SF Gate: Attempt to Revive Library Web Suit/Panel appears cool to requiring parental consent

[Jacob Wang]

 Free Speech in Danger in Livermore!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SF Gate.
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/24/MNW119593.DTL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
January 24, 2001 (SF Chronicle)
Attempt to Revive Library Web Suit/Panel appears cool to requiring parental consent
Bob Egelko


   The attorney for a woman whose 12-year-old son downloaded pornography at
the Livermore Public Library asked a state appellate court yesterday to
reinstate a lawsuit that would require parental consent for minors to
access the Internet at libraries.
   Although the suit complained only that the library computer lacked a
filter to screen sexually explicit material, it would be better to "stop
giving minors access unless they have parental permission," attorney
Michael Millen told the Court of Appeal panel in San Francisco.
   "We have to do a little more to protect children from themselves than to
protect adults from themselves," Millen said. By allowing unrestricted
Internet access, he argued, the library -- a government agency -- was
exposing youths to psychological trauma in violation of their
constitutional rights.
   The three-judge panel appeared skeptical.
   "If they restrict access, they get sued, and if they don't they get sued
-- what's a library to do?" asked Justice Patricia Sepulveda.
   Justice Timothy Reardon noted that the 12-year-old had intentionally
downloaded sexual displays onto his own floppy disc during 10 separate
visits in 1998, without help from the librarian. And Justice Daniel Hanlon
said Millen seemed to be arguing that "there is no need for parental
responsibility. "
   "It's impossible for a parent to track a child all day long," said Millen,
who is affiliated with the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative
Sacramento-based organization.
   Although the boy may have known what he was doing, Millen said, children
could unwittingly land on porn sites when searching under innocuous words
like "boy" and "girl."
   The panel heard opposing arguments from the City of Livermore, a group of
local governments and the American Civil Liberties Union. A ruling is due
within 90 days on reinstating the suit, which was dismissed in 1999 by
Alameda County Superior Court Judge George Hernandez.
   The suit, filed by a Concord woman identified as Kathleen R., was the
first in the nation to contest a library's refusal to protect children
from cyberspace erotica.
   She accused the city of creating a "public nuisance" and a dangerous
condition on public property. She also charged that the library's exposure
of minors to Internet sex without parental consent was unconstitutional.
The suit does not seek damages, only an injunction against the library's
policy.
   Library policies vary widely in the Bay Area and the nation, with some
using filters or other controls on youth Internet access. Opponents of
controls cite freedom of expression and the growing need for Internet
access, which for many students and families is available only at the
library.
   "Local governments should have discretion to set Internet access policies
through local values that are arrived at through the democratic process,"
said Matthew Brown, an attorney for the California State Association of
Counties and 48 cities.
   He also cited a federal Internet law that allows only the providers of
objectionable content to be sued, and shields the transmitters of
information, including libraries. Millen contended the law applied only to
damage suits and not to injunctions.
   A new federal law effective in April requires libraries that receive
federal funds to filter out sexually explicit material. Livermore doesn't
receive federal funds, lawyers told the court.
   The law is "constitutionally dubious" and will be challenged in court,
said ACLU attorney Ann Brick. She also said filters, touted as sensitive
to hard- core displays, had been found to block benign material as well --
including the Bible, the Koran and sfgate.com, The Chronicle's Web site.
   E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko at sfchronicle.com. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2001 SF Chronicle