Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Librarians to argue that blocking online porn is censorship
Associated Press ^ | March 25, 2002 | A/P Staff

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

Associated Press

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.


Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/nation/stories/032502dnnatfilter.83653.html


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: censorship; freespeech; librarians; porn; pornography
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101 next last
To: MeeknMing
Those dang LIBERALarians. :p
21 posted on 03/25/2002 9:34:19 AM PST by NC_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: right_to_defend
LOL! May I "borrow" that picture?...........
22 posted on 03/25/2002 9:34:58 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
It is equal to the government saying "keep your clothers on in public". That's all.

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.

23 posted on 03/25/2002 9:35:16 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
It's censorship, but I have to wonder what kind of person looks at porn in the library.

To increase library attendance but up banners ALL NUDE XXX NOTHING LEFT OUT, PRIVATE BOOTHS.

24 posted on 03/25/2002 9:35:26 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Paraclete
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........
26 posted on 03/25/2002 9:38:10 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
This is why the libraries don't have books? like Playboy and American Rifleman-they don't want boys playing with their guns.
27 posted on 03/25/2002 9:38:18 AM PST by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
"What kind of person looks at porn in the library?"

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.

28 posted on 03/25/2002 9:39:21 AM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dakmar
True. Libertarians are opposed to public libraries.

On topic, how many libraries that won't filter out porn, are willing to filter out "hate speech" sites?

29 posted on 03/25/2002 9:39:38 AM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: right_to_defend
Be my guest - nice one isn't it?

Yes it is. Thanks!

30 posted on 03/25/2002 9:40:41 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
while blocking porn may not be censorship, it always involves blocking things that aren't porn -- which is. either that or it doesn't effectively block porn. THATS the issue at hand.
31 posted on 03/25/2002 9:41:59 AM PST by gfactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
When I saw the title, I thought at first it said "libertarians." :)
32 posted on 03/25/2002 9:42:12 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Our local library tolerates a peeper who leers at young girls. (My wife works there, so I hear all the junk that goes on.) They also allow boistrious teenager to meet and distrupt people who actually to the library to read and study. The librarian calls the library a "community meeting place," not a resource for information and study.
33 posted on 03/25/2002 9:43:25 AM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I would guess that public libraries are about the same as public schools in that regard - filled with pencil brained liberal education major leftwing whiny socialist democrat activist PETA nico-nazi do gooders. Did I leave anything out?
34 posted on 03/25/2002 9:45:32 AM PST by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
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.

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.

35 posted on 03/25/2002 9:46:00 AM PST by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
It always amuses me when librarians scream about censorship. What do they think they're doing when they decide what books to acquire... or NOT to acquire... for their libraries?

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.

36 posted on 03/25/2002 9:46:29 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
People are looking and arguing this based on a "right" to view pornography, which is missing the point of the real issue.

There is no filtering software available that functions perfectly to block out all "pornographic" material while allowing anything that is not "pornographic" to pass through it. Any filtering software used will, as a consequence, restrict access to legitimate information on the internet because of some tripped keyword. The issue isn't about viewing porn so much as throwing up a big barrier for information because someone might go in to look at naughty pictures.
37 posted on 03/25/2002 9:51:01 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
The way the libs have wrecked the libraries kinda mirrors they way they've wrecked the public schools, doesn't it?
38 posted on 03/25/2002 9:53:01 AM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
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.

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.

39 posted on 03/25/2002 9:56:28 AM PST by 07055
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
The NY Times reports that the list of plaintiffs includes "Jeffrey L. Pollock, a Republican Congressional candidate who favored mandatory filtering until he discovered that his own campaign's Web site was blocked by one of the most popular filtering programs."

The report does not indicate where Mr. Pollack is running or what in his Web site might have set off those bells and whistles. Anyone know?
40 posted on 03/25/2002 9:58:42 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson