WASHINGTON / 4 p.m. -- The Supreme Court said today it will decide if
public libraries can be forced to install software blocking sexually
explicit Web sites.
The National American Civil Liberties Union, which is among those who
filed the case, says the country's highest court is reviewing a federal
court decision to strike down a Congressional law that would force
public libraries to deny adults and minors access to constitutionally
protected free speech online.
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is a Rhode Island-based Web site,
AfraidToAsk.com, which discusses sensitive health care issues.
"The court's decision on this case will have significant ramifications
for public access to the Internet," said Steven Brown, director of the
ACLU's Rhode Island chapter. "If the court upholds this decision, it
will significantly affect the ability of people to make use of public
libraries and their Internet resources."
AfraidToAsk.com provides information about personal health issues, such
as sexually transmitted diseases, depression and chronic diseases,
according to the ACLU. It also maintains a bulletin board where users
can share information on personal health care issues.
The site is run by Jonathan Bertman, M.D., a clinical assistant
professor of Family Medicine at Brown University with a private practice
in Hope Valley, according to the ACLU. Bertman could not be reached for
comment.
Each of the plaintiffs has been blocked by one or more of the leading
commercial "blocking" programs, according to the ACLU's press release
today.
Congress has struggled to find ways to protect children from Internet
pornography without infringing on free speech rights for Web site
operators.
Lawmakers have passed three laws since 1996, but the Supreme Court
struck down the first and blocked the second from taking effect.
The latest measure, signed by President Clinton in 2000, requires public
libraries receiving federal technology funds to install filters on their
computers or risk losing aid.
A three-judge federal panel ruled the Children's Internet Protection Act
violates the First Amendment because the filtering programs also block
sites on politics, health, science and other non-pornographic topics.
"Given the crudeness of filtering technology, any technology protection
measure mandated by CIPA will necessarily block access to a substantial
amount of speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government
interest," the judges wrote earlier this year.
The Bush administration argued libraries are not required to have
X-rated movies and pornographic magazines and shouldn't have to offer
access to pornography on their computers.
The three judges recommended less restrictive ways to control Internet
use, like requiring parental consent before a minor is allowed to log on
to an unfiltered computer or requiring a parent to be present while a
child surfs the Net.
"Although Congress continues to propose legislation to protect children,
all of these laws have been shown to seriously burden the right of
adults to access protected speech on the Internet. They're all flawed,"
Ann Beeson, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said
today.
The ACLU, the American Library Association, and other groups had
challenged the law.
Paul M. Smith, the attorney for the library association, said more than
14 million people use libraries for Internet access. The latest
restriction "takes a meat ax approach to an area that requires far more
sensitive tools," he argued.
Texas had asked the Supreme Court to uphold the law.
"Parents should not be afraid to send their children to the library,
either because they might be exposed to such materials or because the
library's free, filterless computers might attract people with a
propensity to victimize children," wrote Texas Attorney General John
Cornyn, who was elected to the U.S. Senate last week.
Congress knew the latest law would be challenged, and directed any
appeals to go straight to the Supreme Court after a trial before a
three-judge panel.
U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the lower court panel's
ruling hurts Congress' effort to ensure that money spent "for
educational and other purposes does not facilitate access to the
enormous amount of illegal and harmful pornography on the Internet."
The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which
made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can
find it. The court said the law violated free-speech rights because it
would keep material from adults who have a right to see it.
Earlier this year the court upheld part of the 1998 Child Online
Protection Act, which required Web sites to collect a credit card number
or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material
deemed "harmful to minors." But justices did not rule on the law's
constitutionality, and the government was barred from enforcing it.
The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361.
-- With projo.com reports
