Trial Begins Over Library Censorship

Justen writes: "CBS has a story on the Philadelphia trial over the Children's Internet Protection Act, signed by President Clinton in 2000. This is the first challenge to come to trial, challenging the act which aimed to censor pornography and other "inappropriate" websites in libraries and other government-subsidized public Internet access-points. The big shocker? The challenge has the support of a large number (3,000) of libraries, librarians, and library patrons."

Comments

harmfull to miners

[ajrs]

Just block all of the sites that cover black lung and cave-ins

Is anyone surprised?

[adr]

Is anyone surprised that the challenge has broad support from libraries and librarians? I've worked in libraries pretty much solidly since 1994, and I've never never ever met any librarian who thought that censorware was a good idea.

The reason? Censorware is simply too broad. There exists many cases where censorware companies blocked not only obscene material but also perfectly legitimate constitutionally-protected material like sites on women's rights and birth control. And as for pornography, what happens when someone is doing legitimate research on porn or needs to access material commonly described as porn? The last library I worked at stocks Playboys (and yes, this is one time when the old saw about "buying playboys for the articles" actually is actually true). You had to ask for them at the front desk, but they were there.

Anyway, bottom line -- this is Yet Another Totally Unconstitutional Load of Bull-Plop that even the lizards on the current Supreme Court will probably strike down. Hopefully.

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[Deagol]

Is anyone surprised that the challenge has broad support from libraries and librarians? I've worked in libraries pretty much solidly since 1994, and I've never never ever met any librarian who thought that censorware was a good idea. The reason? Censorware is simply too broad.

I agree. While the standard for "obscene" has been hammered out (though still a hot potato), "harmful to minors" could mean anything.

Anyway, bottom line -- this is Yet Another Totally Unconstitutional Load of Bull-Plop that even the lizards on the current Supreme Court will probably strike down.

Is the right to access speech protected by the 1st? I know the right to produce speech is, but I'm uncertain of the other. It's a no-brainer that I can produce objectionable material, but as a consumer, do I have a right to access it at the public library? Not that I agree with the law, mind you. However, I'm not sure it'll be a slam dunk to get it struck down.

Republican on board too!

[molo]

* 2002-03-25 16:30:16 First Challenge to CIPA (yro,censorship) (rejected)

From the NY Times article:

"The coalition of plaintiffs includes the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and Jeffrey L. Pollock, a Republican Congressional candidate who favored mandatory filtering until he discovered that his own campaign's Web site was blocked by one of the most popular filtering programs."

Re:The old spirit of prohibition again

[Dyolf Knip]

It's really you Europeans' fault in the first place. Sent too damned many Puritans and religious morality freaks to colonize North America and now look what's happened. :)