ACLU Fights Library Internet Filtering… Again
Posted on November 19, 2006
Cross Posted from Revealing The ACLU.
From the ACLU website:
Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, three library users and a nonprofit organization today brought a lawsuit to ensure that patrons of a library system in Eastern Washington have access to useful and lawful information on the Internet.
The lawsuit challenges the library system’s policy of using a restrictive Internet filter to bar access by adults to information on its computers and of refusing to honor requests by adult patrons to temporarily disable the filter for sessions of uncensored reading and research.
No surprise here – the ACLU has been a regular proponent of unfettered access to Internet computers in public libraries. The contention is that the very fact that libraries are tax funded, they have an obligation to provide access to all information without passing judgment upon the appropriateness of the information. The only major case I can find on this topic is United States v American Library Association which left the filtering question mostly open – stating only that the congress can force public libraries to install blocking software.
Lets remember that the ACLU has fought hard against Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires schools and libraries to block obscene content which are pornographic or otherwise harmful to minors.
This case is somewhat different, in that it is not specifically with regards to obscene internet content.
From the ACLU ComplaintText:
NCRL has configured its SmartFilter software to block Web sites in the following categories, or in categories equivalent to the following categories: Alcohol, Anonymizers, Chat, Criminal Skills, Dating/Social, Drugs, Extreme, Gambling, Game/Cartoon Violence, Gruesome Content, Hacking, Hate Speech, Malicious Sites, Nudity, P2P/File Sharing, Personal Pages, Phishing, Pornography, Profanity, School Cheating Information, Sexual Materials, Spyware, Tobacco, Violence, Visual Search Engine and Weapons.
Some of these items, such as the Nudity, Violence, Gruesome Content, Pornography, Profanity, and Sexual Materials would be areas covered by CIPA. However, to get around this, the ACLU focuses in on other areas in there suit.
Plaintiff Sarah Bradburn has attempted to use computers maintained by the NCRL to conduct Internet research -– particularly regarding alcohol and drug-addiction topics -– in connection with academic assignments.
[…]
Plaintiff Pearl Cherrington is a professional photographer, her work consisting mostly of landscapes and outdoor scenes. She has attempted to use computers maintained by the NCRL to conduct Internet research and obtain information regarding art topics – including art galleries that might be interested in displaying her work. She has also attempted to use NCRL computers to conduct Internet research and obtain information about health topics.
[…]
Plaintiff Charles Heinlen has attempted to use computers maintained by the NCRL to conduct Internet research and obtain information on topics relating to firearms. His ability to conduct research and access information related to firearms has been restricted by the Internet filters that the NCRL has installed on its computers.
So what is the ACLU trying to do here? I believe that the ACLU is trying to set up a chain of precedent which it can use to erode CIPA, or at least loosen the general restrictions upon internet access in American’s libraries. Note the broad categories in the first quote, some of which are directly address by CIPA, and then the examples in the second quote which are areas outside of CIPA and which can be argued as unfair blocking of information.
This matter can be quickly addressed by the FCC and American Library Association providing some very specific guidance for the implementation for CIPA. This will have the simultaneous effect of removing these libraries as targets for the ACLU, and to removing ambiguity on what should or should not be blocked.
We can expect the ACLU to push back on CIPA and similar legislation in any way they can. They are possessed of a mistaken belief that free speech covers obscenity – or perhaps that obscenity itself is a concept open to wide interpretation.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
7 Responses to “ACLU Fights Library Internet Filtering… Again”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Clarification and Guidance are always good things. Assuming it’s reasonable, of course.
That may very well be the endgame, but what’s wrong with their position on these three cases? None of them seem to involve obscenity or children, so it would seem that CIPA has no bearing on them.
Because the ACLU and the American Library Association work hand in hand to sexualize America’s children (see http://www.safelibraries.org/ala-v-usa.htm), I’m no friend of either organization. In this case, however, the ACLU suing to prevent the permanent blocking of certain web sites such as in this case seems counterintuitive to what one might think. One might think the ACLU would love to block people from learning about exercising their Second Amendment rights. That’s not the case here, however. After all, the Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/) is a co-plaintiff with the ACLU. As you know, sometimes the ACLU supports the good guys.
Jeff: As pointed out in the original post, the ACLU did mention some obscene elements in the heading of the complaint, but dropped back to the non-obscene material in the specific plaintiff references. It is this duality that concerns me.
I am with you on the ACLU and the ALA, but the above quote threw me. I can see only two reasons for the ACLU to take the position it has in this case. Either to set the foundation to overturn CIPA, or to provide a token case to counteract the negative press they have been seeing of late.
Or maybe they just oppose censorship even on non-sexual speech?
Davef. I’m no ACLU expert. My understanding is they occasionally, more like rarely, take cases opposed to what their real goal is just to be able to point to them as examples of the good they do. Yes, they could be setting a foundation to overturn CIPA, but CIPA specifically provides for “as-applied” challenges to the application of CIPA, so the most they might get is the first case of an “as-applied” challenge to CIPA. Note I’m not a legal expert. All I know is children continue to be harmed in public libraries likely because of the ALA’s actions. I see it in news story after news story, among other places.
It seems easy to explain. The first quote is simply a laundry of list of the blocked categories. It is containted in the “Facts” section and it’s probably safe to assume that they won’t be challenged.
Not all of them applied to the plaintiffs, so it really shouldn’t be a surprise that some were not mentioned in subsequent sections. It should also be noted that non-sexual categories such as “Chat”, “Game/Cartoon Violence”, “School Cheating Information” were also part of the laundry list, despite being mostly irrelevant to these particular plaintiffs.