Trial Begins Over Library Censorship

Justen writes: "CBS has a story on the Philadelphia trial over the Children's Internet Protection Act, signed by President Clinton in 2000. This is the first challenge to come to trial, challenging the act which aimed to censor pornography and other "inappropriate" websites in libraries and other government-subsidized public Internet access-points. The big shocker? The challenge has the support of a large number (3,000) of libraries, librarians, and library patrons."

harmfull to miners

[ajrs]

Just block all of the sites that cover black lung and cave-ins

Re:harmfull to miners

[Pedersen]

"Minors not miners" :)

Is anyone surprised?

[adr]

Is anyone surprised that the challenge has broad support from libraries and librarians? I've worked in libraries pretty much solidly since 1994, and I've never never ever met any librarian who thought that censorware was a good idea.

The reason? Censorware is simply too broad. There exists many cases where censorware companies blocked not only obscene material but also perfectly legitimate constitutionally-protected material like sites on women's rights and birth control. And as for pornography, what happens when someone is doing legitimate research on porn or needs to access material commonly described as porn? The last library I worked at stocks Playboys (and yes, this is one time when the old saw about "buying playboys for the articles" actually is actually true). You had to ask for them at the front desk, but they were there.

Anyway, bottom line -- this is Yet Another Totally Unconstitutional Load of Bull-Plop that even the lizards on the current Supreme Court will probably strike down. Hopefully.

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[Deagol]

Is anyone surprised that the challenge has broad support from libraries and librarians? I've worked in libraries pretty much solidly since 1994, and I've never never ever met any librarian who thought that censorware was a good idea. The reason? Censorware is simply too broad.

I agree. While the standard for "obscene" has been hammered out (though still a hot potato), "harmful to minors" could mean anything.

Anyway, bottom line -- this is Yet Another Totally Unconstitutional Load of Bull-Plop that even the lizards on the current Supreme Court will probably strike down.

Is the right to access speech protected by the 1st? I know the right to produce speech is, but I'm uncertain of the other. It's a no-brainer that I can produce objectionable material, but as a consumer, do I have a right to access it at the public library? Not that I agree with the law, mind you. However, I'm not sure it'll be a slam dunk to get it struck down.

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[MindStalker]

Yes, in the same way that the government can't go around burning books. They also can't tell the libraries what books to buy (except material that is obsence, which can only legally be labeled on the absolute sickest stuff, most commonly child porn). Weither such policies extend to the internet hasn't been decided yet.

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[SagSaw]

"Is the right to access speech protected by the 1st? I know the right to produce speech is, but I'm uncertain of the other."

I think that free (not as in beer) access to speech is absolutly necessary to ensure the right to produce speech. An extreame example: I construct a sound-proof chamber, and allow you to say whatever you want inside. You have the right to say whatever you want, but I have effectivly muzzeled your expression by not allowing anyone else to hear it.

The old spirit of prohibition again

[software_non_olet]

Seen from the Europen side of the Atlantic this is the old story of American women societies dominating the countries official morale since the wild west. A French prime minister for example would never be considered uncapable of doing politics just because he had a girl friend after office hours. Everybody would just say "Gee, he's still a man of power, our prime minister, isn't he?".

The porno sites would not be there, if nobody would ever click on their links. Where are these clicks coming from, from dirty ol' men overseas only? And the interest in pornography would not be that great, if normal sex life was accepted and more freely available.

Double morale, politicians fear the influence of the old womens societies and that's it. On the surface - while underneath Big Brother is watching you. The result will be less money for organisations who really need it - public libraries. My god! Who has ever though about viewing porno sites in a public library? Must be pretty twisted brains who think that an imminent thread the government should be concerned with.

Carrying guns is OK, but dicks - my god!

Re:The old spirit of prohibition again

[Dyolf Knip]

It's really you Europeans' fault in the first place. Sent too damned many Puritans and religious morality freaks to colonize North America and now look what's happened. :)

Re:The old spirit of prohibition again

[software_non_olet]

Yes, in indeed, now all the good porn has to be reimported. Terrible.

