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.)

Comments

Others more important?

[lpret]

I think this issue, and many others, all come down to one simple question, " Are some people's rights more valuable than others? " I don't think the constitution supports that. Simply because kids could access a computer, why should it be censored when there are users who's rights will then be violated if they use it?

Re:Others more important?

[Tyriel]

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.

Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Strangely enough, I'm on the same side as the ACLU on this one. I don't find myself here very often!

But anyway, kids need to be kept away from pornographic sites - that's clear. In the home, that's the job of the parents. In the library, that's the job of the library. Parents should be able to view the library as a trusted place to leave their kids. What needs to happen is that computers need to be available to kids which do have censorware installed but there also needs to be either a room that only adults are allowed into where computers free of censorware are available OR, upon issuing a library card, adults receive a password and user name to disable the censorware. That way, if kids are caught bypassing the censorware with a password, we can find out which user lost/lent his card to the wrong set of kids.

I don't want kids to look at naughty sites but I want people without Internet access to enjoy the fun of porno-babes as much as I do....well, not as much since they're in a public place. ;-)

Re:Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[Jordy]

But anyway, kids need to be kept away from pornographic sites - that's clear.

The hell it is. The human body is nothing to be ashamed of and there is nothing "wrong" with nudity or sex. If seeing pictures of a person naked caused any real harm to children, then a good 25% of the damn US should show signs of it shouldn't they? Or do you actually believe that the first time the average boy sees a naked girl is when they turn 18?

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.

In the library, that's the job of the library. Parents should be able to view the library as a trusted place to leave their kids.

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?

What needs to happen is that computers need to be available to kids which do have censorware installed but there also needs to be either a room that only adults are allowed into where computers free of censorware are available OR, upon issuing a library card, adults receive a password and user name to disable the censorware.

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.

I don't want kids to look at naughty sites but I want people without Internet access to enjoy the fun of porno-babes as much as I do

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?

ACLU, wrong again

[ObviousGuy]

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.

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[Cyno01]

pornography serves no common good

You're new here, right?

This amicus brief quote says it all

[FunWithHeadlines]

" Because libraries lack the technological capability to block the Internet in any narrowly tailored fashion, CIPA's "technology protection measure" requirement effectively forces them to use commercial blocking software. Commercial blocking software is, however, ill-suited to the requirements of the First Amendment. First, the current market does not offer products designed to filter out only the low-value speech barred by CIPA. As a consequence, the blocking software currently available on the market purposefully blocks far broader categories that include protected speech. Second, companies that produce blocking software have little incentive to tailor their products narrowly. To the contrary, because underblocking, not overblocking, generates complaints, these companies have strong economic incentives to design their software to block in an overbroad fashion. Third, commercial blocking software companies can, and in some instances do, use criteria that systematically discriminate against certain viewpoints. As a consequence, CIPA's "technology protection measure" requirement forces libraries to regulate speech in manner that is systematically overbroad and that can involve viewpoint discrimination."

So libraries are de-facto forced to use commercial blockers. Commerical blockers block more sites than they should. They have economic incentives to block more sites than they should. And they have little consequence if they block sites that they personally just don't care for, if they idealogically oppose a site.

You could hardly ask for a more ham-handed solution to the problem.
--------

One question I have to consider...

[Kalewa]

By doing this are we going to encourage a whole generation of kids to learn to break systems so they can get uncensored access to the internet? How much time will libraries spend cleaning up after budding hackers?

The Simple Solution

[$$$$$exyGal]

Only show "adult" internet content after 10:00pm (9:00pm central and mountain). If we just do that, the kids will be safe.

You know at least three congressmen have considered pitching that idea ;-)

--sex

Wanna protect children in libraries?

[spoonboy42]

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.

Re:Does anyone else find this ridiculous?

[Jeremy Erwin]

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.

One implementation...

[chill]

My local library -- Spokane County, WA -- seems to have found a reasonable compromise.

When obtaining a library card for a minor, if they want Internet access they need a parent/guardian to sign off on it.

The library cards are barcoded and that is used to activate the Internet terminals.

To sign off, a parent basically signs a form saying "no access", "filtered access" or "unfiltered access". It is explained to them that "filtered access" is a "best effort only" and that the library staff aren't babysitters or the moral guardians of your children.

It seems to have placated the locals -- very few complaints have been generated.

Fear

[brettlbecker]

I ask myself again and again why we think it is a good idea to blindfold children, and I can never come up with a better answer than, "... we're afraid of them seeing what we're afraid of seeing in ourselves." Why do we ban books? What are we afraid of? Might the words on the page, the pictures in magazines and on the internet control us?

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