Federal judges throw out law requiring filtering software at libraries

Associated Press / SFGate

[RCW2001]

DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 31, 2002
©2002 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/05/31/financial0933EDT0071.DTL

(05-31) 06:33 PDT PHILADELPHIA (AP) --

Public libraries cannot be forced to use Internet filters designed to block pornography, three federal judges said Friday in overturning a new federal law.

In a 195-page decision, the judges said the Children's Internet Protection Act went too far because the filters can also blocked access to sites that contain 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.

Any appeal of the decision by 3rd U.S. Circuit Judge Edward R. Becker and U.S. District judges John P. Fullam and Harvey Bartle III would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union contend the law is unenforceable, unconstitutional, vague and overbroad. They say it denies poor people without home computers the same full access to information as their wealthier neighbors.

Critics of the law claim Web sites on issues such as breast cancer and homosexuality can get mistakenly categorized as porn and blocked by the filtering programs.

Justice Department lawyers argue that Internet smut is so pervasive that protections are necessary to keep it away from youngsters, and that the law simply calls for libraries to use the same care in selecting online content that they use for books and magazines.

They also point out that libraries can turn down the federal funding if they want to provide unfiltered Web access.

The Children's Internet Protection Act was the third anti-Internet-porn law brought before federal judges for constitutional challenges.

The 1996 Communications Decency Act made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act 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." The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred enforcement of that law, saying the standards were so broad and vague that the law was probably unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court partially upheld the law in May, but did not rule on its constitutionality as a whole. It remains on hold for further action in lower courts.

---

On the Net:

American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org

American Library Association, www.ala.org/cipa

Justice Department, www.usdoj.gov

[callisto]

"They say it denies poor people without home computers the same full access to information as their wealthier neighbors"

TRANSLATION: It denies poor people without home computers the same full access to porn.

[FreeTally]

"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.

I can only shake my head at this. Now, the first amendment protects not just speech, but access to speech. Amazing! If one can not use public funds to access all "protected speech", then a violation of the First Amendment has occurred. Yeh, ok. The inmates are truley running the asylum.

[GeorgeHL]

When is America going to install right thinking judges to the bench and get rid of these diviate,perverts?

[joebuck]

Under this ruling, why couldn't patrons demand that libraries carry magazines like Hustler, Playboy and Penthouse? All of these porn mags have been held to be protected speech and most libraries carry magazines like Time, Newsweek and such. Isn't it discrimination not to carry ALL the "protected" magazines anyone would want? How is this any different than filtering porn from the Net? A filter is a filter, whether it is a piece of software or a librarian using their discretion deciding which magazines to stock on the shelves.

[Wright is right!]

"TRANSLATION: It denies poor people without home computers the same full access to porn."

Filtering software eliminates access to a whole host of legitimate web sites. People behind various types of filters have indicated that many, for instance, block access to FreeRepublic and other sources of free-flow information, while letting people visit Democratic Underground and other more "acceptable" websites. Just try to look up material on "titmouse" if you're running Net Nanny. Some also filter out sites that refer to "balls, breast cancer, or jug wine." Frankly, there is no filtering software out there that can filter according to context or common sense. Which still begs the point - who gets to decide what to filter? The news media filter out, everyday, the stories or PARTS of stories they don't want you to know, and we decry this as a matter of form here at FR. So how can it be consistent for us to advocate OTHER forms of public censorship?

Apparently, those who decry porn are conveniently forgetting how easily OTHER forms of speech may be suppressed. Sorry, folks, but when the Constitution says that Ox-Goring is legal, you don't get to exempt YOUR ox just because it's yours.

Nope, if you want free speech, then you also must be willing to endorse self-responsibility. Frankly, this country has too many people who believe that freedom of speech should only be allowed for people who agree with THEM. They are called Democrats. I thought we were above that here.

Michael

[itzmygun]

True. I am blocked from many Conservative sites at work. The message, "Mature content," is displayed (kind of funny, huh?).

I'm sure my company's motives are honorable, but the fact is that filters are really unreliable.

[CedarDave]

When is America going to install right thinking judges to the bench and get rid of these diviate,perverts?

When the Republicans take back the Senate so that Daschle and his ilk can no longer block appointment of conservative judges to the bench.

[Smittie]

The ALA is against any filters including computers in the children's section. Of course, they probably don't think there's anything wrong with kids viewing porn anyway.

[GeorgeHL]

I hardily agree with you but then you have imbeciles that elect people like Kennedy to 34 years and Hitlery for 6 and a know nothing flunky like Carolyn McCarthy to 3 terms in the house. I know now why the Education cabal in America has dumbed down the students, they realized these illiterate numbskulls are the future voters and as such guaranteed democrats.

[callisto]

My comment was meant light-heartedly. I made the statement under the assumption that the filtering software complied with the Children's Internet Protection Act. Maybe I should have read the bill before I posted the comment. I had no idea how vaguely Sens. McCain and Hollings wrote the bill. There is no minimum standard at all and it's a waste of their time and the tax payers money. It says nothing. I accede to your point, I actually expected the bill to have had merit.