Library board studies internet filtering
by Greg Cryns
Richmond Report correspondent

8/14/2002

At the June meeting of the Nippersink District Library trustees, a five-member committee, headed by headed by trustee Sandra Alldredge, was appointed to research the pros and cons of installing filtering software on the library computers. Part of the research involves interviewing officials from other libraries about their experiences using filter software.

The "Children's Internet Protection Act" (CIPA) became law on December 15, 2000. However, on May 31, 2002, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled that CIPA is unconstitutional and that the government cannot withhold funds for libraries on the ground that a public library did not install filters on every computer. The Court found that filters both overblock (block access to protected speech) and underblock (allow access to illegal or unconstitutional speech). This decision may serve as useful precedents for other lower courts. The case is now being examined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court held that less restrictive alternatives exist to allow public libraries to protect children. The Court found that public libraries can—and indeed that many do—use the following less restrictive alternatives: (1) filters offered as a choice for families to use for their own children at the public library; (2) education and Internet training courses; (3) enforcement of Internet use policies by library staff; and (4) placement of terminals, use of privacy screens or utilization of recessed monitors.

CIPA supporters say a mandate is needed to combat an epidemic of minors accessing adult content on computers at schools and libraries. Opponents counter that filtering software is a clumsy, subjective tool that all too often blocks harmless websites. Furthermore, opponents say, a government-imposed mandate is a poor substitute for parental supervision, private use of filters and public education efforts.

The American Library Association’s (ALA) position is that filtering is a form of censorship – it forces public libraries to either purchase and use filtering software to block certain information or lose federal funding for computer usage and Internet access. ALA feels that CIPA is a misnomer since filters censor everyone, not just children. The primary responsibility for rearing children rests with parents. If parents want to keep certain ideas or forms of expression away from their children, they must assume the responsibility for shielding those children.

She added, “We believe that if pornography is not a problem at this library, we do not have the right to block the public’s access to constitutionally protected information by using filters. A recent court decision regarding filters states that imposing burdens on access to speech is no less offensive to the First Amendment that prohibitions to speech.”

Library Board President, Carol Hansen, said, “The people should make their voice known about this issue. We want to know the opinions of as many people as possible in our community. They can do this by sending a letter or by email to nippersink @nils.lib.il.us.
 

At the Nippersink Library trustee board meeting on Aug. 13, 2002, three members of the audience expressed their concerns. Prudence Hardinge from Family Service in McHenry said, “Our group was surprised to find out that the Nippersink Library had not installed filtering software.” Andy Steffo of Spring Grove said, “I’m looking for a common sense approach without getting carried away either way. How do you effectively shield minors from questionable material in a library setting like we do in retail businesses? I’d like to see reasonable standards while recognizing that there is no such thing as a filter that is 100% bulletproof. That just does not exist.”