The Librarian: June Pinnell-Stephens
Section 215 of the Patriot Act is a somber shadow on June Pinnell-Stephens' job as collection services manager at the Fairbanks North Star Borough Library.
The provision amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow the federal government to order the release of books, records, papers documents and virtually anything else from any state or local agency, and any private business.
If federal investigators ask Pinnell-Stephens to disclose information about the books and other resources individual library users have checked out or used and any other records--she will have to comply or face, at the very least, charges of contempt. At the worst: prison time.
"That's going to be a difficult choice," Pinnell-Stephens says. "The options are: turning my back on 31 years of fighting to protect what I consider to be the most profound obligations of my profession, or going to jail. And neither alternative is attractive."
That choice may not be far off. According to Pinnell-Stephens, librarians across the country were told recently by the American Library Association that if they were compelled by investigators to turn over records, they should call the association and say simply, "I need to talk to an attorney."
Those words rang in Pinnell-Stephens' own ears recently.
"I received just such a call from a library here in Alaska," she says. "Now, were they served with a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrant? I don't know. They couldn't tell me. And certainly if I knew, I couldn't tell you. But I believe they were."
Under acts like Patriot and the proposed Domestic Security Enhancement Act, reception of subpoenas, court orders and national security letters are not to be disclosed to anyone. Pinnell-Stephens could face criminal charges for both refusing to comply and telling anyone she received such orders.
"It could be anything from contempt of court to, I suppose aiding a terrorist, or being deemed a terrorist myself," she adds.
And would she refuse such an order and risk both her career and the possibility of jail time?
"At the moment I'm leaning toward going to jail," she says. "I think somebody needs to stand up and actually be harmed before a case can be brought. I wouldn't look forward to it, but I'm inclined to do so."
Pinnell-Stephens says that Fairbanks's public library has not been contacted by federal investigators. Yet.
But why would the FBI be interested in what Fairbanksans have to read?
"Fairbanks is a mining center," says Pinnell-Stephens. "And I frequently buy material about explosives and blasting because I think it's important that people engaged in these activities have recent, accurate information for safe handling, for safe transportation through, perhaps the middle of town on how to handle these materials."
She adds, "Now, if the miners feel that they could be added to a watch-list or are somehow suspect because they're looking at this material, that could very understandably have a chilling affect on their wanting to view it, or certainly not even check it out of the library."
Pinnell-Stephens thinks that true, free inquiry cannot exist without privacy. Across the United States, libraries are putting up signs warning readers that their records may be subject to investigation by federal authorities. The Fairbanks library has avoided this path.
"We're in a public building," Pinnell-Stephens says. "And yet we contend that people do have an expectation of privacy because no one is prying into what they're reading."
But, in fact, the government does have access to a library user's records--if investigators want it. It is for this reason that Pinnell-Stephens declines to post warning signs.
"If a person wanted to take an invasion of privacy issue to court," she points out, "their expectation of privacy would be diminished by having that sign posted."
By choosing not to post warning signs, Pinnell-Stephens is trying to preserve library users' options for invasion-of-privacy claims.
A librarian by day, Pinnell-Stephens often lectures on the Patriot Act and other documents that potentially threaten civil liberties in the United States.
What started as a small talk in Anchorage last September has expanded to a 17-page speech with nearly 19 pages of notes. She recently gave a presentation to the Socratic Society and to United Academics on the University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus.
"I am amazed when people say, 'You're so courageous to speak out,'" she says. "Every citizen in this country should be speaking out. It's not a matter of courage. It's a matter of needing to be sure that people understand just what's at risk."
She is not alone. Libraries across the country are rallying against the federal mandates.
On March 6, 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives received a bill called The Freedom to Read Protection Act of 2003. The legislation, submitted by Rep. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), is aimed at guarding the privacy of library users.
"It's not just the library community that's upset," she says. "There's a broad coalition of people across the country that's reflected now in this broad demonstration of support for Rep. Sanders' bill."
Groups that oppose the invasions that this Patriot Act allows include not only the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) the Bill of Rights Defense Committees, but also the American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum and Gun Owners of America.
These groups, she says, "realize that if one set of rights can be attacked, it's not very far down the road before the rest of them will be as well."
Questions? Comments? Contact fynewsy@uaf.edu | Back to Extreme Alaska