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.
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."
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
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.
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
'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
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.
This is not about defending porn. It's about defending a citizen's right to control his/her own access to information, some of which may be porn. It disturbs me to see how many people -- willfully or, worse, not -- miss the distinction and refuse to think at the right level of abstraction.
The question is, who determines what you see? You, or the government? And before you rant off about not wanting "your" tax dollars showing porn, let me state that I don't want any of my tax dollars supporting intrusive government-mandated censorship.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
What's sickening is being subjected to all this Finklestein vs. Sims Egotist Deathmatch in the first place. Jeez, get a room ya lovebirds.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
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.
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.
No, you can protect the kids from that by calling the cops. There are laws against public lewd behavior, you know.
There are millions of things the government spends its money on that I don't want my tax dollars being used for. Everyone else has their own list of pet peeves as well. Why should yours be any more important than anyone else's? And who are you to say that it's OK to cut people off from whole realms of information that is not indecent to support your "Won't somebody please think of the children?" crusade?
> I for one never want to see my tax dollars being use *even once* for viewing crap like porn.
And I dont want to see my tax dollars being used *even once* for viewing crap like Brittany Spears fan sites. Think I'll get my way? Shuttup and tolerate.
Anyhow, as your fight against drugs has proven, banning something only puts it furthur underground, where the damage to its participants becomes subject to many of the other subcultures and undergrounds.
> Some of the problem is adults whacking off in libraries looking at porn. We can protect the kids from that by banning porn altogether.
I have a brilliant idea. Why not ban adults from whacking off in libraries?
People like you are dumb. =)
"Old man yells at systemd"
CNN "say that the law takes an inappropriate one-size-fits-all approach that treats children and adults the same"
No, dumbass. CNN did not "say" that. CNN is summarizing what "Critics of the law" say.
Some of the problem is adults whacking off in libraries looking at porn. We can protect the kids from that by banning porn altogether.
Then why don't you just deal with the adults who are whacking off in public and leave the rest of us alone? And if you think banning porn will "protect" kids from public indecency, you've got another thing coming. (no pun intended)
Libraries are increasingly having to deal with people doing all sorts of inappropriate things: shooting drugs, having sex, etc. A lot of it is due to the lack of affordable housing and unemployment. People go to the library because it's relatively quie, air conditioned/heated, and they have no where else to go.
Ban the porn and you're still going to have a problem. So why not deal with the actual problem instead of a manufactured "cause" of it?
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.
And since you're consistant, you'll support the banning of any other pornographic materials at the library as well. That means any books related to sex, anatomy books and the Bible.
And while we're deciding what our tax dollars can and cannot support, let me add my list:
Nuclear weapons
Corporate subsidies
Half the Pentagon's budget
White House staff salaries
Any program that may benefit you in particular
That CNN report is one side of the story, and doesn't even mention the other side.
Oh look! It's the other side of the story! Didn't read too hard did ya?
"Justice Department lawyers defending the law argued that Internet smut is so pervasive that protections are necessary to keep it away from youngsters, and that the law simply calls for libraries to use the same care in selecting online content that they use for books and magazines.
"They also point out that libraries can simply turn down the federal funding if they want to provide unfiltered Web access."
This is just a case of them furthering their agenda by trying to get poor people on their side.
Again, as it's patently obvious to anyone with half a brain, CNN is summarizing something someone else is saying. In this case, the ACLU.
"Attorneys for the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union contend the law is unenforceable, unconstitutional, vague and overbroad. They say it denies poor people without home computers the same full access to information as their wealthier neighbors."
What about the millions of Americans (including the poor) that don't want their children subject to pornography?
Generally, libraries will not give internet access to children without their parents' permission. Don't want kids looking up porn at the library? Don't give them permission. Problem solved.
If we'd simply apply the decency laws to libraries like we do to our city streets, we'd solve the problem.
I agree. So why would you need to ban pornographic materials if you're enforcing the decency laws? If someone is not being publicly indecent in the library, then why does it matter to you whether they view porn on computers at the library?
Tell me why anyone would defend porn?
Cause it's neat.
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); }
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.
Oh really? So, you've completed your 20 page proof that pron is the direct cause of adults masturbating in public areas? Funny, cause I love porn, and I've never even attempted to have sex, let alone masturbate outside of my own bedroom (although, I dont want to alarm you, but I have had sex in my girlfriends bedroom too.)
Can I use some of the foods you eat as inarguable proof that those foods lead to the desire to censor porn? Is that how your cause and effect skills work?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Actually, for that matter, I'm assuming any person that whips their thing out and begins masturbating in front of a child in a playground means we should ban children! Clearly, they are causing adults to engage in lewd behaviour. (And video games lead to killing, and cars lead to drinking and driving, and knives obviously lead to people stabbing other people .. )
.. say, a Brittany Spears website? Or a few Rueben paintings?
