ACLU And Others Weigh In On CIPA Injunction

A report on censorware.net has an update on the legal fight over the Children's Internet Protection Act; yesterday the ACLU, ALA and others filed briefs supporting the injunction calling CIPA unconstitutional issued by a three-judge court last May. The Supreme Court will hear the case on March 5th. (A search on "CIPA" is a good way to catch up on this act, which is basically about installing mandatory censorware on child-accessable publicly funded computers.)

Others more important?

[lpret]

I think this issue, and many others, all come down to one simple question, " Are some people's rights more valuable than others? " I don't think the constitution supports that. Simply because kids could access a computer, why should it be censored when there are users who's rights will then be violated if they use it?

Re:Others more important?

[IanBevan]

I'm no expert on the Constitution, indeed I'm not even American. But it seems to me that you have this all back to front. It's not about restricting the rights of adults, but protecting the innocent and more vulerable in society, in this case children.

Assuming that working censorware could be put in place (this, of course, is a whole other discussion) as an adult would you not be prepared to waive your rights to view porn etc. over a public computer in order to shield children from it ?

Re:Others more important?

[Tyriel]

The argument in this case is not over principles but over methods (well, the intelligent argument anyway). Nobody is advocating that we should do nothing to help protect children from porn and other objectionable content. The important point is that it should be the PARENTS doing this, and deciding what is appropriate and what is not - not the government. Even if the government is going to set some minimum standard, its methods for enforcement should not include mandatory (And often *overly* restrictive) software.

The ACLU's main point, as I see it, is that the protection of children from porn has become an "overvalued idea", and with this legislation is running rampant over the legitimate free speech rights of many other groups, such as those who want to use computers in libraries to browse the internet. If you can't do a research project on breast cancer, that may not be an ordeal worth jumping up and down screaming over, but it's a step in a very wrong direction.

Re:Others more important?

[IanBevan]

The important point is that it should be the PARENTS doing this...

My parents brought me up with a moral code that included not causing injury to others. So does that mean that we should drop murder laws, because our parents should have brought us up better ?

/flamebait

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Others more important?

[rsborg]

Assuming that working censorware could be put in place (this, of course, is a whole other discussion) as an adult would you not be prepared to waive your rights to view porn etc. over a public computer in order to shield children from it ?

This is a MAJOR assumption, and one that's shown [kuro5hin.org] to be wrong [slashdot.org] on many [peacefire.org] occasions [epic.org].

Don't get me wrong, I would love to give up *porn/indecent* material on public resources... but the reality is that a) there is a "moving line in the sand" of what people consider porn, and b) censorware repeatedly oversteps its bounds and blocks non-porn sites that have protected speech.

Ultimately, I'd be happy with a censorware solution that was a) open sourced b) open-access (you can see the sites that are blocked as well as the reasons they were blocked, and could contest censoring openly).
Sadly, I doubt that this will ever happpen.

Re:Others more important?

[Theaetetus]

It's not about restricting the rights of adults, but protecting the innocent and more vulerable in society, in this case children.

This is still a Constitutional issue - in America, the Constitution says nothing about the Government having the right, or even the duty, to decide what's right for children against the wishes of their parents, unless their parents are acting in a criminal way.

While I would be willing to waive my rights (temporarily!) to shield children from harm, I do this out of my willingness to help others and be a good citizen, not out of a requirement of my government. I don't swear when there are young children about, not because the government says I shouldn't, but because their parents won't like it - and although it is well within my first amendment rights to swear, I don't need to, and can wait until the little buggers are out of earshot. ;)

Likewise, I will happily voluntarily avoid looking at pr0n in public places - I have no need to and can wait - but I strongly object to the government going against its own Constitution to require that I not look at pr0n in public places. Our country was founded on liberty, not on puritanical restrictions.

Or, in essence, "I'm a good citizen because I choose to be, not because they tell me to be."

-T

Re:Others more important?

[ChaosDiscord]

It's not about restricting the rights of adults, but protecting the innocent and more vulerable in society, in this case children.

It may not be about restricting the rights of adults, but it sure as hell will restrict the rights of adults. If a society really values a right, they will protect it even when its hard or dangerous. The right to trial by jury and the right to protection from illegal search and seizure certainly means that dangerous criminals sometimes get off scott free. The right to bear arms dramatically increases the danger of shooting deaths, both accidental and intentional. The right to freedom of speech means children will hear speech that is extremely objectionable to the child's parents.

Assuming that working censorware could be put in place (this, of course, is a whole other discussion) as an adult would you not be prepared to waive your rights to view porn etc. over a public computer in order to shield children from it?

It's the "etc" in your sentence that is so dangerous. "Etc" happens to include birth control information, breast cancer information, sexually transmitted disease information, and plenty of other important information. Because any web site that repackages other web sites provides a potential hole through which censored content can be seen, every such site must be censored as well. Goodbye Bablefish and other translation sites. So long Internet Archive.

The existance of "working censorware" is not a "whole other discussion." If you're willing to assume that, are you similarly willing to assume the existance of a perfect judicial system and eliminate the right of appeal? The law has to function in the real world, not in a fantasy land were everything works perfectly. In practice this means using the currently available, massively flawed censorware.

Re:Others more important?

[Anonymous Cowtard]

Refresh my memory... where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is Internet access defined as a "right"?

Why do you have a "right" to look at tits in a library?

Re:Others more important?

[Fwonkas]

Refresh my memory... where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is Internet access defined as a "right"?

Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights specifically grant the right to do a lot of things. They are meant to be interpreted. From certain inalienable rights are derived specific ones. We wouldn't need the judicial or legislative branches as they exist now if everything was spelled out cold.

The Constitution doesn't say whether I can wear a shirt. Do I have a "right" to wear a shirt that has controversial content? Maybe, maybe not. But you're not going to get the answer by saying, "Well, the constitution doesn't mention anything about shirts with the F-word on them, so don't expect to be allowed to wear it." You'll get a better answer looking at the general right to freedom of speech (and, of course, any applicable amendments to that right).

Re:Others more important?

[esanbock]

Good point. They also don't mention anything about reading books being defined as a "right". Finally I we can start banning access to contrivercial books at the library.

Constitution gives the scope of government powers

[ClarkEvans]

not the other way around.

Refresh my memory... where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is Internet access defined as a "right"?

Let's turn this around (the way it should be). Where in the Constitution does it state that the Government has the "right" to censor what people can read and what they can't?

Re:Others more important?

[pgpckt]

Refresh my memory... where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is Internet access defined as a "right"?

No problem...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:Others more important?

[The Only Druid]

Okay, this is a common mistake: the first amendment makes it illegal to restrict the creation and broadcast of speech [however defined], but does not make it illegal to restrict government-provided means of accessing that speech.

In other words, its not censoring speech to limit the access in the libraries [I believe], but it would be censoring speech to limit the ability of certain individuals/groups to create that speech.

Fact is, you dont have a right to hear other people's speech, if you're hearing it through a service that the government isn't required to provide.

Re:Others more important?

[Kaeru the Frog]

I would think that "the freedom of speech" involves two things: the freedom to speak and the freedom to listen. If one of these freedoms is not allowed you can no longer have a freedom of speech.

If I stand on a soapbox in the town square and start saying things the government doesn't like they can't stop me. I have the freedom to speak.

Now, do you think the government should be allowed to prevent people from litening to me? I start ranting on a soapbox and the police come in and anounce if anyone comes within 200ft of me while I'm speaking will be thrown in jail for the night. If thats allowed then there is no freedom of speech. What good is it to speak when no one is allowed to listen?

Re:Others more important?

[The Only Druid]

You might think that, but you'd be incorrect. All the freedom of speech clause says is that the government will make no law abridging your ability to express free speech. It is perfectly legal for the government not to help other people hear your speech.

