If you can’t judge a book by its cover, you shouldn’t judge a library by its Internet filter decisions.
Library Internet filters are one of the most hotly debated issues these days. It seems you’re a destroyer of free speech if you favor them and a closet porn addict if you’re against them. While opponents and proponents are sharply divided on the issue, there are reasonable people and arguments on both sides. The opposing decisions made by two library systems this week both make sense — and cents.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court said libraries could and should install the filters, but it ruled that if libraries across the country wanted certain federal funds, they must install software filters on their computers and turn them off at an adult customer’s request — a solution we called "surprisingly reasonable." After all, it allowed decisions to be made not only at a local level, but an individual level. And, as an international tool with few guidelines or restrictions, the Internet cannot be regulated and monitored like an industry in the United States, we argued.
Influenced by the highest court’s summer ruling, and quite likely the $8,300 in federal Internet funding that goes with it, the Sno-Isle Regional Library board decided to install filters on library computers used by kids. The Everett Public Library board, concerned about free speech and not so much about the $416 it stands to lose, opted to forgo the filters and continue letting parents decide the matter. Currently, parents decide whether their children can have full access to the Internet and the youth’s library card alerts librarians if they need to turn on the filter.
One ruling. Two reasonable decisions based, in part, on legalities, finances and serving the community. Sno-Isle, which recently won close voter approval to increase its property tax levy, stood to lose a lot less than was originally predicted. Still, it would have looked bad to toss out any federal funds after voters had been generous at the polls.
The Everett library, while going against the Supreme Court’s recommendation, is hardly deserving of criticism for sticking with a procedure that appears to be working for its customers.
It’s interesting to note, however, that a strong majority of parents with children under 18 who use library computers are already requesting filtered Internet access for their kids.
The Internet is a source of information like any other book or periodical at our libraries. But, unlike every other book, it is constantly being rewritten. That’s the nature of this new tool and it will likely require monitoring by libraries, parents and authorities for years to come.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
