I was glad to read "The Nerves of Government" first to fill in some background on government documents and communication, but it sort of led me away from government docs and back to the school library (what can I say?  I'm a SLMS in training!).  I connected Yudof's comments to the way school libraries, as extension of the government, will shape the values of their patrons. 

this will make sense in a minute...

In my research for the group project, I came across an AASL article by Lukenbill that quotes laws "forbidding schools to 'impose orthodoxy in matters of opinions' while still allowing the 'inculcating [of] values,' 'government speech', 'government as educator,' 'educational speech,' and 'strict scrutiny [constitutional review] standards'".  Lukenbill asserts that because the school library is a branch of the government, librarians have the right to educate and guide.  One of these ways to guide would be in book selection that encompasses a wide variety of topics (even controversial ones) and supports the curriculum.  The ideas in that article begin to help me answer a long-standing question about the responsibilities of a school librarian.  On the one hand, libraries should strive to maintain some sort of balance and "neutrality" (I hesitate somewhat to use that word after our earlier discussion on Pawley and Wiegand, heh).  On the other hand, librarians will necessarily have to espouse some kind of viewpoint with book selection, keeping in mind that stocking a diversity of resources denotes a viewpoint.  And heading back to my group's topic, censorship, that particular viewpoint may upset some people in the librarian's sphere of influence.  Yudof describes how politicians walk a line between their dual responsibilities to reflect the values of the electorate and also to educate the public.  In the same way, I feel school librarians must find balance between representing the student body with book selection, but should also seek to teach students about other cultures and viewpoints.

It seems to me that Yudof intends to cast a negative light on government communications meant to inform or persuade.  I wouldn't say that I think government propaganda is a good thing, but I think some of his points go too far.  He says that in government institutions such as schools, the students "lack contact with the outside world and access to alternative sources of information and opinion".  I beg to differ!  If the school librarian is doing his or her job, then the exact opposite should be true! 

scene from "Me and You and Everyone We Know"

I was interested in the idea that technology, which I would assume has given us more freedom, could actually be infringing on our liberties.  I have long been interested in the ways that technology has isolated us and diminished our community ties, while also affording us new and innovative ways to connect to each other.  The movie "Me and You and Everyone We Know" is an excellent illustration of this dichotomy.  And I think of the YA book Little Brother when I consider how new technology could facilitate increased government surveillance.  I had not thought as much about what the internet does for the speed and efficiency of government communication with citizens.  Will the U.S. government soon use adware to spy on our internet use and offer us targeted public service announcements and agricultural ads?