CDA

[andrew mutch]

Burt, David wrote:

> Providing access to the Internet means providing the potentiality of
> access to materials which do not exist in the library.  This is clearly
> not the same as selecting and acquiring materials.  Filtering means
> restricting the potentiality of access to materials that do not exist
> within the library.  That is no more censorship than is the
> non-selection of materials.  Restricting the potentiality of access to
> materials that do not exist in the library simply isn't the same as
> removal of existing materials.  Further, it is not only illogical to
> insist on treating every known web site as though it were a
> librarian-selected book-on-the-shelf, it is also extremely unfair to
> librarians.  The anti-filterers demand that every librarian defend
> "WWW.GIRLIEPICS.COM" as though it were a copy of "The Catcher in the
> Rye" they selected.
> 
>   ***********************************************************
>           David Burt, Information Technology Librarian
>           The Lake Oswego Public Library
>           706 Fourth Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034
>           URL:          http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/library/library.htm
>           Phone:     (503) 675-2537
>           Fax:           (503) 635-4171
>           E-mail:      dburt at ci.oswego.or.us

David,

This argument clearly doesn't fly.  Following this line of reasoning, my
library could institute a filtering program which filters out conspiracy
theory sites, or gay/lesbian sites, or anti-government sites and because
this material may not be available in the library, it would be OK.  I
think all of us would recognize that a library that instituted this kind
of system would be engaging in a deliberate act of censorship.  Of
course, because we are talking about "pornography", suddenly the rules
change, and it becomes OK.

BTW, Justice O'Connor addressed this issue in Reno v. ACLU by noting
that:

"...Our cases make clear that a "zoning" law is valid only if adults are
still able to obtain the regulated speech. If they cannot, the law does
more than simply keep children
away from speech they have no right to obtain—it interferes with the
rights of adults to
obtain constitutionally protected speech and effectively "reduce[s] the
adult population
. . . to reading only what is fit for children." Butler v. Michigan, 352
U. S. 380, 383
(1957). The First Amendment does not tolerate such interference. See
id., at 383
(striking down a Michigan criminal law banning sale of books—to minors
or
adults—that contained words or pictures that "`tende[d] to . . .
corrup[t] the morals of
youth'")..."

and 

Justice Stevens

"...we explained that "one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of
expression in
appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some
other place."
Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U. S. 147, 163 (1939)."

Note: It wasn't many years ago that it was illegal to engage in
"subversive" speech.  In fact, many people went to prison (remember
Eugene V. Debs, Socialist candidate for President who spoke against U.S.
involvement in World War I and went to prison for his outspokeness?) for
saying things that were considered "dangerous" to society.  Now, we say
the same thing about pornography.  I guess things haven't changed that
much.

Andrew Mutch