filters and the law

[Andrew Mutch]

It should be clarified that the Minneapolis situation is not a court ruling.  It
is a preliminary finding by the EEOC regarding a sexual harassment claim. I am
also not a lawyer but I would guess that First Amendment issues don't even enter
into the findings of the EEOC as they deal with employment law, not
constituional claims.  Furthermore, the EEOC's finding doesn't mean that filters
are going to be mandated or are even the solution.  It was noted elsewhere that
some of the librarians filing the claim don't support filters as a solution to
the problem.

For the sake of discussion, even if the EEOC ruling was a court decision, that
wouldn't necessarily mean that it sets up the opportunity for a Supreme Court
challenge.  The Virginia case was never appealed and as such,  no precedent was
established.  The district court's decision, while outlining some very important
legal issues, has no direct applicability except to the case itself.  Normally,
you won't see the Supreme Court take on these cases until there are conflicting
decisions at the Court of Appeals.  That can't happen until there are actually
cases that are decided and appealed to that level.  So, unless or until we see
some court cases advance their way up to the Court of Appeals, these discussions
will be mainly speculation by constitutional scholars and arm-chair lawyers like
myself.
:)

Andrew Mutch
Library Systems Technician
Waterford Township Public Library
Waterford, MI


.  So, there is no court rulings in opposition here.  Even if it was,

Julia Schult wrote:

> No flame wars, here.  A family member just forwarded to me a blurb pointing
> out that we have opposing court rulings on the subject of filtering in
> libraries:
>
> http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/01/june1.html#0604c
>
> According to this, a district court in Virginia ruled in 1998 that filtering
> in a public library was unconstitutional.  However, the Minneapolis case
> said lack of filtering created a hostile work environment, which is also
> against the law.
>
> This sets us up for a Supreme Court challenge, because the rulings are in
> different federal districts.  They are also based on different points of
> law.  If it came to a head on the basis outlined here, I believe (and I am
> not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv) the unconstitutional argument, if
> sound, should trump the "hostile work environment" violation, also if sound.
> This is because I believe the free speech claim is based on the constitution
> while (I think) the harassment claim is based merely on legislated law.  Any
> lawyers care to comment?
>
> <Did I say no flame wars?  Then ignore the next paragraph... more of a rant
> than a flame>
>
> My personal take is that it is only a hostile work environment if people
> were complaining and nothing was done, which is quite likely to be what won
> the case in court.  If patrons (plural) were trying to bug the librarians by
> exposing them to pornography, especially offensive and (if minors are
> involved, which a lot of online pornography is) even illegal pornography,
> and those librarians complained and asked for policy changes that would
> prevent them from being exposed to this, and the library did nothing (which
> in the Mpls case I thought they did make some changes) then that would be a
> hostile work environment.  It is always a hostile work environment when
> management does not listen to deeply considered policy advice from a group
> of front-line workers, but it is not always illegal.  When issues of gender
> arise, it can legally be considered harassment.  In this case, it is because
> women feel intimidated by pornography and men don't (generalization, of
> course, and we could discuss that whole topic, but not on this list) it
> becomes harassment instead of just management being inconsiderate and
> unresponsive.  Now, if the librarians and/or other staff complained, and the
> management took steps such as putting in those screens that don't allow
> anyone to see what is on a users screen, with a policy that patrons must
> clear the screen before they leave the workstation, then I don't think the
> management was unresponsive.  I don't think patrons should be allowed to
> intimidate staff whether with a knife or with a degrading picture.  (And
> furthermore, I like and enjoy erotica, but when I see some of the stuff
> that's out there I do feel strongly intimidated and abused.  If someone left
> images of castration around on purpose for the library staff to find... or
> holocaust pictures... I'd feel the same way.)  And yes, I have dealt with
> violent and threatening patrons, and the library has policies on how to deal
> with them.  Why not the same with patrons who deliberately harass library
> staff without guns or knives.  We have policies against that, too!
>
> <end of rant>
>
> ---Julia E. Schult
> Access/Electronic Services Librarian
> Elmira College
> Jschult at elmira.edu
>
> p.s. rhetorical question: why do they call them "porn filters" when one of
> their main functions is to block violence?  As my husband says, "More Sex!
> Less Violence!"