A censorship battle between protecting freedom of speech and protecting children from harmful Internet material is being fought on a rather unlikely field—the public library. In almost every city, town and village in the United States there is a public library, and every one of them now has computer terminals for public use. On one side of the battle, the American Library Association (ALA) is opposed to content filters on library computers with Internet access. On the opposing side, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that libraries must install filters to block indecent websites from library patrons under the age of eighteen. For the time being, the battle scene has stilled, but the ultimate winners in the all-out war for access versus control of the Web in public libraries have yet to be declared.
The debate first raged in the U. S. due to the enactment of the federal Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in 1999. Public libraries, including school libraries, were forced to install content filters on Internet access terminals or lose certain federal funding. In response, the ALA started a legal battle to have the requirement reversed. In its 1943 Bill of Rights, the ALA said that libraries should present materials that represent many points of view on current and historical issues and not remove materials with unpopular viewpoints. At the same time, it is the responsibility of libraries to challenge censorship if they suspect it. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the filtering was constitutional, and the law should stand.
In its decision, the Supreme Court found that filters are "at least as effective" as government regulation of website operators. Earlier laws imposed criminal punishments on website operators for publishing harmful material. In contrast, CIPA places the burden on those who receive federal funds—public libraries and school districts—to ensure that children do not have access to obscene, pornographic, or other harmful images and text. According to supporters of the law, filters effectively keep out harmful Web content and do not have a negative impact on users.
Whereas some libraries such as the San Francisco library system oppose the law and have stated they will not abide by it. Other libraries favor the filters and had even used blocking software on their computers before the law required it. In 1998, 15 percent of U. S. libraries used Internet filters, according to one survey. In the middle are libraries that have compromised by installing filters only on library terminals reserved for children.
Opponents rightly argue that legitimate research sites are being blocked by excessive and harmful filters. They point to numerous examples of harmless websites—such as home pages of religious and academic institutions- that are blocked by the filter software. Anti-filter groups also charge that the devices do not filter out a substantial portion of inappropriate Internet material. A recent study found that the filters failed to block the transmission of pornography, violence, and hate speech 25 percent of the time.
Dr. Martha McCarthy, an education professor at Indiana University, expects the Web war between law-makers and librarians to continue to produce court battles. "Despite the Supreme Court decision, there may be challenges to the application of CIPA in some public libraries," said McCarthy. For instance, she said that adults may allege that it is too complicated to turn off the filters when they want to use the computers. She went on to say that the battle between freedom of speech and protection of children is likely to continue with regard to content on the Internet. Clearly, the government needs to find a more viable solution, or the free expression war will continue to rage. According to paragraph 2, what can be inferred about the ALA’s position on Internet censorship