Feds forcing libraries to censor Net political sites

I agree with your view. I have seen at my own local
library - the extent to which library personnel monitor
children using the internet - and they seem to be doing
a fine job of handling this on their own, I see no need
for government/supreme court to enter into this arena.
I believe library personnel are totally aware of the kids
who frequently are attempting to subvert the rules; and
therefore take special precautions to keep an eye on
the use of the monitors. Where adults are limited only in
the amount of time that they can use the internet access,
kids are watched VERY closely to see what they are doing.

I'd disagree. No where in the 1st Amendment does it require the government to pay for anyones free speech.

Beyond that, the claims that the software erroneously filters out sites is pure BS. The law as passed doesn't specify what software has to be used. It only requires that there be some filtering software installed. The libraries themselves are free to select any software application of their choice and they can configure it any way they choose to.

A local library could simply configure their router to block all outgoing traffic on UDP Port 29,786 (which isn't used for anything anyway..) and they meet the legal requirements of the law. They could also buy any standard "Net Nanny" application and empty the filter list so that any site can be accessed.

"There was testimony at trial that only one person in a library system, no matter how large or busy it is, can have access to unblock the software."

This is the kind of crap that people spout when they have no clue what they are talking about. What idiot presented this testimony? If this is the case in any library it is a locally created condition and not a anything effected by the law one way or the other. There is no such mandate anywhere in the law.

well i can see you just don't understand the priciples of conservatism in the republican administration of George W. Bush.
you must understand that the very basis of republicanism is a diminished government in the lives of the citizens, a diminished govenment of size and cost to the citizens all of which is demonstated by simple facts like under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, the size and cost of government increased at a greater rate than ever before and the private lives of citizens have been invaded beyond the very comprehension of constitutional authority. This is called the principle of political republican reverse-speak. btw started next tuesday everyone will wear brown shoes on tuesdays.

I work in a public library, believe me those kids are pretty damn quick to exploit any IT flaw. The closest we can get to 'censorship' is to require permission in writing from their parents to use the equipment.

No one is stopping people from watching porn.......in their own homes. Libraries pick and choose the kinds of books that are on their shelves. I know of no public library that has a porn section, for books, and I have yet to hear anyone complain about the lack of pornographic books.

To me, in the interest of protecting children, I think that it is perfectly reasonable to use a porn filter on public computers.

BBB- I think that title of your thread is either a typo or purposely misleading:




This thread has NOTHING to do with political sites. Why was it labeled as such?

Pnix - A repository library, such as the Library of Congress, will collect all materials, regardless of content - it is the documentary heritage of the nation. The place I work at is pretty small, we don't have porn in terms of images or videos, but we do have a fair bit of erotic fiction (including that produced by Mills & Boon!).

I remember when Madonna's book 'Sex' came out, it was purchased and lent out by public libraries in the US. Not in Australia, though (damn!).


You are correct in identifying the lack of identified 'political content'. I'd prefer to see some hard info on whether sites espousing anti-war or anti-globalism could be blocked.

Libraries post Patriot Act warnings: FBI may spy on them
Libraries post Patriot Act warnings
Santa Cruz branches tell patrons that FBI may spy on them
Bob Egelko, Maria Alicia Gaura, Chronicle Staff Writers
Monday, March 10, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/10/MN14634.DTL

Along with the usual reminders to hold the noise down and pay overdue fines, library patrons in Santa Cruz are seeing a new type of sign these days: a warning that records of the books they borrow may wind up in the hands of federal agents.

The signs, posted in the 10 county branches last week and on the library's Web site, also inform the reader that the USA Patriot Act "prohibits library workers from informing you if federal agents have obtained records about you."

"Questions about this policy," patrons are told, "should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530."

Library goers were swift to denounce the act's provisions.

"It's none of their business what anybody's reading," said Cathy Simmons of Boulder Creek. "It's counterproductive to what libraries are all about."

"I'm not reading anything they'd be particularly interested in, but that's not the point," said Ari Avraham of Santa Cruz. "This makes me think of Big Brother."

The Justice Department says libraries have become a logical target of surveillance in light of evidence that some Sept. 11 hijackers used library computers to communicate with each other.

But the signs ordered by the Santa Cruz library board -- a more elaborate version of warnings posted in several libraries around the nation -- are adding to the heat now being generated by a once-obscure provision of the Patriot Act.

Section 215 of the act allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret federal court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying.

