Slashdot Mirror
ACLU and ALA Victorious in CIPA Challenge
Preliminary Statement
This case challenges an act of Congress that makes the use of filtering software by public libraries a condition of the receipt of federal funding. The Internet, as is well known, is a vast, interactive medium based on a decentralized network of computers around the world. Its most familiar feature is the World Wide Web (the "Web"), a network of computers known as servers that provide content to users. The Internet provides easy access to anyone who wishes to provide or distribute information to a worldwide audience; it is used by more than 143 million Americans. Indeed, much of the world's knowledge accumulated over centuries is available to Internet users almost instantly. Approximately 10% of the Americans who use the Internet access it at public libraries. And approximately 95% of all public libraries in the United States provide public access to the Internet.
While the beneficial effect of the Internet in expanding the amount of information available to its users is self-evident, its low entry barriers have also led to a perverse result - facilitation of the widespread dissemination of hardcore pornography within the easy reach not only of adults who have every right to access it (so long as it is not legally obscene or child pornography), but also of children and adolescents to whom it may be quite harmful. The volume of pornography on the Internet is huge, and the record before us demonstrates that public library patrons of all ages, many from ages 11 to 15, have regularly sought to access it in public library settings. There are more than 100,000 pornographic Web sites that can be accessed for free and without providing any registration information, and tens of thousands of Web sites contain child pornography.
Libraries have reacted to this situation by utilizing a number of means designed to insure that patrons avoid illegal (and unwanted) content while also enabling patrons to find the content they desire. Some libraries have trained patrons in how to use the Internet while avoiding illegal content, or have directed their patrons to "preferred" Web sites that librarians have reviewed. Other libraries have utilized such devices as recessing the computer monitors, installing privacy screens, and monitoring implemented by a "tap on the shoulder" of patrons perceived to be offending library policy. Still others, viewing the foregoing approaches as inadequate or uncomfortable (some librarians do not wish to confront patrons), have purchased commercially available software that blocks certain categories of material deemed by the library board as unsuitable for use in their facilities. Indeed, 7% of American public libraries use blocking software for adults. Although such programs are somewhat effective in blocking large quantities of pornography, they are blunt instruments that not only "underblock," i.e., fail to block access to substantial amounts of content that the library boards wish to exclude, but also, central to this litigation, "overblock," i.e., block access to large quantities of material that library boards do not wish to exclude and that is constitutionally protected.
Most of the libraries that use filtering software seek to block sexually explicit speech. While most libraries include in their physical collection copies of volumes such as The Joy of Sex and The Joy of Gay Sex, which contain quite explicit photographs and descriptions, filtering software blocks large quantities of other, comparable information about health and sexuality that adults and teenagers seek on the Web. One teenager testified that the Internet access in a public library was the only venue in which she could obtain information important to her about her own sexuality. Another library patron witness described using the Internet to research breast cancer and reconstructive surgery for his mother who had breast surgery. Even though some filtering programs contain exceptions for health and education, the exceptions do not solve the problem of overblocking constitutionally protected material. Moreover, as we explain below, the filtering software on which the parties presented evidence in this case overblocks not only information relating to health and sexuality that might be mistaken for pornography or erotica, but also vast numbers of Web pages and sites that could not even arguably be construed as harmful or inappropriate for adults or minors.
The Congress, sharing the concerns of many library boards, enacted the Children's Internet Protection Act ("CIPA"), Pub. L. No. 106-554, which makes the use of filters by a public library a condition of its receipt of two kinds of subsidies that are important (or even critical) to the budgets of many public libraries - grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9101 et seq. ("LSTA"), and so-called "E-rate discounts" for Internet access and support under the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 254. LSTA grant funds are awarded, inter alia, in order to: (1) assist libraries in accessing information through electronic networks, and (2) provide targeted library and information services to persons having difficulty using a library and to underserved and rural communities, including children from families with incomes below the poverty line. E-rate discounts serve the similar purpose of extending Internet access to schools and libraries in low-income communities. CIPA requires that libraries, in order to receive LSTA funds or E-rate discounts, certify that they are using a "technology protection measure" that prevents patrons from accessing "visual depictions" that are "obscene," "child pornography," or in the case of minors, "harmful to minors." 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1)(A) (LSTA); 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) & (C) (E-rate).
The plaintiffs, a group of libraries, library associations, library patrons, and Web site publishers, brought this suit against the United States and others alleging that CIPA is facially unconstitutional because: (1) it induces public libraries to violate their patrons' First Amendment rights contrary to the requirements of South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987); and (2) it requires libraries to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition on the receipt of federal funds and is therefore impermissible under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. In arguing that CIPA will induce public libraries to violate the First Amendment, the plaintiffs contend that given the limits of the filtering technology, CIPA's conditions effectively require libraries to impose content-based restrictions on their patrons' access to constitutionally protected speech. According to the plaintiffs, these content-based restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny under public forum doctrine, see Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 837 (1995), and are therefore permissible only if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest and no less restrictive alternatives would further that interest, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997).(1) The government responds that CIPA will not induce public libraries to violate the First Amendment, since it is possible for at least some public libraries to constitutionally comply with CIPA's conditions. Even if some libraries' use of filters might violate the First Amendment, the government submits that CIPA can be facially invalidated only if it is impossible for any public library to comply with its conditions without violating the First Amendment.
Pursuant to CIPA, a three-judge Court was convened to try the issues. Pub. L. No. 106-554. Following an intensive period of discovery on an expedited schedule to allow public libraries to know whether they need to certify compliance with CIPA by July 1, 2002, to receive subsidies for the upcoming year, the Court conducted an eight-day trial at which we heard 20 witnesses, and received numerous depositions, stipulations and documents. The principal focus of the trial was on the capacity of currently available filtering software. The plaintiffs adduced substantial evidence not only that filtering programs bar access to a substantial amount of speech on the Internet that is clearly constitutionally protected for adults and minors, but also that these programs are intrinsically unable to block only illegal Internet content while simultaneously allowing access to all protected speech.
As our extensive findings of fact reflect, the plaintiffs demonstrated that thousands of Web pages containing protected speech are wrongly blocked by the four leading filtering programs, and these pages represent only a fraction of Web pages wrongly blocked by the programs. The plaintiffs' evidence explained that the problems faced by the manufacturers and vendors of filtering software are legion. The Web is extremely dynamic, with an estimated 1.5 million new pages added every day and the contents of existing Web pages changing very rapidly. The category lists maintained by the blocking programs are considered to be proprietary information, and hence are unavailable to customers or the general public for review, so that public libraries that select categories when implementing filtering software do not really know what they are blocking.
There are many reasons why filtering software suffers from extensive over- and underblocking, which we will explain below in great detail. They center on the limitations on filtering companies' ability to: (1) accurately collect Web pages that potentially fall into a blocked category (e.g., pornography); (2) review and categorize Web pages that they have collected; and (3) engage in regular re-review of Web pages that they have previously reviewed. These failures spring from constraints on the technology of automated classification systems, and the limitations inherent in human review, including error, misjudgment, and scarce resources, which we describe in detail infra at 58-74. One failure of critical importance is that the automated systems that filtering companies use to collect Web pages for classification are able to search only text, not images. This is crippling to filtering companies' ability to collect pages containing "visual depictions" that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors, as CIPA requires. As will appear, we find that it is currently impossible, given the Internet's size, rate of growth, rate of change, and architecture, and given the state of the art of automated classification systems, to develop a filter that neither underblocks nor overblocks a substantial amount of speech.
The government, while acknowledging that the filtering software is imperfect, maintains that it is nonetheless quite effective, and that it successfully blocks the vast majority of the Web pages that meet filtering companies' category definitions (e.g., pornography). The government contends that no more is required. In its view, so long as the filtering software selected by the libraries screens out the bulk of the Web pages proscribed by CIPA, the libraries have made a reasonable choice which suffices, under the applicable legal principles, to pass constitutional muster in the context of a facial challenge. Central to the government's position is the analogy it advances between Internet filtering and the initial decision of a library to determine which materials to purchase for its print collection. Public libraries have finite budgets and must make choices as to whether to purchase, for example, books on gardening or books on golf. Such content-based decisions, even the plaintiffs concede, are subject to rational basis review and not a stricter form of First Amendment scrutiny. In the government's view, the fact that the Internet reverses the acquisition process and requires the libraries to, in effect, purchase the entire Internet, some of which (e.g., hardcore pornography) it does not want, should not mean that it is chargeable with censorship when it filters out offending material.
