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.
Where are these people when our political speech is being restricted? It isn't about the Constitution for them. It's about a liberal political agenda.
To increase library attendance but up banners ALL NUDE XXX NOTHING LEFT OUT, PRIVATE BOOTHS.
Their stand is hypocritical. Librarians and library boards constantly make censorship decisions. When was the last time you saw the latest copy of Hustler on the reading rack of your Public Library?Yes. The bottom line is, they want the Federal money, it's pretty simple IMO........
Here, "homeless" men hang out in the library downtown and surf the porn sites in front of other patrons during the time they must be out of the shelters and they're not drinking/drugging. One recently assaulted a patron.
Of course, the libs claim it's their constitutional right to do all of the above. Meanwhile, lots of taxpaying citizens just won't go there.
On topic, how many libraries that won't filter out porn, are willing to filter out "hate speech" sites?
Yes it is. Thanks!
They may be right, in a way. Because internet porn is a running battle between blockers and porn purveyors. Typically, porn outlets will metatag their stuff to show up in all kinds of unrelated searches, such as for the stuff mentioned above but also in other niches. Often these niches are targetted towards young people. And then there's the spoofed site-names (white-house.com anyone?), and legitimate domain names that the porners collect on a regular basis when they lapse.
Bottom line is the internet porn tries actively to get in even where it's not wanted. Personally, I'd like to see this practice defined as a cyberattack and punished under the various malicious computer usage laws already on the books.
Yes, yes, a thousand times, YES!
Good luck trying to persuade anyone though. You'll probably have as much luck as I've had trying to convince my wife that her employer doesn't pay half of her Social Security tax.
This is no different than the problem with Playboy magazine.
If you ban Playboy, you are also banning the Playboy interview and other non-pornographic stuff in the magazine.
To which the answer is: Tough.
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.