education.pdf
  • Filtering as Censorship – 2014 ALA Study of Schools and Public Libraries ~ Filtering is not the answer. Instead, educate students on responsible use, and reframe AUPs as Responsible Use Policies. ~ Widespread overreaction, fear, and myth have triggered misunderstanding and imprudent “over-implementation” of filtering in schools and libraries, resulting in unconstitutional Internet censorship far beyond the 3 narrowly defined categories of visual images prohibited by CIPA in 2000 – namely, visual depictions deemed obscene, child pornography, and harmful to minors. ~ Federal law does not mandate blocking controversial ideas, political viewpoints, or digital platforms. Fencing Out Knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection 38 Act 10 Years Later, by Kristen R Batch, American Library Association, June 2014
  • ~ Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforcement of CIPA makes it a civil, not a criminal, matter, requiring schools and libraries merely to file a certification of compliance, and no school or library has ever been found out of compliance since 2001. ~ Filtering negatively impacts those who can benefit most from school and public library access – the 60 million Americans in rural and low-income communities who are without access to either a home broadband connection or a smartphone. ~ Filtering creates two classes of students – an advantaged higher-income class with unfiltered home access, and a disadvantaged lower-income class with only filtered school and library access. ~ Filtering provokes not only negative educational consequences Fencing Out Knowledge: but negative Impacts of social the Children’s and ethical Internet consequences Protection Act 10 Years Later, by Kristen R Batch, American Library 39 as well. Association, June 2014
  • ~ As solutions to hacking, copyright, cyberbullying, and value issues, schools and libraries are illegally blocking Internet content and legitimate educational resources as well as social media, social networking, interactive, user-generated, and collaborative tools, platforms, and websites. ~ Filtering restricts learning opportunities to prepare students to be responsible users, consumers, and producers of online content and resources. ~ Filtering compromises school and library goals of digital citizenship, digital inclusion, digital literacy and media skills, and digital ethics and online social behaviour – goals vital for future opportunity, post-secondary success, and career readiness, as well as for full democratic and economic participation in cyber society. 40 Fencing Out Knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection Act 10 Years Later, by Kristen R Batch, American Library Association, June 2014
  • ~ Filters are black boxes lacking transparency and accountability. ~ Filtering places decision about what content will be censored in the hands of third-party vendors, not librarians, who have marginal control over filtered content. ~ Filtering poses fundamental challenges to intellectual freedom, violates basic principles of librarianship and librarians’ core professional values, and is incompatible with the democratic right to receive information. ~ Blocking categories constructed by vendors reflect target markets and the specific values and agendas of individuals, groups, or even countries – not librarians’ professional values, principles, and standards of classification, collection development, and freedom of access. 41 Fencing Out Knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection Act 10 Years Later, by Kristen R Batch, American Library Association, June 2014
  • ~ Key responsibility for implementing school and library filtering rests with technology directors, whose individual attitudes affect the application of content filtering as much or more than written policies, and whose influence has been overlooked and seldom examined. ~ Expert findings about filtering from congressionally mandated studies are being ignored. ~ Few studies measuring filtering performance have been conducted since 2008. ~ This is a critical time to recognize the unequal and uneven impact of CIPA and filtering practices. 42 Fencing Out Knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection Act 10 Years Later, by Kristen R Batch, American Library Association, June 2014
  • The British government ordered the big 4 ISPs to impose opt-out filtering (not opt-in) on all U.K. customers Blocked websites include: London Friend [LGBT charity] Stonewall [gay rights charity] LGBT* [group in Liberal Democrat party] Glasgay! [arts festival in Glasgow] DIVA [lesbian magazine] ~ gay and lesbian “lifestyle” websites are censored in “Sex Education” or “Lifestyles” blocking categories 43
  • In the U.K. at the present time: ~ as of mid-2014 few ISP customers are opting for filtering - Virgin Media 4% - BT 5% - Sky 8% - Talktalk 36% ~ 2014 campaign launched by UK Open Rights Group “against blunt, ham-fisted Internet filter systems that cause more harm than they solve” - Dave Neal, “Majority of UK web users haven’t turned on ISP’s internet porn filters,” The Inquirer, July 23, 44
  • In the U.K. at the present time (2): ~ 20% of websites checked are blocked by one or more ISPs, such as Guido Fawkes [political blog], www.sherights.com [feminist blog], and a small car dealing business ~ technology does not allow website owners to determine whether their sites are blocked ~ informed choice is undermined; raising awareness and empowering people is hindered; parents’ opportunity to teach children about proper Internet use is denied ~ transparency is critical ~ open debate is essential 45
  • Viewpoint Discrimination – LGBTQ* Lawsuits in the U.S. 46 ~ Out of court settlements in 2 lawsuits against Tennessee school districts – allowed access to constitutionally protected gay educational websites, and the filter, used by more than 100 Tennessee school districts, adjusted accordingly 1 1. American Civil Liberties Union, “Franks v. Metropolitan Board of Public Education—Case Profile,” August 13, 2009 https://www..aclu.org/lgbt-rights-hiv-aids/franks-v-metropolitcan-board- of-eduation-case-profile
  • Viewpoint Discrimination – LGBTQ* Lawsuits in the U.S. (2) 47 ~ Court decision in lawsuit against Camdenton (Missouri) school district – guilty of “unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination that violated the students’ First Amendment rights” and ordered to pay $125,000 in legal fees and costs, for blocking LGBT affirmative websites under “Sexuality” category while permitting access to anti-gay websites 2 2. American Civil Liberties Union, “PFLAG v. Camdenton R-III School District,” April 6 2012 www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/pflag-v-camdenton-r-iii- school -district; PFLAG v. Camdenton R-III School Dist. C.D. Mo., January 15, 2012.
  • Viewpoint Discrimination – Other Lawsuits in the U.S. ~ Court decision in lawsuit against North Central Regional Library District (Missouri) school district – upheld filtering policy as constitutional under one particular set of facts in one library system, but the library had modified its Internet filter and amended its filtering policy in the meantime 3 3. Bradburn et al. v. North Central Regional Library District, launched in 2006 with court ruling on April 10, 2012. Cited in “Why Recent Court Decisions Don’t Change the Rules on Filtering: Blocking Access to Protected Speech Can Lead to Litigation and Legal Fees,” by Theresa Chmara, American Libraries, July/August 2012 www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org/article/why-recent-court-decisionsdon% E2%80%99t-change-rules-filtering 48
  • Viewpoint Discrimination – Other Lawsuits in the U.S. (2) ~ Court consent order against Salem (Missouri) Public Library – prohibited from blocking religious 49 content and alternative viewpoints under “Occult,” “Criminal Skills,” or any other filtering category 4 4. Hunter v. Salem Public Library Board of Trustees, 4:12-cv-00004- ERW, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division, March 5, 2013.
  • Limitations of Internet Content Filters - SizeT aenchdn gorloowgticha ol fC tohnes Iindteerranteiot ns – new websites come onstream by the second, old websites morph - New media services, new technologies – filters can not keep up with the rapid evolution of Internet tools and platforms, e.g., video gaming, texting (1993), blogging (1994, 1999), Craigslist (1996), Google (1998), Myspace (2003), LinkedIn (2003), Facebook (2004), wikis (2004), YouTube (2005), Reddit (2005), Twitter (2006), Tumblr (2007), Dropbox (2007), Manhunt (2008), Grindr (2009), Instagram (2010), etc. 50
  • Limitations of Internet Content Filters Technological Considerations (2) - Primarily text-based – reliant on exact-match software algorithms; image detection by many filters is still text-based – “technical limitations continue to preclude accurate identification of obscene images” - Fencing Out Knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection Act 10 Years Later, 2014 51
  • Limitations of Internet Content Filters Cultural-Linguistic Considerations - Ambiguous terms and imprecise categories – nuances, synonyms, homonyms, homographs, metaphors, similes, double entendres, twists of phrase, puns, euphemisms, coded terms, initialisms, acronyms, appropriated meanings 52
  • 53 Examples of ambiguous terms and imprecise categories
  • In 1991, Toronto Mayor June Rowlands refused to allow this group to perform at City Hall on the basis of their name alone 54
  • Limitations of Internet Content Filters Cultural-Linguistic Considerations (2) - Evolution of terms/subjects - Variable perceptions of offensiveness – profanity, blasphemy, heresy, sedition, terrorism, indecency, obscenity 55
  • 56
  • Limitations of Internet Content Filters Cultural-Linguistic Considerations (3) - Variable interpretations of legal terms – obscenity, pornography, “harmful to minors” laws (U.S.), age of consent laws, community standards - Variable perceptions of age-appropriateness – rigid conformity of one-size- fits-all treating older students the same as younger ones, failure to recognize enormous variation in adolescent development and ignoring the vast diversity of student needs, differing ages of majority, differing ages of consent 57
  • 58
  • Limitations of Internet Content Filters Cultural-Linguistic Considerations (4) - Variable region-specific and culture-specific value-laden terms – more cultures than countries, values, beliefs, norms, traditions 59
  • ~ in the U.S.… Unshelved, July 18, 2009 60
  • Limitations of Internet Content Filters Cultural-Linguistic Considerations (5) - websites in languages other than English – and foreign language words adopted into another language - Circumvention technology – proxy servers, “over the wall” software in China - “Teenspeak” 61
  • 62
  • General Concerns about Filtering ~ Foreign (mostly U.S.) English-language commercial computer programs – block lists treated as trade secrets, pervasive ideological bias, conservative religious value systems ~ Reliance on exact-match character recognition – underblocking (false negatives) and overblocking (false positives), reductive, decontextualized, disregarding multiple layers of meaning 63
  • 64 Context is everything!
