| Last modified: |
8/7/04; 1:53:46 PM
|
| Feeds: |
|
LIVE webcam Cumbres & Toltec rail yard in Chama, New Mexico.
Current BlogRoll.
[Macro error: The server, api.google.com, returned a SOAP-ENV:Server fault: Exception from service object: Invalid authorization key:]
|
|
|
Monday, June 23, 2003
Round-up of Links About SCOTUS Decision to Censor Library Internet Access.
Not too much new to report about the SCOTUS censorship decision yet, but here are more links from around the web. Some librarians are reporting calls from companies selling filtering software already. Oy.
Look twice at that Yahoo News headline - it refers to the Court approving "anti-porn" filters in libraries. What they fail to mention is that there's a heck of a lot more content than just porn that is also being blocked.
I want to make sure that I note that this ruling currently applies only to those libraries that accept federal e-rate money for technology and telecommunications. Unfortunately, with the funding situation facing most libraries today, many don't have a choice. And as Andrew Mutch implied in his message, it's a good bet that Congress will try to apply this logic to ALL federal funding now, which means pretty much every library everywhere.
It will be interesting to see if this applies to wireless internet within a library, too. What a major step backwards that would be.
Update with more links:
- Internet Blocking in Public Schools: A Study on Internet Access in Educational Institutions - EFF report that analyzed the "accessibility on the web of information related to state-mandated curriculum topics within public schools that operate Internet blocking software." It highlights why today's decision is so chilling. Kids can't get information at their schools or school libraries, and now they won't be able to get it at the public library, either. If they don't have computers and internet access at home, that means they don't get the information at all.
- Blake is collecting Quotable Quotes from the decision over at LISNews.
- In Supreme Court Backs Library Porn Filters, the Register notes that "Librarians now hold the key to public Internet access, which seems downright odd. It's been a while since we asked for permission to use 'all' of the Internet, but apparently it's something we should get used to."
- Lots of comments over at MetaFilter, including this one: "The majority opinion notes that libraries have always excluded pornography from their collections. Souter makes the case that excluding pornography from an already existing (i.e., bought-and-paid-for) resource is a completely different animal from spending money to purchase pornographic materials. Souter, a self-described Luddite who lives in a cabin, totally 'gets" the Internet. Whooda thunkit?' "
- People for the American Way: Supreme Court Decision: Internet Ruling Damages Rights of Library Users - "Filtering technology is an important tool available to parents and families, but it is not a tool intended to be used by the government to mandate decisions about what is available in a public library. This ruling could present a troubling retreat on First Amendment protections in cyberspace."
- Copyfight is also tracking some good links.
- Michael Pate over at LibraryPlanet is dissecting the SC Decision.
- Washington Post: Questions and Answers on Web Filtering. Decent overview, although it would have been nice if they'd provided more specific examples.
- In Library Filters OK'd, First Amendment Loses, Dan Gillmor says, "Let's hope libraries start demanding better software, and that filter vendors will sell it. Don't hold your breath." Unfortunately, libraries aren't in much of a position to demand better software, especially with this decision to censor being forced down our throats. Which is why vendors have little reason to make better software. So yeah, don't hold your breath. This is the last thing in the world librarians need to be concentrating on these days.
This decision only points out even further how out of touch our politicians and judges are with the daily lives of the people they are supposed to represent. Obviously none of them use the public libraries they just deemed themselves knowledgeable enough to censor. [ The Shifted Librarian]
< 6:19:52 PM 
>
More on the Supreme Court Forcing Libraries to Censor.
Chatter about the Supreme Court's decision to force libraries to censor their internet access is beginning to gather steam on the WEB4LIB mailing list (you can follow it via the archive). Andrew Mutch sent this response to the list:
"I'm loathe to think how the CIPA decision will fall out in the library community but the likely consequences include:
1) More filtering of more content: Since the SCOTUS rejected the idea that patrons have any right to access material via the Internet, there appears to be very little legal restrictions that would prevent libraries that are so inclined to block great swaths of information. Currently, CIPA is limited in its scope of content and type. But there will likely be new legislation allowing much broader filtering to block out 'objectionable' material.
2) Expansion of CIPA: As the Court has endorsed the idea of tying filters to funding, we should expect CIPA's scope to expand to cover other library funding situations. This will sweep most broadly at the state and local levels where we are sure to see basic funding tied to the use of filters.
