Extremism and the Internet

Citation

Usherwood, B. (1999), "Extremism and the Internet", Library Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 447-455. https://doi.org/10.1108/lm.1999.20.8.447.2

Twenty‐one years ago Anthony Smith (1978) forewarned that, it is information and its distribution that is likely to pose problems which are “far more intractable than the primary technological invention of the new devices themselves”. Nowhere is that more true than in our consideration of the Internet. This timely piece of research is a reminder of one of the more important issues to confront librarians as they contemplate the wired society. In discussing extremism and the Internet, Peter Brophy and his colleagues have provided a competent overview of the state of some very black arts, and introduced some of the legal and technical complexities that face those responsible for library and information services.

Such discussion is plagued by problems of definition. What, for instance is extremism? Broad definitions discussed in the report include, “racism”, “fascism” and “right wing extremism”. The team finally took the view that it “should be defined by an individual or a group’s willingness to promote their cause by violence and by the denial of fundamental human rights to others”. There is also some discussion of the social and ethical issues raised by the mass media, and the information rich and information poor.

All this, it has to be said, is carried out at a fairly general level and the report contains little that is not available elsewhere. For instance, much of what is contained in the chapter on filters and other technical issues can be found on the American Library Association Web site. The research reveals that, in attempting to reach a young audience, sites make use of graphics, colour and other techniques. It is therefore a pity that the only examples of extremist material are some sample texts of racist “humour”. The impact of this publication would have been much greater if the authors had included some illustrations of material downloaded from the extremist sites.

In what is a short report, of just 95 pages, it is a pity that more space is not devoted to the main purpose of this research which is, “to examine the evidence for extremist use of the Internet, and to consider the implications of this ... for the dissemination of information provided by ‘extremist’ groups”. There are some frightening implications. The authors, for example, posit a future in which the public library might become the centre of a “real community”; providing a place “where extremists can meet”. The discussion of such issues is frankly disappointing. The authors show little sense of history. Some reference to Sanford Berman’s (e.g. 1971) work on the “the value problem” for librarians, or Stieg’s (1992) thesis on Public Libraries in Nazi Germany would have helped put the arguments in context. There are also some other surprising omissions from what is, nevertheless, a useful bibliography. For example, one would have expected to find some reference to Fidelman’s (1997) practical text, All‐out Internet Access; The Cambridge Public Library Model, in a piece of work that claims to be “a practical and authoritative resource”.

In the end, the real issues addressed by this research are not about technology or the law, but about the tension between two professional tenets; intellectual freedom and social responsibility. The debate has to include a discussion of our professional and political values. Richard Hoggart (1982) has warned of the dangers of going into the information age “with wholly inadequate social and cultural compass and rudder”. If library managers are to navigate the murky waters discussed by Peter Brophy and his team they will need all the guidance they can get. This report will be of some help, but there is need for much more research, and reflection, before we finally decide how we are to deal with extremism in the wired society.