But also has it's advantages: English has become the world language, it's no longer French.

Don't let anybody tell you, that the Playboy articels are only place-fillers. No, not at all: we Europeans need them for our kid's education.

the CIPA

[Vodak]

It's simplistic to claim that this argument boils down to Republicans attempting to carve away at our first amendment rights to fit their own morality.

The internet holds a vast amount of pornography that is so crude it can not be placed on news stands. Of that number there is a percentage of this content that is and was illegal well before the popularity of the Internet came acrossed the country.

A large problem for these public places not that normal pornography would be acessable to minors, but that the illegal type would be availble to everyone.

If JohnDoe access child porn from a library and the police arrest him on his way home from the library can the library be sued for letting him access it? Normal people would say of course not. But the court system is fill of libal cases that Slashdot readers think are too stupid to goto trial.. and every case costs money.

Of course this is just my wonderings about the subject.

Re:the CIPA

[bobKali]

"...Republicans attempting to carve away at our first amendment rights to fit their own morality.
"

I'm sorry, this bill was signed by who????

Republican on board too!

[molo]

* 2002-03-25 16:30:16 First Challenge to CIPA (yro,censorship) (rejected)

From the NY Times article [nytimes.com]:

"The coalition of plaintiffs includes the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and Jeffrey L. Pollock, a Republican Congressional candidate who favored mandatory filtering until he discovered that his own campaign's Web site was blocked by one of the most popular filtering programs."

Re:Republican on board too!

[Dyolf Knip]

That censorware is ridiculously biased in building their blacklist is well known. In particular they have a nasty tendency to label poor reviews of their software as violent and pornographic.

Now my question regarding Mr. Pollock is this. Is he now against it because he discovered they blocked his website, or is he now against it because he discovered why they blocked his website?

censorware bans useful library sites as feature

[Seth Finkelstein]

Take a look at an essay just posted at another site [kuro5hin.org]:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/25/8925/06088 [kuro5hin.org] [kuro5hin.org]
Censorware - changing the debate from "filtering" (Technology)
By Seth Finkelstein [sethf.com]

"As already mentioned in another story a Federal censorware law is now being challenged in court. For the past months, I've been focusing on trying to change some of the ways people think about censorware. Censorware is not a "filter", it's a blinder-box."

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

This is why .kids should exist

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Instead of trying to filter kid-unsafe material
out of the existing 3 billion or so websites,
you'd think the sponsors of COPA could've just
told ICANN to get off their asses and set up a
.kids (or .minors or whatever) domain where the
offending content could not be legally hosted.

Re:This is why .kids should exist

[martyn s]

What it god's sordid name would that solve? Oh, I guess libraries would only be able to access .kids TLDs? And besides, they would have the same problem we have now, in trying to decide what's "appropriate" content for a .kids website. Are you on crack or something?

Re:This is why .kids should exist

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

What it god's sordid name would that solve? Oh, I guess libraries would only be able to access .kids TLDs?

No, libraries would have .kids-only PCs in the children's book section. Parents could also sign permission if they felt their kids were ready to use the unrestricted PCs.

And besides, they would have the same problem we have now, in trying to decide what's "appropriate" content for a .kids website. Are you on crack or something? help me.

It would be up to the .kids domain registrar. The important thing is: Congress, parents groups, civil liberties groups could go off and fight all they wanted about the AUP for .kids, while leaving the rest of the Net alone. Does that help?

Look, the issue is not going to go away. People want their kids to have free access to the Net, so they can grow up to be well-paid information workers instead of low-paid foodservice workers. But they also don't want six-year olds to be exposed to pr0n, molesters, or serial killer fan sites. IMHO, these are legitimate goals, and the best way to satisfy them without censoring the entire Net is to create kid-safe part of the Net that is appropriate to censor.