When it comes to battles fought over the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, the persistent reality is that they have mostly been fought over the unsavory issue of pornography. The U.S. Supreme Court delivered another blow to the First Amendment by ruling for the Children's Internet Protection Act on June 23 in United States vs. American Library Association. Under the ruling, any library that receives federal funding is required to implement software that will prevent the "dissemination of obscenity, child pornography or material harmful to minors."\n The way filters work is by screening for selected words, such as "sex." Filters are not foolproof. Some offensive sites have no words, but simply images. Further still is a more significant issue: they filter blindly. They will block access not only to pornographic Web sites but also ones devoted to health advice or sexual education, such as the Web site for Planned Parenthood.\nThe system does allow for accommodations. Any computer can be "de-blocked." All an adult patron has to do is ask a librarian to remove the filter. In this instance, the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution has been bizarrely expanded. Not only can you look at what you like on the Web, you can also share with your neighborhood librarian what it is you plan to look at. \nWhen the case was argued in March, Solicitor General Theodor B. Olson argued that asking to unblock material violates the user's right to privacy. Chief Justice Rehnquist coolly responded, "The Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public institution without any risk of embarrassment." \nColleges are exempt from the ruling, so IU libraries will not be affected in any way other than adding the Supreme Court ruling to their files. The Monroe County Public Library, however, will find itself at the mercy of this new decision. For at least a year, the computer lab exhibited signs that advised patrons to self-censor out of respect to children also working in the lab. Yet when the library employees spoke of the issue, they seemed almost unconcerned by the new edict, saying only that they have read about it in papers. \nThe main ruling states, "To the extent that libraries wish to offer unfiltered access, they are free to do so without federal assistance." \nJim Hurd, department manager of information systems at Monroe County Library, said as an individual he distrusts library filters, but can't speak on the library's behalf as to whether or not they will accept federal funds and continue with the project. \n"I don't think they work. Not only that, I don't think they can work," he said. "But I only speak for myself. The board of trustees ultimately will decide whether or not we will put them in place."\nWe urge the board to reject the governement's assistance.\nSuch a decision would be a laudable one. At a time when many states are reporting tremendous deficits and budget cuts from social programs, we feel it would show character for this public institution to refuse to be a "client" of whichever major software company saddles the government contract to supply the nation's libraries with their "services." \nThe last thing Monroe County would need is to be burdened with fees for filter installation technology that Justice Souter in his dissent compared to "buying an encyclopedia and then cutting out all the pages thought to be unsuitable for adults."
-- Lize Kolar for the Editorial Board