  • General Concerns about Filtering (2) ~ Violation of constitutionally protected digital expression and access ~ Belief in the power to control attitudes and behaviour by prohibiting words and ideas ~ Promotes uniform world view – no knowledge of choices, no awareness of the world’s rich diversity, viewpoint discrimination hinders empathy, understanding, and respect ~ Lack of accountability and due diligence in product testing 65
  • United Nations and Internet Freedom ~ UN Human Rights Council Resolution L13 – The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet, 2012 http://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/07/05/internet-resolution ~ UN Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/26/L.24 on The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet, 2014 Endorsed by 82 countries “The same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression,” in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights treaties. “The fundamental importance of open, critical and even controversial expression on the Internet is a universal value that applies in all societies.” 66
  • No large-scale testing or even public awareness programs have been 67 initiated in Canada or, to my knowledge, in any other democracy. Instead, many institutions and some governments recklessly and deviously impose filters on Internet users without due diligence and rigorous product evaluation.
  • Schools and libraries have legally enforceable AUPs, which specifically identify prohibited types of online conduct and content, so why filter? IT users in schools and libraries must legally accept the terms of institutional AUPs, as well of-age terms for adult and other websites, so why filter? 68
  • Schools and libraries, as well as all other public institutions, have an ethical obligation to follow public accountability and full disclosure principles. If public institutions (and governments) use a filter, their main pages should notify Internet users of… 69 ~ filter name ~ blocking level ~ blocked subject categories ~ a statement that adult supervision is still required commensurate with user age and maturity ~ user rights and remedies, particularly reconsideration procedures and a dispute resolution process.
  • Schools and libraries should be aware that filtering does not absolve them of child supervision and guidance commensurate with the age and the maturity of both groupings of, and individual, Internet users. Filters should never be treated as babysitters! 70
  • Educational curricula should include full courses on Internet and social media use, ethics, privacy, surveillance, cyberbullying, and related issues. Libraries should develop regular programs around these same issues, targeting specific audiences of children, students, parents, library users, and citizens. Libraries and schools should reframe AUPs AUPs as Responsible Use Policies. 71
  • Hierarchies of Oppression Balancing Equality Rights • Freedom from homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic oppression is acutely linked to freedom from ignorance around misogyny, sexism, double standards, and gendered privileges and power. • Sexism and misogyny are the ubiquitous weapons of homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia – girlie man, sissy, effeminate, momma’s boy, the pink government, pansification, man up, don’t be a pussy, boys don’t cry. • Homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia are the misogynistic male’s fear that gay men will treat him the way he treats women, and that lesbians will treat other women better than he does. • Stereotyping and ignorance based in fear lead to violence. 72
  • Hierarchies of Oppression Balancing Equality Rights (2) • Women’s liberation and gay liberation are inseparable oppressions and struggles. • There can be no hierarchy of oppression. The struggle against one form of injustice is the struggle against them all. • Truth to power has many voices. • But just as there is no hierarchy of oppression, there can be no hierarchy of equality and equality rights. • The larger struggle for a reasonable balance among competing human rights continues on many fronts. 73
  • Hierarchies of Oppression Balancing Equality Rights (3) • States – and societies – must live up to the universalist promises to all marginalized minorities inherent in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as in numerous other international agreements, which they have signed and are thus legally binding signatories. • On top of this international framework of human rights guarantees to which Canada is a signatory, Canada must live up to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and provincial and territorial human rights acts. 74
  • Hierarchies of Oppression Homophobic Women On a personal note, I have never been able to understand homophobic women. Is it self-hatred at not being born a privileged male? Is it religious indoctrination? broader cultural desensitization? Or is it just oblivious naivety about how intimately linked homophobia is to misogyny and sexism? 75
  • Hierarchies of Oppression Homophobic Women (2) How can it be that any self-respecting, caring, spiritual adult woman could feel herself entitled to bully a queer teen, to tell a 5-year-old that a queer loved one is going to burn in hell, to choose religious doctrine over their own queer child and then disown them and kick them out of the house – all the while thinking she herself is acting self-righteously free of personal, emotional, moral, spiritual, and societal consequences? 76
