Library Stands By Its

Filter-Free Internet Policy

By Shannon Hicks

C.H. Booth Library will be joining some local libraries that have decided, for the time being anyway, to ignore a Supreme Court ruling regarding the use of Internet filters on public computers. The ruling upheld a federal law blocking federal funds to libraries that do not filter pornographic or obscene material on the Internet for their youngest patrons.

In United States et al vs American Library Association, Inc et al (Case #02-361), which was argued before the Supreme Court on March 5, 2003, the Supreme Court handed down on Monday, June 23, a decision that upheld a decision it first made in 2000.

In reversing the decision of a District Court, the Supreme Court reiterated with a 6-3 ruling that it does not find the use of Internet filters –– designed to prevent anyone using a publicly owned computer, such as those found in libraries and schools –– unconstitutional. The appellees were a group of libraries, patrons, website publishers, and related parties including the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union. The case was an appeal from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Newtown will not be affected by this decision, says Booth Library Director Janet Woycik.

“I’m not happy with mandatory filters,” Mrs Woycik said this week. “I think it should be up to the library and the library’s board to determine whether a library is going to filter or not, not the federal government.

“We have an Internet policy,” she continued. “It says that we do not filter and the parents are responsible for what their children are doing on the Internet.”

The library has not had problems with children who use its computers, Mrs Woycik said.

“Filtering does not address the problem people think it does,” said the director. “It does not stop all pornography from being seen, especially if people really want to see it and know how to find it.

“The filters will also block people from doing legitimate research,” she pointed out. “One subject is breast cancer. People aren’t going to be able to research that on a computer with a filter because the word ‘breast’ is blocked.”

Many political sites are blocked because they contain banned words. Blocked sites also include other health related issues (among them a guide to allergies, a cancer treatment site, and a site on halitosis), home schooling sites, career sites, travel sites, and even sports sites, according to a syllabus filed by Attorney Mary Minow in June 2002

“It really blocks a lot of sites from research,” Janet Woycik said.

“The other thing is, people say you can turn it off and on, but it’s not that easy.”

Booth Library’s board of directors will have its next monthly meeting in July, and Mrs Woycik expects the issue will be raised at that time.

Two forms of federal assistance help public libraries provide patrons with Internet access: discounted rates under the E-rate program and grants under the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). Upon discovering that library patrons, including minors, regularly search the Internet for pornography and expose others to pornographic images by leaving them displayed on Internet terminals or printed at library printers, Congress enacted the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in December 2002. The act blocks federal assistance to public libraries for Internet access unless they install software to block obscene or pornographic images and to prevent minors from accessing material harmful to them.

CIPA funds, the Supreme Court reiterated this week, will not be made available to public libraries “unless they install software to block obscene or pornographic images and to prevent minors from accessing material harmful to them.”

Brookfield Library Director Anita Barney was getting ready for this month’s board meeting on June 25, and said Wednesday afternoon she had placed the issue on the board’s agenda. The Brookfield Library’s policy is unrestricted access for everyone.

“I’d like to see them reaffirm that,” Mrs Barney said. “Filters don’t work. They let too much through and they block legitimate sites.”

Brookfield could lose some federal money if it decides to continue its present policy, but Mrs Barney was trying not to make money the issue. The library receives, she said, less than a $2,000 federal discount through its use of Bibliomation.

Booth Library does not receive any money from the federal government, so its no-filtering policy will not have any impact on its finances.

“The money is not an issue,” Mrs Woycik pointed out. “I’m sure [this issue] will be revisited and discussed, but hopefully it will be held up as it stands now.”

Danbury Public Library and New Fairfield Public Library will reportedly continue to have filter-free computers, although the Danbury library does make its patrons punch in their library card ID number before the computer will allow online access.

The American Library Association was not pleased with Monday’s announcement. An ARA press release that followed the Supreme Court’s decision said in part, “The American Library Association again calls for full disclosure of what sites filtering companies are blocking, who is deciding what is filtered and what criteria are being used. Findings of fact clearly show that filtering companies are not following legal definitions of ‘harmful to minors’ and ‘obscenity.’ Their practices must change.

“To assist local libraries in their decision process, the ALA will seek this information from filtering companies, then evaluate and share the information with the thousands of libraries now being forced to forego funds or choose faulty filters,” continued the release.

“The ALA will do everything possible to support the governing bodies of these local institutions as they struggle with this very difficult decision.”