Today's SF Chronicle Article

[Filtering Facts]

San Jose Battle Over Library Online Porn Ban 

     Ramon G. McLeod, Chronicle Staff Writer

     SAN JOSE 

          A plan to limit access to the Internet's pornographic domains at San
          Jose public libraries has run into opposition from the mayor,
librarians
          and the American Civil Liberties Union. 

          A hearing will be held today on City Councilwoman Pat Dando's
          proposal to use filtering software on computers used by children
and to
          designate other computers as unfiltered ``adult-only'' machines. 

          Dando said complaints from parents prompted her to ask for a revision
          to city policies that now allow unrestricted access to the
Internet, which
          includes access to X- rated sites. 

          ``In today's world, where more and more families have both parents
          working, more kids are using the library as a place to do their
          homework and that place needs to be kept as a safe place for them,''
          Dando said. 

          ``We are using policies on the library's collection that were
formed in
          1971. There was no Internet then. It's time to rethink those
policies.'' 

          San Jose is only the latest city where controversy has flared over
          Internet access at public libraries, a problem detailed in a Chronicle
          report earlier this year. 

          Battles over filtering software, which is supposed to screen out
sex sites,
          have taken place in large cities like Boston and small communities
like
          Gilroy, as library patrons have learned that Internet- connected
          computers can be used to bring pornography into libraries 

          --including into terminals in children's sections. 

          Proponents of filtering typically argue that libraries already
censor their
          traditional collections by their choice of materials, and that the
software
          is nothing more than an extension of existing practices. 

          But opponents contend that currently available software is not very
          effective and, in some cases, screens out material that children
should be
          able to access. 

          ``Tests have been done on these filters and none of them removes
          everything people find objectionable,'' said San Jose Library Director
          Jane Light. ``You also get into the one-size-fits-all issue: what
may be
          appropriate to filter from a 7- year-old may not be at all
appropriate for
          a 17-year-old.'' 

          The other primary argument against filtering is that it
compromises First
          Amendment rights abd places librarians in the position of censors, a
          position more appropriately filled by parents. 

          ``We believe that there can be grave consequences once a city moves
          down the path of censoring materials at a library. What comes next?
          This is not a course you take lightly,'' said Kevin Pursglove, an
aide to
          Mayor Susan Hammer. 

          Hammer is adamantly opposed to installing filtering software,
Pursglove
          said. ``It becomes a question of the city telling adult parents
what their
          kids should see. . . . We feel that is the parents duty, not the
city's.'' 

          Ann Brick, an ACLU attorney who is scheduled to testify at today's
          hearing, said keeping kids out of an adult bookstore and keeping them
          away from Internet porn with filtering software are not the same
issues. 

          ``The problem with this software is that it goes too far. It keeps
kids
          away away from material that is not illegal,'' she said. 

          The library's philosophy is consistent with that of both the ACLU and
          the American Library Association, which have vigorously opposed any
          technical means of filtering Internet content in libraries. 

          But the association's views aren't universal, said David Burt, a
librarian
          in Oswego, Oregon, who runs a small, pro-filtering organization called
          Filtering Facts. 

          ``The software isn't 100 percent perfect, so what?'' he said. ``It
does
          work pretty well, so you just tell patrons it isn't foolproof. 

          ``But the software question is just an excuse,'' he said. ``These
people
          are free speech absolutists. That's the real bottom line.'' 

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