In legal terms, this is the distinction between a positive law and a negative law: a positive law demands action (the law requiring that you protect your children, for example, from negligence), whereas a negative law prohibits action (laws prohibiting murder, for example). The 1st amendment clause is a negative law prohibiting the expression of speech, not its reception.

Frankly, this sort of misinterpretation is civil law is not usually a jury-decision. Instead, its left in the hands of judges or arbitrators who are trained in the reading and interpretation of law and jurisprudence.

Re:Others more important?

[Gorobei]

You might think that, but you'd be incorrect. All the freedom of speech clause says is that the government will make no law abridging your ability to express free speech. It is perfectly legal for the government not to help other people hear your speech.

True, but this is not quite the issue in question. Once the government has created a conduit for information (e.g. a library,) it is actively helping the publication of some speech. If it then bans certain content from this channel, it is effectively restricting publication based on content. The engineering term (think transistors, etc) for this is 'bias,' which is unsurprisingly very similar to the real-world affect.

In legal terms, this is the distinction between a positive law and a negative law: a positive law demands action (the law requiring that you protect your children, for example, from negligence), whereas a negative law prohibits action (laws prohibiting murder, for example). The 1st amendment clause is a negative law prohibiting the expression of speech, not its reception.

I assume you mean "prohibiting the suppression of speech." Anyways, the courts have been pretty rational on this point: you have the right to publish, people have the right to ignore you, and third parties (e.g. the government, telephone companies, mall-owners, airports) are looked upon which deep suspicion if they try to restrict the exchange of information between the first two parties.

Re:Others more important?

[commodoresloat]

This is bullshit, and thankfully the courts have not been as confused on this issue as you are. The right to free speech and press protected by the Constitution has been interpreted to include the freedom of access to information. That is why we have a Freedom of Information Act, for example. What you're saying is you have a right to speak but that the government should be allowed to prevent anyone from hearing what you have to say. That is, ipso facto, censorship, and as I said, thankfully the courts have been intelligent enough to recognize that. What I really don't get is how the grandparent here was marked "insightful," when it really should be moderated "ignorant," though we don't have that option. Ah well....

Re:Others more important?

[The Only Druid]

Not only are you incorrect, but clearly have no background here.

I did not say that the government had a right to prevent you from accessing information. What I said was, it has a right to prevent you from accessing that information using their equipment. The difference is, you can access it fine through all the other legal methods, but the government doens't have to help you access it.

Re:Others more important?

[commodoresloat]

Again, you're just wrong. And, it's neither here nor there, but since you bring it up, I actually do have a background in free speech law, though IANAL. The issue is not whether the govt has a "right" to prevent you from using "their" equipment. The equipment paid for by taxpayers is actually our equipment, not "theirs." (In other words, we are they). It's a question of a public resource (the library) being free of government censorship. Not a question of the government "helping" you access it. The first amendment is quite clear on this matter - the legislature may not restrict freedom of speech - and the courts have been clear in interpreting this to mean that public institutions may not be in the business of censorship. To prevent people from accessing information from a public institution is government censorship, clear and simple, and I expect the Court to rule accordingly. Any talk of the government "helping" you access information or the freedom to "hear" what is spoken is a diversion from the issue, and it has no basis in case law that I am aware of.

Re:Others more important?

[Student_Tech]

How about the 9th ammendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I think this is the one that means that just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean you don't have that right.
Of course I may be interpeting this wrong but it is atleast something besides the first being mentioned (do they get bonus points if it does violate multiple amendments?)

Re:Others more important?

[Killer Napkin]

What the Supreme Court rules only matters until another Supreme Court decides differently. Stretching the meaning of the First Ammendment is stupid because it doesn't guarentee the Internet will always be protected. If Americans were smart, we would make ammendments to the Constituion more often to deal with the chaning world. Instead, we let the Supreme Court invent things to cover situations.

Pornography isn't as protected as other forms of speech. The Supreme Court uses a wide variety of methods to decide on new cases, including the famous "time, place, and manner" restrictions. (They invented this when they gave the example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.) I'm not arguing that the Internet shouldn't be protected, I'm arguing that there is nothing in the Constitution that says that it is. We're relying on the good graces of the Supreme Court. I think that's a dangerous attitude to have.

come on! Internet = speech.

[commodoresloat]

If Americans were smart, we would make ammendments to the Constituion more often to deal with the chaning world. Instead, we let the Supreme Court invent things to cover situations.

If we just amend the Constitution whenever the public mood changes, it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. There's a reason it's difficult to amend. The Court doesn't "invent things," or at least not when it's doing it's job; the Court's job is to interpret the Constitution and they are generally pretty careful about respecting precedent. When they do overturn precedent they try to articulate a good reason for doing so.

As for the Internet being protected, your argument seems ludicrous to me. How is speech on the internet different from speech in a newspaper, magazine, or any other public forum? The Court has been sober enough to see that it is not so different and that it certainly is speech. And in fact in Reno v ACLU they upheld a federal court ruling that the internet was "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion." I think that determination is pretty conclusive, and the Court is unlikely to just overturn it without reason.

Why is the internet different?

[commodoresloat]

Why is the Internet different from books in this way? The internet carries information, so do books. You can find tits in both places. The Constitution protects your right to look at tits in books or on computers whether or not you have breast cancer. Having a right to the internet is no different from having a right to read and write books or a right to produce or receive information from any other source. The fact that public access to the internet (or to library books) is paid for by taxpayers is more reason for it to be protected by the first amendment, not less, as you imply here. A private institution can censor without fear of running afoul of the Constitution; a public institution is legally bound to respect the rights protected by the Constitution. There is nothing about the internet that makes it inherently less worthy of protection than other media of expression. And, in fact, the courts have ruled quite the opposite - that the internet is worthy of more protection than, for example, television (because the internet is more of a participatory medium).

Re:Others more important?

[Alsee]

Of course, that's if you ignore the other several hundred books out there on breast cancer

Books provide valuable information and the internet provides DIFFERENT valuable information. You simply can't get this month's research for a book. You also aren't going to find most local support groups in any book either.

I'm sorry, saying someone has a "right" to [access library books] is like saying that I have a "right" to get a Christmas gift each year.

Ok, you don't have a "right" to christmas gifts, but people have a right to give each other christmas gifts. Libraries have a right to exist. They have a right to provide access to books. They have a right to provide internet access.

It's a service paid for by the taxpayers.

My local library is paid for by local taxpayers. If the US congress chooses not to provide internet access in the Library of Congress, fine. Congress is trying to take away *MY* local library's right to provide full internet access. I'm not saying any library must provide any internet access at all. I'm saything they have a right to provide full internet access if they choose to.

This is no different than congress trying to ban libraries from carring Harry Potter books because some bible-thumpers think Harry Potter is a harmful Satanic influence on children. If some bible-belt idiots choose not to carry Harry Potter in their local library then fine. If they choose to filter their internet access that's fine too. But (as far as I know) MY local library carries Harry Potter and provides full internet access.

-

Re:Others more important?

[commodoresloat]

This debate is academic. The Constitution protects your right to receive information whether or not that information is reliable or comes from a qualified source. Also, the Constitution protects your right to look at (non-obscene) tits on the internet whether or not you're researching cancer.

Re:Others more important?

[Alsee]

Constitution protects your right to look at (non-obscene) tits

That's easy to fix! [sarcasm]All tits are obscene![/sarcasm]

-

Sometimes yes, but...

[bigBlackSabbath]

I work in a high school IT dept, and CIPA is serious stuff. My problem with it is that even though all the research shows how flawed all existing solutions are (at both keeping out the "bad stuff" and letting through the "good stuff"), the government requires it be in place.

There are things on the internet that are far worse then porn. What bothers me way more then kids looking at porn are hate crimes as well as anything that brings viruses in the door. Given the resources at my disposal, I'd filter the internet whether the government required me to or not - even though I know at best it's only a deterrent.

