|
U.S. Supreme Court upholds CIPA — RILA Responds
June 23, 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court decision on CIPA was a resounding 6-3 defeat for libraries and their patrons.
The Rhode Island Library Association is deeply concerned about this trend, as
evidenced in laws like CIPA, the Patriot Act, and the Patriot Act Two, which appears to be eroding the First Amendment rights specifically championed by libraries.
In response to the Supreme Court's decision on CIPA, The Rhode Island Library Association brings up the following points:
- Filters are not the answer, as current filtering software is flawed, sometimes blocking quality information.
- Filters compromise everyone's First Amendment rights, as filtering software
restricts information for all library patrons, not just for children.
- The CIPA legislation is "overkill:" libraries already have in place policies and
procedures covering Internet use and abuse in the library. With the upholding of CIPA, most of these policies and procedures are no longer valid.
- The Judges in the majority opinion noted that library patrons can override
filters by asking library staff to turn them off. In practice, this will cause inconveniences, delays, and frustration on the part of patrons and library
staff alike. It is likely that many patrons would not ask to have filters turned off because of embarassment, the desire for personal privacy, or not
wanting to trouble library staff. Therefore, patrons will still be denied access to information.
- Filters cost precious dollars that are already dwindling due to the economic
downturn. Libraries have already been forced to cut vital services. The cost of complying with CIPA will further cut into library services and materials.
- Federal funds, which CIPA denies to any library who does not agree to filter
Internet content, affect every public library in the state directly or indirectly. "E-rate" money comes directly to some libraries and indirectly to
all public libraries, through CLAN services. Furthermore, the statewide delivery system operated by the Library of Rhode Island, is funded, in part, with federal dollars.
- Interestingly, none of the agencies that have spoken about CIPA at the
national level have noted that filters use words to determine what sites to block. As a result, filters do not necessarily protect children from images,
which can make it "through" filters by judicious word choices. Therefore, filters are doubly flawed: they prevent patrons from accessing blocked sites that may be of value, yet they do not prevent the viewing of
"objectionable" sites that have selected their wording to avoid the filters.
- Many librarians have noted that the software structure of filtering software
is unknown, the selection process for excluding or including sites is unclear, and this information is unlikely to be revealed by the manufacturers of filters, since it is considered a "trade secret."
|
|
