Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court to Hear CIPA Case
Ruger writes "The Supreme Court of the United States will "decide if public libraries can be forced to install software blocking sexually explicit Web sites," according to this article from the Associated Press. US lawmakers have passed three laws to 'protect' children from Internet pornography, but the Court struck down the first and blocked the second from taking effect. 'A three-judge federal panel ruled the Children's Internet Protection Act violates the First Amendment because the filtering programs also block sites on politics, health, science and other non-pornographic topics.'" Our previous story on this ongoing case will bring you up to speed on the issues.
Those who's interest it is in finding ANY chink in the 1st amendment to allow them to censor the Internet will keep trying. This is their third attempt...
They are now down to "we must protect the children". Will the court buy it? Hopefully not. Legislation should NOT be used to do the work of respobsible parents.
As an adult, I should have unfettered access. A child's protection is not sufficient cause to violate MY 1st amendment rights. It is the parent's responsibility to filter for the child, not society's.
Corporatism != Free Market
Will the librarian turn off the controls at the legitimate request of an adult or child. If so, there's no debate and no abridgement of free access.
Otherwise, I see absolutely no harm in having tools that slow down teenagers from leaving goatse.cx sitting on library computers as a "joke" that my 5 year old daughter has to walk through.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the existing nanny software restricts many non-Porno sites & is expensive and difficult to administer.
So the upshot will be that many libraries will have to cancel internet access altogether if forced to comply.
Now if the law included a nationwide site license for the nanny software & money to libraries for set up & support, then it would be a simpler decision between do we support porn in the library or not.
However, the decision the USSC is facing is more along the lines of do we allow libraries to provide internet access or not.
It's not just a question of parenting and observation of your child's activities anymore; adult content isn't something you have to go looking for anymore. It lands in my inbox every day, thanks to spammers. Must I forbid my children from using the computer at all? That's not a good solution either.
I, for one, would rather see them focusing efforts on keeping the adult sites from using "push" marketing tactics and pass enforcable laws against the spammers.
...that tries to convince you it's "for the children."
It seems to be a convenient way to suppretitiously legislate morality-based attacks on personal liberty.
vk.
It keeps bound editions of Hustler and Playboy. It stores them in the Rare Book Collection to prevent them from being stolen, defaced or mutilated, according to this letter from Christian Heritage Tours (Google takes you to the oddest places sometimes).
going to come from?
Maybe you haven't noticed, but most libraries are overworked and underfunded as it is.
Requiring them to purchase & maintain new software will likely lead to many canceling Internet Access altogether.
As far as your five year old, isn't she a little young to be wandering around the library by herself?
You gonna allow Lolita? How bout What is it, fanny hill? Romance novels? Sex ed books? The karma sutra? The joy of sex? Our bodies Our selves?
Frankly, i have no problem with them adding pornography to the libraries, because I am unwilling to draw that line for someone else.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
I guess I don't know why this is such a big deal. Why can't a library enforce its usage policy with a filter. This argument appears earlier, but you don't see a library having a "porn day" where they show porno's all day long. How is blocking access to pornographic sites any different? It doesn't infringe on free speech because you can find your own way to look at porn... just not at a library.
www.superdorf.com
Nobody's bawling for the right to view porn here either. They're complaining about mandatory filters that can't discern between porn and normal sites because they're simply keyword based (ie, if you run a site on breast cancer it sees breast and you're blacklisted) and because these filters are often intentionally used to block web sites that have been deemed governmentally unsanctioned for your viewing, such as the Planned Parenthood website or the ACLU site. If there were an effective way of just filtering out the porn sites that would be great. But what this law mandated wasn't that, it was broad incompetent and/or malicious filtering which blocked legitimate sites.
The problem with these filters isn't what they let through, but what they block. (In addition to them being federally mandated as opposed to the library's own choice.)
Seriously, these filters are really stupid. At my local library, you get the choice when you sit down to use filtered or un-filtered. For kicks, I chose filtered, then tried to find a book I wanted in the library's own catalog. My request was blocked because the book was titled "The First Sex," a book about how women are about to take over the world.
I agree that it's my duty to filter what my child sees. However the one place that should be a safe place to drop the kid off is the library.
What the hell? Your second sentence is completely at odds with your first one! First you accept responsiblity for filtering the data your child gets. Then you follow that up with a claim that you should be able to shirk your responsibilities by dropping the little tyke off at the library.
Do we really want to discourage children spending time at a place where they can learn?
There is so much wrong with that sentence ... where to start. No one is talking about discouraging children from going to the library. Hell, if kids think they can look at nude pictures, they'll probably beg to go to the library. So the problem isn't on their end, it's with you. You're choosing to discourage them because of your personal beliefs. Second, they will be learning at the library it's just that you're afraid of them having access to material that you don't like. It sounds kind of funny but when a child sees some dirty picture, they are learning that such material exists. Filters or no filters, they will continue to learn at the library.
Parents have little enough time - forcing them to spend what they have watching what their kids see at a place that should be a safe haven is going to discourage discovery and learning on the behalf of the kids.
Hey, the library is not a babysitting service. You're going to have to make a choice here. What's more important: monitoring what your children see or your free time. Don't give us this "safe haven" crap. A library is full of information. If you don't want you kids to have access to certain kinds of information, then be prepared to take the responsibility yourself.
GMD
watch this
"Parents should not be afraid to send their children to the library, either because they might be exposed to such materials or because the library's free, filterless computers might attract people with a propensity to victimize children," wrote Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who was elected to the U.S. Senate last week.
when my child is on the internet I monitor what she surfs. why should this be different at the library. maybe the issue is parents want to "send their children" instead of taking a part in it.
We need to focus on raising our children not finding others to do it. Porn stopping software stops all sorts of things other then porn. and who is who to tell me what is acceptable and what is not? I'll raise my kid thank you very much. and in doing so I want her to have access to as much information as she needs to fullfill her life. the focus should not be on what our kids see but how we teach them to deal with it. This is the real world people. there are uncomfortable situations everywhere. I don't believe we should stick goat sex up on a wide screen or anything like that. but let me be responcible for my own child.
Has anyone EVER seen someone looking up porn in a library? I certainly haven't. My local library's 8Eö>2_Jals are in plain view of the entire upstairs floor. Someone would have to be awful gutsy to display their moral decadence so blatantly in public.
Secondly, they need to at least get the language right. Children do not look up porn; immature teenage boys do. You don't just randomly stumble into porn sites.
On the other hand, I have no problem with libraries filtering their content as long as they use open source software like DansGuardian and ONLY use it to block porn sites. I've set this up for clients and it works nearly flawlessly.
There are a number of people who might feel embarrassed/ashamed asking a complete stranger for permission to access websites on legitimate, protected adult speech
That would only be a concern if there was a requirement to tell the librarian the reason for disabling the controls. Since the librarian obviously wouldn't care about the reason, there's no issue.
The other point is that simply standing in the "non-fiction sex" section of library is potentially embarrasing. Does that mean that the library is abridging those reader's rights because the books they are browsing are potentially identifiable?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The federal government likes to use the funding lever to get it's way in areas where it doesn't have any legal authority - ref the 55 mph speed limit. This worked for a while, but recently the courts have looked down on it, ruling that de facto administrative power should be as limited as de jure administrative power, which makes sense to me. While it's certainly true libaries don't have some magical right to new computers, the Fed doesn't have the power to force censorship, either. That is, when there are requirements for federal funding, those requirements cannot be unconstitutional. Another example would be denying funding to schools that admitted black and female students.
See Mandatory Seatbelt laws or the 21 Year old drinking age, or the 55 MPH speed limit (later changed to 65, later junked).
And it's not about browsing porn (I'll bet dollars to donuts anybody who was browsing hardcore porn on a library computer would quickly find his access to said computer cut off), it's about being forced to install software that arbitrarily removes the access for *ADULTS* to web pages based on metrics which are completely out of control of the local librarian, and for that matter generally inaccurate.
but in this context do not see it as a free-speach issue, just a funding issue
I would argue that it's a free speech issue thinly disguised as a funding issue. Does anyone remember when the Federal Gov't made the drinking age into a 'Funding Issue'? It said that it would only give highway money to states which had a drinking age of 21. Now all 50 states have a drinking age of 21 now, and have for decades, even though every state has the 'right' to determine its own drinking age. Funding is the government's traditional tool for overriding the states' rights and other constitutional guarantees, until and unless the supreme court comes along and whacks its nose with a rolled-up newspaper. Until the libraries have the ability to exist without this money, and many don't, it is effectively a law requiring filtering software.
Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
The Bush administration argued libraries are not required to have X-rated movies and pornographic magazines and shouldn't have to offer access to pornography on their computers.
Yes, but libraries are also not required not to have X-rated movies and pornographic magazines. I have been to a few libraries that have subscriptions to Playboy and erotica on the shelves. Hell, my college library had the last 15 years of Playboy archived on microfilm. If libraries are going to use filters (which I oppose), it should be decided on the local level. The Federal goverment doesn't ban pornographic or erotic books from being in libraries so why should it be allowed to mandate what can be accessed via the Internet from their facilities.
When violence rules the world outside / And the headlines make me want to cry / It's not the time to just keep quiet
In every library I've been in, there is a children's book section. And whenever there are computers, there's always more than one.
Why not put special "Children's Access" computers in the children's section?
If we keep the majority of books away from children (when I was a child I remember being barred from entering the "Adult" section of the library, until I told them I couldn't find Ronald Clark's biography of Albert Einstein where I had already been looking, so they let me go in there that day), then it makes sense to keep them from the worst areas of the Internet. But this should only apply to the children's area!
Once they reach teen-age, kids should be allowed to use the unfiltered computers (and be told they will be banned from the library altogether if they are caught downloading pornography, unless they can show that it was an accidental "pop-up" or something that momentarily displayed an ad for pr0n.)
I don't see why this idea hasn't been considered.
If resources are limited in a particular library, then when someone wants to use a computer, they should be given a card with a password on it; and this password allows them to log in to the computer. Children under the age of 13 would be given a different password; and it would log them in with the filters running.
Linux of course would be ideal for this, but I don't know if there are filtering programs written for Linux. But Windows XP has pretty good separate logins, this should be pretty easy to do.
Good encapsulation. So basically, they are taxing the citizens (i.e. taking our money), then giving that money back only to those citizens willing to trade some freedom of speech in return for the funds? Sounds like they are doing an end-run around the Constitution to me.
I do not have a signature
Odd, while the spam I get contains lots of promises of all sorts of indecent things, I don't actually see any. There aren't even links for me to click on to get to the site. I wonder what his problem is...
Oh yeah! The cutting edge mail client I use, mutt, has support for not displaying HTML. What a great feature! Perhaps more email clients should add support for not displaying HTML.
The nature of email is that it's going to go downhill. Any legislative effort to stop it is only going to stifle effective communications. The spammers are already using mail servers in foreign countries. (Similarly I expect as long distance phone call cost continue to decrease to start getting telemarketers in foreign countries ignoring my state's do-no-call list.) The only effective solution is to filter at a user level (or ISP level at the user's request). For the short term, to minimize your horror at seeing it, disable viewing HTML email. (Perhaps email clients could add a "only display HTML from people in my address book option.)
Is Dvorak equivally as angry about his right to choose what junk mail he gets from the postal system? Both email and postal mail provide a system for random strangers to send you things you don't want. It's life. Bothered that you're "forced" to see these messages? Stop using a mail client that previews HTML.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Except that a) not all packages allow exceptions b) when the software invisibly blocks the site, you don't even know it's there to ask to see it c) providing internet access is not distribution of porn d)when was the last time your child saw porn at the library? e) I dare you to provide a clear-cut definition of pornography that leaves no room for error or misconception. Your personal judgment doesn't count.
I ask Congress something they've been asked many times before, and will likely be asked many times again: What part of shall make no law don't you understand?
It's not for Congress to determine whether a proposed law is uncostitutional. Although it should be their responsibility to not waste time/money on lost causes (blatantly unconstitutional laws), it's the function of the Supreme Court's to determine the validity of their laws. I still prefer that distinction wrt the seperation of powers.
Their job is to write laws. It bugs me, but that's how their performance is judged for re-election. If there are no new laws, then that can be easily translated to the voters as inactivity. No politician can afford that.
Back to the topic:
If this attempt gets struck down, then the issue will definitely re-appear. This may be the third try, however even if there is no chance for a future bill to be passed on the subject, the appeal of looking like your fighting the good fight will keep this issue alive in Congress.
