Pornography and Internet Filters By Grayson Barber Hat tip: Martin Gomez, LA Public Library

Pornography and Internet Filters
By Grayson Barber
Hat tip: Martin Gomez, LA Public Library
 
Recently the Los Angeles Times published two editorials on the presence of pornography in libraries. Ordinarily, one might expect a leading newspaper to take a hard First Amendment line, upholding the right of library customers to read anything in a library so long as it is legal. Instead, the Times described libraries walking “a tightrope." The editorials acknowledged the deep discomfort many of us feel when we are inadvertently exposed to unwanted pornographic images.
 
Oddly, though, when a man was accused of masturbating in a public library, the response didn’t focus on his behavior – it emphasized the dirty pictures on the Internet!
 
Libraries are committed to providing a safe environment for all library users. But libraries are public buildings. It is impossible to guarantee that an individual will not read or see something which they may personally find objectionable.
 
Images that are acceptable in tabloids and magazines may be disturbing on a computer screen at a public library. Offensive as these images may be, they are not pornography, much less obscene. But they create difficulties for libraries, especially when they are asked to limit what people can see on computer screens.
 
Libraries should not be forced to install filtering software on their computers, for several reasons.  State and local legislators should consider the following questions:
 
1.       What is the scope of the problem? Last year, there were millions of visits to libraries. Of those millions, how many involved pornography?
 
2.       Does the proposed remedy provide an effective cure? Unfortunately, no technology currently exists that would be guaranteed to perform perfectly. Inevitably, there are websites that will get through, with content that will be objectionable to someone. Worse, Internet filters prevent access to information that is legal and often desirable.
 
3.       Are better solutions available? Librarians are committed to researching and adopting solutions that will provide patrons with the information they seek, and reduce exposure to unwanted content. For example, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently approved a new high-level domain ".xxx" for pornography sites. It would be better to take advantage of advances in technology instead of mandating filtering software.
 
4.       In public libraries, do Internet filters become a form of censorship? Libraries generally exist for the purpose of helping people gain access to information, whereas filters exist for the purpose of preventing access to information. Libraries prefer to use their budgets for the purpose of acquiring materials, not for the purpose of blocking content. Libraries would prefer to give their customers wide open access to the web, so that customers can use their own judgment (as opposed to the library’s, or the software developer’s) about what is and is not suitable to read.
 
5.       Do libraries risk overruling the judgment of parents as to the reading habits of children? Generally, librarians want parents to guide children, as opposed to substituting the public library’s (or the software developer’s) judgment as to what is suitable. We believe the best practice is to extend to minors the maximum allowable confidentiality and privacy protections, by respecting and protecting the rights of minors to choose their own library materials, to the fullest extent permitted by law.
 
6.       Are there more cost effective ways to address the concerns reflected in the proposed legislation? Filtering software can be costly -- not only to purchase, but to update and upgrade. In order to maintain filters, staff time must be devoted to add or delete websites that are blocked. Options that are more economical may be available such as installing privacy screens, or even simply rearranging furniture to adjust sight lines.
 
Our goal should be to teach children and empower Internet users of all ages to control their online experience. To that end, libraries urge legislatures not to mandate Internet filtering, but to support effort to help library customers get access to all of the legal information they seek.

Comments

[Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries]

The article title includes, "Hat tip: Martin Gomez, LA Public Library." Why? Grayson, as an ACLU attorney from New Jersey, how or why did you got involved in this Los Angeles matter? Likely similar to how I got involved by following library news generally and I'm also from New Jersey. Still, how did Martín Gómez from California tip you off? And why, if you know? Thanks.

[Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries]

Grayson, and everyone, there's an interesting discussion going on here. Thanks. And thanks to Mary for hosting it.

Now Grayson said, "If you see a crime being committed, call the police. Doesn't matter whether it's at the library or the dollar store. Ridiculous to suggest that criminal behavior is somehow the fault of the library." Would that it were. Consider Holyoke Public Library Director Maria Pagan ordering a librarian to cover up for a guy viewing child pornography. http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/07/getting-away-with-murder-in-holyoke-ma.html

Consider American Library Association advice to libraries:

"A librarian is not a legal process. There is not librarian in the country—unless she or he is a lawyer—who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child pornography."

"Libraries vs. Police in a Suit Sparked by Porn; Kent Case Centers on People's Rights and Protections," by Jeffrey M. Barker, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 13 August 2002. http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Libraries-vs-police-in-a-suit-sparked-by-porn-1093410.php

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

[Grayson Barber]

If you see a crime being committed, call the police. Doesn't matter whether it's at the library or the dollar store. Ridiculous to suggest that criminal behavior is somehow the fault of the library.

[Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries]

Elizabeth Egan, allow to presume you were asking me that question.

Yes, people masturbate all over the place where they should not be masturbating. Yes, it would be ridiculous to have the masturbation police posted everywhere. Yes, it would be ridiculous to blame the dollar store.

When it comes to a public library, however, the circumstances may be different. For one thing, the library's unfiltered computers could be an attractive nuisance. Also, the library could already be on notice of that and the resultant crimes that occur. The library could have been the scene of repeated criminal activity resulting from unfiltered Internet usage. The library could be refusing to filter the Internet as a result of its adherence to the anything-goes policy of some outside organization applying ACLU policy nationwide.

If I am not mistaken, the above generally happens to apply to the LAPL, and more.

There's your difference. The library knew it was following a policy that obviously even the LA Times does not want, it knew of a continuing string of illegal activity occasioned by the unfiltered computers, and it refused to take perfectly legal action to stem the tide.

And now, the library continues to mislead the public on these issues. Consider the LAPL librarian lying in the LA Times Editorial Facebook comments. Consider the LAPL librarian in this very story tipping off the ACLU attorney to write information that is the exact opposite of what US v. ALA said. These are some examples.

So you have a pattern of behavior that enables, condones, excuses, and continues to support the means that enables the illegal activity, in the given case, masturbation.

You do not have that in the dollar store, or the guy masturbating under the apron while getting a haircut, or the guy parked and masturbating by a playground full of children.

Clever arguments sound clever, but if anyone ever gets seriously injured as a result of the library's actions, the library and the government may be exposed to major liability. Indeed, the government has the means to control the library's ultra vires actions, and if it does not, then the government itself may become a target of a lawsuit.

This it the LibraryLaw blog. If the ice finally breaks when someone sues similar to what I am suggesting and wins, there may be a wave of similar suits. This blog may necessarily become much more active.

[Elizabeth Egan]

Local police reported that on 1/1/2012, at 1:29 pm, a man was arrested for masturbating in the underwear aisle of a Gloucester City, NJ dollar store.
How do we prevent this kind of behavior? Please discuss relating to similar behavior in libraries.

[Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries]

Speaking of dirty old man, this is possibly related: "Taking Shelter in the Library Stacks" http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/taking-shelter-in-the-1293821.html

[Grayson Barber]

Dan, if a dirty old man is disrupting the library, the problem is the dirty old man, not the internet. I stand by my blog post. Here is a link to United States v. ALA, 539 U.S. 194 (2003): http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/194/

[Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries]

Grayson Barber, Esq., I have reviewed what you have written above and have determined it to be substantially false and misleading. Before I write why (hint: read US v. ALA), I am giving you the opportunity to correct yourself before I do.