Libraries & Filtering

[Dianne L Parham]

Posted on another list; may be of interest to some here.  Forgive if this 
is already been posted here...it's been a hectic morning.  Sorry it is 
a long post....it combines several posts together into one.  Dianne Parham, 
Grants analyst, San Diego Public Library

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 26-JAN-1998 09:07:40.91
From: SMTP%prtalk at ala.org@library.sannet.gov
Subject: Libraries & Filtering 

FROM: Lois M. Kirkpatrick  (703) 324-8319
Public Information Officer, Library Administration
(A)ddressee (C)onfid (P)ersonal (H)umanResources (U)nclass
Subject: Libraries & Filtering
The Loudoun County Public Library is having several of its Board members sued
for installing filtering on their Internet stations.  Go to the Washington
Post site and do a search on Loudoun.

Lois
LKIRKP at co.fairfax.va.us
*** Reply to note of 01/24/98 11:23
=========================================================================
I am sharing several items in today's mail I  thought might be of interest.  I
would be interested to know how many of you have had problems with
"smut" in the library, whether your libraries have had to deal with
controversy over this issue--why or why not, and how you are dealing
with it.

>Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:05:49 -0800
From: Ann Beeson <beeson at aclu.org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
Subject: Re: sent demand letter today to Kern County

BY FACSIMILE to (xxx) xxx-xxxx
AND BY REGULAR MAIL

January 21,1998

B.C. Barmann
Office of the County Counsel
County of Kern
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
Bakersfield, California 93301

Dear Mr. Barmann:

	We have had several phone conversations over the past few
months about the Kern County Board of Supervisors' decision in July
1996 to requirethe use of filtering software on county library computers
that provideInternet access.  On the phone, and in your letter of
December 17, 1997,you have expressed the commitment of the Kern
County Board of Supervisors to comply with the First Amendment.  The
time has come forthe Board to demonstrate that commitment by
removing the filters, whichblock access to a wide range of valuable and
constitutionally protectedspeech on the Internet.

	Your recent letter notes that the Board has "repeatedly"
instructed N2H2, the company that produces the BESS filter used in the
libraries,to block access only to material defined as harmful under
California Penal Code section 313.1(c).   See Letter of December 17,
1997. However, the Board has known for more than a year that it is
impossiblefor BESS or any other software program to make distinctions
betweenprotected and unprotected speech.

	On September 19, 1996, in response to a request from the
Director ofLibraries, the President of N2H2, stated:  "I am afraid that we
cannotcustomize Kern County Library's Purchase Order to ^Qfilter
"harmful matter" by web site as defined in the California Penal Code
section 313.'  It seems that this is in part a legal matter and we do not
have the legal expertise in house to make that judgment."  See 9/19/96
Letter from Peter H. Nickerson to Diane Duquette; 8/29/96 memo from
Diane Duquette to Natalina Davis, General Services.

	Over a year later, N2H2 sent another letter to the County
which makes no mention of any effort to tailor BESS to block access
only to "harmful" material as defined by the Code.  See 11/19/97 Letter
from Peter Nickerson to John Irby, Deputy Counsel.  Thus, today, despite
the Board's year-long efforts to have the BESS filter "fixed," our
research indicates that BESS continues to block access to a wide
variety of sites with text and graphics that contain no "harmful" material.
 For over a year the County has been blocking access to many sites on
the Internet that are valuable and constitutionally protected both for
adults and for minors.

	The use of filters also cannot be justified by the desire of some
library patrons to avoid speech they find disagreeable.  It has long
been the law that the perceived "offensiveness" of speech or other
forms of communication may not be a ground for censorship.  Texas v.
Johnson,491 U.S. 397 (1989) (flag burning may not be prohibited,
despite argument that many are offended by it).  The censorship of
online resources through the use of filters violates the First Amendment
rights of adult and minor patrons of the library, as well as the First
Amendment rights of the Internet speakers whose sites are blocked.

	In short, the use of filtering software is simply inconsistent
withboth constitutional mandates and good policy.  Recognizing this, the
SanJose City Council recently voted not to install filters at their public
libraries, and in Santa Clara the governing body of the county library
system rebuffed attempts to end the library's open access policy.  The
American Library Association forcefully condemns the use of filtering
software in libraries.  See Resolution adopted by ALA Council, July 2,
1997.

	Given the facts and the law, the Board of Supervisors of Kern
County isobligated under the Constitution to remove the filters from the
libraries.  If necessary, we are prepared to challenge the Kern County
Internet policy on First Amendment grounds in federal court.  As you
know, if we prevail on our claims, Kern County would be liable for
attorneys' fees.  In order to avoid the need to resolve this issue
through costly litigation, the County must remove the filters from the
libraries within ten days of the date of this letter.

Very trulyyours,
Ann Beeson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo at vorlon.mit.edu with this
text:
subscribe politech
More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 23, 1998
>To: 		Free Expression Network
>From:		David Horowitz, Media Coalition
>Re:		Ohio House Bill 565
>
>	There is a hearing scheduled Wednesday, January 28 at 10
a.m. on Ohio>House Bill 565.  It would be very helpful if anyone is
available to testify>against the bill.  The bill makes it a crime to send
material on the >Internet to a minor that is harmful to minors.  This would
make it almost >impossible for adults to get access to
constitutionally-protected material.
> Content available on the Internet would be limited to what is
appropriate >for children.  This is essentially the same law that New
York passed last >year and that was subsequently ruled
unconstitutional in federal district >court.
>
> If you are available to testify, have a member in Ohio willing to
>testify>or know anyone who would be appropriate please call Amy
Isbell at the>Motion Picture Association of America.  Amy's number is
202-293-1966.  Ohio>has a lenient policy about letting people speak at
hearings.  This is the>fifth hearing on the bill and will likely be brought to
a vote soon.  If >you want more information you can also call me at
212-587-4025.

Linda K. Wallace, Director
Public Information Office
American Library Association
50 E. Huron St.
Chicago, IL 60611
Tel: 800-545-2433, ext. 5042
Fax: 312-944-8520
E-mail: lwallace at ala.org