Unlike conventional search warrants, there is no need for agents to show that the target is suspected of a crime or possesses evidence of a crime. As the Santa Cruz signs indicate, the law prohibits libraries and bookstores from telling their patrons, or anyone else, that the FBI has sought the records.

The provision was virtually unnoticed when the Patriot Act, a major expansion of government search and surveillance authority, was passed by Congress six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But in the last year, Section 215 has roused organizations of librarians and booksellers into a burst of political activity, and is being cited increasingly by critics as an example of the new law's intrusiveness.


SANDERS' REPEAL BILL
Even as a leaked copy of a Bush administration proposal to expand the Patriot Act was circulating, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Ind-Vt., introduced a bill last week to repeal the library and bookstore provisions -- the first bill in the House, and the second in Congress, seeking to roll back any part of the Patriot Act.

Sanders, who voted against the Patriot Act, said he decided to target a "particularly onerous" provision that affects large numbers of people. His Freedom to Read Protection Act would allow library and bookstore searches only if federal agents first showed they were likely to find evidence of a crime.

The bill's 23 co-sponsors include four Bay Area Democrats -- Reps. Barbara Lee of Oakland, Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, Sam Farr of Carmel and Pete Stark of Fremont.

The Bush administration has refused to say how it has used Section 215 -- prompting a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by library and bookseller organizations -- and has made few public comments on the issue. One statement by a high-ranking Justice Department official, however, may have inadvertently helped to fuel the rollback efforts.

In a letter to an inquiring senator, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant said Americans who borrow or buy books surrender their right of privacy.

A patron who turns over information to the library or bookstore "assumes the risk that the entity may disclose it to another," Bryant, the Justice Department's chief of legislative affairs, said in a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.


'INHERENTLY LIMITED' RIGHT
He said an individual's right of privacy in such records is "inherently limited" and is outweighed by the government's need for the information, if the FBI can show it is relevant to an "investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

Bryant's letter, dated Dec. 23, was slow to surface publicly but is now being held up by library and bookstore associations as evidence of the menace of government surveillance.

"Bookstore customers buy books with the expectation that their privacy will be protected," said the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, which represents independent bookstores. "If (Bryant) is in any doubt about this, he can ask Kenneth Starr, who outraged the nation by trying to subpoena Monica Lewinsky's book purchases."

"I find it profoundly disturbing that an assistant attorney general asserts that we have lost the right to privacy in that kind of information," said Deborah Stone, deputy director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. "The republic was founded on the premise that you don't have to share your thoughts."

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said Bryant was merely pointing out that patrons voluntarily turn over information to libraries and bookstores and shouldn't be surprised if others learn about it. Corallo also said the provisions pose no threat to ordinary Americans, only to would-be terrorists.

Before demanding records from a library or bookstore under the Patriot Act, he said, "one has to convince a judge that the person for whom you're seeking a warrant is a spy or a member of a terrorist organization. The idea that any American citizen can have their records checked by the FBI, that's not true."


U.S. DECIDES WHO IS TERRORIST
Once the government decides someone is a terrorist, Corallo said, "We would want to know what they're reading. They may be trying to get information on infrastructure. They may be looking in the public library for information that would allow them to plan operations."

Responding to such positions, the leaders of the 64,000-member American Library Association passed a resolution in January calling the Patriot Act provisions "a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users" and urging Congress to change the law.

And while the views of individual librarians are apparently more varied than those of their association, a recent nationwide survey found that most felt the Patriot Act went too far.

Nearly 60 percent of the 906 librarians who replied to a University of Illinois questionnaire between October and January believed that the law's so- called gag order -- which prohibits libraries from disclosing that the FBI has requested their records -- was unconstitutional.

Asked if they would defy an agent's nondisclosure order, 5.5 percent said they definitely would, and another 16.1 percent said they probably would -- even though the law makes such defiance a crime.

In Santa Cruz, where library officials are trying to stir up patrons about the Patriot Act, chief librarian Anne Turner has found a more subtle way to sidestep the gag order, if she ever faces one.

"At each board meeting I tell them we have not been served by any (search warrants)," she said. "In any months that I don't tell them that, they'll know. "

E-mail the writers at [email protected] and [email protected].

