Legal filter

[Dianne L Parham]

Thank you .... that is very useful information for us.  I can visualize 
that there would be some distinctions that may be made in school 
libraries versus public libraries.  There has been a proposal that we 
filter only children's computers, but some of our branches are so small 
that they only have one computer, and it is out of the question to have 
one of the two staff members be in charge of monitoring usage all day 
long.  I'm also sure there will be more court cases marching along.  
I appreciate your input.  And that of your spouse.  :) Dianne Parham, San 
Diego Public Library

On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Jessica Schenk wrote:

> There *was* a case against Prodigy (Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy) in which
> they were held responsible for "libelous" information posted on one of
> their bulletin boards.  Basically, it seems that since they claimed they
> were monitoring/filtering the content of those messages, they were
> essentially putting themselves in the position of publisher. Sooo, when an
> inappropriate message slipped through the cracks, they got themselves into
> trouble.  There was a simlilar libel case against Compuserve (Cubby v.
> Compuserve) in which they were not held reponsible since they made no
> claims of filtering or monitoring content...
> Both cases use the library as an example of a "distributor" of information
> rather than a publisher (i.e. we do not claim "editorial control"over all
> the materials in our collections) Whether this view of libraries will be
> held by all courts remains to be seen -- roles certainly have started to
> blur as many libraries now *publish* information electronically.  This is
> a very simplistic explanation, and I'm sure I've overlooked some important
> issues...but bottom line is there seems to be some basis for your city
> attorney's opinion.
> 
> If you would like to know more, there is a lot of information online
> about these two cases:
> 
> Stratton Oakmont Decision
> http://epic.org/free_speech/stratton_v_prodigy_1995.txt
> 
> Cubby v. Compuserve Decision
> http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cubby_v_compuserve.txt
> 
> (both of these are found via EPIC's Free Speech Archive
> http://www.epic.org/free_speech/  )
> 
> Boardwatch article:
> http://www.boardwatch.com/mag/95/aug/bwm35.htm
> 
> 
> HTH!
> 
> Jessie Schenk / Novi Public Library (MI)
> (not a lawyer but married to an acutal member of the MI bar who is happy
> to share his opinions ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Dianne L Parham wrote:
> 
> > We've been given an attorney's opinion that "if a library exercises
> > content control over the information available of the Internet, it may be
> > held liable for the transmission of inaccurate, harmful, or inappropriate
> > materials...the decision to exercise control may bring with it tort
> > liability."  Has anyone out there gotten legal opinion on this
> > technology?  We are waiting for the appellate ruling on the
> > "Communications Decency Act of 1996" which may change our current
> > library's stand.  I understand the ACLU has some lawsuits pending, but I
> > admit I'm not up on where they are at.  Any input on law on filtering
> > technology???  Dianne Parham, San Diego Public Library
> >
> 
> ******************************************
> Jessica T. Schenk / jschenk at tln.lib.mi.us
> Novi Public Library
> 45245 W. Ten Mile Rd.
> Novi, MI  48375
> (248)349-0720
> 
> 
> 
>