  • Hierarchies of Oppression Homophobic Women (3) A message to her, and all like-minded men: No sacred text can justify persecution and violence against anyone. Homophobia is a choice, not homosexuality. - Rev. J.P. Mokgethi-Health (Sweden), at the 2014 International AIDS Conference, Melbourne, Australia, July 20-25, 2014. Quoted in “'Homophobia is a choice, not homosexuality': Inter-faith Message,” by Bobby Ramakant, Citizen News Service, July 21, 2014 77
  • Unintended Consequences The Many Prices of LGBTQ* Filtering • Over-reliance on technology to limit access to “undesirable” information and knowledge • Outsourced judgment and diminished sense of personal responsibility – impeded critical thinking, media, and literacy skills • Poor modelling of democratic citizenship and citizenship education • Educational goals are put at risk for all students, especially the ability to understand the digital environment • Silencing of LGBTQ* voices 78
  • The Perils of Invisibility When those who have power to name and to socially construct reality choose not to see you or hear you … when someone with the authority of a teacher, say, describes the world and you are not in it, there is a moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked into a mirror and saw nothing. It takes some strength of soul – not just individual strength, but collective understanding – to resist this void, this nonbeing, into which you are thrust, and to stand up, demanding to be seen and heard. 79 Adrienne Rich, Blood, bread and poetry, 1986, p.199 (from “Invisibility in academe,” 1984)
  • Internet filtering is the 21st century version of book banning for the digital generation. 80 Filters = Internet censorship
  • The worst part of LGBTQ* Internet content filtering is….. %#@^%!*&)_=+”{ ]&$#^&$&@#^@! $**$#&@~*#@!~` -^+_%-#@!~`- ^+_%-!!!!! 81
  • LGBTQ* minorities are not equal and will not grow as easily into resiliency if they can not communicate freely and visibly on the Internet. 82
  • Who’s in the LGBTQ* Community? • Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans*, Trans- Identified, Transgender, Transsexual, Two Spirit, Intersex, Pansexual, Queer, Questioning, and Allies • Sexual & Gender Minorities, Sexual Minority & Gender Variant (SMGV), Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Minorities (SOGI) • Gender Fluid, Gender-Queer, Trans* and Gender Nonconforming Minorities • Initialisms: LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTI, LGBTQ2S, GLBT, GLBTQ, LGBTQQIA, LGBTQQIAAP, LGBTTI2QQ, LGBTTIQQ2SA*, LGBTTTIQQAAPK, Q2GQIAASCP(GSM) life *** healing sunlight nature serenity spirit 83 ***Alternate colour meanings for the Rainbow Flag: acceptance, tolerance, happiness, harmony, peace, spirit
  • Far worse than stereotyping, scapegoating, ridicule, and caricature, the greatest enemy of public truth in Hollywood movies has been invisibility. 84
  • The United Nations and LGBTQ* Rights • UN Free and Equal Campaign https://www.unfe.org • UN Resolution A/HRC/17/L.9/Rev.1 LGBT Rights Endorsed by 94 countries ~ UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: The time has come to act on discrimination and violence against LGBTI people [2012]. ~ UN Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai: “A nation that can silence one group can silence all groups” [2014]. ~ Argentina introduced this Resolution, supported by Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Mexico, and Colombia: Resolved to ensure that violence and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity remain on the 85 HRC's agenda [Human Rights Council, June 24, 2014].
  • Sources: Freedom to Mary; ILGA: Int’l LGBTI Assn; CIA World Factbook 86
  • Death Penalty in 11 States for Being Gay* • Brunei • Iran • Maldives • Mauritania Less barbarous but still reprehensible anti-homosexuality laws exist in 72 other countries. * Technically, the death penalty in most of these countries is for homosexual “acts.” 87 • Nigeria • Saudi Arabia • Somalia • Sudan • Tonga • Uganda • Yemen State-sponsored homophobia: A world survey of laws: Criminalisation, protection and recognition of same-sex love, by Lucas Paoli Itaborahy & Jingshu Zhu, ILGA, May 2013; The Curious Case of Countries Where Being Gay Is a Crime, by James Kirchick, 2014 www.thedailybeast.com/
  • Worldwide Use of Homophobic Language (12 months 2012-2013) faggot – 14 million tweets/year no homo – 5 million tweets/year so gay – 5 million tweets/year Dyke – 2 million tweets/year All four terms – 26 million tweets/year www.nohomophobes.com 88 on Twitter
  • Faggot No Homo So Gay Dyke Screenshot, nohomophobes.com April 24, 2014 89
  • Marriage Equality Dates 1. Netherlands 2001 2. Belgium 2003 3. Spain 2005 4. Canada 2005 5. South Africa 2006 6. Norway 2009 7. Sweden 2009 8. Portugal 2010 9. Iceland 2010 10. Argentina 2010 11. Denmark 2012 12. Wales and England, 2013 90
  • Marriage Equality Dates (2) 13. Brazil 2013 14. France 2013 15. New Zealand 2013 16. Uruguay 2013 17. Luxembourg 2014 • civil unions in many other countries • some within-country jurisdictions: - U.S. (2003+) but people can still be fired for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans* in 33 U.S. states; - Mexico (2009+) 91
  • Milestones in the Long Struggle for Canadian LGBTQ* Human Rights 1969 – federal decriminalization of same-sex relationships 1977 – Quebec first province to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation 1982 – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (equality rights – 1985) 1992 – Canadian military ended anti-gay policy 1995 – sexual orientation “read into” the Canadian Charter by the Supreme Court of Canada as a prohibited ground of discrimination 2003 – Ontario first province to legally recognize marriage equality 92
