Filtering Of Public Computers
The battle continues about whether public libraries should install filters on their computers in order to prevent children from accessing obscene or sexually explicit internet sites. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), libraries prevent people from reaching many other internet sites when they install filters. Therefore, they are violating the first amendment rights of persons who use the computers (ODER 1). The battle over the use of internet filters came to a head in a legal challenge of the Children’s Internet Protection Act, also known as (CIPA). (ODER 1)
After two weeks of graphic testimony, the trial over CIPA ended on April 4 in Philadelphia as the three-judge panel expressed their views about the law. (ODER 2) The American Library Association (ALA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and website providers had challenged this law in a consolidated action based on an infringement of the right of freedom of speech of the adult users of library computer terminals. (ODER 2)
It was evident at the trial that one side definitely favors the use of internet filters at public libraries. According to several librarians, who testified before the judges, filters do help to manage the pornography problem. (ODER 2) However, their own association, the ALA, argued against the use of internet filters. The case against internet filters was based on four main points. The first was that the filters do not work because they both over block and under block. Secondly, the Children’s Internet Protection Act is unconstitutional because it blocks legal information. Thirdly, libraries should not have to choose censorship in order to receive funding. Fourthly, CIPA abolishes local decision-making, since most libraries, funding is local, and libraries are locally governed. (ODER 2) However, the Department of Justice contended that there is no constitutional right to immediate, anonymous access to speech, for free, in a public library. Even if there was, it argued, libraries do not necessarily have a right to receive subsidies from the government for it. (ODER 2)
The main library manager for the Tacoma Public Library testified that most of the blocking checked at that library’s terminals has been working properly. However, others testified that library could not honestly claim to be following the law unless it is over blocking. By doing this, it would also be blocking many constitutional material sites. However, unblocking these terminals would enable many child pornography sites to be easily accessed. (ODER 3) An information science professor suggested that we should not hold the internet filters to a higher standard that we do such tools cataloging tools as the index card system, which has been used for so many years. “David Ewick, director of the Fulton County Public library, Rochester IN, testified that his library blocks not only sexually explicit material, but also categories like tasteless and dating.” (ODER 3)
As one judge suggested, your definition of obscenity has a lot to do with where you are from. For example, kids from the inner city, who are looking up things on the computer, will not be nearly as shocked by what they find, as will minors, who live in rural areas and have never encountered such material before. Arguing against the filters, one doctor stated that most kids would not ask their parents about sores, which might be symptoms of the clap. Instead, they are more likely to look up the subject on the internet in order to find the answer for themselves. (ODER 4) Another witness testifying against filters was a student who had used the library computer in preparation to announcing to her family that she was a lesbian. (ODER 4) She stated that her reason for doing so was that the computers at the library afforded more privacy than the ones at home.
In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the CIPA as constitutional in a landmark decision. Although the law does not take effect until July 1st, some libraries are going ahead with the instillation of the filtering programs. (PIKE 1) Under the new law, a library can disable the filter to enable a patron to search the web freely, if he or she asks. In some libraries, you are given a choice of filtered or non-filtered access to the web when you sign on. (PIKE 1)
Most justices are worried that libraries may unblock the computers and enable children to access sites that they should not view. (PIKE 2) However, they agree that infringing on someone’s first amendment rights may be the main problem. If a library staff is backed up with work, or the library is short-staffed, it could possibly take days before someone is provided with unfiltered internet access. (PIKE 2) There are also other problems out there for the post CIPA world, as the court’s language appears to permit minors to request access to some sites that would appear to be harmful to them. (PIKE 3) Overall, this was an extraordinary year for the Supreme Court as it issued significant decisions in this matter and several other areas that affect the information community. (PIKE 3) By upholding the Copyright Term Extension Act and CIPA, among others, the court seemed more comfortable in supporting congressional actions this year. (PIKE 3). Nevertheless, it is unlikely that we have heard the last about this contentious subject.
