Supreme court reviews filtering software at libraries

G

greenfreak

New Member
WASHINGTON (AP) --The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide if public libraries can be forced to install software blocking sexually explicit Web sites.

Congress has struggled to find ways to protect children from Internet pornography without infringing on free speech rights for Web site operators.

Lawmakers have passed three laws since 1996, but the Supreme Court struck down the first and blocked the second from taking effect.

The latest measure, signed by President Clinton in 2000, requires public libraries receiving federal technology funds to install filters on their computers or risk losing aid.

A federal three-judge panel ruled that the Children's Internet Protection Act violates the First Amendment because the mandated filtering programs also block sites on politics, health, science and other non-pornography.

"Given the crudeness of filtering technology, any technology protection measure mandated by CIPA will necessarily block access to a substantial amount of speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest," the judges wrote earlier this year.

The Bush administration argued that libraries are not required to have X-rated movies and pornographic magazines and shouldn't have to offer access to porn on library computers.

The judges had recommended less restrictive ways to control Internet use, like requiring parental consent before a minor is allowed to use an unfiltered computer or requiring a parent to be present while a child surfs the Net.

The American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law.

Paul M. Smith, the attorney for the library association, said more than 14 million people use libraries for Internet access. The latest restriction "takes a meat ax approach to an area that requires far more sensitive tools," he argued.

Smith said that with filtering software, librarians would have no involvement in blocking decisions.

Texas had asked the Supreme Court to uphold the law.

"Parents should not be afraid to send their children to the library, either because they might be exposed to such materials or because the library's free, filterless computers might attract people with a propensity to victimize children," wrote Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who was elected to the U.S. Senate last week.

Congress knew that the latest law would be challenged, and directed any appeals to go straight to the Supreme Court after a trial before a three-judge panel.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the lower court panel's ruling hurts Congress' effort to ensure that money spent "for educational and other purposes does not facilitate access to the enormous amount of illegal and harmful pornography on the Internet."

Olson said librarians answer more than 7 million questions a week and should not have to be worried about on-line pornography.

The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. Earlier this year the court upheld part of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which required Web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed "harmful to minors." But justices did not rule on the law's constitutionality, and the government was barred from enforcing it.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/12/online.porn.ap/index.html
 
Unless they can come up with a better filtering technique, I don't think this has any chance of making it. I don't have a problem with filtering out the porn at libraries, it's not an appropriate place to be viewing it anyway, but if it filters even one page that isn't porn, then it's wrong.
 
yea but its hard to define porn sometimes. sometimes art can be filtered because of nudity or some sexual content. im all for filtering it but im also for having the parents there to decide whats best for their kids. that way the parents are more involved with their kids lives. porn has no place in the library or in schools but its easy to access but difficult to block.
 
I would love to see the requirement that the parents must be there with the child, but I just don't see that happening. Some snot-nosed kid will sue because he wasn't allowed access to the computers.
 
Because they would be violating his rights to equal access. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but I can bet you it would happen.
 
good point i didnt see that. but you are right i can see that happening. but as i said its teh rules and a judge with any kind of a brain would say: "you didnt have your parents with you and thats necessary to use the internet at this library and parents need to monitor what children see." then again im a stupid idealist.
 
As anti-censorship as I am, it's a good idea. They can put an adult section in with unfiltered computers or tell the freaks to go to the Internet Cafe. Way too many library machines get left on porn sites, on purpose. Last time I checked, they don't supply Oui or Hustler at the library either.
 
They do use filtering software in my local library over here in the UK. I know because the charity I work for are situated above the library and we share their internet access - it can be a real pain at times, but our computers are available to the general public during working hours and are used by the local kids homework club after hours - they logon as "public". But we restrict the type of sites we allow surfing to anyway - no bbs, chatrooms, etc. Oops! The Administrator gets special priveleges. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top