  • The Supreme Court of Canada Learning about tolerance is … learning that other people’s entitlement to respect from us does not depend on whether their views accord with our view. Children cannot learn this unless they are exposed to views that differ from those they are taught at home…. Tolerance is always age appropriate. Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2002, par. 66,69 91
  • But key challenges lie ahead for Canadian LGBTQ* social justice…. Canada still does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of Gender Identity & Gender Expression. This is an urgent and simple legal remedy. Canada provides millions of taxpayer $$ to virulently homophobic countries around the world. This must change. Canada impedes LGBTQ* refugee & asylum seekers. This must stop. 92
  • 95 Library Associations and Intellectual Freedom
  • Intellectual Freedom Statement Canadian Library Association All persons in Canada have the fundamental right, as embodied in the nation's Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. This right to intellectual freedom, under the law, is essential to the health and development of Canadian society. Libraries have a basic responsibility for the development and maintenance of intellectual freedom. 96
  • Intellectual Freedom Statement (2) Canadian Library Association It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those which some elements of society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable. To this end, libraries shall acquire and make available the widest variety of materials. Both employees and employers in libraries have a duty, in addition to their institutional responsibilities, to uphold these principles. 97
  • Diversity and Inclusion Statement Canadian Library Association The Canadian Library Association believes that a diverse and pluralistic society is central to our country’s identity. Libraries have a responsibility to contribute to a culture that recognizes diversity and fosters social inclusion. Libraries strive to deliver inclusive service. Canada’s libraries recognize and energetically affirm the dignity of those they serve, regardless of heritage, education, beliefs, race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental capabilities, or income. 98
  • Internet Access Policy Canadian Library Association CLA believes that the best and most reliable filter is a child’s parent or guardian.* …….. The filtering of terminals in children’s areas can coexist with full access elsewhere in the [public] library and preserve a range of choice consistent with public library principles. 99 Internet service in public libraries: A matter of trust, Feb. 2000
  • Internet Access Toolkit Ontario Library Association Offering only filtered Internet workstations to the public would not meet the spirit of the OLA Statement on the Rights of the Individual or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. OLA Intellectual Freedom Committee's Report on Internet Access [1998?] 100
  • Freedom to Read Statement American Library Association We believe rather that what people read is deeply important; that ideas can be dangerous; but that the suppression of ideas is fatal to a democratic society. Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it is 101 ours.
  • Resolution on the Use of Filtering The American Library Association affirms that the use of filtering software abridges the Library Bill of Rights. ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee, July 1, 1997 Software in Libraries American Library Association 102
  • American Library Association “Why Recent Court Decisions Don’t Change the Rules on Filtering: Blocking Access to Protected Speech Can Lead to Litigation and Legal Fees,” by Theresa Chmara, American Libraries, July/August 2012 103 Libraries should continue to be wary of using Internet filtering systems that block constitutionally protected material for adults or minors.... If libraries use filters that block constitutionally protected material deemed harmful to minors and do not allow adults to disable filters, or fail to provide an effective unblocking system, those libraries may open the door to years of litigation and significant legal expenses.
  • Statement on Intellectual Freedom, Access To Information and Censorship Chartered Institute of Library & Information Professionals CILIP is committed to promoting a society where intellectual activity and creativity, freedom of expression and debate, and access to information are encouraged and nurtured as vital elements underpinning individual and community fulfilment in all aspects of human life. CILIP, 2005 104
  • Public Access to and Freedom of Expression in Networked Information The Council Of Europe Cultural institutions providing public access to networked information and communication should do so for all, without regard to race, nationality, religion, culture, political affiliation, physical or learning impairment, gender or sexual orientation. Children choosing to use those Public Access Points that are provided for whole community use should, as far as possible, be able to do so under the same conditions as other users. Nevertheless, in order to avoid access to harmful and/or illegal content, filtering systems requesting the use of personal age codes should be provided at Public Access Points. 105
  • Public Access to and Freedom of Expression in Networked Information (2) The Council Of Europe The use by managers of Public Access Points of software filtering systems to block access to certain content is an unwarranted interference with the individual’s freedom of access to information. If filtering and blocking systems are to be made available, it should only be as an option that individuals can choose and calibrate at their own preferred levels. The Council Of Europe, 2005 106