The practical effects will probably include an immediate push to install Internet filters on library computers across the country, especially as state laws are amended to require filtering as a requirement of library funding. An unintended but equally likely consequence will be increased litigation as patrons who are denied access to information force libraries to meet the legal standards of CIPA. The current filtering software often blocks beyond the scope of what the law allows and patrons may try to make sure that the filters are only blocking what the law states they should block. However, with the Court undercutting patrons rights to access information, this will likely be an uphill battle. For libraries and library associations across the country, we will likely see another round of filter wars that will suck up time and resources in an effort to limit the adoption of wide-ranging filtering legislation.
I think where the Court did the most harm is with its endorsement of the viewpoint that our patrons are simply sheep who will be fed the information that we decide they need. The introduction of the Internet had changed the information flow for the public in our libraries by allowing patrons, not the librarians, to decide what information they wanted to access. In my mind, the Court is trying to push libraries back to a day when the librarian was viewed as a censor and a scold. While the filtering advocates will applaud this decision for both political and pocketbook reasons, it will be the libraries and librarians who will suffer in the long run from the reaction of patrons who come to view us as the new thought police."
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS decision will put up a major roadblock to information at the one place you're supposed to be able to get it. The one and only place where a large number of people can get access to the internet. Those of us with computers at work, computers at home, and broadband access at home tend to forget this.
It also means someone else will be deciding what *your* kid can see at your local public library. That's the way to think of this, because this doesn't affect librarians alone. If your child goes to your public library, the librarians have no choice but to censor what they will see, and it will most likely be based on some commercial software company's blacklist. And there isn't a thing the librarians or you can do about it, thanks to Congress and the Supreme Court. They have taken that decision away from you. [The Shifted Librarian]
< 6:19:26 PM
>
Supreme Court Forces Libraries To Censor.
Court OKs Anti-Porn Filers in Libraries
"A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that Congress can force the nation's public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters.
The blocking technology, intended to keep smut from children, does not violate the First Amendment even though it shuts off some legitimate, informational Web sites, the court held.
The court said because libraries can disable the filters for any patrons who ask, the system is not too burdensome. The 6-3 ruling reinstates a law that told libraries to install filters or surrender federal money. Four justices said the law was constitutional, and two others said it was allowable as long as patrons were not denied Internet access....
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said the law does not turn librarians into censors." [The Kansas City Star, via WEB4LIB]
So Jon and Dave, do you still think you don't live in that world? As Steven just said via IM, "it's a sad day for libraries, and an even sadder one for democracy." Here's ALA's official response:
"We are very disappointed in todayís decision. Forcing Internet filters on all library computer users strikes at the heart of user choice in libraries and at the librariesí mission of providing the broadest range of materials to diverse users. Todayís Supreme Court decision forces libraries to choose between federal funding for technology improvements and censorship. Millions of library users will lose.
We are disappointed the Court did not understand the difference between adults and children using library resources. This flies in the face of library practice of age-appropriate materials and legal precedent that adults must have access to the full range of health, political and social information. The public library is the number one access point for online information for those who do not have Internet access at home or work. We believe they must have equal access to the Information Superhighway.
In light of this decision and the continued failure of filters, the American Library Association again calls for full disclosure of what sites filtering companies are blocking, who is deciding what is filtered and what criteria are being used. Findings of fact clearly show that filtering companies are not following legal definitions of 'harmful to minors' and 'obscenity.' Their practices must change.
To assist local libraries in their decision process, the ALA will seek this information from filtering companies, then evaluate and share the information with the thousands of libraries now being forced to forego funds or choose faulty filters. The American Library Association also will explain how various products work, criteria to consider in selecting a products and how to best use a given product in a public setting. Library users must be able to see what sites are being blocked and, if needed, be able to request the filter be disabled with the least intrusion into their privacy and the least burden on library service.
The ALA will do everything possible to support the governing bodies of these local institutions as they struggle with this very difficult decision." [The Shifted Librarian]
< 6:19:07 PM
>
Apple Unveils G5 Chip. Apple Computer introduced its new computer chip and said its iTunes music stores had sold 5 million song downloads. By Reuters. [New York Times: Technology]
< 6:18:39 PM
>
New G5 Power Macs "Fastest Desktop In The World" [Slashdot]
< 6:16:25 PM
>
Top 500 Supercomputers Ranked [Slashdot]
< 6:15:39 PM
>
|
|
|