- "Order Granting NCRL's Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and Closing File," Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District, No. CV-06-0327-EFS, United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, 10 April 2012 (URL= http://tinyurl.com/DeanMarneyWins).
- "RURAL LIBRARY WINS PORN BATTLE AGAINST SEATTLE ACLU," NCRL Webmaster, North Central Regional Library, 11 April 2012. (Based on "RURAL LIBRARY WINS PORN BATTLE AGAINST SEATTLE ACLU," News Release, North Central Regional Library, 10 April 2012.)
- "Eastern Wash. Library Wins Porn Battle Against Seattle ACLU," by KING 5 News, KING 5 News, 10 April 2012, hyperlinks in original:
A federal judge has ruled that an Eastern Washington library system is not violating the state constitution by using filters to block internet porn on library computers.
Judge Edward F. Shea, Eastern Washington Federal District Court, ruled in favor of the North Central Regional Library. The case was brought against the rural eastern Washington library district by the ACLU of Seattle. The ACLU accused the library district of having an overly broad filtering policy.
The ruling followed a decision handed down from the Washington State Supreme Court in May, 2010. The Supreme Court found that the North Central Regional Library, the largest library district in the State of Washington, did not violate Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution with its policy of filtering the internet.
"Taxpayers are the winners in this case," said Library Director Dean Marney. "Libraries should never be forced to use public funds to provide access to child pornography or to become illegal casinos. Libraries should be sanctuaries for people of all ages."
The NCRL, which represents 28 libraries in the central part of the state, has admitted the filtering policy puts them in the minority. Other libraries have taken the stance of non-censorship, citing First Amendment rights.
Hey, it's legal! Media, stop calling it "censorship." It's not censorship. The jig is up. There is no First Amendment right to porn in public libraries. Libraries know this, especially now, let alone since US v. ALA in 2003, so saying otherwise is simply and intentionally false.
Recall my previous writing on this topic:
- "Library Porn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal Porn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma"
Wanna join people stopping libraries from misleading their communities on porn in public libraries, etc.? Join the Watchdogs! Join the winners.
NOTE ADDED 11 APRIL 2012:
Excellent historical information on the Bradburn case from David Burt:
- "Federal Judge Upholds Libary Filtering Policy in Bradburn Case," by David Burt, David Burt, 10 April 2012.
- "Lawsuit Seeks Access to Information on Internet for Adult Library Patrons," by ACLU of Washington State, ACLU of Washington State, 24 October 2011.
- "E. Washington Library Wins Suit; It Can Filter Porn," by Lynn Thompson, The Seattle Times, 10 April 2012.
NOTE ADDED 14 APRIL 2012:
In the article above, I have added an updated link for the NCRL News Release.
Let me add that the case makes clear:
- A library may review a request for web access to ensure compliance with library policy,
- A library may legally deny access to constitutionally protected material if said material does not fall within library policy,
- It is not censorship to comply with the court's ruling and block constitutionally protected material from public libraries,
- Porn and gambling do not fall within library policy (at least at this particular group of libraries),
- Other categories of constitutionally protected material may be legally blocked depending on the circumstances as the court did not restrict itself to only porn and gambling, and
- Any library or library association saying filtering porn violates the First Amendment or the Freedom of Speech is factually and legally incorrect(, and that library may be acting outside the law, and that library's town government has a duty to require a library to act within the law or it may be held legally responsible otherwise for harm caused by a failure to comply with the law).
NOTE ADDED 15 APRIL 2012:
Another interesting historical look at this case:
- "SAF Sues Library System Over Internet Censorship of Gun Websites," by News Release, Second Amendment Foundation, 16 November 2006.
NOTE ADDED 16 APRIL 2012:
I HAVE BREAKING NEWS I AM BREAKING HERE AND NOW. SAF AND ITS RELATED WEB SITES ARE NOT BEING BLOCKED BY NCRL! SEE MY COMMENT BELOW OF EVEN DATE FOR DETAILS, EVIDENCE, RELIABLE SOURCES.