Posted on 06/24/2003 6:29:01 AM PDT by bedolido
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that public libraries must filter out pornography from their computers, despite claims by some librarians that this hinders free speech.
With more than 14 million people, including children, accessing the Internet in public libraries each year, the court was concerned about the amount of time people were giving to web sites with overtly sexual content.
This ruling declares that the government can freeze funding to any library that does not comply with the installation of anti-pornography filters.
"To the extent that libraries wish to offer unfiltered access, they are free to do so without federal assistance," the 6-3 ruling said, providing the strongest federal ruling protecting children from unseemly Internet images.
Four of the justices said this is not a violation of free speech protected by the First Amendment and two others did not have a problem with the filters as long as there are provisions made for disabling them for adults who want them removed. However, the law does not require libraries to disable.
Opponents of Internet filters in libraries were furious with this ruling.
"This is electronic book burning. The Supreme Court has ruled the secret censors may prevent you from reading what you want," opined Seth Finkelstein, a leading expert on Internet filters.
American Library Association's Judith Krug predicted that most libraries will refuse federal money rather than installing the Internet filters.
"A substantial number of libraries will say it's not worth it," she said. "The fact that the librarian can flick a switch isn't going to change the stigma that's attached to it."
But the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court clarifies his position in support of the filters with respect to the content found on various websites.
"The Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment," Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated.
Libraries are concerned that adding filters to their computers will prevent access to educational websites about science and medicine, for example, that often have graphic content.
But libraries who do not comply stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in technology monies. With most states facing a tough budget, there is little support to be provided by state government to libraries who refuse to apply the Internet filters.
Some people are glad to see the Supreme Court do something about Internet pornography.
"Sex is something that's like a gun: dangerous if you don't know how to use it. I'm all for them putting regulations in a public place," said Susannah Clark, a great-grandmother who often visits her local public library in Washington, DC
But some librarians say it is not their job to keep children off of harmful and sexually explicit web sites.
"We don't believe it's the library that has that responsibility. We believe it rests with the parents and only the parents," said librarian Rita Thompson-Joyner.
This ruling upholds the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000. The law requires all library users to have their Internet access filtered.
Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK), who drafted the law in Congress, applauded the Supreme Court ruling saying that it "will mean libraries can continue to fulfill their mission because parents won't need to be reluctant about dropping off their kids for an afternoon at the library."
Although some adults are grumbling about having to endure the inconvenience of the filters, they will still be permitted to use computers that do not have filters on them upon request, according to the American Civil Liberties Union's lead attorney Chris Hansen. He says that libraries located in poorer neighborhoods will most likely be the first to install the filtering software because they are dependent on the federal money to remain open.
A federal panel in 2002 had ruled that this law was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment. But the Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the right to free speech. Rehnquist's opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, in concurring opinions, wrote that it was more important to protect children from being exposed to pornography than to prevent the minor inconvenience of adult users.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in their dissent believe the law was too overbearing on the free speech rights of everyday citizens.
"A statutory blunderbuss that mandates this vast amount of overblocking abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment," Stevens wrote.
Souter said this law is the equivalent of "buying an encyclopedia and then cutting out pages with anything thought to be unsuitable for all adults."
Opponents of this ruling say there will be future challenges to this law on the basis of how it will affect adult library patrons.
The case is United States v. American Library Association.
Copyright © 2003 Talon News -- All rights reserved.
First of all, it was lost on you that they COULD do that.
Second of all, I'll bet they HAVE done that in may places over the years simply because they couldn't afford it anymore or people didn't utilize it enough to justify the expense.
Maybe not in the authoritarian Hillary utopia you seem to fantasize about, but other places where people still remember what it is like to be free.
They COULD all vote for Harry Browne, they COULD all shave their heads and sell incense at the airport. They don't, they won't.
They could wear swasticas to show who they truly are. They don't, they won't.
American voters are Nazis? What a wretched philosophy Libertarianism is.
Accusing America's citizens of wearing swastikas because they won't legalize dope shows what Libertarianism is really all about.
Drogen über alles!
Never heard of " banned in Boston ", except as a rock band ? You need to learn some history, dear, to fill that rather huge hole in your knowledge of American censorship.
That would work well on this forum too. I'll bet you can guess which posters on this thread would be in the children's section.
LOL, the usual scumbags, minus Breyer. These justices think it's a right, an entitlement even, for homeless Democrats to have full use of public libraries where they can spray the keyboards, curtains and upholstery while they stalk women and children.
Man, that is some Supreme Court we have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.