[WEB4LIB] Re: Public Browser and CIPA?

[Dan Lester]

Promise this will be my last post on this topic, as it risks getting
into the filtering for libraries area.  At the moment, I think it
still relates to internet/web policies in general.

Friday, April 05, 2002, 10:02:55 AM, you wrote:
AM> All of your points are valid. However, I don't think libraries should ignore the
AM> legal implications of using filtering technology on Internet computers. If there is
AM> a legal challenge to a library filtering policy, a library that is following the
AM> CIPA statute can at least point to that as a legal basis for their filtering.

True enough, they could rely on it, but it wouldn't assure victory.
CIPA says you have to filter to get federal bucks, it doesn't say you
have to filter.  A local citizen could easily make the point that free
access to information was more important than a few crummy federal
dollars, and particularly if he were in a community where there was
general hostility all things federal, including dollars.  The citizen
would simply insist that the library quit prostituting itself to the
federal devil.  (NOTE: I don't personally buy any of that kind of
argument, but I sure know people who do)

AM> However, if they filter beyond that line, what legal basis are they relying on in
AM> that case?

They're relying on local board policy.  That's what boards do.

AM> You're right, there are groups who want to block Harry Potter. But
AM> legally speaking, no lawsuit has ever forced a library to filter content.

Perhaps so.  However, there is something as powerful, if not more so,
than a lawsuit: political pressure.  When a librarian is facing
termination if s/he doesn't filter, when the mayor is facing defeat or
recall if s/he doesn't require filtering, and so forth, things happen.

AM> On the
AM> flip side, at least one library has been has been successfully sued over the use of
AM> filters in their library. Those who sued Loudoun County Public Library were awarded
AM> $106,918 in attorney fees. I'm going to guess that the library spent as much on its
AM> own legal fees.  That's a pretty expensive lesson to learn for crossing that line.

True enough.  However, I can assure you that the politics are much
more imporant than dollars.  Boise used to have one nude bar, a "pop
shop", where you bought five dollar cokes to watch naked dancers. (No
liquor is how they get around the state liquor licensing regs). The
mayor tried to shut them down with a new ordinance.  The bar sued and
won; the city paid some 75,000 in legal fees to the bar.  Sure, some
of us were most unhappy about the ordinance, and about the waste of
money that could have bought books, or street patching, or trees for a
park. But a great many people were happy and the mayor enjoys stronger
support than ever.

Now a new ordinance has been passed and it is back in the courts
again. The new ordinance requires "pasties" and g strings.  It allows
nudity when it is for "artistic performance".  As you can imagine, the
definitions of adequate coverage for the "clothing" and the
determination of what is art is now being debated and another lawsuit
has been filed.  The city is spending another big ton of money on it
again.

Of course the biggest outcome of all this is that instead of now
having one such bar, thanks to the mayor's free publicity for such
establishments, there are now five, all apparently flourishing.

Once some politicians have the bit in their teeth, cost becomes no
object, whether at the local or federal level.

cheers

dan

-- 
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan at RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com  www.gailndan.com  Stop Global Whining!