The legal context in which this extensive factual record is set is complex, implicating a number of constitutional doctrines, including the constitutional limitations on Congress's spending clause power, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, and subsidiary to these issues, the First Amendment doctrines of prior restraint, vagueness, and overbreadth. There are a number of potential entry points into the analysis, but the most logical is the spending clause jurisprudence in which the seminal case is South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). Dole outlines four categories of constraints on Congress's exercise of its power under the Spending Clause, but the only Dole condition disputed here is the fourth and last, i.e., whether CIPA requires libraries that receive LSTA funds or E-rate discounts to violate the constitutional rights of their patrons. As will appear, the question is not a simple one, and turns on the level of scrutiny applicable to a public library's content-based restrictions on patrons' Internet access. Whether such restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny, as plaintiffs contend, or only rational basis review, as the government contends, depends on public forum doctrine.
The government argues that, in providing Internet access, public libraries do not create a public forum, since public libraries may reserve the right to exclude certain speakers from availing themselves of the forum. Accordingly, the government contends that public libraries' restrictions on patrons' Internet access are subject only to rational basis review.
Plaintiffs respond that the government's ability to restrict speech on its own property, as in the case of restrictions on Internet access in public libraries, is not unlimited, and that the more widely the state facilitates the dissemination of private speech in a given forum, the more vulnerable the state's decision is to restrict access to speech in that forum. We agree with the plaintiffs that public libraries' content-based restrictions on their patrons' Internet access are subject to strict scrutiny. In providing even filtered Internet access, public libraries create a public forum open to any speaker around the world to communicate with library patrons via the Internet on a virtually unlimited number of topics. Where the state provides access to a "vast democratic forum[]," Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868 (1997), open to any member of the public to speak on subjects "as diverse as human thought," id. at 870 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the state's decision selectively to exclude from the forum speech whose content the state disfavors is subject to strict scrutiny, as such exclusions risk distorting the marketplace of ideas that the state has facilitated. Application of strict scrutiny finds further support in the extent to which public libraries' provision of Internet access uniquely promotes First Amendment values in a manner analogous to traditional public fora such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, in which content-based restrictions are always subject to strict scrutiny.
Under strict scrutiny, a public library's use of filtering software is permissible only if it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest and no less restrictive alternative would serve that interest. We acknowledge that use of filtering software furthers public libraries' legitimate interests in preventing patrons from accessing visual depictions of obscenity, child pornography, or in the case of minors, material harmful to minors. Moreover, use of filters also helps prevent patrons from being unwillingly exposed to patently offensive, sexually explicit content on the Internet.
We are sympathetic to the position of the government, believing that it would be desirable if there were a means to ensure that public library patrons could share in the informational bonanza of the Internet while being insulated from materials that meet CIPA's definitions, that is, visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or in the case of minors, harmful to minors. Unfortunately this outcome, devoutly to be wished, is not available in this less than best of all possible worlds. No category definition used by the blocking programs is identical to the legal definitions of obscenity, child pornography, or material harmful to minors, and, at all events, filtering programs fail to block access to a substantial amount of content on the Internet that falls into the categories defined by CIPA. As will appear, we credit the testimony of plaintiffs' expert Dr. Geoffrey Nunberg that the blocking software is (at least for the foreseeable future) incapable of effectively blocking the majority of materials in the categories defined by CIPA without overblocking a substantial amount of materials. Nunberg's analysis was supported by extensive record evidence. As noted above, this inability to prevent both substantial amounts of underblocking and overblocking stems from several sources, including limitations on the technology that software filtering companies use to gather and review Web pages, limitations on resources for human review of Web pages, and the necessary error that results from human review processes.
Because the filtering software mandated by CIPA will block access to substantial amounts of constitutionally protected speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest, we are persuaded that a public library's use of software filters is not narrowly tailored to further any of these interests. Moreover, less restrictive alternatives exist that further the government's legitimate interest in preventing the dissemination of obscenity, child pornography, and material harmful to minors, and in preventing patrons from being unwillingly exposed to patently offensive, sexually explicit content. To prevent patrons from accessing visual depictions that are obscene and child pornography, public libraries may enforce Internet use policies that make clear to patrons that the library's Internet terminals may not be used to access illegal speech. Libraries may then impose penalties on patrons who violate these policies, ranging from a warning to notification of law enforcement, in the appropriate case. Less restrictive alternatives to filtering that further libraries' interest in preventing minors from exposure to visual depictions that are harmful to minors include requiring parental consent to or presence during unfiltered access, or restricting minors' unfiltered access to terminals within view of library staff. Finally, optional filtering, privacy screens, recessed monitors, and placement of unfiltered Internet terminals outside of sight-lines provide less restrictive alternatives for libraries to prevent patrons from being unwillingly exposed to sexually explicit content on the Internet.
In an effort to avoid the potentially fatal legal implications of the overblocking problem, the government falls back on the ability of the libraries, under CIPA's disabling provisions, see CIPA 1712 (codified at 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(3)), CIPA 1721(b) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(D)), to unblock a site that is patently proper yet improperly blocked. The evidence reflects that libraries can and do unblock the filters when a patron so requests. But it also reflects that requiring library patrons to ask for a Web site to be unblocked will deter many patrons because they are embarrassed, or desire to protect their privacy or remain anonymous. Moreover, the unblocking may take days, and may be unavailable, especially in branch libraries, which are often less well staffed than main libraries. Accordingly, CIPA's disabling provisions do not cure the constitutional deficiencies in public libraries' use of Internet filters.
Under these circumstances we are constrained to conclude that the library plaintiffs must prevail in their contention that CIPA requires them to violate the First Amendment rights of their patrons, and accordingly is facially invalid, even under the standard urged on us by the government, which would permit us to facially invalidate CIPA only if it is impossible for a single public library to comply with CIPA's conditions without violating the First Amendment. In view of the limitations inherent in the filtering technology mandated by CIPA, any public library that adheres to CIPA's conditions will necessarily restrict patrons' access to a substantial amount of protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment. Given this conclusion, we need not reach plaintiffs' arguments that CIPA effects a prior restraint on speech and is unconstitutionally vague. Nor do we decide their cognate unconstitutional conditions theory, though for reasons explained infra at note 36, we discuss the issues raised by that claim at some length.
For these reasons, we will enter an Order declaring Sections 1712(a)(2) and 1721(b) of the Children's Internet Protection Act, codified at 20 U.S.C. 9134(f) and 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6), respectively, to be facially invalid under the First Amendment and permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing those provisions.
"The government, while acknowledging that the filtering software is imperfect, maintains that it is nonetheless quite effective, and that it successfully blocks the vast majority of the Web pages that meet filtering companies' category definitions (e.g., pornography). The government contends that no more is required."
- This didn't work for Napster either. At least the courts are being consistent.
you mean the govt actually does work????
someone let the corperations know of this failure... more judges and politicans must be bought to plug this hole!
It's the parent's responsibility to provide censorship. Good parenting is the best answer.
Our best defense for protecting our children from things on the Internet that we don't want them to see, is to be active, responsible adults. That means we shouldn't leave our under aged offspring to roam around freely in places where they could be exposed.
If we, the ones who spawned our children, aren't responsible for protecting them, why should someone else (including the government) be concerned about doing it for us?
I think it all boils down to being responsible adults to those who aren't yet adult enough to be responsible.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
There's now laws in the US to try to prevent, and in most cases punish dumb, useless lawsuits. Where's a similar provision for dumb, useless laws that are blatantly in violation of the constitution?
It only makes sense that someone make every effort to protect users from such things as viruses, scams through mail and email and all the other dark saide of the net stuff. Why is it so hard to accept that in a public place (where there are alot of people who want to be protected from negative stuff) that filtering could be a good thing, if applied correctly and intelligently.
I've been invloved in the creation of filtering software for a few years now and I a confident that when applied creatively it is effective and useful. What I fins is the administrators expect that software (of all kinds) can be installed and "just work" which is never the case, especially where free speech is concerned.
I'm sure any tech support rep on slashdot will remind you that they speak to a hundred people a week who cannot figure out that they can't just X software package on any machine and it'll work the same EVERY time. This is the case with most filtering packages, in fact the majority of good high level filters don't even come pre-configured. Thus, no filtering is applied at all and it is left to the admin to set up their own filters. The technology is almost there folks, it just takes intelligence and dilligence to set it up.
This ensures that there is no need for mandatory filters for all users, effective filtering means it is tailored for the users, not the state.
Hello Kettle,
You, my friend are as black as pitch.
With love, Pot.
Usually the courts rule in favor of more protection winning out over individual rights.
Though a little discomforting perhaps to patrons and libraries alike, the "tap on the shoulder" method seems to be the most preferable method. Though there is freedom of information, there are rules one must abide by when using library equipment, so one must accpewt a small loss of privacy by library personnel occasionally monitoring your surfing.
However, human discretion seems to beat software in this case.
I am the evil aardvark!
The courts are fairly consistent in throwing out junk legislation like this when it is shown to substantially impede protected free speech. It sounds like the ACLU did a good job of demonstrating that web filters do a terrible job and are not a magic bullet.
The cases that are argued purely on the basis of "rights" and on philosophical grounds are not usually as successful for the side representing "freedom."
but if it did work it would give Napster et al a "get out of jail free" card, especially if this went to a Supreme Court decision.
So which do you want: free access to information or free acess to music?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
In a related case, the National Organization of Tissue Manufacturers and the Petroleum Jelly Consortium have been convicted both of jury tampering and bribing judges.
Best Windows Freeware
CNN "say that the law takes an inappropriate one-size-fits-all approach that treats children and adults the same"
Let me tell you why this is total BS. The problem is NOT just kids and the problem is NOT just "protection".
Some of the problem is adults whacking off in libraries looking at porn. We can protect the kids from that by banning porn altogether.
Another problem is state funds. I for one never want to see my tax dollars being use *even once* for viewing crap like porn. So ban it. If our excuse is that in blocking porn we may also block some other "protected" speech, then we are obviously just making excuses.
That CNN report is one side of the story, and doesn't even mention the other side.
"denies poor people without home computers the same full access to information as their wealthier neighbors"
This is just a case of them furthering their agenda by trying to get poor people on their side.
What about the millions of Americans (including the poor) that don't want their children subject to pornography? Libraries are public places, public funded, and they should be treated as such. If we'd simply apply the decency laws to libraries like we do to our city streets, we'd solve the problem.
Tell me why anyone would defend porn?
It makes no sense.
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
Just as you won't find pr0n is a kids' bookstore, I'd much prefer to see these lawmakers focusing on the .kids.us domain and other proactive measures, rather than trying to limit what already is.
Eben Moglen came and gave a talk to our LUG (and other groups) here and one question he asked that has stuck with me is this: "If all the human race's collected information could be made available to anyone, anywhere, at any time, for marginal cost, would it be moral to restrict access to that informtion?"
Perhaps the courts are saying the answer is "No, everyone should have access to all the information that can be provided for them."
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
For reasons which will become obvious shortly, I have to preface this by saying that this is not a troll. It's an honest question.
Why are we so conerned with keeping children away from porn? Let's take a worst-case scenario, and ask what exactly the results are supposed to be if some seven year old girl stumbles across "Debbie Does Dallas"? The unspoken assumption seems to be that she will be irrepairably harmed by such material, but I challenge that statement. I remember running across a Penthouse once when I was a pre-pubescent kid; I thought it was interesting, but after a while I just went back to playing other decidedly non-sexual games.
Now before I start getting flamed to death, I am by no means advocating for Disney to start showing full-penetration in their latest animated release. Further, I believe that child pornography is abhorent and rightfully illegal. My question simply revolves around the claimed ill effects to minors who view porn.
See also Bennett Haselton's comments on the hijacking and Jonathan Wallace's comments]
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finkelstein
To: Seth Finkelstein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)
I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:
"Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called "loophole" Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a "loophole" that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. "Loophole" Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, "anonymizer" sites, and translation sites.
Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.
Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an "anonymizer." Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave "cookies" on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.
As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking."
This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:
BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php
BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php
SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translatorse stevils.php
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/great
The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php
-- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.comu its/19HACK.html
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circ
I know this won't do anything against international sites, but something like this would be a step in the right direction. It wouldn't limit free speech; it would just give it an appropriate forum. It would also be easier for individuals (parents) to filter the content (note I'm not even getting into filtering by public entities).
I'd like to hear some decent, rational arguments against this idea.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
> so long as it is not legally obscene or child pornography
:)
What counts as "legally obscene"?
Does that include things like BDSM, fisting, wetsex and other perfectly legal (and common) kinky sexual preferences?
BTW, isn't it a bit ironic that "cipa" means "pussy" in polish?
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
'Protecting' kids from the realities of the world is a great disservice. They'll end up clueless adults who have a hard time fitting in with society. I may sound like a broken record here, but kids don't need protection from porn or sex. For my pr0n argument, counter-arguments, and a really nice discussion thread, look here.
Keeping kids in the dark about sex and other 'unsavory' subjects is stupid. It only compounds the problems of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. Keeping kids in the dark about drugs, violence, politics, history, and other subjects is equally bankrupt. The 'innocent childhood' is a ridiculous concept and a disservice to kids.
Don't Be quick to blame the ACLA or ALA for children having access to pr0n -- rather blame the legislators who write sloppy, special interest crippled legislation. If congress could ever intelligently craft legislation and keep crippling amendments away from it, there will be a better chance of something like this not being thrown out on "protected speech" rulings.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm glad someone noticed that CIPA was unconstitutional. Sometimes the ACLU can be a little overactive... But even the American Library Association opposed the law. Not because it would have made librarian's jobs harder... It actually would have made their jobs easier.
But the truth is that filtering software is shoot-and-miss, at the very best. Filtering software can often be stereotypical... We all know the examples: breast cancer, gay suicide, etc. And for the government, or anyone to put some "Big Brother" software into place is silly. Librarians do a good job of keeping the kiddies off porn. Let them do their job.
jrbd
I am a vegetarian, for religious/ethical reasons. The US government currently provides subsidies to farmers that encourage them to engage in activity that results in something that I don't approve of i.e., eating meat. I don't want any of my tax dollars spent on this kind of crap.
So because I have a personal problem with how my tax dollars are spent (I also have issues with military spending, among other things), does that mean my moral outrage gets to govern how public policy is enacted? Or only if I can get enough people to agree with me and force our opinions on everyone?
Like busting the assholes making this shit instead of attempting to "filter it away"??
Good grief. I don't understand who up there is under the impression that censoring is a solution. The law already makes it illegal. It is almost promotional to censor it. It's like saying "You are horribly wrong and evil. But as long as I don't see or hear you, do whatever you want."
those idiots.
-----rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
Okay, we know Michael is an ass, stole censorware.org, etc. You just sound like a broken record on this subject! If you know so much about censorware, why not comment on topic?
Why is it so hard to accept that in a public place (where there are alot of people who want to be protected from negative stuff) that filtering could be a good thing, if applied correctly and intelligently.
Because you're making a pre-existing assumption that there is "negative stuff". Why is it not just a valid assumption that children are human beings too, and that they can handle what they are exposed to without needing to be overly coddled? Why are naked people necessarily bad? Why aren't restrictions on content for minors just a form of age description?
Providing any sort of filter for content, even a voluntary filter, in and of itself implies that there is something wrong with the material such that the filter is even proposed. The existence of a voluntary control itself makes a value judgement about the content itself.
The decision of the court upholds the spirit of the first amendment: your speech is protected, even if I don't like what you say.
The philosophical side is that if just one item of protected speech is filtered out, then that violates the first amendment and is unconstitutional. My guess is that filtering software would probably keep you from reading the court's decision at the library!
The practical side includes: (a) libraries don't have a boatload of technical experts standing around waiting to configure filtering software; and (b) filtering software may be OK but it still filters out protected speech, and forcing someone to give up their anonymity in order to read/see/hear it violates their privacy.
Libraries have kids sections now. I recommend that communities that want "protected" internet stations for kids provide them in a separate area. This would not violate the constitution because non-filtered terminals would exist elsewhere in the facility. The libraries would not lose their federal funding. Adults would not lose their freedom to view legal materials anonymously. And kids would be protected from pr0n and slashdot (at least while at the library).
Keep in mind that the court did not outlaw filtering software at libraries; it merely said that the federal government can't take away library funding from libraries that don't use filtering software.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
Every public library in the USA continues to stock numerous copies of the bible, a book with numerous graphic depictions of sex, rape, incest, murder, infanticide, torture, and just about anything else that human beings consider offensive.
Katz filtering project setback by CIPA ruling
Why not just have a separate room for adults only to surf, and a filtered room or area for the kiddies? Everyone would be happy.
This would all be avoided if the American people realized that thousands of local libraries cannot be run from Washington DC and should not be funded with federal dollars. Local dollars means local control and local standards. The same local public decency local public decency ordinances can be applied at the library as anywhere else. AFIAK, no one, not even the ACLU, is arguing that the poor have a right to spank their monkey at the county courthouse.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
Now I'm not a father, I'm only 18. But I know for a fact that I wouldn't want my kids to be able to go into libraries and look up porn on the internet. I don't think that libraries should let adults do that either, but oh well. Do libraries carry adult books and videos? If they don't, then why should they provide access to pornography? If they do, oh well. Also, are we all forgetting that IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 IN MOST STATES TO VIEW PORNOGRAPHY? Do you realize that you're happy that someone's right to break a law is being upheald? Where is the comstock act when we need it?
In summary, remember that this is just another step in sexualizeing kids. Have fun when your 12 year old daughter is screwing every guy in sight and it's normal for older men to have sex with young boys. Even if you don't agree with points of view, you must realize this: NOT ALL CENSORSHIP IS BAD.
I am MBCook, and my Karma is 50, showing that I'm a good member of this community. But I am posting anon because I am almost positive that this will be moderated down. Thank you liberals.
http://www.enough.org/justharmlessfun.pdf
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
You apparently did not notice that "denies poor people
So, using these quotes as proof that this article is in some way biased is highly ineffective, considering it wasn't CNN who made those statements. Now, there might indeed be bias if CNN printed only those quotes and not quotes from the other side of the argument. Unfortunately, whatever political blinders you are wearing seem to have caused you to miss the fact that CNN did in fact print various quotes from the supporters of the law.
For example, in the paragraph that immediately follows the ones which contain the statements that you find so "biased", CNN writes:
To summarize: CNN did not directly state the opinions that you quoted. Those were statements made by opponents of the law. Furthermore, CNN printed quotes of the attorneys supporting the law. Therefore, CNN printed both sides of the issue. I must conclude two things: 1) this article is absolutely not biased either for or against the law in question or the decision to overturn it. 2) you either did not bother to read the article, or your own political biases prevented you from seeing the obvious.
I'll never forget waiting in a little custom computer store for their sec'ty to process a check (and taking a darn long time at it) and using one of the machine they had running. Went to www.theregus.com and tried to read one article and the speaker startles me with 'blocked!', and the screen says something about porn. Tried another article and got the same thing. Eventually got to read one but the false hit rate in that little test, 2 out of 3, was pretty abysmal, rendering a public station nearly useless for the over paranoia.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
It only makes sense that someone make every effort to protect users from such things as viruses, scams through mail and email and all the other dark saide of the net stuff. Why is it so hard to accept that in a public place (where there are alot of people who want to be protected from negative stuff) that filtering could be a good thing, if applied correctly and intelligently.
.mil site's freedom of information postings. Getting those filters removed requires even more work from IT staff that already seem to be overwhelmed by their jobs, let alone library volunteers.
The problem is that the filters themselves are rarely applied correctly and intelligently, and, even moreso, the filters are not good at making intelligent choices in what they do and do not block. Furthermore, most libraries have some of the same material that's being blocked in print form.
I've been invloved in the creation of filtering software for a few years now and I a confident that when applied creatively it is effective and useful. What I fins is the administrators expect that software (of all kinds) can be installed and "just work" which is never the case, especially where free speech is concerned.
Again, though, we're talking about having filtering software a requirement to receive federal funding. As you said, it's not something that'll 'just work', and as the court cited, filters have a tendency both to underblock (allowing content that should be filtered to get by the filter) and overblock (blocking legitimate content). In my opinion, overblocking is a far more serious problem. I can't count the number of times I've been blocked access to needed information at work because the filters somehow found a reason to block a website for 'sex', when the page itself was part of a
I'm sure any tech support rep on slashdot will remind you that they speak to a hundred people a week who cannot figure out that they can't just X software package on any machine and it'll work the same EVERY time. This is the case with most filtering packages, in fact the majority of good high level filters don't even come pre-configured. Thus, no filtering is applied at all and it is left to the admin to set up their own filters. The technology is almost there folks, it just takes intelligence and dilligence to set it up.
I would say it's more like the technology is coming to a point where it's almost useful, rather than saying it's almost where we want it to be. I don't think most people are going to expect it to be completely 'fire & forget' technology, but essentially it's going to have to get a lot closer before anyone should be mandating it for public funding, and even then there're some issues beyond just obscene material that people should be concerned about. Government-funded or mandated filtration of information should always be fought against.
This ensures that there is no need for mandatory filters for all users, effective filtering means it is tailored for the users, not the state.
But we're talking about public use here, not a limited-size network with a limited number of users. If 10% of Americans accessing the internet are doing so from public libraries, as the statement reads, then you're talking about a very large user base (though spread out across a large number of libraries across the country) which may have no other method for accessing the information they're looking for in the first place. When any given user may only use the system once the work of tailoring the filter to that user is wasted, or never done properly in the first place, exposing the user to the possibility of incorrect filtering.
Twenty years ago the debate was about books like Catcher in the Rye, which contains the word "fuck" and innumerable copies of the word "crap". Then it was about Judy Blume and books like "Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret", which deals with onset of menstruation. Both of these books were banned from public libraries at different times because people regarded them as obscene and didn't want their children viewing them with public resources.
I know very few people who think that Holden Caulfield (the main character in CitR) is too evil for their children, and AYTGIMM is, well, a childrens' classic that most folks think really does belong in public libraries.
Clearly, there are limits to what most children ``should'' be exposed to -- but (A) the limits are slippery and (B) the law is a clumsy tool. CIPA was too restrictive -- the equivalent of a complete library book ban, without the financial benefit of not having to pay to put the banned books in the library.
This Kind of thinking says that it is okay to keep loaded, unlocked guns in the living room.
Any user of the Internet can honestly say that there is a great deal of "bad stuff" out there that is not okay for your typical user to be exposed to, adult or otherwise. I know that if I was a library admin I sure wouldn't want users surfing into a nimda infected website, infecting all of my unprotected pcs. The problem with what is called free speech is that it is whole something that is interpreted not an absolute. I cannot publically say "I will Kill X Person" if that person is in any kind of office, doesn't hat limit my free speech? Viewing the web, which is to say, Viewing the free speech of others is YOU interpreting someone elses speech, which is fine for only you. The problem we face with public computers is not adults and well-reasoned minors viewing porn, it is adults and well-reasoned minors displaying porn and other objectionable stuff in a location that is shared with people that constitute a community, and therefore community standard apply. It may be free speech to defecate on the flag, it is still illegal in many places to go into public and perform fellatio on your partner. Stetching the analogy a bit, it is improper to expect everyone in the library will enjoy listening to that great brittney spears song you downloaded, so you are asked to put on headphones.
You have sex with a condom on to prevent infection not to prevent you from having sex at all.
The simple fact is that filters, software or fingers on power buttons are needed. We have police to enforce community standards, we have torts to enforce aggreements and we have library admins to help us get to the information we need. I don't think there is any valid way to say there is a NEED to download nimda onto the shared computer at the libary. We don't need the law to tell us that we have to monitor a computer in a public place
Hello Kettle,
You, my friend are as black as pitch.
With love, Pot.
A very good analogy from "Youth, Pornography and the Internet," issued 5/2/2002 by the National Research Council:
"Swimming pools can be dangerous for children," the authors wrote. "To protect them, one can install locks, put up fences and deploy pool alarms. All of these measures are helpful, but by far the most important thing that one can do for one's children is to teach them to swim."
Your complaints about being offended offend me.
If you read the bulk of my message Court listened to my anticensorware work! , you would note that it is concerned with the court's decision, and how my anticensorware work seems to have entered into it.
I do think that's on-topic. And I also think the destructiveness done in hijacking censorware.org is relevant. It's not nice. But how could such hijacking be a pleasant topic?
Understand, programmers have been sued for doing anticensorware work. It's not an easy thing, and it's legally risky.
Look, how would you feel, if a Slashdot editor had maliciously trashed your group website, stolen the domain from the group, and then used his journalist position to escape consequences? I suggest to you that many of the people counseling never to mention it, would not be so noble and forebearing if they were in a similar situation.
It's very, very, easy to write personal attacks. Especially if one is a journalist and has no cost to whatever one does. It's much harder to be doing volunteer free-speech work and have to deal with the sabotage of a Slashdot editor. This is not ancient history, it matters right now, and the hijacking and attacks continue. Please don't apply moral equivalence.
I've already proposed taxing new laws ( http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=fi n9901&itemid=14184 -- adding links to posts seems to be broken right now, also please delete the damn space slashcode insists on adding); it'd be simple to extend this to add even heavier taxes to lawmakers that vote for laws that are later found unconstitutional.
Of course the only way to get something like this implemented is by the same lawmakers that would be taxed by this, so good luck getting *that* to happen.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
Just as doctors, lawyers and priests have an implied confidentiality between them, so the ALA believes the same should exist between librarians and their customers.
Plus it's kinda neat to think of an absolutely neutral 3rd party for information; it excites the scifi/fantasy fan in me (imagine a monestary where the monks provide information to anyone, Evil Warlords and Scholars equally) and makes me less nervous about the direction our country (USA) is heading.
He painted nudes of beautiful women; does that mean I'm looking at pr0n if I do a search on Vargas at the library?
You're right. Let's ban the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and have your fingers broken and your lips sewn together.
Get with the program: censorship sucks.
If people really wanted to protect themselves, then give them a voluntary filter and let them turn it off whenever they wanted.
Personally, I think that people are far more interested in protecting their neighbors than protecting themselves. After all, most people will tell you that they can take care of themselves, but it's their neighbors that they're worried about.
Look, libraries have been using filtering long before the internet was even dreamed of. The librarians (or their supervisors) have a limited budget and have to decide FOR YOU what books/articles/info they will have money for or room for. So their ideologies or morals or ethics color their decisions either subconsciously or consciously.
It is very difficult (not impossible) to find a library where you can walk in and find a Hustler magazine to read or a Debbie Does Dallas video to check out. Why? Because the staff has decided not to allow THAT kind of info on their shelves even though thanks to Larry Flynt it is protected speech!
Internet filtering software, though imperfect, is not much different from the HUMAN filtering brainware (also imperfect) which has been in place since Plato was just a gleam in his father's eye.
Man, you just had to post the Preliminary Decision, didn't you?
That would have been some great karma whoring material.
----
One of us needs to stick ones' head in a bucket of ice water.
- Hobbes
Could you quote me chapter and verse on that? Maybe this is a way to get me reading the bible.
(I've seen this assertion a lot, but have usually found the "pornographic" parts of the bible less lascivious than other stuff I've read.)
Or as a saner person might have said, "by having people arrested if they whack off at a public Internet workstation". Filters throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.
Idiots have been arrested for committing crimes in the library before, and as long as they keep making a nuisance of themselves, we librarians will keep LARTing them.
They probably shouldn't abdicate their parental authority by treating public libraries as a free babysitting service. Here's a free hint for those bereft of clue: leaving your child unattended in a public place is a Bad Idea.
Hey if i have any kids they wont worry about fickle things like that, what wrong with a good bit of porn any how.
Now those funny coloured people, there plain nasty. They all look like they've had a bleach batch or somthing, i'd never let my kids go nere those whities.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
One thing I didnt realize is how little funding our library system receives from the Federal Government... $6,500 out of a budget of $18 million!
So while a legislative victory would be nice, it's easy for some library systems to just say forget it and do without the federal funding and headache of mandatory filtering.
So what is the link between the US Government being worried about young folk learning about the Evils Of Sex and America leading the western world on teenage pregnancies? Odd that Britain, which also shares a certain paranoia about mentioning s*x, is second on the league table of teenage pregnancy. Very odd that shamefully promiscuous countries like the Netherlands hardly figure at all.
Considering that there is already a childrens section of the library, it seems like this would be a logical solution. RWE: Athens Regional Library has a childrens network setup in the kids section of the library. You can access all KINDS of information, Encyclopedias, Dictionaries, general information on lots of things, including Anatomy, but only in a text book kind of way. They created this so that kids could get access to most of the information they needed without their parents having to worry that they would come up on hardcore porn while trying to do their biology report. If they can't find what they need there, then the parent can take them over to the un-blocked systems and look it up for them. I think this is a nice compromise and it seems to work very well.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Library PCs have Outlook Express disabled. The nimda worm, the one that you can download from a web site, is an Outlook Express file.
I would reply to the rest of your post, but your analogies are soooo good. I couldn't bring myself to criticize any of them.
I'm thrilled that the CIPA was shot down. As a public school employee, who was forced to install a filter last summer lest we lose federal funding (quite a strong-arm move IMO), this is great news. Now, I certainly do not want our kids anywhere porn, or to be accosted with hate speech and gambling ads, but to enact such a stringent law cannot be the way. Our filter, which claims to be the best, stops most of the porn yes, but I have long lost track of the good things it also blocks. For some reason I can't to most site with flash or java in the name. And I was once doing research on child protection/internet safety and was blocked by most sites that came up. There is a form that pops up to let you submit the site for 'their determination', but since you couldnt see it, you dont know yet, and you certainly dont want to be accused of trying to get a porn site legitmized with your school district. So you write it down and go home. Lo and behold, the site is perfectly fine, you cant even figure out why it would be blocked. But now you are not near the form to submit it. You go this route a couple of times and you know what happens, you just give up because its too much work. Also, since the inception of the filter, we still have had several incidents of porn activity (we didnt have that many to begin with), and in one case a student actually downloaded an entire porn flick. I know this is a serious problem, and we do our best to ensure the teachers are fully educated about what their students online. How silly to threaten us by taking our funds away. Public schools always to as their states or fed gov asks, they do not need to make this a law. My further 0.02 - use limited filtering in the K-7 environments and propose cirriculum that delves deeper into safety online issues and educating the parents and community. I really like the 'teach them to swim analogy' and that has always worked for us in the past.
I do not know if it is just a coincidence, or a hidden message, but CIPA in polish stands for female sex organs.
I am serious.
legislators who try to break the constitution.
...
I'll volunteer to lead the firing squad
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
The distinction between sex and pornography is an important one. The fact that a book discusses sex does not make it pornography; pornography is defined not by the sexual content, but the manner in which the content is presented. This is what differentiates the Bible, which has a whole book devoted to romantic love and sex, from pornography. Pornography strips sex of all love, caring, intimacy, and dignity, instead focusing on self-seeking carnal desires. It is not so much that Christians are trying to remove from libraries materials to which they object, but that they are trying to protect the innocence of their children. In general, children do not have enough life experience to make good decisions - that's why they are considered children. It is one thing for an individual to use his own money to buy porn, but quite another for a library to use my tax dollars to not only buy it, but offer it to my children against my wishes. An individual's supposed "right" to view pornography does not override my right to protect my children from things that I judge to be harmful. As my children are required by law to attend school, and by the school to use the library, it is not as if I have the option of keeping my children out of the library. While I do believe that parents should take responsibility for raising their children, I also believe that it is wrong for the government to actively undermine the efforts of parents to raise their children in a moral manner. My tax dollars should not be used to harm my children.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
1) Filtering software is uniformly lame at blocking access to pr0n. It is therefore of dubious utility.
2) Filtering software is uniformly lame at permitting access to non-pr0n. It is therefore impermissibly harmful.
This point has been made over and over- wake up! Your train of thought doesn't even reach the "Access to Pr0n will make my daughter promiscuous" station. If this approach to censorship even WORKED we could then talk about whether it was a good idea, or whether the harm of the false blocks (many of them deliberate and politically motivated) outweighed the supposed good. But it doesn't.
And turn off your radio - Laura S., PhD (Not "Dr." - her PhD is not relevent to her business except for leading the public to assume she is a medical doctor/psychiatrist) is a troll.
I don't want my tax dollars should be used to help someone who doesn't have their own access to the internet to view this stuff. If they want to look at it, let them get their own access. I don't want to pay my hard earned dollars for them to view filth.
The porn people have freedom of speech. No one is preventing them from doing this, and no one is prevented from looking at it. They just need to get their own access to view it.
That's my $.02
As the father of a 3-year-old budding genious who *adores* the library, I am *extremely* concerned about what she might see on the computers at my local branch, even just in passing. My question for all those who grand-stand on the constitutionality of this isse is this: can you get hardcore porn at the library? No, of course not.
I certainly agree that there's no way to prevent throwing out *some* worthwhile material when you filter pornagrphy from the internet, but I say, "Fine!" I think most of us with toddlers would agree that eliminating frank discussions of sexuality would *also* be a good thing. If libraries are going to permit unfettered access to all of the garbage of the internet, then it ought to at least be in a room into which only the librarians can see, so that those of us wanting to avoid it don't have to go out of our way to do it. It's just too easy to see emotionally-scarring material (of ALL kinds) on the internet, even as adults!
If we're not going to filter anything, then those units have to be considered and treated just like a hard-core porn rag. Can you not see that the ``good parenting'' line of reasoning will force me to stop taking my child to the library if my local branch allows unfiltered computers where my girl can see them? There's no question in my mind that those computers will primarily be used for looking at things I don't want my daughter to see. The one thing that must be remembered in all of this is that YOUR exercise of a right MUST NOT impede MY ability to NOT exercise that same ``right.''
And since when is using MY tax dollars to give someone free internet access a ``right,'' anyway? If someone wants unfiltered access to the internet, they can get their own money and buy their own computer and access. Then they can do whatever they want with it. Just because a technology is POSSIBLE doesn't mean that it's your right to have access to it.
Because if that's true, I demand to be the next ``civilian'' into space, at no expense to me, of course.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
Most. That's part of the problem, see? Once you pass a federal law, it takes precedence over state laws (excepting those exclusive to states in the Constitution.) Another part is, once you start censorship, you have to pick someone to set the bar. That bar would vary from state to state, so it's probably best to find the lowest common denominator. The Bible Belt is going to want it high, more liberal states, lower. And the definition of what's unsuitable keeps changing. Even scenes common on TV, beginning at 8PM (or any time of day on MTV) would have been unacceptable in the 60's, even 70's, though acceptable in the 30's in large parts of the country.
Like many mention, the first line of defense is the parent. IMHO the best line of defense is to explain what's wrong with it, how demeaning it is of people, to your children. Same applies to drugs, alcohol, unsafe sex, etc.
Problem is, so many parents are locked in some eternal struggle between the Respectable Puritans they want everyone to think they are and the people they really are and want to be.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"the judges in this case accepted the argument that requiring censoring software automatically lead to censoring things that weren't obscene, or child pornography, or "harmful to minors", and that that wasn't acceptable."
There's something I don't quite understand here. This is not a troll but an honest puzzled reaction.
It seems to me that this verdict, in particular the phrase which I have repeated above to clarify my position, seems to indicate that there are differing standards (at least to the court) regarding the application of censoring software. In the DeCSS case, it is my understanding that the courts are allowing censorship of the code and ruling that its publication can be blocked because it is harmful (to the profits of the movie inddustry.) In those cases, the argument that the code is free speech and thus protected by the First Amendment was denied, even though not everyone would be harmed by the posted code; the government is basically allowing censoring of something that is only harmful to a minority of citizens.
But in this case, the needs of the many did outweigh the needs of the few.
Where is the difference? Are words and symbols on a screen less worthy of protection than pixels on that same screen?
Opinions invited.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Question about this ruling. It repeatedly references libraries, but CIPA also applies to schools. Did this decision also cover schools? I'm in the process of rewriting our school district's AUP to cover CIPA compliance, and the issue is very timely and relevant to me.
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
Part of the problem with people wanting to sanitize the library, at least in my neck of the woods, is that you get some no-good parents who treat it as a damned daycare facility. This is slightly O/T, but germane to the perception people have of libraries.
The main branch of the library in my town is located downtown in a shopping district that also has a certain amount of homelessness, etc. I've been in the library and seen these moron parents walk their kids in the front door, kiss them on the forehead, and leave them for a good 1-2 hours. I could understand this behavior in a small town, but this isn't one. Nevermind that it's no librarian's job to look after your kids. Combine that with the homeless degenerates that skulk about it for hours to escape the summer heat and it's not a place I'd consider leaving my kid alone in for a second. In addition, unattended children damage library property. I've had librarians tell me that they get about 20 kids who spend the time between school and when their parents arrive to pick them up there. There have been fights, the police have had to come, take kids to the station & call their parents to come get them, but they keep coming back. It's ridiculous.
The library is a public accomodation, not your private accomodation to control or do with as you will. To me, the people who seek either to abuse or control the content of libraries are on the same level as those who defile public toilets.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
The CIPA was not thrown out in it's entirety. The Ruling for the ALA had specific sections of the document deemed unconstitutional. They targeted sections Paragraph 1712 (a)(2) Titled "Limitation On Availability of Certain Funds for Libraries" and the comments to enact it into US Code. Also targetted was section 1721 (b) Titled "Libraries" which enacts the the code titled "Requirements for certain Libraries with computers having internet access" What they do not target are Paragraphs 1711 and 1721 (a) which are directives against and defining the requirements for SCHOOLS to qualify for E-Rate funds. So all you school districts out there don't turn off you filtering software yet.
2 D0415P.HTM
CIPA Act
http://www.on-z.net/001218cipa.pdf
Court Ruling
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/0
>tens of thousands of Web sites contain child pornography.
Not true, it is more like a hundred. See Philip Jenkins' book
I'm the sysadmin for a library deep in the buckle of the bible belt. We will be returning to the rules in effect prior to CIPA.
Kids can't access the net without showing their library card. With that we lookup what their PARENTS selected when they authorized them to have net access. Our records will show one of the following choices:
1. No Access
2. Only with a parent present
3. Filtered Access
4. Unfiltered access
Then it depends where they access. ANYONE, child or adult, who accesses from an exposed monitor will have web access filtered. We have 14 workstations with recessed displays in our main branch and one at each rural branch.
Filtered users also have IRC & telnet restricted, unfiltered users have access to text services even on the exposed stations.
We have used variations of this policy of parental control since 1995 and even in this VERY conservative community have had zero complaints. Some parents might want to impose their rules on others, but seem to know they wouldn't get very far with it.
Democrat delenda est
It's a matter of the best use of limited resources ($).
With the Internet, you have to pay (for your filter) NOT to get everything.
You seem to point this out, but use it to justify that libraries "have been using filtering." No they haven't. They've just been trying to provide the most for their patrons for their money.
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
These crack-smokin mods obviously don't know high humor when they see it...
Spoken like a true childless sole. Your kids will listen to you as well as you listened to your parents. Which ought to scare most. My mom told me that drugs and drinking were not good for me, but that only means that I wored harder at making sure she never found out.
If I had access to the type of things my kids have access to now, I'd never have left the house or Library.
This whole argument puts way to much stock in the internet for research anyway. Proper research for any project still belongs in the library but with books. Most web sites can only be written off and heasay and inuento, definetly not as a valid resource for any serious research.
I am speaking as a father of 2 boys (19,14) and 2 girls (18, 13), all honor students. I am a proud user of NetNanny and would love to say I can fully trust my kids but when they are constantly bombarded with graphic material from all sorts of media it is getting close to being an impossible task for any one parent.
Why is it that every song, movie, sitcom has to be filled with foul language or sexually explicit topics. What was so wrong with "I love Lucy"? People watched and people liked.
Well, I'm done ranting. Think I'll move my familie to the bush this weekend.
/Cranky Bastard
With adults? Absolutely not.
If someone in a library tries to expose my son in that manner I would be tried for that person's murder.
You'll get no argument from me there. I'd tear someone apart if they tried to molest a child.
My position is that kids should not be taught that sex is bad (regardless of orientation) and should to be taught about abstinence and how to protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy if they decide engage in sex.
Most adolescents are going to have sex and I don't think that repressing their sexuality will ever work - more importantly, it's not healthy from a mental standpoint. It's biology, which should be (and often isn't) tempered with common sense.
Pedophiles and child pornographers are predators and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is *never* appropriate for adults to have sex with minors.
As for CITA, the court (and I) disagrees with your position. Blocking something or not allowing someone to get it freely is censorship, which isn't appropriate.
