Court OKs Anti-Porn Filters in Libraries [CIPA upheld]

Associated Press ^ | June 23, 2003 | Gina Holland

[AntiGuv]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that Congress can force the nation's public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters.

The blocking technology, intended to keep smut from children, does not violate the First Amendment even though it shuts off some legitimate, informational Web sites, the court held.

The court said because libraries can disable the filters for any patrons who ask, the system is not too burdensome. The 5-4 ruling reinstates a law that told libraries to install filters or surrender federal money.

It was victory for Congress, which has struggled to find ways to shield children from pornographic Internet sites. Congress has passed three laws since 1996 - the first was struck down by the Supreme Court and the second was blocked by the court from taking effect.

The first two laws dealt with regulations on Web site operators. The latest approach, in the 2000 law, mandated that public libraries put blocking technology on computers as a condition for receiving federal money. Libraries have received about $1 billion since 1999 in technologies subsidies, including tax money and telecommunications industry fees.

The government had argued that libraries don't have X-rated movies and magazines on their shelves and shouldn't have to offer access to pornography on their computers.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Welcome to FreeRepublic!

[RonF]

Another intrusion of the federal government into local affairs. Local library boards are perfectly capable of having their librarians install blocking software onto their PC's if they deem it necessary. Whatever happened to "community standards"?

[AntiGuv]

AP just added more:

Librarians and civil liberties groups had argued that filters are censorship and that they block valuable information. Filter operators must review millions of Web sites to decide which ones to block.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said the law does not turn librarians into censors.

The latest law, the Children's Internet Protection Act, has been on hold. A three-judge federal panel in Pennsylvania ruled last year that it was unconstitutional because it caused libraries to violate the First Amendment. The filtering programs block too much nonpornographic material, the panel found.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

Justices had seemed skeptical in March during arguments in the case that it was onerous for library users to ask staff to disconnect filters when research is hampered.

More than 14 million people use public library computers.

Even without the law in place, some libraries use filtering software on their computers, with varying degrees of success in screening out objectionable material. Other libraries have varying policies that encourage parents to monitor their children's Internet use.

The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361.

[goldstategop]

Bump! As long as libraries receive public funds, Congress can place conditions on how the money can be spent. If that means they have to install anti-porn filters on their computers, that's a condition they have to follow.

[Notwithstanding]

I should be able to bring my teenager to the adult section of the library to find a book without being flashed with live sex shows on large computer screens that one MUST pass to get to the stacks.

[goldstategop]

Funny. Liberals have opposed community standards for decades. If anything we suffer from a glut, not an absence of porn on the Internet.

[RonF]

I should be able to bring my teenager to the adult section of the library to find a book without being flashed with live sex shows on large computer screens that one MUST pass to get to the stacks.

How many times has that happened?

[StriperSniper]

Whatever happened to "community standards"?

You forget, we are all now part of one big collective, except for those of us who are more equal (see other court hijinx from today).

[Zavien Doombringer]

Being a Network Admin, there really isn't a "filter", a filter will allow parts of a page. What the Libraries need is Website blocking. A software program installed could stop known sites form being accessed, updates can be available. I use Norton at home to block sites from my kids, and I use Watchguard on the proxy at work. Both are very effective!

Congress does seem to think they have a right to tell you how to spend the money they give to an organization. IMHO - If you give money to an organization, good faith should apply that the org. will do what's right.

[bgierhart]

Question: What ever happened to "standards" period? I am glad uncle sam is looking out for my children. Because the bleeding hearts in the library system seam to have lowered their "standards".

[bgierhart]

bump

[SC_Republican]

A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday...

I guess AP doesn't like this decision. They didn't mention a "sharply divided Court" when they ruled 5-4 in favor of racial preferences for Michigan's Law school.

[chachacha]

Who's community standards. Your or mine?

[Zavien Doombringer]

That depends on your definition if "is" is.

[RonF]

Who's community standards. Your or mine?

That would depend on whose community we're talking about, yours or mine. And if we live in the same community, then we both go to the ballot box to elect the library board (or the village board if they appoint the library board), and the majority carries the day.

[AAABEST]

I beg to differ.

I'm a free thinker type, but there is a "pubic square" where one's freedom can vioate another's. In other words you can't go walking around in public with your ding-a-ling a swingin', nor should you be able to. While in public, if I or my kids do not want to be subject to seeing someone naked we shouldn't be forced to, either in real life or on a computer screen.

When an adult CHOOSES to pay for a subcription, view porn on his own time or dime, or asks the librarian to unlock the filter, that's different. Having porn laying around in the public square where anybody or their children can run into it does not speak to the better angels of our first amendment.

Besides, if the local libraries are so damned stuck on taking a principled first amendment stand, they can refuse Fed funds, very simple.

[The Louiswu]

Thats right, if libraries don't want Congress telling them
what to do, and if they don't want public dollars, then let them raise their own operating
funds and they can be private institutions, and Congress
will STILL pass laws on how they can operate, what they can show, how they do business...just like they do now.
so...I guess that means that Congress can pretty much tell anyone how to run their business.
darn, I thought we were on to something here.

[RonF]

I guess AP doesn't like this decision. They didn't mention a "sharply divided Court" when they ruled 5-4 in favor of racial preferences for Michigan's Law school.

I wouldn't ascribe to the entire AP the opinions of a couple of their editors. They might also be referring to the tone of the opinions, if those are available to them.

[dogbyte12]

This one I am wishy washy with for the most part. The problem is that there should already be a filter for adult sites. They should all not end in .com but in .xxx. That would clean up so much of the problem it isn't funny.

Right now, some filters block out say the mention of the word breast, which really doesn't help a high school student who is doing a paper of breast cancer rates in affluent communities.

An adult can request to have the filter taken out, but a 17 year old who might be doing serious study can not get that info. If filtering was better, I would be enthusiastically supportive of this ruling. People have tested the filters though, and they fall very short of the mark on distinguishing between "naughty words" and objectionable material. The court ruled though that it doesn't matter that legitimate sites are banned in the process of these filtering programs.

Why does congress get to tell a librarian in Topeka, Kansas that she has to use a filter that blocks a biographical sketch of Gaylord Perry, or maybe a mention of Dick Nixon just because the monkeys in Washington tell her to do so?

Do we not have community decency standards? Can't the public protest to the individual library/librarian without a blanket sweep from congress?