Schneider Declartion in Loudoun County Lawsuit

[Filtering Facts]

Karen Schneider has filed in declaration for the People for the American Way
and the ACLU who are suing the Loudoun County Public Library to try to force
them not to filter the Internet.  

I learned of this when I noticed a reference to a statement by Schneider in
one of the Plaintiff's motions available on-line.  Karen usually announces
her latest writings on her website on to the listservs, so I was surprised
that she hadn't mentioned it.  I was able to obtain a copy, and I have
posted the full declaration on my website at www.fitleringfacts.org/sch-dec.htm

Some interesting things from the brief:

"With filters fully configured, 35% of the time, filters blocked information
librarian needed to answer a question."  

Karen repeats this misleading figure that refers to asking questions
designed to trip keyword blocking such as "cock fighting" and "Superbowl
XXX" again, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to her that
Loudoun doesn't use word blocking, which the figure refers to.  Obviously,
Karen's goal is to make filters look as bad as possible.

"Problems with blocking are not eliminated when keyword blocking is
disabled.  Many of the resources not available when filters are installed
are blocked because filter company employees have intentionally selected
these sites to be blocked.  Disabling keyword blocking improves filtering
performance, but does not prevent a substantial amount of non-prurient,
noncontroversial information from being blocked."

Recently, I was on a panel with Karen in Annapolis, Maryland.   I asked her
to present any evidence that filters did significant damage to
non-pornographic speech.  She became testy and said that "What does
significant mean?  That's an individual thing.  It means something different
to everybody."  I then produced the brief she filed in the Loudoun County
case where she said that "Disabling keyword blocking improves filter
performance, but does not prevent a substantial amount of non-prurient,
non-controversial information from being blocked".  I asked her what she
meant by "substantial".  She snapped "I don't know!  I can't define it!"  I
seems hard to fathom someone making a statement like that in a legal
document, then been completely unable to explain what they meant.

 I then asked her why she filed the brief.  She said "Because Bob
Corn-Revere [the lead attorney for the plaintiffs] asked me to".  I asked
her if she wanted filtering declared illegal.  She said "no"!  I then said I
found that hard to believe.  Then the moderator stepped in and put a stop to it.

Karen has said she does not like to be called "anti-filter".  But how can
filing a brief like this in a case like this represent anything but an
aggressive stand against filters? Further, Karen is a party to the economic
coercion and legal intimidation being applied to libraries. 

How can Karen Schneider now say she is anything but anti-filter? 

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