Judges hear testimony opposing Internet filtering at libraries

By The Associated Press

03.27.02

Printer-friendly page

PHILADELPHIA — Emmalyn Rood told a court that federal legislation intended to shield children from Internet pornography would have hurt her and other young people who need information about sexuality and health issues.

The 16-year-old college freshman from Portland, Ore., said public library computers were her lifeline when she was gathering information on Web sites and getting advice on chat rooms about coming out as a lesbian.

"I had a computer at home but I went to the library because it was the only place I had privacy — and for people who don't have computers at home, the library is the only place they can go," Rood said. "If this law was in effect, I wouldn't have had access to that at all."

The name of the law, the Children's Internet Protection Act, "is ironic because it's really something that's so detrimental to many teen-agers," she said yesterday, the second day of a federal trial on the legislation's constitutionality.

Opponents maintain the legislation would censor speech without any guarantee that children would be protected from online porn; would yank federal funding for noncompliance, amounting to "economic censorship" for libraries in poor areas; and would improperly turn over decisions on content from the libraries and their communities to the federal government.

Leading the challenge to the law are the American Library Association and the Multnomah County, Ore., Public Library. The American Civil Liberties Union is arguing the case on their behalf.

Libraries that do not comply with the law by July are set to lose federal technology funding. It was unclear when the three-judge panel may rule, but any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The government argues that filtering software has vastly improved since the law was enacted, making fewer mistakes and allowing libraries to unblock sites that were blocked in error.

When shown an 86-page list of words some filtering companies use as their first search level to cull objectionable material, 3rd U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Edward R. Becker said he was "astonished by its breadth" — and the fact that many of the words are not related to pornography.

"They've got Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus," said Becker, one of three judges hearing the case. "It's got Democrats and Republicans ... at least it's neutralist."

It was explained in testimony that such words are used during the first level of searching under the premise that they may include or link to objectionable material. In theory, the blocking software further refines the search and sites that do not lead to such material are not blocked.

A Stanford University linguistics researcher testified yesterday that the law cannot be enforced because no technology exists, and probably never will, that can block access to all objectionable Web sites without infringing on free speech.

"If it involves subjective judgments, then the technology simply can't get there," Geoffrey Nunberg testified.

Under the law being contested in U.S. District Court, any library that receives federal technology funding must have "a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes" protection against "visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors."

"Is there any way a library can honestly certify it is complying with the statute without over-blocking?" asked U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III.

"No," Nunberg replied. He testified that most filters only respond to words on Web sites, so pornographic photos could fall outside a filter's radar if no words or non-English words were used — and experimental filters that scan images for certain shapes and flesh tones also can block photos of tapioca pudding, for example.

It's not the first time civil liberties groups have challenged federal laws aimed at restricting Internet access to minors. One case was heard last November by the Supreme Court, which has not yet ruled, and another has already been struck down by the high court as unconstitutional.

Update

Dirty words, pictures take center stage in battle over Internet smut
Trial over Children's Internet Protection Act begins second week in Philadelphia courtroom.  04.01.02

Previous

Library filtering debate goes before federal panel
Judges must decide whether law aimed at keeping objectionable material away from children censors constitutionally protected speech.  03.25.02

Related

ACLU attorney takes all-or-nothing approach in arguing against COPA
Analysis Some Supreme Court justices seem perturbed that lawyer was unwilling to give any ground; others appear convinced that the law can't be salvaged.  11.29.01

Library board calls Net filtering 'censorship,' agrees to it anyway
South Carolina libraries must install filters or risk losing half of their state funding.  10.01.01