News
Public libraries required to install anti-porn filters
Published: Jun 25, 2003 - 10:40 PM
WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that Congress can force the nation's public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters.
The blocking technology, intended to keep smut from children, does not violate the First Amendment, even though it shuts off some legitimate, informational Web sites, the court ruled.
The blocking technology, intended to keep smut from children, does not violate the First Amendment, even though it shuts off some legitimate, informational Web sites, the court ruled.
The 6-3 ruling reinstates a law that told libraries to install filters or surrender federal money. Four justices said the law was constitutional, and two others said it was allowable as long as patrons were not denied Internet access.
The ACLU and the American Library Association argued against the law, saying the decision to install filters should be left to locals. The laws should be local rather than federal, said Cathy Schweinsberg, library services director for Brevard County Public Libraries.
"I think that library systems throughout the nation need to make the decision," she said.
Brevard County public libraries voluntarily installed pornography Internet filters about eight years ago, Schweinsberg said. The decision to install the pornography filters was made when local librarians discovered any patron could reach illegal or pornographic Web sites.
"We don't buy pornography," Schweinsberg said.
Monday's Supreme Court ruling was victory for Congress, which has struggled to find ways to shield children from pornographic Internet sites. Congress has passed three laws since 1996 -- the first was struck down by the Supreme Court and the second was blocked by the court from taking effect.
The first two laws dealt with regulations on Web site operators. The latest approach, in the 2000 law, mandated that public libraries put blocking technology on computers as a condition for receiving federal money. Libraries have received about $1 billion since 1999 in technologies subsidies, including tax money and telecommunications industry fees.
Librarians and civil liberties groups countered that filters are censorship and that they block valuable information. Filter operators must review millions of Web sites to decide which ones to block.
Brevard County Public Libraries uses a filter called "Web Sense" which only filters categories rather than words, Schweinsberg said.
"That means, if you're looking up 'breast cancer,' some filters may keep you from legitimate sites because the word 'breast' is in there," she said.
Eileen McElwee, a Melbourne mother of four and first grade teacher at Ascension Catholic School, thinks the law can cut both ways.
"I think it's necessary," she said. "The hard thing about that is that there are some things like classical artwork that could fall under it. But I do think it's a good idea that kids are not exposed to hard pornography."
Collene Williams, a Cocoa mother of two children, is happy with the Supreme Court ruling. "I don't think (pornography) should be available to children," she said.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the law, the Children's Internet Protection Act, does not turn librarians into censors.
A three-judge federal panel in Pennsylvania ruled last year that the law was unconstitutional because it caused libraries to violate the First Amendment. The filtering programs block too much nonpornographic material, the panel found.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Rehnquist's opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, in separate opinions, said the government's interest in protecting young library users from inappropriate material outweighs the burden on library users having to ask staff to disconnect filters.
Justice John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the law went too far in restricting material in public libraries, which are used by more than 14 million people annually.
"A statutory blunderbuss that mandates this vast amount of overblocking abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment," Stevens wrote.
"A statutory blunderbuss that mandates this vast amount of overblocking abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment," Stevens wrote.
Even without the law in place, some libraries use filtering software on their computers, with varying degrees of success in screening out objectionable material. Other libraries have varying policies that encourage parents to monitor their children's Internet use.
"We challenged this law because filters are very blunt instruments that block more than illegal speech, including a great deal of speech that is not even sexual in nature at all," said Paul M. Smith, the Washington attorney who represented the American Library Association. "We're disappointed that the court said that this one-size fits-all answer is the way to handle this problem of sexual content on the Internet in the library setting."
The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361.
The ACLU and the American Library Association argued against the law, saying the decision to install filters should be left to locals. The laws should be local rather than federal, said Cathy Schweinsberg, library services director for Brevard County Public Libraries.
"I think that library systems throughout the nation need to make the decision," she said.
Brevard County public libraries voluntarily installed pornography Internet filters about eight years ago, Schweinsberg said. The decision to install the pornography filters was made when local librarians discovered any patron could reach illegal or pornographic Web sites.
"We don't buy pornography," Schweinsberg said.
Monday's Supreme Court ruling was victory for Congress, which has struggled to find ways to shield children from pornographic Internet sites. Congress has passed three laws since 1996 -- the first was struck down by the Supreme Court and the second was blocked by the court from taking effect.
The first two laws dealt with regulations on Web site operators. The latest approach, in the 2000 law, mandated that public libraries put blocking technology on computers as a condition for receiving federal money. Libraries have received about $1 billion since 1999 in technologies subsidies, including tax money and telecommunications industry fees.
Librarians and civil liberties groups countered that filters are censorship and that they block valuable information. Filter operators must review millions of Web sites to decide which ones to block.
Brevard County Public Libraries uses a filter called "Web Sense" which only filters categories rather than words, Schweinsberg said.
"That means, if you're looking up 'breast cancer,' some filters may keep you from legitimate sites because the word 'breast' is in there," she said.
Eileen McElwee, a Melbourne mother of four and first grade teacher at Ascension Catholic School, thinks the law can cut both ways.
"I think it's necessary," she said. "The hard thing about that is that there are some things like classical artwork that could fall under it. But I do think it's a good idea that kids are not exposed to hard pornography."
Collene Williams, a Cocoa mother of two children, is happy with the Supreme Court ruling. "I don't think (pornography) should be available to children," she said.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the law, the Children's Internet Protection Act, does not turn librarians into censors.
A three-judge federal panel in Pennsylvania ruled last year that the law was unconstitutional because it caused libraries to violate the First Amendment. The filtering programs block too much nonpornographic material, the panel found.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Rehnquist's opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, in separate opinions, said the government's interest in protecting young library users from inappropriate material outweighs the burden on library users having to ask staff to disconnect filters.
Justice John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the law went too far in restricting material in public libraries, which are used by more than 14 million people annually.
"A statutory blunderbuss that mandates this vast amount of overblocking abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment," Stevens wrote.
"A statutory blunderbuss that mandates this vast amount of overblocking abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment," Stevens wrote.
Even without the law in place, some libraries use filtering software on their computers, with varying degrees of success in screening out objectionable material. Other libraries have varying policies that encourage parents to monitor their children's Internet use.
"We challenged this law because filters are very blunt instruments that block more than illegal speech, including a great deal of speech that is not even sexual in nature at all," said Paul M. Smith, the Washington attorney who represented the American Library Association. "We're disappointed that the court said that this one-size fits-all answer is the way to handle this problem of sexual content on the Internet in the library setting."
The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361.
