Internet Filters For Kids, Part 2

I was hoping not to have to go into this kind of legal detail, but it now seems drearily unavoidable

In yesterday's post I supported, with some limitations, internet filters on library computers used by children. In that post, I listed nine stumbling blocks I felt could easily derail a project to implement such filters. So far, I've gotten pushback from commentators on only one of those nine items, which has me feeling pretty good.

But I'm surprised, and a little nonplussed, about WHICH of the nine stumbling blocks raised somebody's hackles. It was item four: "It'll fail if you try to deny the plain fact that limiting what adults can find on the internet is censorship."

Frankly, I thought this was the least controversial and least assailable of the nine problems I mentioned. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be clever or split legalistic hairs here. That's not my style. My item number four was based on plain English and common sense.

A commentator going by SafeLibraries believes I'm in error and that "it is pure propaganda to say filtering for adults is censorship." S/he believes the US v. ALA Supreme Court decision says so. I guess we disagree, then, on two things: 1) the plain meaning of the word censorship, and 2) the meaning of the US v. ALA decision.

For the record, I do disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in this case. I side with the District Court and the three dissenting Supreme Court Justices who found that internet filters for adults do amount to censorship. I feel that the court applied very crabbed logic to permit federal authority over local library content, with the effect of restricting free speech. My non-expert opinion is that the court was correct in asserting that a library is not a public forum (in the sense of the speaker on the public square), but what the old-fashioned Justices failed to grasp is that in the 21st century the internet IS the public square.

But my disagreement with the court is irrelevant. The decision stands and is legally applicable.

So what does US v. ALA say? Does it say what SafeLibraries would have us believe? I'm no lawyer, but I strongly doubt it.

The US v. ALA decision is about the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA). It is important to understand that the CIPA is not an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, nor is it even a broad federal law affecting all libraries. The CIPA is a set of strings that are attached to the acceptance of federal funds under certain specific programs (E-rate and LSTA). A library taking those funds is required to implement internet filters to protect children from obscene and otherwise harmful materials. The CIPA has no impact on libraries that don't accept those particular funds.

The American Library Association and others sued the federal government, claiming that the CIPA strings infringed free speech. They won in District Court, but that decision was overturned by the Supreme court in US v. ALA. In that decision, the court affirmed that the federal government has a significant state interest in protecting children from obscene and harmful materials, and that, if properly managed, filters do not impose too serious a restriction on adults.

Trying to generalize US v. ALA beyond those libraries bound by funding to the CIPA, as SafeLibraries is trying to do, is a legal swamp. It'll be years before case law clarifies that.

But more importantly, go back and look at what I said. I said that limiting adult access to information amounts to censorship. Both the original CIPA and US v. ALA support that position. The FCC's summary of the CIPA states that in a library subject to the CIPA "an authorized person may disable the blocking or filtering measure during any use by an adult to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes." In US v. ALA the Supreme Court affirmed that detail, writing, "if, as the Government represents, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay on an adult user's request, there is little to this case." Both the CIPA and US v. ALA, then, acknowledge that the ability of an adult to bypass internet filters is essential to keeping the CIPA constitutional.

I call the reader's attention to one particular phrase in the US v. ALA decision: "if some libraries do not have the capacity to unblock specific Web sites or to disable the filter or if it is shown that an adult user's election to view constitutionally protected Internet material is burdened in some other substantial way, that would be the subject for an as-applied challenge." The court has deliberately left open the possibility of litigation should it happen that a library can't provide an adult with unfiltered internet access.

The position taken by SafeLibraries touches two of the other nine stumbling blocks I listed in yesterday's post. In item eight I said, "it'll fail if you let political hacks hijack a legitimate interest in children's safety and turn it into an attempt to control public discourse." That is clearly what is happening here, as SafeLibraries tries to take a relatively narrow ruling and turn it into a general repudiation of the First Amendment. I also warned, in item seven, that "it'll fail if you create a situation where the library/city/county gets sued and looses, forcing the entire project back to square one and leaving the taxpayer on the hook for the legal bills." SafeLibraries will get you there in a hurry.

The US v. ALA decision can be read at:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html

The FCC's administrative summary of the CIPA can be read at:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html

Internet Filters For Kids

It might surprise some readers of this blog that I support Internet Filters on library computers that are used by children. For the record, I think they're a great idea. I think they're technically feasible, legally supportable, and beneficial to children. What I object to is the shoot-from-hip, one-size-fits-all, quick-fix rhetoric that tries to deny the complexities inherent in the issue.

Internet Filters for children are doable, but not simple. You have to be smart about it. If you're not, the implementation will fail, and children will not be protected. I've identified some of the most likely stumbling blocks below.

1. It'll fail if you reduce the problem to one of pornography, as much of the debate rhetoric tends to do. Pornography is only a small part of the problem, and there'd be far less debate if that's all it was about. Internet filters are about preventing contact with online predators, preventing children from revealing personal information to strangers, and providing age-appropriate materials, among other things.
   
   
2. It'll fail if you think it's free. Implementing filters will cost time and tax dollars, both for the initial set up and on an ongoing basis. This has to be planned for, budgeted, and controlled.
   
