Ever since Stanley v. Georgia, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the viewing of material not suitable for children in one’s home is completely protected under the First Amendment. However, a group of patrons in Wenatchee, Washington is looking to extend the sphere of protection outside the home—and in to public libraries. Currently this case is being decided by the Washington State Supreme Court, and will be ruled on by the Federal Court in Washington after it leaves the State level. It is reasonable believe that this could become a Supreme Court case.
The entire issue of Internet Filters on computers in public library is due to a clause in the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). This legislation states that “No funds made available under this Act […], may be used to purchase computers used to access the Internet, or to pay for direct costs associated with accessing the Internet, for such library unless such library has in place a policy of Internet safety for minors […].” However, the CIPA legislation also has a provision that “An administrator, supervisor, or person authorized by the responsible authority […] may disable the technology protection measure concerned to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes.” It is this clause that is stirring up the rural residents of Wenatchee, Washington. Bradburn et al. v. North Central Regional Library District is the first case in which the library is refusing to turn off the filters completely, electing only to unblock specific site on request.
Fortunately, this debate does have legal precedent on which to guide it. In United States et al. v. American library Association, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court ruled that CIPA was constitutional “[b]ecause public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights, CIPA does not induce libraries to violate the Constitution, and is a valid exercise of Congress' spending power.” However, it is made clear by Justice Kennedy that “[i]f, on the request of an adult user, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay, there is little to this case.” This implies when the library refuses to turn off the filter, the First Amendment may be being infringed upon.
With this background, I believe the question becomes one of risk-taking. Is it worth the risk of minors being exposed to inappropriate material in a public library, either by walking past and seeing it, or through the filter being accidentally left off? My answer is no.
There are two main reasons I feel a library should have the right to limit the extent it lowers its filters. First, many libraries may be designed in a way that the computers are in full view of everyone. While the Cohen standard does place the risk on the viewer of a potentially offending sight, a library, in my opinion, must be viewed as a governmental facility, and what people see on the monitors could be reflected back on the government the same way as if someone saw obscene material on a computer at the DMV.
The second reason I tend to agree with the library in this case, is that while free speech is protected by the First Amendment, no where does the Constitution say that public libraries must provide Internet access to its patrons and allow them to look at material that may be patently offensive. I see Internet use as a privilege—much the same way as driving a car. While you can drive a car on government owned and maintained roads, there are restrictions that come along with that privilege. If restrictions are the price to pay for using government equipment, why does this not apply to government owned computers?
Clearly I am taking a neoliberal stance on this issue—avoiding the risk of accidental exposure, relying on the judgment on government, and looking at the public’s interest—however, the libertarian view can also be taken. The filters block numerous sites that are not patently offensive. Patrons of the library should be able to access these sites, and no one from the librarians to the government wants to stop them from viewing them. However, this is not a policy decision this is a technology issue: the filters are just not good enough to block 100% of the inappropriate sites and 0% of the appropriate sites. This fact should be kept in consideration, knowing that the qualities of the filters will be improving all the time.
Many will argue that the rights of the user should come before any accidental risk that may occur; that the government has no place to say what someone can and cannot view. However, this is not a case of someone saying something offensive or wearing provocative clothing. While it is true that the filter accidentally blocks many sites that are perfectly acceptable to be viewed, they still do serve a function. The viewing of potentially obscene material on government property, in a public place, where there is a reasonable probability that children will be present is a risk. This risk is one that I simply cannot take.
Bradburn et al. v. North Central Regional Library District, No. 2:2006cv00327, Wash. Supreme Court, (Filed 16 Nov. 2006)- an ongoing case in the Washington Supreme Court.
"CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT." Internet Free Expression Alliance. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2010. .
"Children's Internet Protection Act." Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2010. .
LISNews. "Important developments in Bradburn library filtering case | Answerbag." Answer Bag. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2010. .
Schraum, Brian. "Libraries & First Amendment in Speech - What's on the Horizon." First Amendment Center Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2010. .
I agree with your position that libraries have the right to limit the expanse of their filter and deny certain websites from being unblocked. In my own hometown, I remember the library being targeted by the city government for allowing certain inappropriate material to be accessed by adults. The computers on each floor were set up to be in full view of anyone walking up and down the stairs and young children were allowed to walk freely on each floor. The danger of those minors walking past a computer displaying inappropriate material is very likely. I also believe a library, although containing material that is entertaining has a priority to be an educational and informative environment. I really liked your analogy between government owned streets and government owned computers too. Who is to decide that government can have regulations on streets to increase safety but cannot accomplish a safe environment through the regulation of what is viewed on their computers?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would normally want to agree with you on this issue, but I have a few major problems with filters on library computers. My main problem is this: what if a filter inadvertently blocks content that is not obscene, and therefore limits a speaker's ability to gather information?
ReplyDeleteMy second issue is this:
The solution to a filter blocking appropriate material is to have a librarian enter his/her password into the filter and approve your website. This, above all, is an infringement upon our first amendment rights. Why?
1) If a person is too embarrassed or inconvenienced by the content that he needs approved, he may simply not view it. This is blocking content. It is directly limiting our ability to access the marketplace of ideas.
2) We are asking a librarian to approve content. We are asking a librarian to decide whether or not speech is acceptable for viewing. This is a limitation upon our speech.
***Side note: at my high school, we had a really strict filter on our computers, too. My younger brother was writing a research about serial killers, but because serial killers are often linked with sexual crimes, a majority of the websites that he needed to gather information from were unavailable. He had to go to our librarian and have her enter her password into the filter so that he could actually get information. It was tedious, and since he is shy, slightly embarrassing to have his librarian judge him over the topic of his paper. Had his grade not depended upon this research, Hal would have given up rather than visit the librarian. Hal would be a less educated citizen because his ability to search for information was limited***
I understand that you're trying to protect children from viewing content that is obscene, but you are doing this whilst sacrificing our rights to access ideas in websites. It is a violation of the first amendment.