  • 107 Educational Associations and LGBTQ* Policies
  • Code of Professional Conduct Alberta Teachers’ Association* The teacher teaches in a manner that respects the dignity and rights of all persons without prejudice as to race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical characteristics, disability, marital status, family status, age, ancestry, place of origin, place of residence, socioeconomic background or linguistic background. 108 First teachers’ association in Canada to include: ~ sexual orientation 1999 ~ gender identity for students 2003 ~ gender identity for teachers 2004
  • Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Policy The Board is committed to establishing and maintaining a safe, inclusive, equitable, and welcoming learning and teaching environment for all members of the school community. This includes those students, staff, and families who identify or are perceived as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, queer or questioning their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. All members of the school community have the right to learn and work in an environment free of discrimination, prejudice, and harassment. This right is guaranteed under theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Alberta Human Rights Act, and Alberta School Act. 109 Edmonton Public School Board, 2012
  • 110 Statement by former Mayor of Edmonton, Alberta
  • The health of the LGBTQ* community is a barometer of the entire community. 109 City of Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel, Mayor’s Pride Brunch, a fundraiser for Camp fYrefly, June 2007
  • Resources • LGBTQ-Related and General Filtering Research and Commentary • LGBTQ* Resources for Librarians and Teachers • LGBTQ* General Resources • Trans-Identified and Gender Nonconforming Resources 112
  • LGBTQ-Related & General Filtering Research & Commentary American Civil Liberties Union. (2012). “Don’t Filter Me!” Web content filtering in schools. Final report. https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/dont-filter-me-final-report American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island. (2013). “Access Denied: How Internet Filtering in Schools Harms Public Education.” http:// riaclu.org/images/uploads/Access_Denied- _How_Internet_Filtering_in_Schools_Harms_Public_Education.pdf Ayre, Lori Bowen. (2004). Filtering and filter software. Library Technology Reports. American Library Association, v.40(2) (March-April). Batch, Kristen R. (2014). Fencing Out Knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection Act 10 Years Later, American Library Association, Policy Brief No. 5. Bertot, John C. et al. (2012). “2011-2012 Public Library Funding and Technology Access Survey: Survey Findings and Results.” Information Policy & Access Center http://ipac.umd.edu/sites/default/files/publications/2012_plftas.pdf Chmara, Theresa. (2012). “Why Recent Court Decisions Don’t Change the Rules on Filtering: Blocking Access to Protected Speech Can Lead to Litigation and Legal Fees,” American Libraries, July/August www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org/article/why-recent-court-decisionsdon% E2%80%99t-change-rules-filtering 113
  • LGBTQ-Related & General Filtering Research & Commentary (2) Deibert, Ronald, et al., eds. (2008). Access denied: The practice and policy of global Internet filtering. MIT Press. Heins, M., et al. (2006). Internet filters: A public policy report. Brennan Center for Justice. Rev. ed. Holt, David Brian. (2011). “LGBTIQ teens – Plugged in and unfiltered: How Internet filtering impairs construction of online communities, identity formation, and access to health information.” In E. Greenblatt, ed. Serving LGBTIQ library and archives users: Essays on outreach, service, collections and access. McFarland, 266-77. Houghton-Jan, Sarah. (2008). Internet filtering software tests: Barracuda, CyberPatrol, FilterGate, and WebSense. San Jose Public Library, Calif. http://www.sjpl.org/sites/all/files/userfiles/agen0208_report.pdf “LGBTIQ Teens – Plugged in and Unfiltered: How Internet Filtering Impairs Construction of Online Communities, Identity Formation, and Access to Health Information,” by David Brian Holt. In Ellen Greeblatt, ed. Serving LGBTIQ Library and Archives Users: Essays on Outreach, Service, Collections and Access, pp. 266-277. American Association of School Librarians. (2012). 114
  • LGBTQ-Related & General Filtering Research & Commentary (3) Neal, Dave. (2014). “Majority of UK web users haven’t turned on ISP’s internet porn filters.” The Inquirer July 23, 2014 www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2356869/majority-of-uk-web-users-havent-turned- on-isps-internet-porn-filters Patrick, Ed. (2014). “Is web filtering in the UK excessive?” CILIP www.cilip.org.uk Project Tomorrow. (2010). “Speak Up National Findings.” www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU09UnleashingTheFuture.pdf Purcell, Kristen, Alan Heaps, Judy Buchanan, and Linda Friedrich (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms. Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project. Available at URL: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teachers-and-technology Rideout, V. (2002). See no evil: How Internet filters affect the search for online health information. Kaiser Family Foundation. Available at URL: www.kff.org/entmedia/20021210a-index.cfm Schrader, Alvin M. (2013). “’Nowhere to Turn, Nowhere to Go’: LIS Services for Sexual and Gender (LGBTQ) Minorities.” Presentation to LIS 541: LIS Services in Culturally Diverse Society. Edmonton, AB, 12 September 2013. Available at URL: http://www.slideshare.net/alvinschrader/library-and-information- services-and-issues-for-lgbtq-communities?from_search=38115