   
3. It'll fail if you believe there is such a thing as a perfect filter that can block inappropriate material for children and at the same time allow adults to have access to all legitimate websites. No such filter exists, nor is it logical to expect that it could: people can't agree with each other about what's appropriate or objectionable, let alone program a computer to make the distinction for them.
   
   
4. It'll fail if you try to deny the plain fact that limiting what adults can find on the internet is censorship.
   
   
5. It'll fail if you try to treat a 17-year-old computer user the same as a 7-year-old computer user.
   
   
6. It'll fail if you create a huge administrative headache for library staff by requiring constant intervention and supervision, or if you put library staff in the position of having to decide which sites are objectionable or legitimate.
   
   
7. It'll fail if you create a situation where the library/city/county gets sued and looses, forcing the entire project back to square one and leaving the taxpayer on the hook for the legal bills. I would be one of the first to encourage such a suit if the implementation of filters went even an inch too far in censoring internet access for adults.
   
   
8. It'll fail if you let political hacks hijack a legitimate interest in children's safety and turn it into an attempt to control public discourse.
   
   
9. And as if all that weren't enough, the project will fail if you implement a filtering scheme that is too weak or too easily bypassed to be effective.
   

In spite of the above, and other potential problems, I think internet filters are feasible. We just need to have realistic expectations and tangible goals.

One of the simplest, though not necessarily the cheapest, things that can be done is to set up a separate set of computers, reserved for use by younger children and physically separated from the computers used by adults. You can then put whatever filters you want on the kids' computers without infringing upon the right of adult users to make their own decisions about what is appropriate for them.

I make this suggestion because people rarely stop to think about what will happen if adult and child computer users are mingled, even if all the computers are filtered. Inevitably, the time will come when a parent will notice that his or her child is sitting next to an adult who is viewing material that the parent doesn't want the child to see. The adult computer user won't be doing anything wrong. The material accessed will be perfectly legal and will pass easily through any filters appropriate for adults. But the parent will still see something objectionable in the presence of children. The adult user could be:

• Doing research in art history that involves looking at images of museum pieces such as Michelangelo's David or other nude figures.
  
• Looking at the results of an archaeological dig that unearthed phallus-shaped pottery (I'm not making this up, it happens).
  
• Reading a coroner's report about an unusually gruesome murder.
  
• Reading Hitler's Mein Kampf or Marx's Communist Manifesto.
  
• Reading material about one or another religious sect, or about atheism.

Since what is objectionable is a matter of personal opinion, the list is potentially endless. The point here is that no amount of filtering will make everybody happy, and that something as simple as setting up a Kid's Computing area can go a long way to reducing conflict. I didn't say it was perfect. There are still issues about the maximum age of patrons on the kids' computers, the minimum age for using the adults' computers, parental permission, and the like. I don't think this is the entire solution. But I do think it would help.

It's Perfectly Normal

I suspect that many (I didn't say all) involved in the library debate simply haven't taken a close look at the challenged materials. For that reason, I'll include a few book reviews in this blog.

I'll start with It's Perfectly Normal because it's one of the toughest to deal with: there is actually some substance, however little, to the debate about this one. It's also different from many of the other books objected to by the CCLU, WBC4SL, Ginny Maziarka, etc. Unlike most of the others, this is non-fiction. And, since it is heavily illustrated, the evaluation of its alleged obscenity is somewhat different than for literature.

It's Perfectly Normal provides factual answers to the kinds of questions frequently (almost universally) asked by young people entering or experiencing puberty. It's about body parts and body functions, changing feelings, social aspects of sexuality, and the like. A lot of information is packed into 96 pages, which is one of the reasons the book has won multiple awards and is endorsed by a number of medical and child-education groups. Information on HIV, AIDS and STDs is included, as is a discussion of abstinence and postponement of sex as valid (but not the only) choices.

The book can be found in a huge number of school and public libraries throughout Wisconsin and the U.S. The American Library Association has listed this as one of the most frequently challenged books in some years, but this is more a measure of its extreme commonness than of its supposed luridness. In the vast majority of cases, the challenge has failed, and the book has remained on the shelf in the Young Adult or Children's section.

Yes the book is illustrated, with cartoon-like drawings similar to, but more explicit than, those you can see on the front cover (pictured above). The most explicit of the illustrations, selected by opponents of the book, can be found at this link, which I've copied from the WISSUP blog:

http://www.myppmc.com/Books%20-%20Pornogrphic%20Sch.%20Library%20Pictures.htm

The pictures shown at that link are taken out of context, but are otherwise accurate.

As can be expected with anything having to do with information about sex for young people, parents vary in their perception of this book. Some are grateful for such a resource either to give to their children to read or to read together with them. Some would prefer not to give their children the information in this book, and others find the material objectionable. Private opinion and public policy are not the same thing, however.

Is it pornographic? That's a matter of individual opinion. Pornographic is not a technical or legal term, so anybody can call anything pornographic. It's Perfectly Normal is pornographic if you think any depiction of nudity, even a cartoon drawing meant to communicate medical facts, is pornographic. It's pornographic if you think factual, medical information about sex and sexuality is pornographic. But calling something pornographic, at least in so imprecise a sense, is no basis for censorship, nor especially useful in any other way.

