Does your library collect all the books about sex education? Or just a specific few that met the criteria of your selection policy? Does Dean Marney’s library block every sex education site or just the ones that the filtering company they use blocks?

I find this one of the biggest weaknesses of the filtering debate. On the one hand, if a library chooses to filter a site (e.g., playboy.com) it is committing an act of censorship. Yet, when a library does not buy an item on a particular topic (e.g., Playboy) it is omitting the item from the collection. In both cases *access* to the item is *not* available. Yet, the one is censorship and the other is a selection or collection development decision.

Honestly, how many books, magazines, videos, etc., does your library have that contain *visual* depictions that would cause them to be “blocked” from patron use similar to the same requirements for websites under CIPA? My bet is practically none. Why? Because those items are outside the scope of the library’s mission and thus outside the scope of it’s selection / collection development decisions. Yet, if a library chooses to filter (or has to filter because it accepts E-rate funds) those websites that meet CIPAs requirements (and let’s face it, there are tons upon tons upon tons of those types of sites), the library is censoring.

So, it seems to me that to many libraries / librarians are more than willing to apply different criteria to physical vs. digital items.

“HARMFUL TO MINORS.–The term “harmful to minors” means any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that–(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.”

This verbiage is at odds with First Amendment Rights because how is it possible to agree on what, when “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value as to minors.” If the same logic were applied to printed words, would Twilight become available only to adults because, community members could make a case that it is devoid of any value to minors? Thankfully, this sort of ridiculous rationale is not applied to books because, based on history, it would not pass muster in the Supreme Court.

This ridiculous ruling cannot even apply to video games. In American Amusement Machine Association, et al., v. Teri Kendrick, et al., 244 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2001); cert.denied, 534 U.S. 994; 122 S. Ct. 462; 151 L. Ed. 2d 379 (2001) the courts ruled that “children have first amendment rights” which reversed a prior decision to censure children from playing violent and sexual video games. Also, in Interactive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003) the court stated in reference to prohibiting children from accessing violent video games that “speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors.”

We could learn something from the video game world. CIPA is at odds with these fairly recent decisions. It is unconstitutional and, yes, Andy and Stephen are right: we need to fight now to have digital materials protected before it’s too late.

[And here's a scary thought: if it does become too late, will the CIPA provisions begin to extend to books at some point causing historic Supreme Court rulings to be reversed? Will the cited court decisions on video games become reversed? It seems to me we cannot have such flagrant inconsistencies and applications of the law forever; either the First Amendment will be applied equitably or we will continue to stand-by as the protections of the First Amendment are revoked- and not just for minors, but for everyone.]

There’s no excuse why libraries should remain silent on net neutrality, which encompasses the business aspect, but as for filtering: the argument I’ve always heard (and used) is that while the content of the books are sealed away within the covers so that those who do not wish to see this content don’t have to, if a patron pulls up a website with offensive content on a public access computer in the middle of the library, a passerby may catch a glimpse of it.

This doesn’t mean that we censor the web at our computers. It means we outfit computers with privacy screens, have separate areas for computers that allow access to minors (no different than having collections for different age groups), and thoroughly warn parents that yes–their children can access the whole Internet from our computers, and it’s up to them to make sure they don’t.