I work in a private school, so from my perspective, the resources belong to the school, not the children. Therefore I feel the right to restrict (within reason) usage and access to resources (we also don't let the kids watch movies on the tv's from the AV room...).

But the day some kid sees something and has a bad day because of something that ideally shouldn't have been there, and in many ways is an unintentional violation (if not of rights then certainly of personal space), an angry parent (as well as their lawyer) has every right to see filtering as not only our responsibility, but rather something simple, effective, and common.

The decision belongs to the individual communities to make on their own and to enforce themselves. Not all situations where CIPA applies have the same needs, views, or situations. People should be free to address the realities of the internet on their own terms - whether they choose to sacrifice one group's rights for another's or not.

Re:Constitution doesn't authorize libraries

[tz]

or at least public funds, but we've ignored the constitution or warped the interpretation so that it isn't recognizable (why did Alcohol prohibition require an ammendment, but the war on drugs with asset forfeiture was just a majority?).

That said, Government funds aren't some infinite trough for whatever YOU or I want but don't want to pay for myself. Congress said use censorware or we don't pay for your internet access.

Anyone here is completely free to create their own library and set whatever rules they want. But they will have to pay for it themselves.

Even municipalities, etc. are free to open their computers - just don't accept federal funds.

If the 55 MPH limit was "constitutional" (we don't pay for your roads unless you implement speed traps), censorware is.

Re:Others more important?

[PD]

The ACLU doesn't litigate on behalf of the 2nd ammendment because there's another organization that specializes in just that, and does a much better job of it than the ACLU could ever do. If you check out what the ACLU has to say about the 2nd ammendment, you'll find that they don't say much at all. It is just as improper to say that the ACLU is against the 2nd ammendment as it is to say that the NRA is against the 1st. Would you not be a part of the NRA just because they don't litigate freedom of speech cases? Of course not.

Individual litigators for the ACLU might have strong opinions about it - even against it - but that doesn't dictate how they defend rights.

As an example of how lawyers who are opposed to something, but can still effectively defend rights, one only has to look at the famous defense of the Nazi's/Klan's right to march in Skokie. The lawyers who successfully defended their right to march in Skokie were Jewish. I'm sure they found the ideals of these groups repulsive, but everyone has to have freedom of speech, or we don't have freedom at all.

Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Strangely enough, I'm on the same side as the ACLU on this one. I don't find myself here very often!

But anyway, kids need to be kept away from pornographic sites - that's clear. In the home, that's the job of the parents. In the library, that's the job of the library. Parents should be able to view the library as a trusted place to leave their kids. What needs to happen is that computers need to be available to kids which do have censorware installed but there also needs to be either a room that only adults are allowed into where computers free of censorware are available OR, upon issuing a library card, adults receive a password and user name to disable the censorware. That way, if kids are caught bypassing the censorware with a password, we can find out which user lost/lent his card to the wrong set of kids.

I don't want kids to look at naughty sites but I want people without Internet access to enjoy the fun of porno-babes as much as I do....well, not as much since they're in a public place. ;-)

Re:Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[Jordy]

But anyway, kids need to be kept away from pornographic sites - that's clear.

The hell it is. The human body is nothing to be ashamed of and there is nothing "wrong" with nudity or sex. If seeing pictures of a person naked caused any real harm to children, then a good 25% of the damn US should show signs of it shouldn't they? Or do you actually believe that the first time the average boy sees a naked girl is when they turn 18?

Ignorance of sex is far worse than exposure to it. You are just forcing your child to learn about it from someone else in an uncontrolled setting.

In the library, that's the job of the library. Parents should be able to view the library as a trusted place to leave their kids.

The library is not a day care center. The government is not a surrogate father. A parent's responsibility does not end when a child is in a "public" place.

Would you leave your child alone in any other government building and expect others to take care of him?

What needs to happen is that computers need to be available to kids which do have censorware installed but there also needs to be either a room that only adults are allowed into where computers free of censorware are available OR, upon issuing a library card, adults receive a password and user name to disable the censorware.

No, what needs to happen is that parents should stop being their child's friend and start being their damned parent. You don't want your child looking at certain things? Teach them that it isn't ok to do so!

I mean, I assume most parents told their children at one point or another that jumping out of windows wasn't good for them.

Call me crazy, but I think this "communication" thing shows some promise.

I don't want kids to look at naughty sites but I want people without Internet access to enjoy the fun of porno-babes as much as I do

Damn it. Look. Believe it or not, there are actually parents out there that don't mind their children looking at naked people. I know that sounds amazing, but it is quite true. What gives you the right to enforce your misguided sense of morality on them?

Not all pornography is the same.

[ShatteredDream]

I would like to think you can appreciate the fact that most porn is nowhere near as clean as Playboy and Perfect 10. I'm an extremely jaded and cynical person yet I am repulsed by most porn out there. I would have to say that I agree, Playboy and Perfect 10 type stuff is not innately damaging. But I absolutely cannot agree that pornography in general isn't harmful. It's a little known fact that child pornography's main use is to show children that "it's ok, everybody does it." I have a relative that enforced the federal child porn laws who told me that the real danger is no the porn, but what pedophiles do with it. Obviously you're not advocating letting child pornography be viewable, but my example illustrates how it can be used to warp a child's mind to make them pliable. I would consider that damage. The only real damage I could fully agree that is possible would be damage to how the child views sexual relationships. Once the child is a teen, I think it'd have marginal impact, but before that I think it could have serious problems depending on the child.

I will say though that I think filters are worthless. My punk and ska site that I maintained 3-4 years ago and the Libertarian Partr's website were blocked by my HS's filters because the former was "pornography" and the latter was "drug advocacy." Filter software just lets either some left wing or right wing nutcase force his agenda on the public. The better system would be to require people register before they can use a computer and revoke their access if they're caught deliberately looking at porn. Hey if people can't remember, to log out.... after a few get burned the rest will learn to abide by the rules.

Re:Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[Saeger]

My thoughts exactly.

You don't see Europeans running wild in the streets humping everything in site, yet they're exposed to "strong" nudity everywhere growing up.

Still, I'd be interested in learning of the evolutionary psychology behind Puritanical views on sex. Maybe it's simply that as people age they get bitter and embarrased by sexuality, and so take it out on the young? Or maybe keeping sex taboo actually serves to keep society more stable overall (and less stable in other -repressed- ways)?

--

Re:Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[caveat]

The human body is nothing to be ashamed of and there is nothing "wrong" with nudity or sex.

Cool, I couldn't agree more - here's a great site [goatse.cx] to show your kids, or maybe this [poopsex.com]...they'll LOVE this (kids like animals!) [bestiality.com]. Sex is all fine and dandy, but there ARE a few things I don't want my kids to see (when I have them, that is).

You don't want your child looking at certain things? Teach them that it isn't ok to do so!

OK, now, you might not have kids, but I know you were one once, and since when does telling a kid "Don't look/touch/eat/take/whatever" ever do anythng but make them want it 10x more? Not that I neccessarily support censorware, but any computer that a kid can get onto without direct, constant adult supervision (librarians don't count, they're too busy) should try and keep the hot ass sex to a minimum, without blocking any useful sites. Just my 2c.

Re:Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[NanoGator]

"Parents should be able to view the library as a trusted place to leave their kids."

Sorry, I don't agree with this statement. Let me explain why: A library needs to be a trusted place to get information. It is NOT a babysitter. Normally I wouldn't find this to be an issue except that the two goals are mutually exlusive. It's either a place to find information OR it's a place to leave your kids. You can't have both.

Personally, I side against censorship of an internet connection, mainly because any form of filtering is going to be flawed. (I believe the breast cancer example's been used a lot recently.)

Here's a simple way to handle it: Make it a policy not to allow pornagraphic searches. If you see any, report it and they boot you off. Simple as that. No filtering required. No information blocked. No parents getting upset because something got through the filter.

