Invisible Adjunct

I take the point. However, the ruling does require the library to disable to filter at the request of an adult patron, so that diminished the nefarious effects described.

And on a wholly different level libraries can avoid the use of the filter rather easily--they can refuse to take the federal funds. (I grant, of course, that would then possibly take away the ability of the library to have the internet connection, but it illustrates the power issues at stake here: Congress has the money, and can attach strings to the money--that is the real issue here).

#1 is right about the disabling of filters upon request. And it also sounds like Liz was accessing her site from somewhere other than a library, so the law doesn't apply. For private access points, "market forces" will determine whether filters are used.

But I also have to speak up in favor of the filters in libraries. This is one of the few instances where protecting children seems like a legitimate argument. There's a lot of nasty stuff on the Net that, I would guess, even very permissive parents wouldn't want their kids to see. Asking for the filters to be disabled is an inconvenience, but it seems like a pretty fair trade-off.

The example from Liz demonstrates the shortcomings of the filters, and hence the law. I don't think she meant to imply that the law would require commercial sites to implement such filters.

Asking for the filter to be disabled is more than an inconvenience, in my opinion. There is likely to be a certain stigma attached to such a request in some libraries.

Why mandate putting filters on all computers in libraries just to protect children? Why not have a children's section with filtered-access computers? We don't expect libraries to mostly stock books that are unobjectionable for children's consumption with a special "ADULTS ONLY" section available upon special request.

The ruling does *not* require libraries to disable filtering upon request; it only allows it. A significant difference.

Unfortunately, disabling the filter is not always easy in practice. Unlike the case with home filters, the library filter is often installed at the server level, meaning that it can be hard to alter the preferences for one computer. Having a special room set aside for adult viewing is one possibility, but not all libraries can afford the space and many would not want to grant too much privacy in such cases.

There's also the question of what children themselves can be allowed to see. What happens if a child is trying to learn more about breast cancer, or is worried about having contracted an STD, or is trying to figure out what resources are available if she or she has been abused? I agree with the need to protect them -- heck, many of those sites disgust and disturb me! -- but who decides what is protection, and what is censorship?

Here's the relevant portion of Rehnquist's opinion.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-361.ZO.html

"When a patron encounters a blocked site, he need only ask a librarian to unblock it or (at least in the case of adults) disable the filter. As the District Court found, libraries have the capacity to permanently unblock any erroneously blocked site, id., at 429, and the Solicitor General stated at oral argument that a “library may … eliminate the filtering with respect to specific sites … at the request of a patron.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 4. With respect to adults, CIPA also expressly authorizes library officials to “disable” a filter altogether “to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes.” 20 U.S.C. § 9134(f)(3) (disabling permitted for both adults and minors); 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6)(D) (disabling permitted for adults). The Solicitor General confirmed that a “librarian can, in response to a request from a patron, unblock the filtering mechanism altogether,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 11, and further explained that a patron would not “have to explain … why he was asking a site to be unblocked or the filtering to be disabled,” id., at 4. The District Court viewed unblocking and disabling as inadequate because some patrons may be too embarrassed to request them. 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 411. But the Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of
embarrassment."

Note that children can have filters disabled for legitimate research.

In addition, in his separate concurring opinion, Kennedy basically says that if unblocking is burdensome, that would change the facts of the case as he sees them and the libraries should bring suit again.

Except unblocking is already known to be burdensome, and bringing suit is a non-trivial and extremely expensive activity. Filtering software as it stands now has both "false positives" (like my site), and missed sites. I can guarantee you that a computer-savvy teenager will find a way to find "inappropriate" materials on a filtered computer.

The ALA brief from the case is worth reading, to understand the library position on this issue. It's only available in PDF form:
http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/ALA_Washington/Issues2/Civil_Liberties,_Intellectual_Freedom,_Privacy/CIPA1/CIPA_Briefs/meritsbrief.pdf

This site also has information on ALA's position in the case: http://censorware.net/article.pl?sid=03/02/11/2043211&tid=1

Except unblocking is already known to be burdensome, and bringing suit is a non-trivial and extremely expensive activity. Filtering software as it stands now has both "false positives" (like my site), and missed sites. I can guarantee you that a computer-savvy teenager will find a way to find "inappropriate" materials on a filtered computer.

The ALA brief from the case is worth reading, to understand the library position on this issue. It's only available in PDF form:
http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/ALA_Washington/Issues2/Civil_Liberties,_Intellectual_Freedom,_Privacy/CIPA1/CIPA_Briefs/meritsbrief.pdf

This site also has information on ALA's position in the case: http://censorware.net/article.pl?sid=03/02/11/2043211&tid=1

Liz, I didn't read the brief (64 pages!) but did read the other page. I think the arguments there are good and the Court accepts them. But the ACLU and ALA don't mention unblocking and that's the heart of the issue. It makes the other points irrelevant. The filtering software may stink, but adults can have it turned off and kids can beg for access to sites for research.

The fact that it may be burdensome doesn't bother me so much for two reasons: 1) libraries are a huge market for filtering companies and they'll make software that's easier to disable if that's what it takes to stay legal and 2) suits may be expensive but the ALA will still file if it thinks it can win.

In other words, either filtering will become acceptably easy or it will be ruled unconstitutional.

Quite interesting.

This entire discussion about adults having the ability to ask that a filter be turned off *assumes* that adults know what filtering software is in the first place and would know what it means to ask that it be turned off. These assumptions are probably incorrect. I say that based on research I have done on people's Web use abilities. When I asked people if they knew what filtering software is, 45% (of 100 randomly sampled Internet users in my area) said they had little or no understanding. (I know it's a small sample, it was a complex project that didn't allow for more respondents.) People who access the Web in libraries are likely to know even less about the Web because they don't have the freedom to explore it in details like those who use it at home (or use it freely at work). Moreover, given the limited amount of time people get to spend at library terminals, it's highly unlikely that they'll spend their allocated 15-30 minutes asking for modifications to the settings. The idea of having separate machines sounds more reasonable although comes with all sorts of issues itself.

Re: children and the internet. I really don't think the library is the place to be concered about, anyway. At the library, there are too many people about, and more specifically, too many adults (teachers, librarians, parents, and so on). The real concern is the kid who has his own computer in his own bedroom and who spends time online without adult guidance/supervision.