  • LGBTQ-Related & General Filtering Research & Commentary (4) Schrader, Alvin M. (2013). “Reflections on meaning in library and information studies: A personal odyssey through information, sexuality, and gender.” In P. Keilty & R. Dean, eds. Feminist and queer information studies reader. Litwin Books, 62-97. Schrader, Alvin M. (2012). “The digital closet: How internet filters suppress access to information by, for, and about sexual and gender minorities,” Lorne MacRae Intellectual Freedom Lecture, Alberta Library Conference. albertalibraryconference.com/presentations/ALC2012Schrader.pdf Schrader, Alvin M. and Kristopher Wells. (2010). “Queering libraries and classrooms in the United States and Canada: Strategies to build inclusive school and public library collections and services for sexual minority and gender variant youth.” In E. Greenblatt, ed. Serving LGBTIQ library and archives users: Essays on outreach, , Service, Collections and Access, pp. 94-112. Schrader, Alvin M. (2007). ‘I thought I’d find myself at the library’: LGBTQ services and collections in public and school libraries.” PNLA Quarterly 72.1 (2007): 4-9. pnla.org/quarterly/Fall2007/PNLA_Fall07.pdf Schmidt, Eric E., and Jared Cohen. (2014). “The future of Internet freedom.” New York Times, Mar. 11. 116
  • LGBTQ-Related & General Filtering Research & Commentary (5) School Libraries Count 2012!: National Longitudinal Survey of School Library Programs. Supplemental Report on Filtering. American Association of School Librarians, Chicago, Ill., 2012 ala.org/aasl/filtering-schools Spurlin, Candice and Patrick M. Garry. (2009). “Does Filtering Stop the Flow of Valuable Information?: A Case Study of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in South Dakota.” South Dakota Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 1 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1368900 Thornburgh, Dick, and Herbert Lin, eds. (2002). Youth, pornography and the Internet. National Academy Press. 117
  • LGBTQ* Resources for Librarians and Teachers • ALA GLBTRT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Round Table) http://ala.org/glbtrt/news • Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Librarians Network owner-GAY-LIBN@ usc.edu • Gay Librarians group – Facebook • State-sponsored homophobia: A world survey of laws: Criminalisation, protection and recognition of same-sex love, by Lucas Paoli Itaborahy an Jingshu Zhu, International Lesbian and Gay Association, May 2013 • The Curious Case of Countries Where Being Gay Is a Crime, by James Kirchick, Jan. 2, 2014 www.thedailybeast.com • “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Information Needs,” by Patrick Keilty. In: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 3rd ed., 2009 • “Lindy Reads and Reviews” http://lindypratch.blogspot.com • Out Behind the Desk: Workplace Issues for LGBTQ Librarians, ed. Tracy Nectoux. Litwin Books, 2011 118
  • LGBTQ* Resources for Librarians and • “Out in the Library: Materials, Displays and Services for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community” http://bit.ly/1nYyJtx • Queers Online: LGBT Digital Practices in Libraries, Archives, and Museums, ed. Rachel Wexelbaum. Litwin Books (forthcoming) • Rainbow Family Collections: Selecting and Using Children's Books with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Content, by Jamie Campbell Naidoo, 2012. • “Reaching Out: Library Services for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Youth.” Film/DVD by Lynne Barnes, 2004 (16 mins) lynneword@hotmail.com • “Resources for Building a High School Library Program that Meets the Needs of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, or Questioning Students: Part I,” by Cynthia Peterson, 2010 http://cjpeterso.edublogs.org/2010/12/20glbtqresources1/ 119 Teachers (2)
  • LGBTQ* Resources for Librarians and • Serving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Teens: A How-To-Do-It Manual for Librarians, by Hillias J. Martin, Jr. & James R. Murdock. Neal-Schuman, 2007. • Serving LGBTIQ Library and Archives Users: Essays on Outreach, Service, Collections and Access, ed. Ellen Greenblatt, McFarland, 2010 • Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Recommended Fiction and Nonfiction Resources for K-12 Schools. Edmonton Public Schools and Edmonton Public Library http://bit.ly/1aTo5Pg 120 Teachers (3)
  • General LGBTQ* Resources • "A Little Gay History: Desire and Diversity Across the World, ed. R.B. Parkinson. Columbia University Press, 2013 • The Advocate http://www.advocate.com/ • APIRG Library http://www.apirg.org • Alberta GSA Network – Facebook page • Alberta Teachers’ Association – Sexual Orientation and Gender Variance http://bit.ly/1jJRexj – PRISM Project http://bit.ly/1lLfkft – Gay-Straight Student Alliances in Alberta Schools: A Guide for Teachers, by Kristopher Wells. 2005 http://bit.ly/1lkzL37 • Camp fYrefly www.fyrefly.ualberta.ca • Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives http://www.clga.ca/ • The Canadian War on Queers: National Security as Sexual Regulation, by Gary Kinsman & Patrizia Gentile. UBC Press, 2010 121
  • • “Coming Out in the Workplace.” Angus Reid Public Opinion and the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Career Connections, Fall 2012: 18-23 http://bit.ly/1lLfJyv • Daily Xtra Canada’s Gay and Lesbian News • Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender United Nations Human Rights Council, Nov. 17, 2011 • Egale Canada www.egale.ca • Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) http://www.glaad.org/ • Gay and Lesbian Review • Gay Canada gaycanada.com • Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN ) 122 General LGBTQ* Resources (2)
  • • Gay-Straight Students Alliance (GSA) Network www.ismss.ualberta.ca/students • How to Close the LGBT Health Disparities Gap, by Jeff Krehely, Center for American Progress, 2009 http://bit.ly/1m6QBxP • HuffPost LGBT www.huffingtonpost.com/news/lgbt • Human Rights Campaign http://www.hrc.org/ • Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta www.ismss.ualberta.ca – Inside/OUT Speakers’ Series http://ismss.ualberta.ca/speakers.htm – No Homophobes Project http://nohomophobes.com – OUTreach www.ualberta.ca/~outreach 123 General LGBTQ* Resources (3)
  • • International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia http://dayagainsthomophobia.org • International Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association http://ilga.org • International Human Rights Commission https://iglhrc.org/ • It Gets Better http://www.itgetsbetter.org/ • Lambda Literary Foundation http://www.lambdaliterary.org • LGBTQ Interest Group, BCLA (British Columbia Library Association) lgbtq-list@lists.bclibrary.ca • NativeOut http://nativeout.com/ • Outlooks Magazine www.outlooks.ca • PBS: Two-Spirits http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/two-spirits/ 124 General LGBTQ* Resources (4)
  • • Perceptions Newsmagazine (not online) • PFLAG Canada (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) http://www.pflagcanada.ca/ • Pink Blood: Homophobic Violence in Canada. Douglas Victor Janoff. University of Toronto Press, 2005 • Pink Shirt Day http://pinkshirtday.ca • Pride at Work Canada http://prideatwork.ca • Pride Centre of Edmonton www.pridecentreoredmonton.org • Pride Week @ University of Alberta (featured on Outlook TV) http://bit.ly/1nyWYvd • Rainbow Refugee Committee www.rainbowrefugee.ca • Safe and Caring Schools for Two Spirit Youth: A Guide for Teachers and Students. Society for Safe and Caring Schools and Communities, 2011 125 General LGBTQ* Resources (5)
  • • Saskatchewan Resources for Sexual Diversity, U of Saskatchewan http://library2.usask.ca/srsd/ • Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Edmonton Public Schools www.epsb.ca/ourdistrict/topics/sexualorientationandgenderidentit y/ • Stonewall National Museum and Archives http://stonewallnationalmuseum.org • The Trevor Project http://thetrevorproject.org • Two Spirit Circle of Edmonton Society – Facebook page • 2-Spirited People of the First Nations www.2spirits.com • University of Alberta Libraries – LGBTQ webpage (English Language and Literature subject guide) http://guides.library.ualberta.ca/content.php?pid=95998&sid=774 244 • Xtra! Canada’s Gay and Lesbian News http://dailyxtra.com/ • “You Can Play” Project http://youcanplayproject.org • Youth Line http://youthline.ca 126 General LGBTQ* Resources (6)
  • • AlbertaTrans www.albertatrans.org • Canadian Professional Association for Transgender Health www.cpath.ca • Forge Forward http://forge-forward.org/ • GenderSpectrum https://www.genderspectrum.org/ • International Transgender Day of Remembrance http://www.transgenderdor.org/ • Living a Transgender Childhood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epDPui27QZQ • National Center for Transgender Equity (US) http://transequality.org/ • TransAdvocate http://www.transadvocate.com/ • Trans Alliance Society http://www.transalliancesociety.org/ 127 Trans-Identified & Gender- Nonconforming Resources
  • • Trans Equality Society of Alberta http://tesaonline.org • Transgender Archives http://transgenderarchives.uvic.ca/ • Transgender Canada www.transgendercanada.com • The Transgender Project http://trans.ichannel.ca/ • Transgender Visibility: A Guide to Being You http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/transgender_visibility_g uide_042013.pdf • TransKids Purple Rainbow http://www.transkidspurplerainbow.org/ • TransYouth Family Allies http://www.imatyfa.org/ • “TransGeneration.” Documentary, DVD, 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyGLd4VKEe4 • World Professional Association for Transgender Health www.wpath.ca 128 Trans-Identified & Gender- Nonconforming Resources (2)
  • • Gender Failure. Rae Spoon and Ivan E. Coyote. Arsenal Pulp Press, 2014. • Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation. Kate Bornstein and Bear Bergman. 2010. • Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity. Matt Sycamore. 2006. • Some Assembly Required: The Not-So-Secret Life of a Transgender Teen. Arin Andrews. 2014 • Trans Bodies, Trans Selves: A Resource for the Transgender Transgender Community. Laura Erickson-Schroth. 2014. 129 Trans-Identified & Gender- Nonconforming Resources (Print)
  • • Transgender 101: A Simple Guide to a Complex Issue. Nicholas Teich. 2011 • Transgender Child: A Handbook for Families and Professionals. Stephanie Brill & Rachel Pepper. 2008. • Transgender Explained for Those Who Are Not. Joan Herman. 2009. • The Transgender Phenomenon. Richard Ekins & Dave King. 2006. 130 Trans-Identified & Gender- Nonconforming Resources (Print 2)
  • WITH THANKS! ~ To my colleagues who guided me to useful research and who patiently reviewed earlier drafts – Sandra Anderson, Michael Brundin, Bev Clarke ‘and the boys’, Frank Testin, and another who must, sadly, remain anonymous. ~ To conference and event organizers who invited me to present this research in earlier stages of development, Mount Royal University Library (Calgary), the Alberta Library Conference, the Ontario Library Association Super Conference, and the Information Ethics Round Table (Edmonton). ~ And to my life partner and best friend Tony 131