Now, let's be completely serious for a moment: Who's going to jack off in a library?

Re:Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[gidds]

Even if all under-18s should be prevented from seeing anything that someone considers `unsuitable' (and I don't think they should), current censorware isn't up to the job. It doesn't block all `unsuitable' sites, by a long way, and blocks other things, like health information.

I'm not a parent, but if/when I become one, I hope I'm not so afraid of my child(ren) learning things. You never know, they might even grow up with fewer of our hangups...

Re:Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[bolthole]

As an example, my work uses a censorware package that blocks access to some sites related to breast cancer. That might be OK in an office, but it's a big problem for us because we're a cancer hospital with a research institute.)

The problem is not that your office uses an internet filter. THe problem is that your office uses a BAD internet filter.

A goodfilter would allow you to submit a request, and the product maintainers would update the online site block lists in a day.

If this sort of thing is crutial to your operations, then you hire a full-time person to field those requests in-house, and then you should be able to get access to the sites in an hour or less.

The problem is not filtering, the problem is stupid (or cheap) filtering.

But in libraries, that is not a problem. Internet access is a secondary thing. libraries are supposed to be where people go to READ BOOKS.

If internet access for everyone is *THAT* important, it should be important enough to have separate unfiltered, vs filtered, rooms for internet access.

If the issue isnt important enough to go to those lengths, then it just plain isnt important enough for this whole "discussion". Get rid of those stupid lawyers, and stop bogging down the public library system with the costs of lawsuits like this.

ACLU, wrong again

[ObviousGuy]

The CIPA does not stifle free speech in any way. Blocking sites of prurient interest does not prevent anyone from accessing those sites, only at public libraries and public schools. As the ACLU has no problem with the CIPA in regards to public schools, it is obvious they see something wrong with preventing Tom the Bum from jacking off in the back corner of the library.

The reason libraries exist is to provide a place where the common good can be supported through the availability of writings and research. Since pornography serves no common good it stands to reason that libraries can be required to block it. Supporting the common good sometimes means blocking those things which would erode the common good.

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[Cyno01]

pornography serves no common good

You're new here, right?

Sorry but

[Raul654]

Since pornography serves no common good...

In all seriousness, you're wrong. In Falwell v Flint, the supreme court 100% rejected your arguement, saying that porn is art unless it is outside the standards of the community.

Re:Sorry but

[Raul654]

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtaml/m edia/porno1.html [ndirect.co.uk]

Not surprisingly, then it is in the US that we find a significant attempt by a judge to define obscenity (note: obscenity, not pornography). This is the so-called Miller Test, after the case of Miller v California, 1973, in which Justice Warren Burger defined as pornographic a work, which, when taken as a whole,

*Appeals to prurient interest
*Depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way
*Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

If a work conforms to this definition, then it may, according to prevailing community standards, be condemned as obscene. If it does not meet this definition, then it is not obscene and even pornography which does not meet this definition enjoys the protection of the First Amendment

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[praksys]

Blocking sites of prurient interest does not prevent anyone from accessing those sites, only at public libraries and public schools.

A fairly large segment of the adult US population does not have access to newspapers, books, or the internet, except through public libraries. A very large segment of the child population has no access to these things except through public libraries or through schools. Adults certainly have a 1st amendment right to such access, and children ought to have a similar right.

Even if this were just a matter of preventing access to porn there would be a reasonable 1st amendment argument here. As it happens there is a lot more at stake, and a very strong first amendment argument. The sort of software mandated by CIPA often blocks political sites and health information sites. The courts usually take a dim view of any law which makes it harder for people, especially poor people, to get this kind of information.

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[Carbonite]

Here's the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I can't seem to find where the right to access pornography is. Hmmm...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Not here...

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
Not here either. This isn't about publishing porn, it's about access to it.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Wait a second, that's the end of the First Amendment and there's no mention of access to pron at your public library. So what exactly are you talking about?

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[praksys]

This isn't about publishing porn, it's about access to it.

As I said in my first message it isn't about porn at all - except in so far as some of what gets published and then blocked is porn.

As to the distinction between the right to publish and the right to read what is published, the courts figured out long ago that these are two sides of the same coin. The right to publish is not the right to write stuff down and then hide it away where no one can see it. It is the right to write stuff down and give it to anyone who cares to read it. If the government can pick out some part of the population and prohibit them from reading what you publish, then there is nothing to stop them from prohibiting everyone from reading what you publish, which would effectively mean that your right to publish had been taken away.

Free speech means that you get to decide who you will talk to, not the government.

Its not that simple

[WotanKhan]

ACLU has no problem with the CIPA in regards to public schools, it is obvious they see something wrong with preventing Tom the Bum from jacking off in the back corner of the library.

I think it more likely that the ACLU (and myself) have a problem with Joe (or Jane) Average being able to access reproductive health information (among other things blocked by so-called smart filters) at a public library.

This sort of legislation is sold to us as protection from smut, but in reality it results in censorship of legitimate topics. The problem is analagous to that of protecting against piracy while allowing all forms of fair use. The technology simply is not capable of distinguishing between the two, and shows no sign of becoming so in the near future.

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[Stephen VanDahm]

Yeah, but porn filters also block a lot of legitimate content, and makers of the porn filtering software won't give you a list of sites that they block. I used to be a substitute teacher at a private school. They had porn filters that blocked all free webhosting services (like tripod and geocities) and all free webmail services. But it didn't do a very good job of actually blocking pornography.

I support filtering content when its necessary to do so, but I don't think it's appropriate for the Federal government to make it mandatory. Rather, I think that the individual libraries and school boards should be free to handle the issue in accordance with their own needs and values.

Steve

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[spoonboy42]

So what is pornography? What's prurient interest vs. legitimate sexual health information? What about erotic literature as an art form? What about psychological discussions of human sexuality?

And, most importantly, how the hell do you teach a computer to sort all this out?

Re:ObviousGuy, wrong again

[Petronius]

So enlighten us: what is *your* definition of pornography? Not so 'Obvious', eh?

Re:It's obvious

[Petronius]

and why should The People trust the web blocking software as any kind of authority in terms of what is and what isn't?

If the librarian still feels it necessary to include some information that may have been blocked by an erroneous porn blocker, they can get that information from another medium (books, etc.)
what if the information is only available online? who is going to regulate possible abuse fron the porn blocker ? and who said porn was bad in the first place? It's not necessarily my cup of tea but it might be for someone else. Who gives you, me, the porn blocker the right to decide what's good and what's bad??? what's moral and what isn't?

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[wiggen]

So, what you're saying is that the government (or software censorship companies) should determine what's OK for me to see in the libraries? Which bits and pieces are to be blocked? Should the 13 year old girl be blocked when she looks for information on how to stop her uncle from sexually abusing her? Should I be blocked when I go to learn what Senator Smith said about Abortion on the floor of the senate? Should the gay teen be kept from learning how to deal with the bashers harassing him at school?

Even if we eventually have software smart enough to disallow only "pornographic" information, who's to decide what is pornographic? John Ashcroft who has spent thousands of taxpayers' dollars to cover up the nude sculptures in the Justice Department? There goes all information about ancient greek art, Michaelangelo sculptures and paintings, National Geographic Online, and so many other "pornography." Who's the arbitor of what is pornographic and what is not?

So, once the government or censorship software companies can come up with a definition of pornography that we can all agree on, I'll hold off on supporting CIPA. But, just as soon as we all agree on what pornography is exactly, I'll vigorously agree with you.

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Since pornography serves no common good..."

Says you. It's keeping the internet alive.

I'm sick of people acting like porn is a completely bad thing. It's not. It's a reflection of our personal tastes. Sweeping it under the rug is a step backwards for us all. If it bothers you, grow up. It's not some dark sinful thing, it's just personal.

