Libraries that choose to filter Internet access are not engaging in censorship, according to the Washington Supreme Court. The court made its decision late last week on 6-3 vote, with the majority noting that libraries are not obligated to provide universal access to all constitutionally protected speech just because it exists. Still, the dissenting justices feel that filters should be removed at the request of an adult, and that the decision is "draconian."
The case was originally brought against the North Central Regional Library (NCRL) by three patrons who found that they were unable to access certain sites on the library's computers. NCRL had implemented a use policy—as well as FortiGate filtering software across all its branches—that barred access to certain kinds of content, such as porn, gambling sites, Web chat services, proxy avoidance tools, and other "adult" content. According to NCRL's policy, sites that were erroneously blocked could be unblocked at the request of an adult patron, but otherwise, the filter remained in place even if an adult were to request immediate access to certain forbidden sites.
The patrons, Sarah Bradburn, Pearl Cherrington, and Charles Heinlen, said in their suit that NCRL's filtering policy was unconstitutional, particularly the part that barred adult patrons from requesting that the filter be lifted on the spot. After all, public libraries are just that—a public service—and barring access to sites like "Women and Guns" is not far off from China's Great Firewall, which blocks sites that talk about Tibetan liberation. Or is it? According to the Supreme Court judges, libraries like NCRL have to consider their resources when it comes to both printed and electronic materials.
"Even if one were to assume a public library with unlimited funds and space, that library would be under no obligation to make all constitutionally protected printed materials available," wrote the judges. "For example, regardless of its resources a library need not place pornographic materials on its shelves, although such materials are constitutionally protected."
Of course, libraries do have physical restrictions and other costs associated with offering printed and electronic materials—at the very least, computers always seem to be scarce at the library, and Internet connections cost money. Limiting access to porn and other resource-sucking materials (that may or may not be appropriate for children in the first place) might make sense to a certain degree, and NCRL argued that adults who feel certain sites should be accessible could use already-existing methods to dispute the blocks. "Because adults can request and obtain unblocking of erroneously blocked sites, we conclude that on this record no overbreadth problem exists," wrote the judges.
Still, not everyone agreed with the methods and policies involved in filtering the Internet at NCRL. Three of the nine judges disagreed with the decision, noting that the library surely had good intentions when implementing the filter, but that there were "less censorial" ways to keep things clean.
"I am not unsympathetic to the goal of protecting children. But that laudable goal has all too often been advanced as a ground to restrict constitutionally protected speech generally though, at least in our state before today, usually unsuccessfully," wrote Justice Tom Chambers.
As noted by ReadWriteWeb, Chambers' view is particularly important when you consider a recent report from the University of Washington citing public libraries as a "critical digital hub." The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also published a report earlier this year saying that 44 percent of those living below the poverty level use the Internet at their local public libraries. On top of that, nearly a third of Americans over 14 used library Internet services in 2009. It's clear that the public is indeed making use of the resources available to them, and Chambers believes adults should be able to decide what they can and can't access. "The filter should be removed on the request of an adult patron. Concerns that a child might see something unfortunate on the screen must be dealt with in a less draconian manner," he wrote.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment