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.
Why do we need public libraries?
Why not pay to rent books, just like Blockbuster videos (which we can not has not been put out of business by library movie loans.)
Why provide internet access, but not cable TV viewing rooms?
But somehow banning concealed (or open) carry in their libaries doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
Filtering software might be over or under-inclusive, that is true.
But, what the librarians are asking for is an absolutely perfect system and, I'm sorry, that will never happen as long as human beings are involved in the process. All that should be required is "reasonableness."
There is no constitutional right to Federal money to be used for internet access with no strings attached.
Either provide an option for both sides, the moral and the immoral, or go only with the moral way, because that's the only way EVERYONE gets to stay free.
That's one of the issues at hand. The other issue has to do with defining porn. I suspect, for example, that several of my fellow members of the FreeRepublic would define the lingerie section of the Sears Catalog as porn. And I also suspect there are more than a few leftist librarians who would include the FreeRepublic on their list of pornographic sites.
Well said. The only problem is that the filtering software doesn't work.
There is no technological substitute for supervising children.
I figure the best way to prevent anything truly offensive at the library is the low-tech method - just arrange all the workstations so that the screens are facing towards, and easily visible to, the staff. One librarian who can see what you're up to, and armed with a stern look, will prevent more porn than any filter in the world ;)
I'd like to see the public reaction to that proposal.
Mean while AOL chat rooms remain a playground for perverts trolling for children, which is one of many reasons why I refuse to have AOL on my computer.
That needed repeating...
And recognizing the right of libraries to allow unfettered access to pornography will do nothing to change the fact that they will *still* block access to content that leftist librarians find objectionable.
If a law said that libraries had to allow access to Free Republic, for example, the libraries would likely claim that this violated their First Amendment right to choose the materials they make available to library patrons.
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.