Herald Staff and News Services
Government efforts to restrict access to online pornography received another setback Friday when a panel of federal judges struck down a law requiring public libraries to install Internet filters to block access to objectionable sites.
In a unanimous decision, the three judges on a special panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said the Children’s Internet Protection Act is "invalid under the First Amendment" because it requires libraries to use technology that blocks access to legitimate sites on the Internet, while still giving access to some porn sites.
The legislation, signed into law by President Clinton two years ago, required that public libraries use the electronic blocks starting July 1, or lose millions of dollars in federal funding for computers and Internet access.
Locally, the Sno-Isle Regional Library System serving Snohomish and Island counties adopted an Internet policy last summer that requires parental permission for unrestricted Internet access. For example, any child 17 or younger automatically has filtered access tied to their library card number, library system spokeswoman Mary Kelly said Friday.
"Libraries have been concerned with the fallibility of filtering software," she said. "It’s clear from this ruling that those three judges question how well filters work."
Sno-Isle libraries began offering the Internet to clients in 1996. By 1998, the board agreed each branch should offer at least one Internet terminal with filters.
Public outcry and new computer software that allowed the library to tie Internet access to library card numbers are what brought the issue to the forefront in Snohomish County in 2001.
The debate is far from over despite the court ruling.
"The board will continue to look at our Internet policy and other library policies to make sure we’re able to provide the services expected of us and respond to community concern," Kelly said. "I don’t think this discussion is over yet."
In a 195-page decision, the judges said "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."
It was the third time in recent years that similar laws have been shot down for being overbroad or in violation of free speech protections.
Friday’s decision, which applies only to public libraries, was praised by the American Librarian Association and American Civil Liberties Union, as well as leaders of a host of librarians, patrons and online publishers who challenged the validity of the law last year.
"The court bans the government from turning librarians into thought police," said Ann Beeson, litigation director for the ACLU’s technology and liberty program. "The (filters) are inherently flawed and would prevent library patrons all over the country from accessing valuable sites on the Web."
A Justice Department official declined to comment, saying officials there were reviewing the decision. Any appeal would go to the Supreme Court, which has taken a skeptical view of Congress’ methods of curbing the spread of online pornography.
In arguing the case, no one disputed the massive proliferation of smut on the Internet in recent years. The judges estimated 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."
They said the Internet has spurred "the widespread dissemination of hard-core 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."
But after two weeks of testimony in April, the judges agreed with the group of plaintiffs who argued the filters are a clumsy, inaccurate technology that violate free-speech rights by cutting off access to legitimate sites, such as those offering information about sexuality, sexually transmitted disease and breast cancer.
While some libraries permitted patrons to request that the filters be turned off, the judges said such policies put the patrons in an awkward position of seeking permission to access sensitive material. The judges called the filters "blunt instruments."
Officials at the American Library Association, the lead plaintiff, said the decision affirms the notion that parents must protect their children by teaching them the right ways to use the Internet. Libraries will still be allowed to use filters for young children if parents choose, as many already do, but that will remain a local decision.
Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the association’s District of Columbia office, estimated that up to $400 million in annual funding — through the federal E-rate program and Library Services Technology Act grants — was at stake.
"The only way to protect children is to make sure they are educated so they can have a safe, responsible experience," Sheketoff said. "This technology is not protecting their children."
Herald Writer Kate Reardon contributed to this report.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.