GILROY
– City library officials say a Supreme Court decision on
Internet pornography filters Monday isn’t likely to have a great
impact in Santa Clara County, but advocates for restricted access
are pleased by a ruling they feel vindicates their hard-fought
battle over the issue here several years ago.
GILROY – City library officials say a Supreme Court decision on Internet pornography filters Monday isn’t likely to have a great impact in Santa Clara County, but advocates for restricted access are pleased by a ruling they feel vindicates their hard-fought battle over the issue here several years ago.
Years after a debate over electronic access to sexually explicit materials here resulted in the installation of filters in county libraries – and some national media attention – a divided court ruled Monday that Congress can force the nation’s public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters if they accept federal funds.
Santa Clara County has a filtering policy and apparently doesn’t use the money in question. But the court’s decision pleased activists with K.I.D.S., or Keep the Internet Decent and Safe For Kids, a group of parents that pressured local libraries on the access issue in the mid-1990s.
“I think the tide has definitely turned,” said Sandi Zappa, a Gilroy parent and K.I.D.S. co-founder. “There have been some disappointments along the way, but (the court) has spoken strongly.”
But the court’s decision ignores the fact that filters are a very imperfect means of avoiding pornography, said Connie Rogers, a former Gilroy City Councilwoman who helped approve the county library system’s current compromise policy on filters and access.
“(Filters) do not eliminate all pornography and in fact censor many works of art, medical and sex education and other worthy subjects,” she said.
The court’s 6-3 ruling upholds the 2000 Children’s Internet Protection Act, a law that can require public libraries to install filters on their computers in order to receive federal technology funds.
The government has argued that libraries don’t have X-rated movies and magazines on their shelves and shouldn’t have to offer access to porn on their computers. But librarians and civil liberties groups countered that filters are censorship and they block valuable infomration. Filter operators – private companies and not government institutions – must review millions of Web sites to determine which to block.
Monday, the court found that the technology does not violate the First Amendment even though it shuts off some legitimate, informational Web sites. It said because libraries can disable the filters for patrons who ask, they are not too burdensome.
Four justices said the law is constitutional, and two more said it is allowable as long as patrons are not denied Internet access.
The decision isn’t likely to affect Gilroy library in terms of funding or filtering, said Lani Yoshimura, the city’s head librarian.
For one, Gilroy – and the county’s library system – does not generally count on the federal money that’s in question, Yoshimura said. The funds are generally earmarked for low-income areas, and the county decided years ago – before the local filtering controversy – that the amount of tracking and other requirements associated with the grants didn’t make them cost-effective enough to pursue here.
Meanwhile, Gilroy and other county libraries have already established and implemented a policy on Internet filtering after the conflict here several years ago.
At the time, county library computers allowed open, unfiltered access to the Web. But in response to the local debate – which drew attention from regional and even national media – the county’s Joint Powers Authority, a multi-jurisdictional board that governs the county’s library, instituted a countywide filter program and Internet use policy for its 10 libraries.
Under the policy adopted by the JPA, Internet computers in children’s areas have filters that run automatically. On the adult side of the library, Internet users are given the option whether they choose to activate the filter or not when they sign in for a new use session.
Children are not mandated to use the filtered computers, and librarians do not actively monitor or police what patrons are viewing on the Web.
Viewing of pornography on library machines is dealt with as a behavior problem. If young children are seen viewing porn, librarians generally ask them if they need help, since they’re unlikely to have purposeful interest in such material. For teens and adults, librarians may ask patrons to cease viewing if it disturbs other patrons.
Yoshimura said Monday that patrons accessing porn at the library isn’t a big problem. She estimated that just “a handful” of issues have occurred over Internet access against an estimated 8 million sessions a year – and most of the conflicts are misunderstandings.
For example, people have complained about library patrons accessing content such as MTV’s “Beavis and Butthead” television show, professional wrestling or graphic medical sites, Yoshimura said.
“In a lot (of the complaints), if you looked at it closer, it had to do with something totally different (than pornography),” she said.
Because Internet computers are positioned for privacy, the complaining parties would have had to stand over a user’s shoulder to see what they were accessing – a place they have no business being, Yoshimura noted.
Rogers believes the JPA’s policy was a strong compromise to a delicate issue because it puts the decision where it should be – with the individual.
There’s no substitute for parents teaching their own children how to make good decisions about what they’re viewing, Rogers said of Monday’s court decision. Librarians are not baby sitters or censors, she noted.
“Involuntary restriction of any information in a public library is antithetical to the purpose of libraries, which is to make available any information the user requests,” she said.
Zappa has said the JPA’s current policy isn’t ideal, but it’s better than what existed before. She said K.I.D.S. suggested a number of different options to keep minors from accessing porn, such as “smart cards” where parents determine what level of access their children have. The validity of those suggestions was demonstrated Monday as a dissenting justice suggested such measures in his opinion, she said.
General local resistance to measures that would help prevent youths from accessing porn meant it was only a matter of time before the state or the feds stepped in, she said.
“(The court) called this a selection issue,” she said after reading the verdict. “That was so good to hear that because we’ve said this over and over …
“Libraries don’t choose Penthouse or some of the more raw porno videos, so why do they have to select everything the Internet offers?”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
