Standing up for freedom is what they do

Everyone should say “Thank you,

we love you madly, madly, all librarians.”

Librarians here and around the nation are right to resist a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week that upheld a federal law that withholds federal money from libraries that don’t install internet filters to block pornography.

Librarians and other opponents of the decision believe the law is overbroad, blocking legitimate web sites along with pornographic sites.

Some librarians and other critics have called filters, “electronic book burning.”

A divided Supreme Court ruled last month that Congress can force the nation’s public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters.

The blocking technology, intended to keep smut from children, does not violate the First Amendment even though it shuts off some legitimate, informational Web sites, the court held.

The court said that because libraries can disable the filters for any patrons who ask, the system is not too burdensome. The 6-3 ruling reinstates a law that told libraries to install filters or surrender federal money. Four justices said the law was constitutional, and two others said it was allowable as long as patrons were not denied Internet access.

It was a victory for Congress, which has struggled to find ways to shield children from pornographic internet sites. Congress has passed three laws since 1996 – the first was struck down by the Supreme Court, and the second was blocked by the court from taking effect.

The first two laws dealt with regulations on Web site operators. The latest approach, in the 2000 law, mandated that public libraries put blocking technology on computers as a condition for receiving federal money. Libraries have received about $1 billion since 1999 in technologies subsidies, including tax money and telecommunications industry fees.

The government had argued that libraries don’t have X-rated movies and magazines on their shelves and shouldn’t have to offer access to pornography on their computers.

Librarians and civil liberties groups countered that filters are censorship and that they block valuable information. Filter operators must review millions of Web sites to decide which ones to block.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that the law, the Children’s Internet Protection Act, does not turn librarians into censors.

A three-judge federal panel in Pennsylvania ruled last year that the law was unconstitutional because it caused libraries to violate the First Amendment. The filtering programs block too much nonpornographic material, the panel found.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Rehnquist’s opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, in separate opinions, said the government’s interest in protecting young library users from inappropriate material outweighs the burden on library users having to ask staff to disconnect filters.

Justice John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the law went too far in restricting material in public libraries, which are used by more than 14 million people annually.

“A statutory blunderbuss that mandates this vast amount of overblocking abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,” Stevens wrote.

Even without the law in place, some libraries use filtering software on their computers, with varying degrees of success in screening out objectionable material. Other libraries have varying policies that encourage parents to monitor their children’s Internet use.

“We challenged this law because filters are very blunt instruments that block more than illegal speech, including a great deal of speech that is not even sexual in nature at all,” said Paul M. Smith, the Washington attorney who represented the American Library Association. “We’re disappointed that the court said that this one-size fits-all answer is the way to handle this problem of sexual content on the Internet in the library setting.”

An example of how the law is often misdirected happened a few days ago in Central Washington, when people searching for “Toppenish” found their searches blocked because the fourth through eighth letters form a forbidden word.

Dunn opposes light rail

We need an influential local political leader to convince Congress that Sound Transit’s proposed Seattle-to-Tukwila light-rail line would be a waste of federal tax money.

Just in time, Republican U.S. Rep. Jennifer Dunn of Bellevue has taken on that role. She’s been talking to Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on transportation, which must approve all federal money for Sound Transit, including a $500 million grant essential to building light rail.

She’s been telling Istook that the proposed line is not only too costly but won’t solve congestion.

Dunn also is taking her criticisms of Sound Transit to the Department of Transportation and to the Office of Management and Budget, which will examine the $500 million grant before it goes to Congress for a 60-day review.

She may already have lost with the Transportation Department, whose auditor gave the project a positive report Monday, reversing his position of two years ago.

Dunn’s message: “Is it (light rail) accomplishing what people had in mind when they voted for it, which is relieving congestion? That’s my interest. There is such a low rate of impact on relieving congestion.”

Having the state’s senior Republican and a close ally of President Bush criticize Sound Transit just as it faces a critical juncture in Congress makes the job of light-rail boosters more difficult, Sen. Patty Murray said in late June.

Sound Transit faces little trouble in the Senate, where Murray is using her position as ranking Democrat on the transportation-spending subcommittee to push the project and has won support for the agency from influential Republicans.

The real fight in the coming weeks will be in the House, with Istook playing a lead role.

