Law Journal Extra Article

[Filtering Facts]

I'm quoted again, this time in Law Journal Extra.  Although they got my name
as "Burt Davis", I really liked this part: "But supporters of screening
software -- a group that includes a vocal contingent of librarians".  Yeah!
The media is finally starting to catch on that there are vocal pro-filtering
librarians out there!


(http://www.ljx.com/LJXfiles/libraryfilter.html)

Internet Filtering Faces the
   First Amendment

   Legal Battles Arise as Communities Seek to
   Curtail Library Online Access 

   Law Journal EXTRA!
   September 29, 1997 

   By Joanna Glasner 

   In the wake of the vanquished Communications
   Decency Act, a new First Amendment battle is taking
   shape at libraries nationwide. 

   This time, however, the fight is not about what material
   can be posted on the Internet. Instead, civil rights
   advocacy groups, library boards and city councils are
   squaring off to determine who will have access to the
   uncensored electronic feed. 

   Although, according to ACLU attorney Ann Brick, no
   lawsuits have been filed yet, disputes in cities and small
   towns have drawn increasing attention on the legal
   controversy surrounding public libraries' use of Internet
   filtering software. 

   Filtering advocates say the software serves to protect
   children by limiting access to violent or pornographic
   materials. Opponents argue that even limited use of
   blocking software by public libraries violates First
   Amendment rights. 

   "Putting filtering software on the computers with
   Internet access that young people have access to
   presumes that young people do not have First
   Amendment rights," Brick said, summarizing the
   ACLU's stance on the issue. The position is supported
   by the American Library Association, which argues that
   only parents can be responsible for curtailing Internet
   access. 

   But supporters of screening software -- a group that
   includes a vocal contingent of librarians --- say their
   opponents are overstating the issue by turning filtering
   into a freedom of information dispute.

   "If you're going to have material that's really grossly
   inappropriate for children, the library does need to step
   in loco parentis," said Burt Davis, President of Filtering
   Facts, a librarian group that advocates for Internet
   screening policies. 

   Recently, the debate focused on city council proposals
   in California and Texas to install library computers that
   filter material deemed inappropriate for minors. But
   policy decisions offered little consensus on how the
   debate will shape up in months to come. 

   In San Jose, California, city council members voted
   down a proposal to section off Internet zones with
   filtering software at local libraries. The plan, which
   would have provided unfiltered Internet stations to
   adults but restricted access for children, drew fire from
   ACLU attorneys. 

   A more extensive filtering proposal fared better in
   Coppell, Texas. Board members there passed a policy
   to equip all computers at a local library with screening
   software. ACLU attorneys are watching similar policies
   in other states. 

   Whether the issue will be resolved in the courtroom or
   the community board, however, is unclear. Filtering
   advocates point to the concurring opinion of Sandra
   Day O'Connor in Reno v. ACLU, which maintains that
   "the creation of 'adult zones' is by no means a novel
   concept." O'Connor notes that "states have long denied
   minors access to certain establishments." 

   Brick, however, warns that filtering can also
   inadvertently block out sites on subjects like HIV and
   safe sex awareness sites, which could provide useful
   information to minors.

*****************************************************************************
David Burt, Filtering Facts, HTTP://WWW.FILTERINGFACTS.ORG
David_Burt at filteringfacts.org