Remember CIPA? And remember how we were always holding out hope that someone would challenge it in an “as applied” challenge, an adult who wanted to view material that was blocked by the filters? Well there’s been a challenge, in Washington state, and the State Supreme Court ruled that filtering for adults was in fact permissible, lumping it in with collection development. The case concerns the North Central Regional Library System Opinion here and dissenting opinion here. Interestingly, the sites that were contentious in this case were web sites on firearms, not pornography or otherwise racy topics. Can you see WomenShooters.com at your library?
NCRL’s filtering policy does not prevent any speech and in particular it does not ban or attempt to ban online speech before it occurs. Rather, it is a standard for making determinations about what will be included in the collection available to NCRL’s patrons.
Thus, NCRL’s filtering policy, when applied, is not comparable to removal of items from NCRL’s collection, but rather acquisition of materials to add to its collection. NCRL has made the only kind of realistic choice of materials that is possible without unduly and unnecessarily curtailing the information available to a bare trickle — or a few drops — of the vast river of information available on the Internet.
This may be the set up for a very interesting lawsuit. I hope they appeal.
If I am not mistaken, CIPA is not involved in this matter.
sure can. no filters here :) rochester public library (nh) is a filter free zone (except in the children’s room, but with parental permission, children may use the adult internet comps as well)
Strangely, I find myself falling on the side of NCRL (and filtering) in this case.
I guess I believe that libraries should have the right to filter, but that they should never be forced to filter.
I do believe that there are better solutions, but when you consider the size and staffing at these libraries (tiny / nil), not to mention budgets and technical expertise, these solutions may be very difficult to implement.
We need our very own Jessamyn in WA State, and then these things wouldn’t happen.
One of the concerns at my college is that addicted people might use the college computers to go on gambling sites. Also, in times of tightened funding (sigh), there is the P.R. issue….
I am in two minds especially as filtering is a big issue in Australia with a Government proposal to filter “undesirable” sites and we Australians lacking a constitutional protection of free speech.
I have no problems with a workplace having filters after all computers are supposed to be used for work. We had this problem in a workplace I was employed at with staff looking at porn sites, which was IMHO unacceptable.
Surely a library is a bit like a work place in this respect, use of the computers must be related to the work of the library. I know a University library where the on-line catalogues are clogged by students using on-line gambling, e-bay and other sites on the computers meant for library work such as search the catalogue or accessing things such as JSTOR. Library Staff cannot police the misuse of computers in this way so maybe filters would be useful in getting students to use the library as a research tool.
Besides if someone has a burning desire to research the porn industry or on-line gambling they can do it at home or maybe there is a way for filters to be lifted for authorised users (a serious study into porn would at least have to pass an ethics committee review).
I don’t however support filtering of my own personal use of my computers (yes I have more computers than hands)because it is inefficient and violates free speech. The Australian Government is keen to justify national filtering based on the worst sites on the net but the guns issues discussed in Jessamyn’s post is interesting as it demonstrates the “scope creep” of internet censorship.
IainS
[...] CIPA? [web link]librarian.net (06/May/2010)“…supreme court ruled that filtering for adults was [...]