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.
Some libraries do charge a fee to check out certain books, particularly new bestsellers. Speaking of video stores, I used to go to Hollywood Video to rent audiobooks, so the precedent is definitely there.
I would guess that public libraries are about the same as public schools in that regard - filled with pencil-necked pea- brained liberal education major leftwing whiny socialist democrat activist PETA nico-nazi do gooders.
No charge. :^)
How kind of you. I'll have to remember to re-post some prose of yours that I have re-arrainged and/or mutilated. Be Warned, LOL.
SMILE!
Thank you for posting this. I fervently hope some people were listening to what Vachss said.
Libraries "censor" stuff all the time. By not buying a book for the library's collection, you are depriving those who want to read it of that book.
I don't understand why some librarians feel that pornography deserves a place of honor in the library.
Do you see the obvious contradiction in your own statement -- HINT: note the bold type -- or, are you "that simple"?
What librarian goes to work at 3:30pm? Hmmmmm....
Open your eyes! The human race has destroyed the environment and may very well be the instrument for detruction of all life on this planet. Especially if the current occupant of the White House has his way and uses nuclear weapons. No doubt Mother Nature feels that the human race has been a big mistake and will one day go the way of the dinosaurs.
All I can say is that Vanilla has lasted on Free Republic a heck of a lot longer than we would on www.treehuggers.com
So, that means that pornography, if requested, must be made available? And if it isn't made available, that means Fascism has prevailed?
Heck, I would be happy if my library would just stock Bernie Goldberg's "Bias"---but I guess I can always dream.
And she always has to "go to work" when the incoming gets thick....LOL
Or just for the sheer amusement value. ;-)
The solution that you propose is so obvious, direct, and bound to work, no wonder those loosers in Congress never thought of it.
I believe that someone in Dallas posted how the homeless use the library internet access to view pornography. I doubt putting the computers in a public place would deter any of them. Nothing deters them from using the public streets as a toilet.
In other words, extortion.
---max
It sounds like your library is using bargain basement software. You get what you pay for, You need better software, and you need to learn how to use it.
But if you genuinely believe, with the American Library Association, that this is "censorship" and is "wrong," then you have two choices. You can either find a new profession, or you can raise the funds yourself to build, stock and staff a library, and then you can run it any way you choose.
You have no right to treat the place you work as YOUR preserve to be run how YOU choose, in opposition to the people who are paying for it. You work for us; we don't work for you.
Congresman Billybob
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.