This is not my sig.
If you request that the filter be disabled, you are in effect stating that you will access material that may be deemed inappropriate by the library staff and the community in general. The only way to exonerate yourself is to divulge your purpose and the subject matter for which you are searching. If you do not, then it is reasonable to assume that your good name will be put in jeopardy. Since you may not wish to suggest to the library staff that you could potentially be gay, have testicular cancer, or be interested in providing homeschooling for your daughter, you are effectively blocked from accessing the material. All three topics have been blocked by filters in the past.
As for leaving explicit images on public computers, a change to library policy would be a more appropriate solution. CIPA was not designed to impede teenage pranksters. It was designed to block US citizens from accessing material deemed inappropriate from public libraries in direct violation of the First Amendment right to Free Speech.
-HopeOS
I will certainly agree with you in your second point. That is, no one should be forced to see or read anything they wish not to see or read.
However, on the matter regarding funds from the federal government, I must disagree.
I am personaly of the opinion that the federal government should not be allowed to persuade,using funding (or lack of), anyone on any issue for which it would be unconsitutional to pass a law. And, atleast according to another post some courts do agree with me.
Anyway, Im not going to pretend that this issue is simple and that all the godaweful porn in the world should be avaliable to be view publicly at our libraries. However, I will be very vocal on my personal belief that the federal government should not be able to use funding as a scare tactic. This is, as you mentioned, the real issue.
Scott.
What's porn? Who will decide? Nobody agrees on a definition, even in the united states. What some people see as art, other people think is pornography (example: the statues at the Justice Dept. that Ashcroft thought were indecent). If you compare the same definition across cultures, over the world, it's even worse.
How would you enforce it? Build another great wall of china? Force porn-webmasters to register to .xxx? They won't volonteer, as it restricts their potential market! What about doing the opposite: considering every site as restricted until proven otherwise... you got work on your plate now!!!
Whould you let any governement agency control what you can see on the net at a library? Giving censorship power to any agency is very risky...
The main idea is: there is nothing that can replace parental supervision. Filters cannot be perfect; making it illegal is unenforcable and sex spam gets to your inbox anyway.
Should public money be used for building nuclear bombs? Should public money be used to perform painful and life-threatening experiments on animals? Should public money be used to create lasers that can blind hundreds of people at once? Public money gets used to pay for lots of things I don't like. That's one of the prices you pay for living in a society where not everyone has the same set of values.
Anybody reading slashdot should know that this is pure spin.
Anyone reading /. knows that is false. Filter software (all of it) has a long and sordid history of blocking all kinds of things that should not be blocked. And why should the librarian be forced to unlock your site for you? He/She's got enough to do as it is.
But it's not irresponsible to let your child go to the library.
It is if you are not supervising them and they are not of an age where you trust them to do The Right Thing(TM). You (and your wife/partner/whatever) are ultimately responcible for your child. No one else. If you do not take the responcibility to keep your child safe then you have failed in your job as a parent. The library is not a free babysitting service and many have rules against unsupervised children. Thankfully they ignore that rule so your precious child does not have to stand outside in the freezing rain because you can't be bothered to take the time out of your oh so busy day and do your job as a parent.
Despite what the ALA and ACLU say, porn is not information. Nor is it "art" or "speech".
To you, this is true. But this is not true for everyone else and I resent you forcing your view down my thraot.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Hear me out!
As everyone knows, most kids who go to Catholic school end up rebelling against the system in larger numbers than kids who go to traditional, secular, public schools. Walk into any private high school in this country and count the number of people wearing black and sporting skateboards on their backs. Walk into the public school down the block and see the difference.
Therefore, the best way to create a more open and accepting society is to put more kids in catholic schools, filter their access to the internet, keep them indoors after 9 pm, don't let them date until they're 18, yada, yada, yada. By the time the Conservatives realize what a huge mess they've created, it'll be too late and they'll be in the supreme minority of government. Didn't anyone see _Pleasantville_? Balck and white baby! Bring it on Mr. Bush! I welcome your plans!
Of course, the rest of us have to endure the torture in the meantime... Oh well.
Guess what's gonna happen to laws like these when Bush gets to appoint judges to the supreme court? Anyone want a recount now?
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.