Library political sites blocked
LIBRARIES FORCED BY FEDS TO USE SOFTWARE THAT ENDS UP BLOCKING POLITICAL SITES

"It is clear that the software being forced on libraries prevents their patrons from seeing a large amount of constitutionally protected material. By one estimate, it "overblocks" by 15 percent or more, meaning that untold hundreds of thousands of Web sites that should be accessible to library users are not. The trial court found that the software blocked the Web sites of political candidates and sites discussing such topics as sexual identity and abstinence. " 3.09.03 www.bushwatch.com

New York Times Editorial
Censoring the Internet

The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case that will help shape the degree to which free speech prevails in cyberspace. To qualify for federal funds, libraries are required to block access to pornographic Web sites. This means that the law, in effect, coerces libraries to deny access to constitutionally protected materials. The libraries are rightly challenging the law. The court should strike it down.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression on the Internet. The Supreme Court made this clear in 1997 when it invalidated portions of the Communications Decency Act that made it illegal to post sexually explicit material online without restricting minors' access to it. But the Internet's technology poses an array of legal issues that do not occur offline, such as the question of filtering.

The Children's Internet Protection Act requires that libraries receiving federal aid for Internet access install filters that block material considered obscene or, in the case of underage users, "harmful to minors." Libraries regard the law as an infringement on their ability to provide information freely to their users. They say it requires them to use software that erroneously blocks access to many inoffensive sites. A group of libraries sued, and last year, a three-judge court unanimously held the law unconstitutional.

It is clear that the software being forced on libraries prevents their patrons from seeing a large amount of constitutionally protected material. By one estimate, it "overblocks" by 15 percent or more, meaning that untold hundreds of thousands of Web sites that should be accessible to library users are not. The trial court found that the software blocked the Web sites of political candidates and sites discussing such topics as sexual identity and abstinence.

The government argues that librarians can remove the filters when asked to do so. But the unblocking technology is itself flawed. There was testimony at trial that only one person in a library system, no matter how large or busy it is, can have access to unblock the software. And as the lower court found, patrons may be unwilling to ask librarians to unblock sites if they cannot do so anonymously. Forcing users to specifically request information about subjects like sexually transmitted diseases or homosexuality may, in some cases, effectively deny them access to it.

The Children's Internet Protection Act is the first federal law ever to impose free-speech restrictions on local libraries, and it does so in a constitutionally unacceptable way. If there is a problem with library terminals being used to gain access to inappropriate Web sites, it is a problem the court should trust local libraries to solve.

Re: Library political sites blocked



Umm.. yeah.. And which software is that exactly?

This case was decided today by the USSC:

Court: Libraries can be forced to use anti-porn computer filters
Monday, June 23, 2003 Posted: 10:50 AM EDT (1450 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that Congress can force the nation's public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters.

The blocking technology, intended to keep smut from children, does not violate the First Amendment even though it shuts off some legitimate, informational Web sites, the court held.

The court said because libraries can disable the filters for any patrons who ask, the system is not too burdensome. The 6-3 ruling reinstates a law that told libraries to install filters or surrender federal money.

Four justices said the law was constitutional, and two others said it was allowable as long as patrons were not denied Internet access.

It was victory for Congress, which has struggled to find ways to shield children from pornographic Internet sites. Congress has passed three laws since 1996 -- the first was struck down by the Supreme Court and the second was blocked by the court from taking effect.

The first two laws dealt with regulations on Web site operators. The latest approach, in the 2000 law, mandated that public libraries put blocking technology on computers as a condition for receiving federal money. Libraries have received about $1 billion since 1999 in technologies subsidies, including tax money and telecommunications industry fees.

The government had argued that libraries don't have X-rated movies and magazines on their shelves and shouldn't have to offer access to pornography on their computers.

Librarians and civil liberties groups countered that filters are censorship and that they block valuable information. Filter operators must review millions of Web sites to decide which ones to block.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said the law does not turn librarians into censors.

The latest law, the Children's Internet Protection Act, has been on hold. A three-judge federal panel in Pennsylvania ruled last year that it was unconstitutional because it caused libraries to violate the First Amendment. The filtering programs block too much nonpornographic material, the panel found.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

Justices had seemed skeptical in March during arguments in the case that it was onerous for library users to ask staff to disconnect filters when research is hampered.

More than 14 million people use public library computers.

Even without the law in place, some libraries use filtering software on their computers, with varying degrees of success in screening out objectionable material. Other libraries have varying policies that encourage parents to monitor their children's Internet use.

"We challenged this law because filters are very blunt instruments that block more than illegal speech, including a great deal of speech that is not even sexual in nature at all," said Paul M. Smith, the Washington attorney who represented the American

Library Association. "We're disappointed that the court said that this one-size fits-all answer is not the way to handle this problem of sexual content on the Internet in the library setting."

The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.library.ap/index.html