Anybody else glad that the days of 'porn == taboo' are gone?

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Just b/c you're typing one-handed every time you're online doesn't mean that the rest of us are."

If I'm the one typing one handed, then how come 'because' is too long for you to type? Heh.

This amicus brief quote says it all

[FunWithHeadlines]

" Because libraries lack the technological capability to block the Internet in any narrowly tailored fashion, CIPA's "technology protection measure" requirement effectively forces them to use commercial blocking software. Commercial blocking software is, however, ill-suited to the requirements of the First Amendment. First, the current market does not offer products designed to filter out only the low-value speech barred by CIPA. As a consequence, the blocking software currently available on the market purposefully blocks far broader categories that include protected speech. Second, companies that produce blocking software have little incentive to tailor their products narrowly. To the contrary, because underblocking, not overblocking, generates complaints, these companies have strong economic incentives to design their software to block in an overbroad fashion. Third, commercial blocking software companies can, and in some instances do, use criteria that systematically discriminate against certain viewpoints. As a consequence, CIPA's "technology protection measure" requirement forces libraries to regulate speech in manner that is systematically overbroad and that can involve viewpoint discrimination."

So libraries are de-facto forced to use commercial blockers. Commerical blockers block more sites than they should. They have economic incentives to block more sites than they should. And they have little consequence if they block sites that they personally just don't care for, if they idealogically oppose a site.

You could hardly ask for a more ham-handed solution to the problem.
--------

Re:This amicus brief quote says it all

[GreatOgre]

Commerical blockers block more sites than they should. They have economic incentives to block more sites than they should.

But due to CIPA, wouldn't there be an economic incentive for a company to block with a narrower set of sites? I mean, since there are a lot of libraries that would need a more narrow set, couldn't they release something along the lines of a library or public access version which would more closely satisfy the requirements?

Plus, is it just me or is this more of a case of nobody sells a blocker like this so this law should be illegal? Please, just hire some CS students/recent grads and pay them to create a blocker for you!

Re:This amicus brief quote says it all

[Alsee]

Plus, is it just me or is this more of a case of nobody sells a blocker like this so this law should be illegal? Please, just hire some CS students/recent grads and pay them to create a blocker for you!

I'm a programmer. I and several hundred of my freinds would be quite happy to take a yearly paycheck from you to work on a filter that reliably blocks obscene material and lets valuable content pass freely. Barring an earth-shattering breakthrough in artificial intellegences I fully expect my children and grandchildren to follow on in my footsteps and have life-long employment creating this blocker for you. Don't call us, we'll call you when we've got it up and running.

-

One question I have to consider...

[Kalewa]

By doing this are we going to encourage a whole generation of kids to learn to break systems so they can get uncensored access to the internet? How much time will libraries spend cleaning up after budding hackers?

Re:One question I have to consider...

[Tar-Palantir]

Another interesting question...

Say a kid bypasses the system and goes to a naughty site. Can the library system be sued (by the kid's parents or by offended passersby)?

And another problem...
What about, say, economically disadvantaged folks who have no home internet access? Perhaps one of these folks might want to research breast cancer. Whoops, naughty-naughty, that page contains "breast". Better nuke it. Filters that are overwide cause too many problems. How much time are libraries going to spend arguing with people who need access to inappropriately blocked information?

Re:One question I have to consider...

[jc42]

... encourage a whole generation of kids to learn to break systems so they can get uncensored access ...

Just one of the many benefits of using blocking to tell kids where they should be directing their attention.

The right way to do it would be to outlaw internet access by children. This would work exactly like the laws forbidding children access to things like tobacco,booze and sex. It gets the message across that such things are only for adults, and children are too weak to handle them. The main thing any child wants is to be a grownup, so of course they head right for the things that are forbidden.

If we can get the government to declare the entire Internet adults only, then children will study it at every opportunity. Just as with tobacco, alcohol and sex, kids will become addicted to the Internet and will do anything to get access. The next generation will be experts in its use, and our world conquest will be complete.

That's what we want, dummies. Don't try to prevent it; encourage it.

Re:One question I have to consider...

[Flakeloaf]

How much time will libraries spend cleaning up after budding hackers?

Oh please, it doesn't take that long! A few paper towels and some bar soap, and... ...OH! You mean fixing the damage to the computers!

The Simple Solution

[$$$$$exyGal]

Only show "adult" internet content after 10:00pm (9:00pm central and mountain). If we just do that, the kids will be safe.

You know at least three congressmen have considered pitching that idea ;-)

--sex [slashdot.org]

Re:The Simple Solution

[Robber Baron]

Then what the hell are all us poor sysadmins supposed to do during slack times?

Here's an idea...

[Cyno01]

We've all heard the arguments about breast cancer reports and what not, so i dont think software is good enough yet to not filter out useful stuff. Why not just have the computers in plain view of the librarians desk, esp in the kids section. My library only has about 10 net connected computers, and its in my experience, a huge library [execpc.com]. It isn't unreasonable for one of the librarians to keep an eye on the 3 net computers in the kids section. As for schools, maybe schools should hire computer teachers as opposed to computer class teachers who just sit there reading their e-mail and playing solitaire while telling us to practice with typing tutor. At home its a no brainer, parents, keep an eye on your kids!

Re:Here's an idea...

[Phroggy]

It isn't unreasonable for one of the librarians to keep an eye on the 3 net computers in the kids section.

Here's another issue: if littly Johnny is browsing pr0n in full view of the librarian, is the librarian legally permitted to stop him? I know I've heard librarians complain that they're not allowed to throw out people who are disruptive, particularly kids who shouldn't have been left alone by their parents but were.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Cyno01]

If little johnny is under 18, he shouldn't be looking at porn, and if he clicked 'enter' knowing this he probably commited purgery. Also, why would it have to be legally permited to stop him if purposefully viewing adult material is prohibited under the libraries terms of use for their computers? And whats with them not being able to make people leave? My local library doesn't let the middle school kids from across the street hang out in the entrance way ater school to get picked up by their parents anymore because they created too much of a disturbance.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Cyno01]

At my library you give the librarian your library card to keep while you use the computers. Unless you have an adult card (16 or older, you can check out videos then) you have to use the terminals in the childrens section.

Wanna protect children in libraries?

[spoonboy42]

Outlaw adware!

Well, not outright, but require clear and consistent labeling of software which may hijack web browsers and display additional, unwanted content. Also, a universal opt-out system for adware and unauthorized browser redirections might be useful.

I've come to this conclusion as a library employee. Mandatory censorware is largely inneffective, as we've seen time and time again in the over and under-blocking of basically every commercial censorship "solution". Parental supervision is a hell of a lot more effective (not to mention constitutional) in preventing access to objectional content, anyway. The problem is when the parent simply can't control what is displayed on the screen in the blink of an eye. I've had to deal with some pretty irate patrons (thankfully no little kids yet) who demand to know why unwanted porn suddenly appears on their monitors. I've taken to running ad-aware checks on all the patron computers frequently. Our security setup also prevents unauthorized software installations (unless they install via ActiveX in IE. Thanks Microsoft Security!). Even so, that's not enough to prevent javascripts (many times contained in otherwise innocuous spam email) from popping up anything they want. And before someone suggests it, I HAVE installed Mozilla on several of the workstations and enabled pop-up blocking, but most users who come to the library to surf have no idea what's going on and simply revert to Internet Explorer because they think it IS the Internet.

Re:Wanna protect children in libraries?

[Phroggy]

And before someone suggests it, I HAVE installed Mozilla on several of the workstations and enabled pop-up blocking, but most users who come to the library to surf have no idea what's going on and simply revert to Internet Explorer because they think it IS the Internet.

Delete the IE icon, make a shortcut to Mozilla labeled "The Internet", change the icon to the IE logo, and install the Internet Explorer skin for Mozilla. If anybody notices and inquires, explain what you've done and why, and show them how to get into IE if they really want to.

Stop! Stop Now!

[jpt.d]

They must stop this madness now!

Do you think I want children 'researching' oral sex [oralse.cx], or discusting masturbation [jackinworld.com] in a public library? It is completely evil!

If this doesn't go past, you will automatically start to see bums jacking off in libraries [arizona.edu]!

Or gay rings in public schools! [postfun.com]

We Must Put a Stop to This! [wired.com]

This holy law must be passed!

Re:Stop! Stop Now!

[bolthole]

... Or gay rings in public schools! [postfun.com]

The article you link to is an uninformed one. It claims/implies that the judeo-christian bias against homosexuality is because "all sex must take place within a marriage and then denies that state of marriage to homosexuals. "
(and thus, homosexuality is bad, simply because it is "sex outside of marriage")

The judeo-christian viewpoint against homosexuality is not because of cute little legalities like that one, but because in the bible, God explicitly prohibits homosexual acts.

Re:Stop! Stop Now!

[praksys]

not because of cute little legalities like that one, but because in the bible, God explicitly prohibits homosexual acts

The bible prohibits a whole lot more besides that. Take Lev 19:19 for example:

You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.

So far I haven't seen too many christians getting upset about cotton-polyester mixes. Maybe you should take a look here:

http://www.ecwr.org/faqbible.htm

CIPA

[Azureflare]

CIPA is one of those things that looks good on the outside, but is muck on the inside. Everyone doesn't want kids to access porno, since that is just...wrong. However, the way in which CIPA will be carried out is a major concern. Most public libraries that I know are extremely underfunded, and with the incredible state deficits, they will probably become even less funded.
The internet is a valuable resource, but part of makes it a valuable resource is how open it is, and how variable. As soon as you start introducing legislation that limits what people can actually see, it weakens the openness of the internet. Now, I know most people will say "Oh, well, pr0n isn't something that should even exist on the internet." That's certainly a valid opinion, but I don't feel that anyone should be able to tell someone else what is valid or isn't valid. I think the best solution would be to have "kid safe" computers at libraries, that use the commercial or whatever method of blocking sites, and allowing kids under 18 or whatever to only use those machines, and not others. Adults could use "kid safe" computers if they wanted to, but there would still be some computers which had unrestricted access. That's as free a solution as I can think of. Tying all the computers through one proxy, or whatever other method they use to filter content, just isn't very logical, since it is too heavy handed.

One implementation...

[chill]

My local library -- Spokane County, WA -- seems to have found a reasonable compromise.

When obtaining a library card for a minor, if they want Internet access they need a parent/guardian to sign off on it.

The library cards are barcoded and that is used to activate the Internet terminals.

To sign off, a parent basically signs a form saying "no access", "filtered access" or "unfiltered access". It is explained to them that "filtered access" is a "best effort only" and that the library staff aren't babysitters or the moral guardians of your children.

It seems to have placated the locals -- very few complaints have been generated.

Unfortunately, this screws the library...

[jefftp]

If the library does not impliment always on filtered access to the Internet, they are not eligible for E-Rate funding--a multi-billion dollar fund created by the FCC generated by the Universal Service Fee on your Internet connection, Cell Phone bill, and wired Telephone bill.

Rather than censor the Internet directly, Congress did a run-around and refused funding to schools and libraries that did not impliment an Internet filtering system. Worse yet, you cannot use E-Rate money to pay for a CIPA compliant filtering system: that comes out of your own money.

What does E-Rate funding pay for? Network cabling, equipment, and Leased Internet Access. Up to 90% of those items can be E-Rate funded depending on the awards granted by the SLD (Schools and Libraries Division) of the FCC.

I spend a third of my work week at a major school district dealing with web filter issues. Getting sites either blocked or unblocked. The smart kids find so many ways around the filters through all sorts of proxy sites that it's questionable how useful the filter are.

Any law or act put in effect "for the children" typically has no merit. CIPA is no exception to the rule. It's not the government's job to enforce morality on children--that's what parents are supposed to do.

On the other hand, CIPA provides a wonderful act to hide behind when employees of the school district whine about the filters--especially considering the millions of dollars our school district receives from E-Rate for network cabling, equipment, and Internet access.

Re:One implementation...

[Phroggy]

To sign off, a parent basically signs a form saying "no access", "filtered access" or "unfiltered access". It is explained to them that "filtered access" is a "best effort only" and that the library staff aren't babysitters or the moral guardians of your children.

This is IMHO the best solution. However, as I understand it, the CIPA would mandate that unfiltered access not be available, even with parental consent, and failure to abide by this would mean the library can no longer receive funding from the federal government. That's the problem with the CIPA.

Why not use ODP?

[BabyDave]

Ok, the Open Directory Project [dmoz.org] is a huge directory of categorised websites, and has thousands of editors. It also has filters for "kids", "teens" and "mature teens". Isn't there some way to link filtering software with that - i.e. if a site isn't shown when you're searching ODP on the kids setting, then the connection isn't allowed unless you're an adult.

If a site is inappropriate but not in the directory, then someone at the library reports this and it gets added. On the other hand, if a site is needlessly blocked, that could also be reported and resolved. You could also hint to the large adult sites that it would be nice if they cooperated (e.g. endlessly cry "think of the children!" until they agreed).

Obviously it wouldn't be a perfect system, but it would be better than Net Nanny and the like, and open to much more scrutiny

[Flameproofing] Or alternatively, you could use one of the "truly Free" directories.

/me waits for someone to point out the fatal flaw in my idea ...

Fear

[brettlbecker]

I ask myself again and again why we think it is a good idea to blindfold children, and I can never come up with a better answer than, "... we're afraid of them seeing what we're afraid of seeing in ourselves." Why do we ban books? What are we afraid of? Might the words on the page, the pictures in magazines and on the internet control us?

Why should children need to have our hands over their eyes? Haven't we learned by now that children are far more perceptive than we are... that they are far better at teasing information out of even the smallest rivulets of a source. That they can find out what they want to know, regardless of how much banning and blocking and praying and moralizing we do.

Let children learn. Let them turn into adults who won't fear each other and themselves.

B

Re:Fear

[praksys]

The internet is a big place, full of all sorts of people. It's a lot like a large city in that respect. Fantastic because it contains so much, but also dangerous because it contains some real wackos. I would not let my children wander the streets of New York at night by themselves, and for much the same reasons I would not let them wander the internet without supervision.

I am all for children learning as much as possible about how the world is, but for the time being I would prefer it if they did not talk to pedophiles about sex, or Nazi's about politics, or Christians about religion.

Of course I am also not going to let some idiot piece of censorware make these sorts of judgements about what they need to know and when. I do supervise my children when they use the web at home, and I expect their teachers to do the same thing at school. If I thought they were relying on censorware to do that job then I would find another school.

Self-righteous parenting

[Theaetetus]

Why? For the same reason I dont' allow my young children to have sex, smoke, or stay out out alone late at night.
They are children. They need to mature.

And your definition of maturity includes not having sex, smoking or staying out late?
Wheee, fun night at the Flanders'...
J/k though, but seriously, first question is how old are your children, and second question is when will you relax those rules?

" Haven't we learned by now that children are far more perceptive than we are... "

Yes. Which is EXACTLY WHY we need to stop them from being exposed to things like internet "porn."

Well, first, I disagree with grandparent that kids are more perceptive - they don't have experience to draw upon. However, kids are tough to BS - ask any con-man - because they tend to take everything at face value. This isn't perception, just lack of misconceptions and preconceived notions.

Secondly, what does kids' perception have to do with pr0n? They'll see it as... naked pictures. Woo.... if these are 'kids' we're talking about and not 'teenagers' then they won't give a damn about naked pictures, they'll be more interested in video games.

