Posted on: Thursday, March 28, 2002

EDITORIAL
Library Internet screening is shaky

It is the job of librarians to make information available to the public. It is not their job to play cyberpolice or parent. Yet that's essentially their unwitting role under the Children's Internet Protection Act, which requires libraries to install computer software that screens out Internet pornography.

Right now, the constitutionality of that law is being tested in federal court in Philadelphia. If a three-judge panel upholds the law, it's likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is clearly a First Amendment issue never anticipated by the authors of the Bill of Rights.

As it stands, the law forces libraries that receive federal technology funding to block children's access to online material deemed "obscene," "harmful to minors" or "child pornography." In other words, smut. Those who don't comply with the law risk losing that funding.

Now, librarians are not exactly renowned for making waves, particularly if their protests result in funding cuts. But this is clearly a battle they feel compelled to fight. And we sympathize with their concerns that the law places them in the awkward position of censoring constitutionally protected speech.

Among their many objections to the law, librarians contend that parents and children — not the government —should be responsible for deciding what is and what isn't appropriate online material. After all, different parents observe different values and rules about what their children should be exposed to.

Plus, there's a technological weakness to the filter system. If your software helps you block access to sites using, say, the code word "sex," you can inadvertently cut patrons off from a broad range of topics that bear no relation whatsoever to pornography.

It's reasonable to want to shield children from pornography, but to make libraries and commercial software responsible for enforcing a one-size-fits-all law that is constitutionally shaky is not the smartest way to go.