Taxpayer-Funded Libraries
Must Shield Children from Internet Porn By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com
Congressional Bureau Chief June 23, 2003Capitol Hill
(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the
federal government could require libraries accepting taxpayer money
to protect children from Internet pornography. Opponents had charged
that the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was a violation
of the First Amendment protection of free speech, but the court
rejected that argument in a 6-3 decision. "This decision is a
victory for kids, for librarians, libraries and taxpayers," said Jan
LaRue, chief counsel at Concerned Women for America. "It means there
will be no federally-funded smut for porn surfers in America's
public libraries." LaRue, an attorney and a recognized expert
on obscenity laws, co-authored one of the many amicus briefs in
support of the law.CIPA
requires public schools from kindergarten through 12th grade,
and public libraries that accept certain federal subsidies for
Internet access, to\b use filtering technology on any computer
with Internet access. The stated intent of the law is to prevent
access by any computer user to visual depictions that are legally
obscene or include child pornography, and to block material deemed
harmful to minors when a minor is using a computer. The
American Library Association (ALA) had fought the filtering attempt,
along with numerous liberal special interest groups including the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); Planetout.com, a website
promoting homosexual activity; and Planned Parenthood, which
promotes abortion and birth control - services it provides to minors
- on its website. ALA opposed the legislation in its brief to
the Supreme Court. "CIPA induces public libraries to violate
the First Amendment when they offer free Internet access to
patrons," ALA argued. "The statute requires libraries to install
blocking programs that inevitably censor a substantial amount of
protected speech for adults and minors." Ruling has limited
scope The court sided with pro-family advocates,
including LaRue, who called the ALA's argument "inane." "It's
not a violation of the First
Amendment because it does not remove any constitutionally
protected material from public access," she explained. "The material
that's blocked, it's illegal material; obscenity, child pornography
and material harmful to minors." The American Center for Law
and Justice (ACLJ) represented its own members and nine members of
Congress in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of the
law. ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said the decision "makes clear
that there is not a First Amendment exemption to Internet
pornography aimed at children. "It is now clear that public
libraries must actively protect the well-being of children,
including the type of materials available to them via the Internet,"
Sekulow said. "This is a landmark case that will ultimately help
pave the way for a clearer understanding on how to set parameters
for a deepening problem -- pornography aimed at children on the
Internet." Representatives Robert B. Aderholt (R-Ala.), Todd
Akin (R-Mo.), Michael Collins (R-Ga.), Jo Ann S. Davis (R-Va.),
Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), Ernest Istook, Jr. (R-Okla.), Jim Ryun
(R-Kan.), John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and John Sullivan (R-Okla.)
supported the law and were represented by the ACLJ. Filters
can be turned off for adults seeking legal material The
law has specific provisions, LaRue added, to ensure that adults can
access material that, although it may be legal, is still unsuitable
for children. "If a filter wrongly blocks a website that has
constitutionally protected material, a librarian is able to unblock
it upon request," she explained. "If a public library patron, an
adult, is doing legitimate, bona fide research, that person can
request the librarian to disable the filter entirely." Ken
Connor, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), said he
understands the need to tweak the filtering process at the local
level. "No filtering software is going to work 100 percent of
the time," he acknowledged. "On the other hand, it may take a
lifetime to undo the damage suffered by a child exposed to an
obscene image." The "bona fide research" requirement is
necessary, LaRue explained, because pedophiles have attempted to use
Internet access at public libraries as a tool to seduce unsuspecting
children. "Across America public libraries that provide
unfiltered Internet access and rely on acceptable use policies are
reporting numerous incidents of patrons, including children,
accessing hard-core and child pornography, adults exposing children
to pornography, and patrons engaging in indecent exposure and sexual
assaults," she noted, "resulting in a hostile work
environment." Prosecutors routinely present evidence of
pedophiles showing child pornography to their intended victims in
order to convince the underage victim that sex between adults and
children is acceptable. "Most child molesters use porn to
fuel their desires before acting out on children," LaRue, who has
assisted with numerous obscenity prosecutions, said during a recent
interview . Even
though only 28.6 percent of public libraries responded, a recent report by FRC
found more than 2,000 incidents of public library patrons accessing
hard-core and child pornography on freely accessible Internet
terminals. Many of those accessing the material were children who
found pornographic images left on-screen or links to pornographic
websites book-marked in browsers by adult users. Some public
libraries may choose not to filter Internet access LaRue
also noted that the court's decision does not require all public
libraries to filter Internet access, only those that want to accept
taxpayer funding to pay for that access. "This affects only
public libraries that accept federal subsidies for Internet access
through either the 'E-rate' program or the Library Services
Technology Act," she explained. "If libraries don't want to filter,
they don't have to take the funds." Chief Justice William
Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices O'Connor,
Scalia and Thomas. Justices Kennedy and Breyer filed separate
opinions concurring with the judgment. Justice Stevens filed his own
individual dissenting opinion, as did Justice Souter, who was joined
by Justice Ginsburg.E-mail
a news tip to Jeff Johnson. Send
a Letter to the Editor about this
article.