Granted, this is my opinion, but I lump that attitude in with the idea of teaching kids not to smoke by putting them in a closet with a big stogie. It's my job to protect my children, and teach them right from wrong so when they ARE old enough -- they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down.

First, sticking a kid in the closet with a stogie is just abusive - the stogie will physically harm the kid, locking them in a closet will emotionally harm them ("why is my parent locking me in a closet with something that will harm me?"). I don't include pr0n with that, because there's nothing about looking at pr0n that will physically harm _anyone_. You do know that they won't go blind or grow hair on their palms, right?

Second, and I'll quote this again for emphasis:

It's my job to protect my children, and teach them right from wrong so when they ARE old enough -- they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down.

1) "It's my job to protect my children" - I'll go with that. Perfectly right and resonable.
2) "... and teach them right from wrong..." - your definition of right from wrong... Teach them, yes, but keep that in mind... especially in the next part 3) "... so thart when they are old enough, they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down." - Let me get this straight:

"Johnny, this is right, and this is wrong. I'll keep repeating this for the next 18 years."
-later-
"Johnny, you're 18. Now, decide for yourself... knowing which way I think and that I'll likely disown you if you disagree."

Brainwashing them = good parenting?
How does "decide for themselves" go with "based on the guidelines I've laid down"? Haven't you already decided?

Seriously, though, I disagree with you that pr0n is damaging, I disagree with you that the best parent is the one that blindfolds their kids until they're 18 and then suddenly rips the blindfold off, and I disagree with you that you're actually allowing them to make their own decisions.

-T

It's not about "porn"

[kaltkalt]

This issue (censorware at the library) is not about the "right to look at porn." Forcing adults to use computers equipped with censorware inhibits research. Want to do a report on breast cancer? Tough luck. All censorware will block non-porn websites by mistake, which defeats the purpose of having those computers there - for both children and adults to do research. Anyone who thinks this is about the "right to jerk off to porn in the library in front of the little kiddies" hasn't read much about the issue.

Filter or get the boot for us...

[Trunkboy]

I am the Technology Director at a K12 school in a conservative, small, rural town. Our district has approx 1200 students, and we use "squidguard" to filter the internet.

I hope CIPA sticks around, because it gives the parents in our community the comfort that their kids are at least semi-protected. We use a proxy-authentication, so if a parent decided their child is not allowed to use the 'net, they can't. BUT, if it wasn't a law that we filtered, many many children wouldn't be able to access the internet at all.

Is it morality? Perhaps. Is it fear of the "big bad internet" ? Likely. As a parent, I'm (perhaps naively) confident that my children would not misuse the internet, but what about the kid at the computer next to them? If little Johnny visits "phat-butts.com" -- I don't want my daughter exposed to that during World History...

And finally, not a flamebait, but my thoughts -- True, the government cannot force religious views. BUT, thankfully, elected officials are perfectly allowed to publicly show their faith system. We elect a *person* into office, and I personally want one that represents his or her thoughts, whether or not it offends people. Laws are based on the moral (often religious) views of our officials, and as long as they don't force the *practice* of a certain religion, then hoorah!

That's Mite who sense anyway.

Re:Filter or get the boot for us...

[dvdeug]

If little Johnny visits "phat-butts.com" -- I don't want my daughter exposed to that during World History...

And when little Johnny is reading "Phat Butts" in class, and your daughter sees that, then what? Or if little Johnny's friends dare Johnny to expose himself to your daughter?

Re:Filter or get the boot for us...

[dvdeug]

Perhaps you are OK with Johnny "just being a kid", but that's not what I think it means to be a kid, and I dont' want my daughter to have any part of it.

I'm not okay with what Johnny is doing, but the point is, you've got to take it up with Johnny. Trying to slap a ban on the Internet doesn't solves the problem - every blocker has huge holes, and the real world still exists out there.

"If you want to allow unfiltered internet, do it at home"

Your daughter will run into things on that Internet that you don't consider good. A look at the Portal of Evil [portalofevil.com] should quickly find something that will offend you deeply, but won't be blocked by a straight pornography blocker. There's probably stuff that you wouldn't mind your daughter reading that I wouldn't want my children reading.
The Internet is a microcosm of the world; if you want your child to grow up sheltered, with your beliefs, you're going to need to do your custom filtering.

Furthermore, I'd be more happy with a filtered Internet if I didn't know that Quaker websties and the National Organization of Women website and websites talking about how bad the filtering software is and anything on Geocities were all prone to being banned, despite being valuable sites for growing citizens; and also if I didn't know that my website could go up tomorrow, and hidden between my Project Gutenberg links and programming junk could very well be a short story with hot lesbian sex of the type I'm fairly positive you don't want your daughter to read. There's too many false positives (and far too biased false positives) and way too many false negatives to implement it.

Tax Payer View

[Beatnick]

Why should I, as a taxpayer, want to allow my taxes
to continue to support something that doesn't protect
the best interests of my children when I am not
able to be with them during those visits to school and library?

If it cannot be regulated out of common sense, then
maybe "free" internet access should be revisited.
I'm not advocating that resources should be removed but
the average American needs to know what they are paying for.

Re:Tax Payer View

[commodoresloat]

The Constitution demands that if taxpayer-funded resources exist that they obey the law of the land. One aspect of that is that they do not restrict freedom of speech and press. If you have a problem with this, then perhaps this isn't the best country for you? It's not about the taxpayer controlling where his/her taxes go; it's about the government, which our tax dollars fund, not restricting the rights that our Constitution protects. Sure, if you don't want people to be literate in your community, lobby for the abolition of libraries. But if you have public libraries they damn well better obey the US Constitution.

Oh my God, you're right!!

[Theaetetus]

Why should I, as a taxpayer, want to allow my taxes to continue to support something that doesn't protect the best interests of my children when I am not able to be with them during those visits to school and library?

Absolutely! And, since my house is made of brick, I shouldn't have to be bothered paying support to the Fire department! And, since I don't drive, I don't need to pay for road upkeep! And, since I don't have kids, I don't need to support education, college grants, or drug education! And since I have a house, no need for me to pay taxes for those homeless shelters! And, since I'm saving money for my retirement, I don't need to pay into Social Security, or Medicare, for that matter!

I like your taxpaying view. :D

But, wait, um... doesn't this mean that if I and everyone else did this, there wouldn't be money to pay for things like libraries or schools for your kids? or playgrounds? or Police to watch those playgrounds to keep your kids safe? or drug education to keep your kids clean?

Well, just like you don't want to pay for libraries that refuse to censor, I don't want to pay for your kids, so we're both happy, right?

You do see the sarcasm, right? I really wish no ill will towards your kids. And likewise, you should wish no ill will to me and my wish to study "breast cancer" or "Libertarian party" or a host of other things that are blocked by filters. :)

-T

My experience with CIPA

[theflea]

I'm an admin in a school district, so I had to sign a CIPA part of my AUP. In my case, the state has a k-12 proxy server, and websites are filtered at this level.

In reality, the effects of this act are negligible. The only websites that I've never been able to access are sites that no kindergarten through high school student should ever be able to access.

I've accessed plenty of websites, though, that have profanity and controversial views by virtue of people posting to it (slashdot).

I've never seen one case of over-zealous blocking. If anything, our state has decided to err on the side of a leniant blocking policy.

Other parts of the CIPA basically say that folks in charge of children will make sure kids aren't doing inappropriate things. That's just common sense. This idea originated because teachers sometimes having a habit of turning kids loose on networked computers with no supervision.

I'm in support of the ACLU on so many other issues, but they're just on the wrong side of the issues and facts in this case. I'm sympathetic to the plight of librarians, though. They should never be asked as individuals to censor things. They should just be responsible to abide by this policy, and not be held personally accountable if one kid somewhere hits an unfiltered site.

