The Supreme Court announced last Tuesday that it will intervene in a dispute concerning free speech on the Internet. The decision, which will come early next year, will affect online choices and Internet coverage available to millions of Americans who depend on public libraries for their Internet access. The court will be deciding whether the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) violates the Constitution. The act, which requires all libraries that receive federal Internet subsidies to use filtering software against pornography, violates First Amendment rights. Rather than using filtering devices to severely limit Internet options to public library patrons, libraries should find other ways in which to ensure that children will not look at pornography sites on the Internet.
The CIPA was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 2000. Shortly thereafter, groups consisting of libraries, Web sites, and Internet users -- backed by the American Civil Liberties Union -- filed suit, arguing that the filtering system blocked constitutionally protected sexual material. This material ranged anywhere from child pornography and other obscene materials to medical information and art. As unseemly as some of this material may be, the government does not have the right to suppress these examples of free speech.
In May of this year, a panel of three federal judges ruled unanimously that the CIPA was indeed unconstitutional. The court ruled that "CIPA will necessarily block access to a substantial amount of speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest" ("Justices to hear Internet porn case," The Washington Post, Nov. 13). If libraries enact a filter system on their computers, they will block out not only pornographic materials but pertinent sources as well that may contain key words, which are blocked through the filter. For example, a child doing a report on types of cancer would be at a loss to find up to date online sources providing information on breast cancer. A similar problem would arise for students researching historical art -- Michelangelo's "David," for instance. Children shouldn't be so limited in their research of non-pornographic materials just because their libraries cannot come up with alternative ways of monitoring proper Internet use, like adding more staff members and increasing children's interaction with librarians.
According to the Post, nearly 143 million Americans use the Internet regularly and 10 percent of them rely on public libraries for access. Ninety-five percent of all U.S. libraries provide Internet access. This is largely due to federal aid in the form of mandatory discounts from Internet service providers and direct federal grants. Because so many people rely on the public libraries to provide unlimited resources, we cannot block non-pornographic sites just because we are afraid of what children might accidentally access. The libraries in question are public and receive federal money. Having them block First Amendment rights is like questioning the hand that is feeding them.
Libraries do not need filtering systems in order to prevent children from viewing inappropriate sites when surfing the Internet. They can add an extra member to their staff whose sole duty would be to monitor children at computer stations. Granted, one person cannot see and catch everything that children look at, but children won't have the time or the nerve to look up porn when they know a librarian is pacing back and forth behind them.
Other options include having parents come in to sign a consent list when their children come into the libraries to use the computers. This option should be a last resort, however, because it does not ensure that children will not look at inappropriate sites so much as it relieves libraries from liability therefor. Along the same lines, a parent could be required to come in and sit beside their child at the computers in order to take control of what their child sees and quickly censor any disturbing sites before the child has a chance to really look around them. This option may serve as an inconvenience to parents, but if they are sincerely worried about what their children will see when surfing the Internet at a public library, then they should be the ones to take time out of their schedules to take action.
If possible, public libraries should have a children's computer section and a separate adult section. The filters should just be enacted on the children's computers, as a precaution. If a child needs access to information which has mistakenly been blocked via the filters on their computers, they can consult with a librarian and have him or her accompany the child to the adult section where they could work together to properly search the Internet for pertinent sources.
The Supreme Court will hear the case in early 2003. The court should keep in mind that our nation is based on our Constitutional rights, and to rule against these would call into question the very system that governs us. Libraries have other options as to preventing children from accessing pornographic Internet sites, and these should be tried and tested before making drastic decisions which will affect adult library goers as well.
(Alex Roosenburg's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.
She can be reached at aroosenburg@
cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | 11 hours agoI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | YesterdayAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | YesterdayIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
