I am wondering if this is exactly the crux of the problem.

If libraries are to be a reflection of the community’s tastes and values, then it would follow that the tastes and values of a single person using the Internet could be at odds with the tastes and values of the majority. So, if for example, a community happened to be 99.9% republican, and a single person moved to the community that happened to be affiliated with the democratic party, and that person wanted more information on a democratic presidential candidate that 99.9% of that population would find unpalatable and perhaps even detrimental to society at large, would this give the library administration the right to not unblock a site about that democratic candidate? I am guessing it is safe to say that most librarians would agree, blocking access to the site would be wrong in spite of the fact, that, in this particular case the site would be considered unsavory to the people in that community.

You say, “It is the right of the individual to marshal their own decisions, to live with consequences, and this is one area where I think libraries can get the hell out of the way.” This means that the right of the adult individual to moderate their own decisions concerning Internet access to legal sites should be their own. I inserted the word legal because I believe we can agree that illegal child pornography site viewing is reprehensible and a patron should not knowingly be permitted to have access to such material. Also, in accordance with CIPA funding, we are obliged to block sites that are inappropriate:

“The act defines “harmful to minors”as “any picture, image, graphic image file, or other
visual depiction that—
“(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;
“(B) depicts, describes, or represents in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
“(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.”’

Okay, so we can see that minors must have limited access, but, not adults. So long as someone is over the age of 18, we should have no qualms about unblocking legal, non-pornographic sites. That means we should not be making decisions based on how we feel the majority of the community would view a site, but rather on whether the site is is legal and non-pornographic. So, by law, we are only required to prohibit pornography because that is the only clearly defined subject that the law is designed to prohibit from the screens of public library computers. Part C of the defined parameter within CIPA is too murky and could rouse plenty of debate, but if we are to discuss the law in relation to adult members going online, then Part C really is of little consequence.

It is not our place to judge what an individual’s preferences are in relation to the community at large. Considering community preferences when designing relevant programming to meet defined community needs and interests is fine because programming is created to serve a group of people all at the same time. Considering community preferences is helpful to collection development, too, although, it is important to offer divergent perspectives on hosts of issues to balance the collection (and because there are always multiple viewpoints on subjects and even minority views should have a voice).

The point is, surfing the net is an individual activity. What a non-minor wants to view should be allowed without question so long as it is not of a prurient in nature (and by prurient I mean pornography and by pornography I mean naked people not nudes). If I am a republican in a republican community and I believe democrats are despicable it does not mean I should block a member from accessing sites for candidates on the democratic ticket. That would be unethical and it would be censorship. When CIPA is used to censor people from accessing sites because an administrator or a librarian dislikes the content of the site for a reason other than the content being of a prurient nature, that is a breech of the First Amendment and a nail in the coffin of our profession.

Looking at Internet sites is as personal as borrowing materials in print. We don’t tell an adult patron that their ILL request for a book about women and guns must be reviewed before filled. In fact, we don’t filter ILL requests at all. Because that is not our job (even if we cringe at what a member is asking us to give her access to read).

In my opinion, librarians need to push for a law that makes the parameters of CIPA in relation to adults crystal clear. There is too much room for interpretation because of letter C. I move we rally to remove letter C and preserve our democracy!