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.

.

Yakima Public Library Allows Porn--Thanks to Legislative Policy?

The Yakima Public Library allows porn.  That is obvious from the news report and video in:  "It's Legal But Many Don't Approve of Watching Porn at the Library," by Ileana Diaz, KNDO 23, 19 March 2010.

"[I]t's legal to look up just about anything, which includes porn."   More "anything goes."

But look at the next sentence:  "It's a policy that legislators set...."  What?  Will someone please print that legislative policy in a comment to this blog post?

I am going to investigate this further.  Anyone in the area who wants to contact me, please do.  In the meantime, please see these stories from about 80 miles away:

• "Sensible Censorship: Surfing for Porn Shouldn't Be a Public Library Service," by Elizabeth Hovde, The Oregonian, 11 July 2009

• "Filtered Internet: Safe, Appropriate," by Dean Marney, The Wenatchee World, 2 July 2009, reprinted in "Library Director Extols Internet Filtering; Porn Should Be Excluded From Libraries; Dynamite Reading For Library Directors, Trustees and Patrons."

As the library's motto says, "Yakima Valley Regional Library; Connecting People and Ideas...."  And porn.

.

Sensible Censorship: Surfing for Porn Shouldn't Be a Public Library Service

Sensible Censorship: Surfing for Porn
Shouldn't Be a Public Library Service
by Elizabeth Hovde, Oregonian columnist
The Oregonian
Saturday, July 11, 2009

Libraries can't and don't house every book ever written or every magazine in circulation. And library employees are continually making decisions about what goes on the shelf and what gets left out of a given collection. Rarely are they criticized for what is left behind, accused of censorship or sued.

But when libraries don't supply unfiltered Internet access to the masses (or even to children), the American Civil Liberties Union and others go after the taxpayer-funded institutions, treating them as if library board members were standing in the parking lot burning every copy of "Pride and Prejudice" and "To Kill a Mockingbird."

The North Central Regional Library District in Washington state is one library district that has decided it isn't a library's job to peddle Net porn and that filtering software for library computers can help create a more family-friendly library experience. For that reasonable stance, the Wenatchee-based district has been sued. Late last month, the case finally made it all the way to the Washington state Supreme Court. And now the court will decide whether public libraries can refuse to disable library Internet filters for adults who want access to blocked content.

The ACLU of Washington is representing three library users and a pro-gun foundation in the case. The organization found the right test cases. The three library patrons the ACLU is representing were trying to access information that would upset no one. The patrons include a woman who was doing research on tobacco use by youth, a photographer who was blocked from using YouTube and a man who was unable to access his blog, as well as information related to gun use by hunters.

It's easier to gather sympathy for ACLU's cause when a library policy hinders the Internet searches of people seeking benign information. It's much harder to do so for middle-aged guys who go to the library to look at pornography in a building frequented by children.

That's what filtering policies are all about, of course. They are an attempt to keep: libraries safe for all patrons and library workers; children away from materials they can't legally buy in a store; and taxpayers from having to finance someone's porn habits.

Instead of imagining the limited Internet searches of students and hunters, picture the 25-year-old man accused of downloading illegal child pornography at the Lake Oswego Public Library last October or the Milwaukie man who was arrested for repeatedly downloading child pornography from a public computer in Milwaukie's Ledding Library last fall.

Like a lot of libraries, the Lake Oswego Public Library offers patrons the option of filtered or unfiltered Net access and doesn't monitor the use of legal materials and information. But child pornography is not legal and violates both libraries' policies.

It should make all of us uncomfortable that pedophiles have access to pornography in public places where children are present. And there are many examples across the nation of library patrons who've left pornographic images where minors or librarians can come across them. When the fight over Internet filtering on library computers was going on in Seattle in the 1990s, the crusade for filtered Net access was led, in part, by a well-spoken librarian who didn't feel comfortable helping men access pornography or being exposed to the peep shows.

Concern for librarians and children led the federal government to tie some federal dollars for library Internet access to a requirement that libraries have the ability to block minors from pornography and other potentially harmful sites. The ACLU opposed even this modest move, calling it a threat to free speech and saying parents, not libraries, should control what kids view.

But some library districts listened to common sense and constituents instead of the ACLU. And like North Central Regional Library District, they chose to filter out smut not only for minors, but for adults, too. Sometimes, an unintended consequence resulted: Other content was blocked along with offensive materials -- leading to the current case before the Washington state Supreme Court.

I hope the library district wins, despite the valid searches for YouTube, gun use and teen smoking habits. Libraries are financed by taxpayers and offer a lot of information to the public. But they don't offer every piece of information available and shouldn't have to.

Limiting what's on the shelves -- or accessible on a public computer -- is not censorship. It's discretion. And pornography and other materials blocked by some filtering programs are still widely available for personal use and purchase elsewhere.

Elizabeth Hovde writes a Sunday column for The Oregonian and also posts during the week on oregonlive.com/thestump. Reach her at ehovde@earthlink.net.

© 2009 Oregon Live LLC. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission of the author.