Posted on 05/31/2002 6:45:55 AM PDT by rface
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Three federal judges on Friday threw out a federal law that would have forced public libraries to equip computers with software designed to block access to Internet pornography.
In a 195-page decision, the judges said the Children's Internet Protection Act went too far because it also blocking access to sites that contained protected speech.
``Any public library that adheres to CIPA's conditions will necessarily restrict patrons access to a substantial amount of protected speech in violation of the First Amendment,'' the judges wrote.
The law would have required public libraries to install the filters or risk losing federal funding starting July 1. It had been widely criticized by First-Amendment groups.
The judges, who heard nearly two weeks of testimony in April, wrote that they were concerned that library patrons who wanted to view sites blocked by filtering software might be embarrassed or lose their right to remain anonymous because they would have to ask permission to have the sites unblocked.
The filtering software blocked substantial amounts of protected speech ``whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest,'' the judges wrote.
The article didn't say, but I suspect that this ruling will be apealed. The article also doesn't say who the judges are.
Just because a library doesn't get "Federal Funds" doesn't mean its a violation of the First Amendment.
Who knows the judges in this case?
Ashland, Missouri
Well, yes and no. Suppose the federal government started sending out bonus checks to everyone but Catholics. You could say that no one was entitled to the bonus checks, so it isn't depriving anyone of some natural right.
Anyhow, I hope that illustrates the reasoning that is usually used in these issues.
If my neighbor "artist" gets federal funding for his "art" depicting traditional art then I should also get federal funding depicting blasphemous "art" or racist "art".
If you want to depict a crucifix in urine, then do it on your own dime, not on the federal taxpayers. If you want the computers internet connection hooked to porn, then do it on your own dime, not on the federal taxpayers.
Federal Funding should come with string attached. If you don't want the strings, then don't expect the federal funds.
Ashland, Missouri
On the other hand, libraries don't stock every publication that is printed, either, and that's censorship too, if you want to make that argument.
More specifically though, The American Civil Liberties Union, Case No. 96-511, challenging the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), Justice O'Conner writes, "I view the Communications Decency Act of 1996 as a little more than an attempt by Congress to create "adult zones" on the Internet. This user-based zoning is accomplished through the use of screening software (such as Cyber Patrol or SurfWatch) or browsers with screening capabilities, both of which search addresses and text for keywords that, are associated with "adult" sites and, if the user wishes, blocks access to such sites. Precedent indicates that the creation of such zones can be constitutionally sound. Despite the soundness of its purpose, however, portions of the CDA are unconstitutional because they stray from the blueprint our prior cases have developed for constructing a "zoning law" that passes constitutional muster." She continues, " The creation of "adult zones" is by no means a novel concept. States have long denied minors access to certain establishments frequented by adults. States have also denied minors access to speech deemed to be "harmful to minors." The Court has previously sustained such zoning laws, but only if they respect the 1st Amendment rights of adults and minors. That is to say, a zoning law is valid if it does not unduly restrict adult access to the material.
This case makes clear that a "zoning" law is valid only if adults are still able to obtain the regulated speech. If they cannot, the law does more than simply keep children away from speech they may have no right to obtain, it interferes with the rights of adults to obtain constitutionally protected speech and again, effectively "reduce[s] the adult population to reading only what is fit for children. The 1st Amendment does not tolerate such interference."
I say this will be appealed and defeated
Bullshit! Access to "protected speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. The speech has not been censored, just access to it on the public dime. A forum is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. There is no Constitutional protection that affords the right to use public punds to view whatever one wants. No one's rights have been violated. The court took the position that because poor people may not be able to afford internet access, then restricting access at a library "infringes on their right to use the internet". Total horescrap!
Most people can go on-line at home. Or visit a cyber cafe. I don't see any other way of dealing with this issue, because you know the liberals will never leave it alone, and the librarians' union seems to favor pornography.
That's a pretty silly argument. Freedom of speech doesn't mean squat if people are prohibitted by the government from hearing it.
What would you think about a Federal law that said that public libraries that receive federal funds must block the Free Republic site, and nothing else?
Constitutional?
Really? I thought the primary purpose of libraries was to make papyrus scrolls available. You mean information can be stored in other formats? Cool!
FreeRepublic is not porn. It is political speech.
If a filter excludes FR, then you go to the front desk and ask to have the filter over-ridden so you can access FR.
also: Libraries have a history of not having and not ordering books that have been written by conservative authors....ie. Buchanan....Libraries are biased toward liberal ideologies
Ashland, Missouri
I certainly don't think it's "censorship" to choose not to carry something, and this ruling is about choice. I'd far prefer seeing the local librarian make those choices than the Fed.
Nobody is prohibited from hearing it. They can use their own dime to buy internet access and hear it. Freedom of speech does not include the right to a publically funded forum.
There should not be publically funded internet access in the first place, which the existence of creates this problem. Congress has made no law stopping someone from transmitting pronography. No one has the right to demand that the government(read: we the people) fork over money to allow them to hear the speech.
Look at this way. It's as if the Feds passed a law that states, if a library puts Peggy Noonan's latest book on the shelf to be checked out, it must first cut out Chapter 4 with a razor blade.
Is that something Congress should do? Is it something the Constitution permits Congress to do?
That was the legal question before this court.
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.