Supreme Court affirms use of computer filters in public libraries
From Bill Mears
CNNs Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON (CNN) --In a legal balancing act, the
Supreme Court has decided Congress is allowed to
protect children from pornography on public library
computers, a move the majority said does not infringe
on the free speech rights of others.

The 6-3 ruling on Monday by the justices upheld a
federal law that allows the federal government to
withhold money from libraries that wont install
blocking devices. Libraries had complained that the
law turned them into censors, but they lost their
First Amendment challenge.

This was Congress third attempt to regulate access to
online smut. Three bills had been passed since 1996.
The Supreme Court struck down the first and blocked
enforcement of the second.

The third law, the Childrens Internet Protection Act
(CIPA) was signed in 2000, and would bar federal funds
and discounts for computer technology for any public
library that did not install filtering software.

A federal court struck down CIPA last May.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William
Rehnquist said, Because public libraries have
traditionally excluded pornographic material from
their other collections, Congress could reasonably
impose a parallel limitation on its Internet
assistance programs.

But in dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, A
statutory blunderbuss that mandates this vast amount
of overblocking abridges the freedom of speech
protected by the First Amendment. Stevens was
supported by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg.

Filtering is censorship, teenager warns
Among those who brought suit against the law is Emma
Rood, a Portland, Oregon, resident who, as a
13-year-old in 1999, visited her local library.

I was using the Internet to do research, seeking
resources prior to my coming out as a lesbian, she
said.

It was very useful to me, she said, because said was
uncomfortable using her home computer. I was not ready
to talk about this with my parents.

Rood found the information and emotional outreach she
was looking for. She fears the new law could hurt
teenagers in a similar situation.

She and library groups claim the use of filtering
software is censorship, and in any case is an
ineffective tool to keep pornography away from
children. Among Web sites blocked by the software are
religious and public health forums, including those
dealing with breast cancer.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the Bushs
administrations top lawyer before the Supreme Court,
argued that libraries routinely choose which reading
material they keep on hand. The government says
libraries should be allowed to make the same decisions
about the Internet they have voluntarily made over the
years with books, he said. This law does not regulate
speech.

Olson said almost no public libraries offer adult
magazines and X-rated movies to patrons, and the same
idea should apply to accessing porn on the Internet.

Local libraries have used own filtering tactics
Many Americans with no home access to the Internet
turn to their local libraries. The American Library
Association said an estimated 95 percent of public
libraries in the United States provide Internet
access, and it is used by 14.3 million people. The
federal government gave libraries $217 million in
grants and discounted computer services in 2001.

Local libraries throughout New Jersey have taken a
variety of approaches, based on local input, including
heavy parental involvement. Some libraries use no
filtering software, and some give children access only
to pre-selected Web sites screened by the library for
non-offensive content.

At the Paterson Free Public Library, about 20 miles
west of New York, director Cynthia Czesak has
installed software filtering devices only on computers
in the childrens area. The rest of the library uses a
system that matches birth date information on a users
library card to keep children from accessing sites
available to adults.

A more expensive system at a nearby library uses smart
card technology, with a computer chip controlling five
levels of access to the Internet, and filtering out
chat rooms, gambling and cult sites, as well as
pornography.

You can have more sophisticated systems, said Czesak,
but for a community like ours, the funds arent there.
Thats why we strongly believe parents should be
involved in monitoring their childrens activity. We
cant always be active caregivers, watching their
childrens computer use.

The case is U.S. v. American Library Association case
no. 02-0361.