Slashdot Mirror
ACLU And Others Weigh In On CIPA Injunction
A report on censorware.net has an update on the legal fight over the Children's Internet Protection Act; yesterday the ACLU, ALA and others filed briefs supporting the injunction calling CIPA unconstitutional issued by a three-judge court last May. The Supreme Court will hear the case on March 5th. (A search on "CIPA" is a good way to catch up on this act, which is basically about installing mandatory censorware on child-accessable publicly funded computers.)
The CIPA does not stifle free speech in any way. Blocking sites of prurient interest does not prevent anyone from accessing those sites, only at public libraries and public schools. As the ACLU has no problem with the CIPA in regards to public schools, it is obvious they see something wrong with preventing Tom the Bum from jacking off in the back corner of the library.
The reason libraries exist is to provide a place where the common good can be supported through the availability of writings and research. Since pornography serves no common good it stands to reason that libraries can be required to block it. Supporting the common good sometimes means blocking those things which would erode the common good.
I have been pwned because my
Refresh my memory... where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is Internet access defined as a "right"?
Why do you have a "right" to look at tits in a library?
Outlaw adware!
Well, not outright, but require clear and consistent labeling of software which may hijack web browsers and display additional, unwanted content. Also, a universal opt-out system for adware and unauthorized browser redirections might be useful.
I've come to this conclusion as a library employee. Mandatory censorware is largely inneffective, as we've seen time and time again in the over and under-blocking of basically every commercial censorship "solution". Parental supervision is a hell of a lot more effective (not to mention constitutional) in preventing access to objectional content, anyway. The problem is when the parent simply can't control what is displayed on the screen in the blink of an eye. I've had to deal with some pretty irate patrons (thankfully no little kids yet) who demand to know why unwanted porn suddenly appears on their monitors. I've taken to running ad-aware checks on all the patron computers frequently. Our security setup also prevents unauthorized software installations (unless they install via ActiveX in IE. Thanks Microsoft Security!). Even so, that's not enough to prevent javascripts (many times contained in otherwise innocuous spam email) from popping up anything they want. And before someone suggests it, I HAVE installed Mozilla on several of the workstations and enabled pop-up blocking, but most users who come to the library to surf have no idea what's going on and simply revert to Internet Explorer because they think it IS the Internet.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
The argument in this case is not over principles but over methods (well, the intelligent argument anyway). Nobody is advocating that we should do nothing to help protect children from porn and other objectionable content. The important point is that it should be the PARENTS doing this, and deciding what is appropriate and what is not - not the government. Even if the government is going to set some minimum standard, its methods for enforcement should not include mandatory (And often *overly* restrictive) software.
The ACLU's main point, as I see it, is that the protection of children from porn has become an "overvalued idea", and with this legislation is running rampant over the legitimate free speech rights of many other groups, such as those who want to use computers in libraries to browse the internet. If you can't do a research project on breast cancer, that may not be an ordeal worth jumping up and down screaming over, but it's a step in a very wrong direction.
-Steve
Sure, why don't we allow print pornography in public libraries too?
My college library has a collection of Playboy (and it's not alone). Some people consider it to be pornographic.
Traditional libaries are constrained by budget limitations-- so pornography is usually not aquired because other books and journals are considered to be more important. In addition, pornography might present a bit of a theft risk.
This is not about the first amendment. It is about moral values.
Are you trolling here? The first amendment allows Americans to remain blessedly free of state-sponsored religion, and state-sponsored morality.
Why should children need to have our hands over their eyes? Haven't we learned by now that children are far more perceptive than we are... that they are far better at teasing information out of even the smallest rivulets of a source. That they can find out what they want to know, regardless of how much banning and blocking and praying and moralizing we do.
Let children learn. Let them turn into adults who won't fear each other and themselves.
B
"We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights specifically grant the right to do a lot of things. They are meant to be interpreted. From certain inalienable rights are derived specific ones. We wouldn't need the judicial or legislative branches as they exist now if everything was spelled out cold.
The Constitution doesn't say whether I can wear a shirt. Do I have a "right" to wear a shirt that has controversial content? Maybe, maybe not. But you're not going to get the answer by saying, "Well, the constitution doesn't mention anything about shirts with the F-word on them, so don't expect to be allowed to wear it." You'll get a better answer looking at the general right to freedom of speech (and, of course, any applicable amendments to that right).
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Ignorance of sex is far worse than exposure to it. You are just forcing your child to learn about it from someone else in an uncontrolled setting.The library is not a day care center. The government is not a surrogate father. A parent's responsibility does not end when a child is in a "public" place.
Would you leave your child alone in any other government building and expect others to take care of him?No, what needs to happen is that parents should stop being their child's friend and start being their damned parent. You don't want your child looking at certain things? Teach them that it isn't ok to do so!
I mean, I assume most parents told their children at one point or another that jumping out of windows wasn't good for them.
Call me crazy, but I think this "communication" thing shows some promise.Damn it. Look. Believe it or not, there are actually parents out there that don't mind their children looking at naked people. I know that sounds amazing, but it is quite true. What gives you the right to enforce your misguided sense of morality on them?
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Why is the Internet different from books in this way? The internet carries information, so do books. You can find tits in both places. The Constitution protects your right to look at tits in books or on computers whether or not you have breast cancer. Having a right to the internet is no different from having a right to read and write books or a right to produce or receive information from any other source. The fact that public access to the internet (or to library books) is paid for by taxpayers is more reason for it to be protected by the first amendment, not less, as you imply here. A private institution can censor without fear of running afoul of the Constitution; a public institution is legally bound to respect the rights protected by the Constitution. There is nothing about the internet that makes it inherently less worthy of protection than other media of expression. And, in fact, the courts have ruled quite the opposite - that the internet is worthy of more protection than, for example, television (because the internet is more of a participatory medium).
Okay. This might sound far-fetched, but here goes:
To hell with blocking software. It doesn't work.
But consider this: nothing physically prevents you from bringing a copy of Penthouse into the library, sitting down in a nice reading chair, spreading it open, and eyeing the pages. Yet, nobody does this. Why not? Oh, because people would raise a stink!
So here's a solution. Take all the computers in the library. And put them in view of the circulation desk. That way, if the old granny librarian behind the counter sees two eight year old boys giggling over pages of porn, she can walk over there and shut off the screen or something.
Tada! Problem solved.
The "accidentally stumbles" argument is bullcrap. I mean, let's face it. It is *hard* to "accidentally stumble" on porn. The possible exception would be if you go to a warez site. They sometimes redirect you to porn. But, uhm, why would you go to a warez site in the library either?
If you're in a library and using a computer, you're not playing games and looking at porn. You're there to do work. Research. Look for books. File tax returns online. Typing in the name of the latest Harry Potter book to get more info about it is hardly going to lead to kids seeing porn.
If you put people in a public place, they're not going to act indecently. If they do, you kick 'em out and don't invite them back. But just as there's nothing tangible preventing you from bringing dead-tree smut into a library, there's no need for anything that censors the 'net either.