Light rail is unpopular with leaders in Dunn’s district. When Istook visited Seattle in April, he met with light-rail foes, including King County Councilman Rob McKenna, a Republican from that area, and Bellevue Square developer Kemper Freeman Jr.

“The problem I have with this project is with the track from downtown to (within) one mile of the airport,” Dunn told the Seattle Times. “That doesn’t make a lot of sense. I have a continuing problem with whether it relieves congestion.”

Despite a June letter from a Boeing official urging Murray and the rest of the delegation to push for Sound Transit, Dunn remains unconvinced that the system will help Boeing or any other business.

“How many airplane parts go by light rail from The Bon Marché to one mile from the airport?” she asked. “We want to help Boeing every way we can, but I don’t think that relates to Sound Transit. It certainly is not going to take enough cars off the road to make it easier for them.”

Dunn’s conversations with Istook could prove important to Sound Transit’s future. Istook will determine whether to include $75 million for Sound Transit requested by President Bush in his annual spending bill. The Oklahoman also will decide whether to scrutinize, and perhaps kill, a $500 million grant to Sound Transit from the Federal Transit Administration.

Agency officials say the grant is essential to break ground on light rail.

As for Dunn, she sees her role as a watchdog for taxpayer dollars, and she’s willing to buck other delegation members.

Tim, you did us wrong

 When he had a chance to help, Tim Eyman let us down.

 Eyman had an initiative (#852) ready for signature gathering that would have stopped the Sound Transit light rail project, but he pulled it in favor of one that would have tightened state spending limits and required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or voter approval to raise taxes.

 That initiative (#807)  failed to get the 197,734 valid signatures needed in time for last week’s deadline.

 The anti-tax activist said at the end of June that his group held off on I-852 to see whether the state Supreme Court upholds Initiative 776, which voters passed last year. That measure eventually would erase about 20 percent of Sound Transit’s tax revenue, taking away its ability to collect a motor-vehicle excise  tax once outstanding bonds are paid off.

Remembering Katherine Hepburn

When Katherine Hepburn died June 29 at age 96, Hollywood lost one of its most enduring stars.

During her 60-year career, she was nominated for 12 Oscars and won four for “Morning Glory,” 1933; “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” 1967; “A Lion in Winter,” 1968; and “On Golden Pond,” 1981.

I have memories of two of those.

For “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” she coaxed her ailing long-time co-star Spencer Tracy back onto the set for their roles as wealthy, liberal parents faced with the interracial marriage of their daughter in a movie that was just right for the civil-rights era. Tracy died before the film’s release.

In “On Golden Pond,” she paired for the only time with Henry Fonda as his aging wife dealing with his long-strained relationship with their daughter, played by Henry’s real-life daughter, Jane.

One of my favorites was “Pat and Mike,” in which she played a female athlete, managed by Tracy. It fit her style as a woman ahead of her time who always dressed for comfort, usually in slacks and sweater, with her red hair caught up in a topknot.

She and Tracy made nine films together and remained close companions until Tracy’s death in 1967.

Hepburn’s outspoken nature showed up once in a stage show when she ordered out a spectator who disturbed her by taking pictures.

In 1999, a survey of screen legends by the American Film Institute ranked her No. 1 among actresses.

Give Neuheisel an open hearing

When attorneys for fired University of Washington football coach Rick Neuheisel asked that his appeal be he heard in an open meeting, University officials should have agreed.

Neuheisel’s legal team made sure that we heard its version of what happened in the meeting; we should have heard both s ides of the story.

Personnel matters are usually heard in private to protect the person being disciplined, but here the suspended coach wanted to plead his case publicly. His superiors should have shown that they had nothing to hide when dealing with the state’s most highly paid employee.

The meeting last week was Neuheisel’s response to his termination letter

A Neuheisel lawyer cited media coverage and public interest in arguing that Neuheisel’s hearing should be open. The University didn’t agree, but the lawyers publicized the outcome anyway.

Evan Smith is Enteprise Forum editor.

We’d like to know what you think. If you have a comment send it to

The Enterprise

P.O. Box 977

Lynnwood, Wash. 98036

E-mail: entopinion@Heraldnet.com

Fax: 425-774-8622