Re:My experience with CIPA

[JimmytheGeek]

You've never seen a case of over-zealous blocking? You aren't trying. www.peacefire.org/censoreware/ will show plenty of valid sites blocked for each of the major players. Every single one, either by keyword blocking or a URL block list. For the most part, the companies that push this are unethical goons. There may be an exception, but the technology is still just broken anyway.

There is also a major problem with letting some unaccountable commercial entity determine what information is available. Those encrypted url lists are appalling.

I should have done the project, god damn it

[sam_handelman]

If Congress is going to force censorware down our throats, we ought to have open-source censorware, which is open to total customization by the user (hence "librarian"), which doesn't generate profits for the parasitic censorship industry, and which doesn't depend on an encrypted or obfuscated list. This ought to be easy - an internet explorer plugin, a list of regular expressions (to recognise either URLs, tags, or the html itself,) ought to do it.

I started up such a project and then dropped it almost immediately because the CIPA was under injunction, so why should I bother?

Anyway, now I don't have time (I'm a graduate student, gearing up for Orals), but I really think someone ought to do this.

Ooh! Ooh! Brilliant solution!

[Jester99]

Okay. This might sound far-fetched, but here goes:

To hell with blocking software. It doesn't work.

But consider this: nothing physically prevents you from bringing a copy of Penthouse into the library, sitting down in a nice reading chair, spreading it open, and eyeing the pages. Yet, nobody does this. Why not? Oh, because people would raise a stink!

So here's a solution. Take all the computers in the library. And put them in view of the circulation desk. That way, if the old granny librarian behind the counter sees two eight year old boys giggling over pages of porn, she can walk over there and shut off the screen or something.

Tada! Problem solved.

The "accidentally stumbles" argument is bullcrap. I mean, let's face it. It is *hard* to "accidentally stumble" on porn. The possible exception would be if you go to a warez site. They sometimes redirect you to porn. But, uhm, why would you go to a warez site in the library either?

If you're in a library and using a computer, you're not playing games and looking at porn. You're there to do work. Research. Look for books. File tax returns online. Typing in the name of the latest Harry Potter book to get more info about it is hardly going to lead to kids seeing porn.

If you put people in a public place, they're not going to act indecently. If they do, you kick 'em out and don't invite them back. But just as there's nothing tangible preventing you from bringing dead-tree smut into a library, there's no need for anything that censors the 'net either.

Re:Does anyone else find this ridiculous?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Sure, why don't we allow print pornography in public libraries too?
My college library has a collection of Playboy (and it's not alone). Some people consider it to be pornographic.
Traditional libaries are constrained by budget limitations-- so pornography is usually not aquired because other books and journals are considered to be more important. In addition, pornography might present a bit of a theft risk.
This is not about the first amendment. It is about moral values.
Are you trolling here? The first amendment allows Americans to remain blessedly free of state-sponsored religion, and state-sponsored morality.

Jeremy Erwin Is My Cousin

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

"The first amendment allows Americans to remain blessedly free of state-sponsored religion, and state-sponsored morality."

Jeremy, this is false. The religion aspect is correct but many of our laws come from state-sponsored morality. We are not free of them. Blue laws preventing the sale of alcohol on Sundays, gambling bans, laws against obscenity, etc - all come from moral grounds. There's a certain moral standpoint that the government has taken in order to derive laws.

I am nit-picking but I want to make it clear that keeping kids away from pornography is a moral choice that the majority in our system will say is the right moral choice.

Morality, religion, and other nonsense

[Jeremy Erwin]

Actually, there is a group [liquorlaws.org] that is challenging Coloradan Blue Laws on first amendment grounds. Blue laws permit liquor shop owners to attend church on sundays, without suffering economic loss. However, if a Muslim, Jew, or a Seventh Day Adventist were to close shop on their holy day, they would suffer economic damages.

Although I am most fond of the religious and moral values imparted by Lord Summerisle, religious arguments for pornography are admittedly rare.

Most first amendment arguments are based on "freedom of the press"-- if government fiat declares that persons will not be able to read such materials, the rights of the publisher are infringed. Even if there is a legitimate reason for culling out pornographic materials, the censoring agent is often a computer program incaple of correctly determineing whether such material is properly labeled as "pornographic".

letters to a young pedant

[Jeremy Erwin]

I said that:
"The first amendment allows Americans to remain blessedly free of state-sponsored religion, and state-sponsored morality."

You stipulated that existance of blue laws disproves this assertion.

And I replied that certain individuals are challenging a Coloradan system of blue laws, and there is a "first amendment" argument to made against them.

When such challenges are made, the state will probably not defend such laws with a impassioned exhultation "The Almighty", but on other grounds. A religious/moral argument would not stand up in court today.

Indeed, if "blue laws" remain on the books, they will not remain because they further "state sponsored morality", but for other reasons that do not infringe on the establishment caluse.

This thread originally concerned the CIPA act. It is a contemporary law, not some relic passed before anyone took the establishment clause too seriously.

Perhaps some fringe groups will write amicus curiae briefs invoking religious morals, but the serious defenders of such a law will replace such rhetoric with attempts to link porn exposure to all sorts of nasty ills-- a pragmatic, rather than a moral argument.

Re:Does anyone else find this ridiculous?

[The Only Druid]

Okay, first, colleges [both state-funded and private] have been shown to have a vested interest in not only discussing pornography [i.e. within the context of art, sociology, english, philosophy, history, science among other fields], so while it might be appropriate to have Playboy and other erotica in a college library [which, by nature, is focused if not limited to college students, i.e. those old enough to legally acquire pornography] that isn't an argument for it being in all libraries.

Second, as pointed out, the first amendment makes no discussion of morality whatsoever. Moreover it does not prohibit state-sponsored religion. It prohibits sponsoring one religion over another. In other words, if a state or the federal government wants to sponsor one religion through some resource, it must make that resource equally available to all other religions. This, of course, is why they dont [ostensibly] support a specific religion: there are a billion other religions that would lay economic claim against them.

Re:Does anyone else find this ridiculous?

[statusbar]

It is not (or should not) be about moral values.

Public libraries, no matter how much they are 'anti-censorship' and 'for freedom of speech' most DEFINITELY do not stock Hustler Magazine or Penthouse Forum Magazine. They don't even stock 'Naked Teens With Older Men' Magazine.

So why would they want to allow people to look up those very same magazine's websites on the computer at the library?

Libraries already DO perform censorship, just by their choice of books and magazines that they do not bring in.

Maybe the websites that the internet terminals are allowed to go to should be specifically 'pre-approved' by the library? Give the Librarian the control, not the filter companies, and not the government. Allow patrons of the library to request websites to be approved.

Maybe, the internet is NOT a suitable thing to place into a library? The internet is NOT an on-line library anymore, that concept was ruined 7 years ago.

--jeff++

Re:Does anyone else find this ridiculous?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I don't know what goes these days, but the Pacific Grove public library on the Monterey Peninsula used to have a Playboy subscription in the 70's. Kept this material in an adults-only section of the library - periodical reading room.

Re:ACLU

[PD]

Seems like you've got it backwards. When my tax money is used to pay for a religious display from the government, I start to wonder what country I live in. Would you be so happy to see tax money pay for a religion that you do not believe in? Would you like to hear a Wiccan pray for 10 minutes at a High School football game?

Re:Well, it *IS* constitutional

[praksys]

He was attempting to parody the ACLU interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Apart from missing on the parody side of things, he also got the interpretation wrong. Although the ACLU thinks that "right of the people" in the 1st Amendment refers to the rights of individual citizens, they somehow managed to arrive at the view that "right of the people" in the 2nd Amendment refers to the rights of state governments. This is most of the reason why American conservatives think that the ACLU is full of it.

Re:The enemy of my enemy...

[commodoresloat]

I'm sure the ACLU is very unhappy that an anonymous coward is no friend of theirs. Hopefully they'll be able to see past the sorrow and move on with their lives.