Court Rules No Porn in Library; Washington State Supreme Court Rules Public Library Internet Filters are Constitutional; Local Control Trumps ALA; ACLU Threats to Sue are Empty

The American Library Association [ALA] opposes public library Internet filtering despite losing big in US v. ALA.  It attempts to mislead local communities into choosing not to use legal and effective means to protect children.  Often library leadership and the media are ALA acolytes who care little for community concerns.  But the ALA has just experienced a dramatic crash for all the world to see and emulate.  Read on.

Library Director Opposes ALA Position and Proclaims Common Sense

The North Central Regional Library District in Washington state has a library director, Dean Marney, who has stood up to the ALA and its propaganda.  I wrote about him in the past.  See "Library Director Extols Internet Filtering;  Porn Should Be Excluded From Libraries; Dynamite Reading For Library Directors, Trustees and Patrons."  "He knocks the ALA's instigation of a lawsuit against the library—another example of the ALA attempting to usurp local control."  (As an aside, the ALA recently claimed I "dictate" to communities when it is obviously exactly the opposite.)

Now, having been proven correct by the Washington state Supreme Court in Bradburn vs. North Central Regional Library District, he says it all: "North Central Regional Library District director Dean Marney called the decision 'an affirmation for libraries, common sense, civility, and the appropriate use of public funds,'" emphasis mine.  See "Updated: Washington Supreme Court, 6-3, Backs Library System's Full Filtering Policy; No Disabling But Willingness to Unblock Sites; Case Still in Federal Court," by Norman Oder, Library Journal, 6 May 2010. 

Also see, "Washington State Supreme Court Opinion," by Dean Marney, NCRL News and Events, 6 May 2010:  "We are gratified to know that the highest Court in our State understands the context in which NCRL operates and the discretion we must exercise to perform our essential functions."

So the ALA's attempt to control yet another community has fallen flat on its face for all the world to see.  The ALA's propaganda machine has failed.  Its empty rhetoric is proven false.  Local communities need not fear the ALA or its local acolytes.

As I see it, it's Library Director/Local Control 1, ALA 0.

Media Opposes ALA Position; Exposes ACLU Threats to Sue as Empty

Even the media is not fooled.  Elizabeth Hovde, for example, is a columnist who has not and will not buy the ALA line.  She didn't in the past, see "Sensible Censorship: Surfing for Porn Shouldn't Be a Public Library Service" (where in the comments self-arrogated freedom of speech advocates attempted to remove her writing), and she's not now, see "Library Needn't Supply Pornography, Court Rules," by Elizabeth Hovde, The Oregonian, 7 May 2010.  I have reprinted it below to inspire all who think the ALA is some kind of authority on what goes on in local libraries.

I have highlighted below the particularly outstanding concepts rarely heard in the media.  Common sense, library filters are not censorship, it's all in there.  Get the digitalis, "Libraries aren't required to help people access pornography."  Can you believe it?  Might the ALA and your local library policy written or inspired by the ALA be wrong?

The ACLU gets put it its place as well.  "Some have been hesitant to deny patrons unfiltered Internet searches because of the ACLU's threat to sue."  I know this personally to be the case.  I've been told so by governmental leaders in communities nationwide.  It is time communities stop being fooled by empty ACLU law suit threats.

Further, if the ACLU does sue for things that have already been decided by the courts, then countersue for treble damages for vexatious litigation.  For example, in Nampa, ID, the ACLU threatened to sue because adults asking for books kept from children might be embarrassed.  The town caved in, but it should not have because the ACLU had already lost on that very issue of embarrassment five years previously in the US Supreme Court.

So that's Media 1, ALA/ACLU 0.

Your Library Director and Media Could Also Oppose the ALA

In your own communities do you have a library director who supports you instead of the ALA?  Does your media investigate and report accurately?  Is the ACLU (or the NCAC) threatening your community?  Let the above serve as an example for communities nationwide.  Go into your libraries and find out what are the policies and practices (they can be different), look at the laws that created your libraries, then act accordingly.  I will help if requested.

By the way, to head off at the pass the oft-repeated, false claim that filters do not work such as by blocking breast cancer searches, know that even the ACLU now admits filters are 95% effective and no longer block health-related searches, and the ACLU was a losing party in US v. ALA were it attempted to have the Court find filters to be unconstitutional in part claiming they were ineffective.  And filters may even prevent libraries from aiding and abetting pedophiles.

Libraries Nationwide Will Soon Have Improved Filtering Policies

As the Library Journal correctly predicts, the Washington case "may lead some libraries to adopt more stringent Internet filtering policies."  Anything is more stringent than "anything goes."

"The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."  US v. ALA.

"We conclude that a library can, subject to the limitations set forth in this opinion, filter Internet access for all patrons, including adults, without violating article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution."  Bradburn vs. North Central Regional Library District.

Library Needn't Supply Pornography, Court Rules

By Elizabeth Hovde, Oregonian columnist

May 07, 2010, 11:00AM

Imagine that.  Libraries aren't required to help people access pornography or other controversial material on taxpayer-funded library computers.  Just as libraries pick and choose what books to put on the shelves, they can help guide what people view on public computers.

The Washington state Supreme Court delivered that dose of common sense this week, ruling that libraries that install filtering software on computers aren't required to turn the filters off at a patron's request.  While filters can limit people's Internet searches -- the reason the ACLU sued a library system in Wenatchee -- the ruling rightly recognizes that creating safe learning environments for patrons of all ages is more important than being a supplier of pornography or other controversial material.  And the ruling rebuts the ridiculous assertion that library Internet filters amount to censorship.  Pornography is widely available regardless of filtering software on public computers.  No one is stopping the presses.

The state Supreme Court ruling is great news for Washington state libraries and possibly those beyond the state's borders, as it could influence a pending federal case.  With the backing of courts, more libraries might adopt responsible library Internet policies.  Some have been hesitant to deny patrons unfiltered Internet searches because of the ACLU's threat to sue.

With so many incidents of inappropriate behavior or predation in libraries around the nation, including some in Washington and Oregon, this ruling is extremely good news.  Whatever communities can do to keep libraries as safe as possible for children and librarians, the better.

Read the Washington state Supreme Court opinion here.
The 28-branch North Central Regional Library system has a press release regarding the ruling available here.

Elizabeth Hovde writes a Sunday column and posts blog entries on The Stump throughout the week.  Reach her at ehovde@earthlink.net.

.