The ultimate arbiter of what's proper and improper for children to access is not Congress, not me, not a neighbor, but you - the parent. You're perfectly within your rights to raise and look after your children. People have different ways of raising kids and I wouldn't brook interference with the way I raise my kids any more than you would. I'm just stating my opinion. :)
well, as an IT manager at a fairly decent-sized public library, i'd have to say that we were all greatly relieved to hear this news today. of course, we'd been watching the issue closely. i have the fortune of working at a library that is in a community that is very finacially supportive of their library, and we had already decided that, should CIPA pass, we would take the cut in funding and not install filters. the cost of installing filters would nearly have equalled what the government was giving us, anyways, since the law would have required filtering on *all* of our machines, even the staffs'.
at our library, if you're under 18, you must have a parent or guardian sign for you when you receive your library card (which you must use to access the computers). the form they sign essentially notifies them that all of our computers offer unfiltered internet access, and should they be concerned that their children may access things the parents don't want them to see, well, then don't leave them by themselves at the library.
when will people learn that you can't legislate morality?
How about one for limited copyright once, please?
The real Seth Finkelstein has slashdot uid #90154
The name is also a subtle misspelling
My name is Seth Finkelstein, the troll is using the name Seth Finkelstien
I did not post the above message in this thread. I have enough troubles without troll imposters.
They're NOT YOUR tax dollars. They're PUBLIC funds , the usage of which is decided by Constitional processes for the public interest and good. A system where the usage of the money you pay in taxes is based on your personal whim is called a plutocracy. We live in a (nominally) democratic republic.
Should have been Porn Fair Use
This Kind of thinking says that it is okay to keep loaded, unlocked guns in the living room.
Hardly. That kind of thinking says that everyone shouldn't be prevented from owning guns because some people leave them loaded and unlocked in the living room.
The problem with what is called free speech is that it is whole something that is interpreted not an absolute. I cannot publically say "I will Kill X Person" if that person is in any kind of office, doesn't hat limit my free speech?
Yes, it does. The Supreme Court has ruled that in certain limited cases, the right to free speech can be limited when its exercise would prevent others from exercising their rights. Your example would be a direct threat to the other person's right to life, and so it's not Constitutionally protected. The possibility that a child who will be harmed by pornography being exposed to it in a public library is not such a direct threat, and therefore the First Amendment restricts Congress from passing laws to prevent it.
The simple fact is that filters, software or fingers on power buttons are needed
Actually, that's your opinion. Many people disagree. I'm not sure whether or not I do, but it's by no means a fact.
The simple fact is that the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to mandate filtering in public libraries. That is fact, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise on appeal.
We have police to enforce community standards,
No. We have police to protect the health and saftey of community members. Their purpose is not to enforce tyranny of the majority. If anything, the purpose of the government and of the police is to prevent such tyranny.
We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fact is that filtering software does do this, by preventing access to sites that it shouldn't. If the library wishes to enforce a "no porn" policy (and that should be a matter for the library board to decide, not government on any level), then it should be enforced by oversight of the terminals, not by throwing poorly written software with a political agenda on the machines and washing their hands of any problems.
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
I'm not even going to give my personal opinion on filtering or child porn. No, what I want is an answer, a definitive answer to the question of federal funds vs rights. The governments position was that if the libraries took federal money, they had to use the filtering software. The judges ruled this was a violation of the first ammendment, federal funds or no.
So what makes this different from other situations where federal money is handed out? The general rule over the years has been, if you take federal dollars, you abide by the federal will, even if it means local and individual authority and autonomy is thrown out. This is why laws like Title IX were enacted. How many universities were forced to do something, such as admit women or increase minority enrollment, because they were taking federal funds, be it direct grants or student aid?
And now the court tosses that reasoning on it's head. Rights come first, even if federal dollars are involved. I want clarity here. I want the courts to rule, one way or the other. Does taking the money take precedence over rights and local autonomy, or vice versa? A definitive legal answer, please.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
It has nothing to do with autonomy. Nobody guaranteed anyone autonomy. But if the government tries to impose a law that violates the Constitution, then it's gonna get smacked down (or should anyway). That's the issue here. If it hadn't violated the Constitution, then it would probably be in force now.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Not suggesting that you did. It's a major undercurrent in our culture and a prevailing view.
What I do believe is that there are things that should be controlled, just like medicine. I have very useful drugs at home (strong pain relievers), that could be deadly to my son, that I restrict him from.
We have some common ground here I'll get to in a second. But I'm very suspicious of stuff (sex, drugs, rock its the responsibility of the parent to ensure their kids are properly supervised.
I'm just saying that it's not up the library or the government to decide what kids read, it's up to you. It's not up the the library to restrict certain books, web sites, or movies from kids. It's up to you. What you find "mature" for your kid might not be for mine, and vice versa.
I'm not disparaging your parenting here - I'm sure you love your kids and want a good life for them. But I shouldn't have to go hunt down a librarian for each web site I want to visit (or "banned book" or whatever) that's been restricted; your kid shouldn't be on the library computer (or in the library at all) without your supervision.
While CIPA was overturned for public libraries by this decision, K-12 libraries and school districts are still required to filter Internet content by July 1, 2002.
While I agree that his post was rather crass, he does have a point. You can't go blocking information that adults should have access to just because some people want to leave their kids at the library unsupervised. Personally, I don't think kids should be at the library unsupervised. I've had to put up with annoying little brats making all kinds of noise and creating distractions because their parents are too busy to keep an eye on them. It's one of the main things I dislike about the library. Personally, I think it should be up to the library whether they want to install filters on some computers or not. If you want such filters, and other parents in your area want them, then work with the library to set up a few computers for a kids section and install the filters on them. That way you can let your kids use them without taking away the rights of adults to access the information that they want. We don't need the government acting in such a hamfisted manner and forcing all of us to only have access to material suitable for a child.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The brunt of my research was documenting some 6000+ examples of overblocking -- blocking of sites that weren't consistent with respective filtering programs' blocking definitions and policies.
My report is available at http://cyber.law.harvard.e du/people/edelman/mul-v-us
Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
I read up on this issue as much as I could but something else is still bothering me. What effect does this decision have on public schools? The only mention in this case is of libraries, but what will happen to schools also forced to use censorware under this act?
Our high school was forced by our country to install filtering software this year (I presume under CIPA). Oddly enough, our school's computer people got to make the proxy with the filtering software, and subsequently decided to name it "bigbrother." You can bet that the county loved that when they heard it...
I don't think that children react to situations like those you described in the same way as adults. Without a frame of reference, the severity of the content has so much less impact. Put another way, children tend to be more accepting of what they see without coming to immediate conclusions; it usually just sparks off more questions. I base this off of my own experiences of course, but it seems to hold true with my observations of many children that I know.
And for what it is worth, when I was child, I got to see a lot more visually disturbing stuff than what was described above. My father was a plastic surgeon for the Air Force, and his preferred method of explaining life's more fatal lessons was show and tell.
I've seen children with everything from fingers to ears to faces chewed off. I've seen a motorcyclist who managed to survive the head trauma but ultimately died because half his skin came off while he bounced down the interstate at 80mph (despite his leathers). If there was an opportunity for proving an ugly, messy point, Dad made sure I was with him during rounds that morning. Look son, dogs bred for fighting can do bad things to children. This is what can happen to a motorcyclist who hits gravel on the freeway.
I came away with two very valuable lessons. 1) The human body can put up with some amazing damage before it gives out. 2) I wasn't going to be a doctor when I grew up, as I didn't like seeing the insides of people.
That said however, if I was ever confronted with a gaping chest wound, I doubt that I would find it as traumatizing as I would have without the experience.
And oddly enough, only after years of other experiences did I ever finally conclude that large, mean, inbred dogs are inherently dangerous. As for motorcycles, I came to a completely different conclusion than my father- though risky, motorcycles have their place. So even then, my father could only provide the information; he could not provide the conclusion.
-Hope
Can we have a checkbox to exclude debates about evil Seth vs. evil Michael and how the Censorware Project collapsed in infighting? Thanks.