Is it obscene? That's a much easier question to answer, since the term obscene has technical and legal definitions. To meet the definition of obscene, the book would have to be patently offensive, prurient, and without serious value. Some might consider It's Perfectly Normal to be patently offensive, since that is very much in the eye of the beholder. Some might try to call it prurient, but it just doesn't qualify, since by definition a simple and frank interest in sex and sexuality is not prurient. Of course the book has serious value, since it provides accurate and useful information that young people entering puberty both want and need. Since the book meets at most one out of the three tests for obscenity, it is not obscene in any legally actionable sense.

Would a warning label help? No. A parent who doesn't pay attention to the phrase "Sex and Sexual Health" right there on the front cover isn't going to notice some other kind of label. Would moving the book out of the Young Adult section help? No, since that does nothing to restrict anybody's access to anything unless you also have physical restraints controlling which patrons can go to which parts of the library.

If it isn't legally obscene and there's nothing to be gained from labeling or reclassification, what's the real issue here? Let's be honest. It's not the medical information or the cartoonish drawings that upset those who object to It's Perfectly Normal. The problem with this book is that it mentions sex and sexuality without attaching shame, fire or brimstone. Worse, it mentions the fact that homosexual people and homosexual relationships exist, without adding a note of condemnation. Those who want to restrict access to this book aren't worried about depictions of sex or information about sex. They're really not even trying to control what their own children learn about the real world, since they can manage that by basic parental supervision.

The only thing that's left is that they're trying to control the perspective on the world that is open to other people's children. Culture war. That's politics.

It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health, written by Robbie Harris and published by Candlewick Press.

Staying on Message?

The WBC4SL continue to demonstrate an inability to stay on message. Wasn’t it supposed to be about obscenity, and wasn’t it supposed to be about protecting children?

The logo pictured here is what Maziarka objects to on this morning’s post to her Wissup Blog. She writes, “The logo shows a naked women lying on top of a book. You get the idea.” Of course, on reading those words, the image created in the reader’s mind is far worse than the reality. This is typical of the WBC4SL’s entire argument about obscenity in the library: insinuate into the minds of the public something that doesn’t exist in reality.

Bookslut.com is a legitimate website for booklovers. It is by and for grownups, but isn’t in the least bit obscene. The West Bend Library links to it under “Adult Programs and Booklists,” not under “Young Adults.” Again, we see that the WBC4SL’s claim to be protecting children is a ruse to control all of the library’s content.

This is also a good test case for the problem of internet filters. This website is one that would be blocked by most filtering services, not because it is obscene (it isn’t), but just because it uses the word slut. Blocking this site from access by young children might be OK, not because the site is a danger to them in any way, but because it is just too grown up for them. But most filters will also block this site from young adults and adults, who should be able to access it. Yes there are ways of dealing with that, but they all place a burden on librarians and patrons alike. The effect: censorship plain and simple.

http://bookslut.com/

Why Can't I Have my Cake and Eat it Too?

We would all like to have a magical cake, one we can eat whenever we want but is never used up. A lovely dream, but most of us recognize that such a thing is impossible in any practical reality.

Not so the WBC4SL and the CCLU, who are trying both to have and to eat their cake.

How are the WBC4SL and the CCLU eating their cake? They're eating their cake by the simple fact of living within the modern world. They live in the United States in the 21st century, a pluralistic society with unprecedented levels of diversity. They have jobs, go to the market, watch television, and otherwise engage with a wide variety of people, many quite unlike the members of the WBC4SL and CCLU, all day and every day.

Within our society there are smaller groups that choose some degree of isolation. Convents and monasteries are extreme examples of places where people go when they choose not to live worldly lives, and instead to close themselves off with like-minded others. There are many other levels of isolation, though, like Amish communities, communes, cooperatives, and the like, where members interact mostly with their own kind, although they have some degree of contact with the outside world.

The WBC4SL and the CCLU aren't like those isolated communities. They interact every day with the complexity and diversity of American life. That's a choice.

But the WBC4SL and CCLU want to have their cake as well as eat it. They expect to interact with diverse America yet be unaffected by it. They want to go to the same office and same grocery store as every body else, maybe even to the same library, without every encountering the differences around them. They're like monks after the monastery has burned down, who are now dashing about the blaring city streets screaming at everyone, "don't lead me into temptation," "don't show me anything I don't approve of," and "Oh you worldly people are vile!"

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too by imposing labels and restrictions at the West Bend Library. They want to send their kids to the library, a public place, but at the same time guarantee that their kids won't find anything that contradicts WBC4SL values. Bad enough, but it's actually far worse than that. The WBC4SL wants to turn every librarian into a WBC4SL parent, deciding which patrons can access which materials using WBC4SL standards. They're trying to make public space an extension of their private universe.

It wouldn't be enough for them to enter a cloister. They'd rather take every body else with them by building a wall around the whole town of West Bend. Have they ever read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, and did they like it?

Most of us realize we have to live in a society that includes people with values different from our own. But then again, most of us realize we can't have our cake and eat it too.