Child Porn Arrest in London Public Library That Had Internet Filters But Quietly Removed Them After Empty Legal Threats

This is unbelievable.  In a nutshell, London Ontario's Central Library had a patron arrested for viewing child pornography.  As a result it applied Internet filters.  But empty legal threats were made, so the library "quietly removed" the filters.  Result?  Another patron arrested for the exact same reason.

See, "Man Faces Child Porn Charge," by Joe Belanger, The London Free Press, 30 April 2010:

Two years ago, the library installed filter [sic] on the computers to prevent patrons from accessing pornography.

However, the filters were quietly removed when the board was advised it could face stiff legal action and public opposition.

In 2006, the library held public meetings and the library board voted in favour of putting filters on 54 of 60 computers on the second floor.

A freedom of expression group threatened to sue, and after seeking legal opinion, the board reversed its decision.

Part of the criticism was that it violated the public's right to freedom of expression and the filters often prevented people from accessing information on certain topics, such as sex education and related issues.

First off, blocking child pornography does not "violate[] the public's right to freedom of expression."  I don't need to source that—it's obvious.  Second, even the ACLU now admits Internet filters are 95% effective and no longer block health-related web sites, and the ACLU was a losing party in US v. ALA where the ACLU sought to squelch Internet filters.

As an aside, the American Library Association [ALA] just accused me of "dictating" to communities and "blow[ing things] up into a major conflagration."  See, "Libraries Fight Challenges to Graphic Novels; Libraries Fight to Keep Graphic Novels On the Shelves," by Brigid Alverson, Publishers Weekly, 28 April 2010.  (See also LISNew's "Libraries Fight Challenges to Graphic Novels" and its comments.)  Here is the type of dictating and blowing up that's okay with the ALA—it will never complain about this type of blow up:  "A freedom of expression group threatened to sue, and after seeking legal opinion, the board reversed its decision."

What is the lesson to be learned from caving to empty legal threats?  Why do you think the Internet filters were "quietly removed"?  Who's defending the children?  Please comment below.

.