ACLU Fights Library Internet Filtering… Again
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.
Author