I thought America was built on the concept that you go after the people who act irresponsibly, not remove the liberties of thousands of people in order to attempt (cause it doesn't even always work) to stymie a few crazies' behaviour? And dont you think the folks who masturbate in libraries are just going to use the next best thing
"Old man yells at systemd"
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?
OK, have it your way. Now, who gets to decide what constitutes "pornography"? You? Me? George Bush? Is a picture of a nude woman porn? What about a picture of a woman showing how to give a breast self-exam? What about a statue, say, Michelangelo's David?
Probably the Miller test --
a) Does it appeal to prurient nature (community standards)?
b) Does it depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner?
c) Is it devoid of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value?
All three conditions must be met for something to be considered obscene under the Miller test, judging from some Google searches.
So, unless it's something like serious studies of the long-term psychological impact of BDSM on its participants with respect to learned helplessness, the answer is often going to be "yes, they're obscene".
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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 drop it already. It's over and done with. Go back to your life, or at the very least try to start one.
Nah. Even if their filtering worked, it doesn't excuse the fact that they swore up and down that it wasn't possible until the Court forced them to implement it, and that until then they were deliberately riding on massive-scale copyright infringement for publicity and the hope of eventual profits.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
I didn't write this:
Bennett Haselton's comments on Michael Sims' hijacking
I didn't write this:
Jonathan Wallace's comments on Michael Sims' hijacking
Are they, too, madmen? You can ask them if they wrote it.
I didn't write this, the public statement of Censorware Project:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010716063335/http://c ensorware.net/index.html
Is that lunacy?
I keep asking these questions: Am I wrong for legal worries? What would you DO in the face of smear-attack and under such pressure? Would you, if you had such worries, act so nicely as is preached?
I never get an answer which isn't easy preaching or name-calling.
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.
sex with the lights on
all positions except missionary
oral, anal, and any other kind of intercourse except vaginal
any sex outside of a legal marraige
This, obviously, means that all homosexual relations are illegal in the state of VA. In fact,
several years ago, a lesbian woman had her son taken away from her - because she was committing a crime (having sex with her partner), in the home the child was in. Apparently that sort of thing has changed a bit, and obviously these laws are rarely enforced, but they're still on the books.
For more stupid laws see: http://www.dumblaws.com/
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
Further on the point, Michael Sims broke legal trust, right before the CIPA trial. That's not ancient history. On-topic: What he did was a large factor in derailing the anticensorware work I had planned to coincide for CIPA. That matters.
Again, what would you DO in such a situation? Besides the name-calling, Michael Sims put material on the web which publicized to every censorware company every detail of every decryption he knew I'd done (it's on my site now because he publicized it, so I figured I might as well put it up too, in a positive context).
This was extremely destructive given that for the CIPA trial, one censorware company became very legally aggressive
How would you handle this? What's wrong in my Slashdot code proposal ? (besides failing, that's hindsight)
I don't say I'm good at politics. I just try to muddle through. I constantly ask people to take into account, in judging me, the pressures I face. And to consider, without facile moralizing, what they would do if they were in my place.
Well, there are existing laws against public lewd behavior (as other posters have noted). But, let's assume that banning porn would solve the problem. The principle here is a dangerous one. Consider it's application in the following situation (warning: this reducto ad absurdum argument may be offensive to some):
Consider: "Some Jews are rapists and murders. By banning Jews (i.e. killing them), we eliminate Jewish rapists and murderers."
Now, there's no flaw in that logic: Genocide does eliminate the negative elements of a particular group. It's horribly frightening that such an argument even carried the day, some 70 years ago. The problem, of course, is that the side effect (killing of innocents) is completely unacceptable.
How is it that the same principle can be applied in the case of pornography? Do we value freedom of expression far less than the lives of innocent people?
Some will no doubt say, "Definately! Free speech matters far less than the right to life". Others (myself among them) would argue that without free speech, particularly unpopular or critical speech, democracy goes to hell because one can't spread ideas critical of the government, and sway opinion at the polls. The right to life is lost as soon as a tyrant comes to power where freedom of speech is already lost.
So, the proposed method of dealing with access to pornography in public libraries is unacceptable. This does not mean that access to such material should not be restricted in some contexts (minors, for example).
When I was growing up, public libraries had two sections, a "childrens'" section and an "adult" section. Minors could use the adult section with permission from their parents, and most did, to research school projects, around the age of 13.
Restricting internet access in a childrens' section of a library might be a reasonable prior restraint, even if it excludes otherwise benign material. However, the adult section, if it provides internet access, should have no blocking software whatever.
Just because something solves a problem, does not mean that the solution isn't worse than the problem solved, nor does it mean that better solutions don't exist.
You could've hired me.
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.
> Also, are we all forgetting that IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 IN MOST STATES TO VIEW PORNOGRAPHY?
.. it is the 'memory and rulebook' of how a society is expected to live and behave, where ideas and lessons propogate through generations via culture and social interaction), and suddenly, the only thing preventing anyone from even knowing pronography is unsuitable for children is the stability and longevity of your technological solution.
It's also illegal for under 16 year olds to drive - and yet, its not illegal for under 16 year olds to hold a key to a car (analoguous to having a search engine capable of finding porn.)
What you are advocating is to remove the responsibilities of the parent and child (yes, lest we forget, children are expected to hold a modicum of decent judgement and proper behaviour without the need for a straight jacket) to monitor their consumption and act responsibility - and placing that responsibility in the hands of a technology. Eventually, people forget how to raise a child themselves (this is what culture and society is about
Ironcially, probably the best solution is just to ensure that rows of computers are in well lit, well travelled areas of the library - anyone viewing matieral that offends a suitable amount of people in the library can be dealt with in a personal and likely far more appropriately scoped manner.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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 problem here is that this is a slippery slope. You can go to the library and read explicit sexual novels, and many books that can be found at public libraries have graphic pictures. Try the art section, for starters, or the medical/human sexuality section. Where do you draw the line? We don't take art out of the library because children might look at it-- we trust them to be suprevised if they cannot take care of themselves. Once you begin drawing lines like this, between what can be in a public library and what can't, where are you going to draw the line? With Huck Finn be allowed in your library?
Next comes the problem with filters themselves as a viable tool, even should you decide that you want to draw that line and where you want to draw it. I, personally, think it's better for a kid to stumble on a nude picture accidentally than for a teen to try to look up breast self-exams or information on STDs and not be able to. Most filters cannot effectively distinguish. As for people who directly go looking for porn, well, they'd probably be jacking off in the art section anyhow, if they were that resourseful and desperate.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
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.
And what child has been harmed by seeing a big set of boobs anyway?!?
Hell, in Africa and South America and some beaches on the mediteranean (sp?) people walk around with their knockers hanging out all day long.
Sheesh, let the puppies breathe already! So what if you little johnny sees them, its part of life already.
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
"Look, can we take this to e-mail?"
so I can stalk you too? I NEED NEW TARGETS.
BilldaCat
"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
I don't know that I'd consider them "graphic depictions", but there are some pretty honest depictions of things in the Bible. It doesn't glorify them, but it doesn't hide them.
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.
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
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. :)
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
As for research... the internet is probably the greatest single research tool there is. Not just for factual information, which you have to be careful about, but also current events, opinions, all sorts of things. Books are great, but they can't compare with the volume of information available on the internet.
Finally, it's your choice to use NetNanny on your own computer, but the fact that it does not, and cannot operate with out both over and underblocking (see article) makes it unsuitable for public computers.
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 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
I don't want my tax dollars used to make morons like you happy. This isn't about letting people view porn at the library. These filters block out A LOT of stuff besides porn, and additionally, they block a lot of stuff that shouldn't be blocked anyway. There aren't any filters that have an acceptable accuracy level. Then there's the issue of who gets to decide what is suitable. That's one of the reasons that this law didn't pass. Adults shouldn't be forced to only have access to information suitable for a child. That's just stupid, and unconstitutional to boot.
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
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
B.Franklin
I don't care whether it's the KKK or the Black Panthers or Pr0n. If it's protected speech, it's protected completely.
Half-assed liberty is NO liberty at all and I refuse to comprimise on this most basic of our rights.
I hate pr0n. I see absolutely nothing in it that is socially redeeming at any level. None at all. Those who enjoy it are beyond my comprehension. But its protected. And the protection of that right is more important than my moral outrage that this kind of crap is available anywhere.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
Bzzzt. That's why we're not a direct democracy in the US... because sometimes the majority is wrong, and so the minority opinion is protected. The Founders deliberately carved out a safe harbor of opinion and even action, to guard against the "tyranny of the majority". There are certain limits beyond which no one -- not even the majority -- can trespass.
It does not matter if every single adult, but one, believes that pornography is wrong. That one is still entitled to view it if he/she so chooses. That's what we mean by "adult". It's also what we mean by "citizen". These are two words whose meanings have been so taffy-tortured and denatured that they are essentially noise to most people's ears.
No, it seems like the kids are the most important thing -- or rather, are heart-breakingly named as the most important thing -- whenever some people want to stick their noses into my private life. "Oh, think of the kids" is the common cry of the would-be Moral Regulator, because hey, who can argue with protecting kids? Of course no one -- and those screaming just hope you never notice that their proposal is not about kids at all.
Consider a world where the government -- or vocal self-appointed moral guardians -- decide a priori and for everyone what is moral and good, or immoral and banned
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.