Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 04/20/1998 All articles from this issue

Library Internet issue a long way from being resolved

printer friendly version

By David L. Grey

Media Watch

Santa Clara County library board's unanimous approval last Thursday of software filters on computers in children's areas (see story Page 4) is big news not just for its message but also for what was voted down. And for the issues yet to be resolved.

The goal is primarily to keep pornography from minors on the Internet. The vote of the county library's Joint Powers Authority - affecting Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Cupertino among seven other communities - does just that. Or does it?

It certainly is a giant step in that direction, as was the late March decision by the Mountain View city council to install filters on library computer terminals for children.

In both actions, however, expanding filters to adult sides was rejected; as open access as possible was protected. And library staffs are not being ordered to be surrogate parents or policefolk monitoring what children and teenagers actually are searching for or picking up on Web sites.

Why these outcomes? One can try to count the layers in this quagmire, starting with what seems to have been agreed upon.

Virtually everyone present at the JPA meeting last Thursday, as well as seemingly nationwide, wants to protect kids from smut. The real issue then is how far to go without trampling on others' rights.

Such is the stuff that even more and bigger legislative debates and higher court cases are made of.

The local vote was described as seeking "common ground."

Some tried to shun the word "compromise" but it certainly could be called that, too. It did try to offer empathetic options to all sides.

The First Amendment was not trumpeted, but it was properly the underlying concern against a child's standard restricting open access for adults, especially in smaller libraries. It was the reason to resist a vocal minority, or majority, from imposing their morals on other adults.

Left loud and unclear, however, were more than just a few practical and philosophical concerns:

Do the filters actually work? (Some quote up to 90-99 percent yes, but is that good enough for those both for and against them?) Are filters providing a false sense of security or greater restrictions on access to some topics than even some proponents may want?

That is what an agreed upon trial-and-error year of assessment is designed to find out. But later, who will really decide with what data and standards if there has been "acceptable implementation"?

What about the roles of parenting and libraries - and the Internet - in our technologically expanding societies? And future First Amendment library research rights for juveniles?

OK, this is only a short term fix and a chance to take a well-deserved pressure break. So enter the cooling down phase. Maybe.

In the meantime, it might help to have a good operational definition handy of pornography because what may be pornographic to one may be art or information to another. Many legal minds will continue to challenge constitutional vagueness and inconsistencies of regulating porn, obscenity, indecency, et al.