Librarians to argue that blocking online porn is censorship
Posted on 03/25/2002 9:15:49 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Librarians to argue that blocking online porn is censorship
Court to hear case against 2000 federal law tied to tech grants
03/25/2002
PHILADELPHIA - A battle over free speech and online pornography returns to the nation's birthplace Monday as librarians try to convince a federal court that requiring them to block access to adult materials amounts to censorship.
Library officials and free-speech advocates say the filtering technology used to block Internet porn is imperfect and can also inadvertently block important information on health, sexuality and social issues.
"Instead of relying on filtering technology, we should be educating children," said Judith Krug of the American Library Association. "It's not only learning the difference between right and wrong but how to use information wisely. ... There are no quick fixes."
The trial before a three-judge federal court panel starts Monday and is expected to last at least a week.
The lead plaintiffs are the library association and the Multnomah County Library in Portland, Ore., which wants to offer patrons a choice between filtered and unfiltered Internet access.
The battle is over a 2000 federal law requiring schools and libraries to block pornography as a condition for receiving certain federal technology grants. The lawsuit challenges only the requirement on libraries, which have until July to comply.
The government contends that the law does not censor libraries because they can simply decline to accept funding.
The law's supporters say that if printed pornographic materials are not in a library's collection there is no reason why they should be available to library patrons online. They also say that filtering software has vastly improved since the measure was passed, making fewer mistakes and allowing librarians or administrators to unblock sites blocked in error.
"They're still not perfect, but neither are safety belts, and we use them," said Miriam Moore of the Family Research Council.
Critics say they shouldn't be forced to pay for flawed technology that hinders more than it helps.
Ms. Krug cited examples of filters blocking Web sites of golfer Fred Couples, as well as American Indian groups because of references to peyote a plant used in native religious ceremonies but banned in many states for its hallucinogenic properties.
Filters can be set to block sites that appear on a "denial list" or contain objectionable words. Some filters can also block e-mail and chat room messages.
Some porn still gets through unless the filters are based on lists of preapproved sites, but that approach also rejects more legitimate content.
Congress first tried to combat online porn in 1996 by making it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. The Supreme Court struck down the law in 1997, saying it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights.
A year later, Congress narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically. Sites must collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed "harmful to minors."
A federal appeals court has barred enforcement of the 1998 law, saying the standards are so broad that the law is probably unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this year.
Like the latest lawsuit, challenges to the 1996 and 1998 laws began at the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
My library finally got Big-Un's for me after I protested outside with banners.LOL! Is that you, Al????
What the government is saying is, "If you want to receive moeny from us, you must do this." Any library that wants to receive porn on its Internet servers is perfectly free to refuse the money and do business as usual.
The fatal flaw in this arguement is exactly the same as the "lady" who got nude and covered herself in chocolate and said it was "censorship" if the government didn't give her a grant for her "artistic endeavors."
Anybody has a constitutional right to create whatever they call "art." Nobody has a constitutional right to receive taxpayers' money to support that art.
With the librarians, it is one step worse. What they are defending is not merely offensive and stupid, it is also illegal, They might as well say, it offends the Constitution not to allow our patrons to bring guns into the libraries.
Oops, I forgot. These are lefties. I don't suppose they will make that last argument.
Congressman Billybob
Click here to fight Shays-Meehan.
Click here for latest column: "Does Anybody READ the Constitution?"
You know, I had to look twice, also!
Citizens need to stand up for their community values! Websites that violate obscenity laws need to be filtered. The question is "Is obscenity a right or a wrong?"
Yep. And it's the standard way the government operates.
They don't tell the states they must enact seatbelt laws, they just say that if you don't do so, we won't give you Federal highway money. Ditto for blood alcohol level rules.
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.