Not to Split Hairs, but it wasn't my position or opinion that the filtering be used to prevent PORN, but to subjectivley filter out content that is harmful under communicty standards. Please do not confuse my opinion with the spcific subject of porn filters. It is short sighted to imagine that filtering software be used only to block porn (ooo aaaa) but more like, how about we prevent end users from downloading viruses on the computers my purloined tax funds pay for. Block the virus at the connection to the internet and you remove the need to block it at the computer!
Beyond that, your reply comes close to proving my actual point, and not the previously mentioned 1 inch view. Laws are consensual, if we didn't consent to obey them en masse then they would be unenforcable, we ask the police to enforce these laws (and the military too). Laws in the end, despite what some people may think end up being the opinion of the majority who vote with their minds dollars and hearts. Just cuz less than 20 percent of US citizens exercise their franchise is no reason to fear, no, not at all
Hello Kettle,
You, my friend are as black as pitch.
With love, Pot.
Your post is the most succinct summation of this subject I've had the pleasure to read. This is one of those times I wish I was a moderator. Bravo.
Let me make this clear: porn did not win a victory here. The victory was won for information that would otherwise be blocked by mechanisms that don't know the difference between a tit and a tat. THe argument from a library standpoint has never been in favor of porn, and always in favor of access to protected speech. The argument from the extreme nutty right has always been in favor of draconian thought policing and always against intellectual freedom.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
There are more than 100,000 pornographic Web sites that can be accessed for free and without providing any registration information Is this list in the public record?
All this argument boils down to is some moron who doesn't believe that they ought to have to watch their children, or some overprotective fool who wants to protect her "babies" from that "sinful stuff" (which ummm, got her the babies in the first place...).
... come get mom or dad..." - then as they get older, progress in the depth of the conversation...
To which the Court essentially said: "Watch your own damn kids", and look at the porn discretely.
So to the libraries - configure the terminals so there's privacy screens, or they're recessed, or whatever - do this for every terminal you have. Enough of the "well, we have ONE, you'll just have to wait" BS - just do your damn job, and provide me access with my tax dollars...
To the parents: Watch your own damn kids. And how about this novel idea: "TEACH YOUR KIDS HOW TO SURF THE NET!" Just like you teach Jr. how to cross the street, now you have to add another skill to it... And don't try to play that moronic game where you tell him not to surf just like you tell him not to drink - all it does is screw the kid up more. Teach the kid what the dangers are. Have a conversation with your child (umm, if you see something that you don't understand, frightens you, or
Wouldn't this be more sensible, cheaper, and less invasive on all our rights than the bullshit we're going through now?
There is a Law.com article on it also.
... even a library that uses software filters has opened its Internet collection for indiscriminate use by the general public," Becker wrote.
Copy/pasted below:
*******
Children's Internet Protection Act Struck Down
Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
06-03-2002
Striking down key provisions of the Children's Internet Protection Act as unconstitutional, a special three-judge U.S. District Court in Philadelphia has ruled that Congress went too far when it threatened to pull certain federal funds from any public library that failed to install "filtering" software to block access to sexually explicit Web sites.
The judges found that the law runs afoul of the First Amendment because filtering software simply blocks too much and that mandating its use would therefore force libraries to censor the speech of millions of Internet speakers.
"Commercially available filtering programs erroneously block a huge amount of speech that is protected by the First Amendment," Chief Judge Edward R. Becker of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a 198-page decision in American Library Association v. United States. (Decision in Word format.)
Becker, who was joined by U.S. District Judges John P. Fullam and Harvey Bartle III, found that the government failed to show the law was "narrowly tailored."
"The First Amendment demands the precision of a scalpel, not a sledgehammer," Becker wrote.
In a rarely used provision, Congress mandated that any appeal of Friday's decision will go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court which is required under the law to take up the case.
The ruling was applauded by the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, who had argued that the law would make it tougher for people without home computers to get information on topics such as breast cancer and homosexuality, which are sometimes accidentally blocked by the filters.
Stefan Presser, the ACLU's legal director in Pennsylvania, said he hopes the ruling will convince Congress to give up its effort to regulate speech on the Internet since the courts have also struck down two previous laws -- the 1996 Communications Decency Act and the 1998 Child Online Protection Act.
"It is certainly my hope that now that Congress has taken three strikes it will get out of the business," Presser said.
ANALYSIS OF FILTERING SOFTWARE
Becker's opinion opens with a three-page table of contents which shows that about half the decision is devoted to fact-finding.
One of the largest sections in the fact-finding focuses on the technology of filtering software -- who makes it, what it does and how it works.
The court concluded that all filtering software suffers from two key flaws -- "overblocking," in which the software blocks access to protected speech, and "underblocking," in which it fails to block sites that include material that is obscene or harmful to minors.
And since the Internet keeps expanding everyday, the court concluded that the software will never be good enough.
"No presently conceivable technology can make the judgments necessary to determine whether a visual depiction fits the legal definitions of obscenity, child pornography, or harmful to minors. Given the state of the art in filtering and image recognition technology, and the rapidly changing and expanding nature of the Web, we find that filtering products' shortcomings will not be solved through a technical solution in the foreseeable future," Becker wrote.
Government lawyers urged the court to uphold the law unless the plaintiffs could show that any public library that complies with CIPA's conditions will necessarily violate the First Amendment.
Plaintiffs' lawyers insisted that the test was not so strict and that they were required only to show that CIPA would effectively restrict library patrons' access to "substantial amounts" of constitutionally protected speech, therefore causing many libraries to violate the First Amendment.
Becker took the easy way out, saying the government lost even under the stricter test.
"We believe that CIPA's constitutionality fails even under this more restrictive test of facial validity urged on us by the government. Because of the inherent limitations in filtering technology, public libraries can never comply with CIPA without blocking access to a substantial amount of speech that is both constitutionally protected and fails to meet even the filtering companies' own blocking criteria," Becker wrote.
LIBRARY AS PUBLIC FORUM
One of the key battles in the case was over whether a public library is a public forum.
Government lawyers argued that librarians already exercise considerable discretion in choosing a library's collection of books. As a result, they said, a public library is a "limited public forum" whose content-based decisions are constitutional so long as they are "rational."
But plaintiffs' lawyers insisted that the court should subject CIPA to "strict scrutiny" since it attempts to regulate the Internet, a forum that is separate from the library's book collection and more closely resembles the town square.
Becker sided with the plaintiffs, saying "the relevant forum for analysis is not the library's entire collection, which includes both print and electronic media, such as the Internet, but rather the specific forum created when the library provides its patrons with Internet access."
The Internet, Becker said, has been described by the U.S. Supreme Court as a "vast democratic forum" that is open to any member of the public to speak on subjects "as diverse as human thought."
As a result, Becker said, if a public library provides Internet access and then "selectively excludes" certain speech on the basis of its content, courts must employ the strict scrutiny test.
"These exclusions risk fundamentally distorting the unique marketplace of ideas that public libraries create when they open their collections, via the Internet, to the speech of millions of individuals around the world on a virtually limitless number of subjects," Becker wrote.
"When public libraries provide their patrons with Internet access, they intentionally open their doors to vast amounts of speech that clearly lacks sufficient quality to ever be considered for the library's print collection. Unless a library allows access to only those sites that have been preselected as having particular value
Government lawyers argued that one of CIPA's goals was to protect library patrons from being harassed by other patrons who wanted to use the Internet access for sexually explicit or even illegal material.
But Becker found there were better ways of solving the problem.
"The proper method for a library to deter unlawful or inappropriate patron conduct, such as harassment or assault of other patrons, is to impose sanctions on such conduct, such as either removing the patron from the library, revoking the patron's library privileges, or, in the appropriate case, calling the police," Becker wrote.
Becker agreed, however, that the government has a legitimate interest in "preventing the dissemination of obscenity, child pornography, or in the case of minors, material harmful to minors, and in protecting library patrons from being unwillingly exposed to offensive, sexually explicit material."
But even such a valid goal can't save a law that isn't "narrowly tailored," Becker said.
On that point, Becker said, CIPA is fatally flawed.
"Given the substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech blocked by the filters studied, we conclude that use of such filters is not narrowly tailored with respect to the government's interest in preventing the dissemination of obscenity, child pornography, and material harmful to minors," Becker wrote.
"Given the inherent limitations in the current state of the art of automated classification systems, and the limits of human review in relation to the size, rate of growth, and rate of change of the Web, there is a tradeoff between underblocking and overblocking that is inherent in any filtering technology," Becker wrote.