ACLU Defends CA Library Against
Parent Seeking to Compel Internet CensorshipFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
LIVERMORE, CA -- Moving to defend online free speech in libraries, the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting a California library's policy of providing uncensored access to the Internet.
Friday, July 10, 1998At issue is whether "Kathleen R.," a local parent, can obtain a court order to compel a Livermore, California library to eliminate library patrons' ability to access certain material over the Internet. In a lawsuit filed on May 28, she argues that without such an order, the library is a "public nuisance" and ought to be shut down.
In her lawsuit, Ms. R. sought to bar officials from spending public money on the city's public library computer system so long as minors or adults can use it to find sexual material considered "obscene" or "harmful to minors" under California law.
The ACLU's brief, filed today in Alameda County Superior Court, asserts that both federal law and the First Amendment favor uncensored access to the Internet.
"It is no more legal for a parent to compel a library to censor the Internet than it is for the government to do so," said Ann Brick, Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, which filed the brief on behalf of the ACLU of Northern California, the national ACLU and People for the American Way.
Determining what is "obscene" or "harmful to minors," Brick said, is a matter for juries and judges to decide. "Parents have every right to supervise what their children access at home, and librarians have every right to provide constitutionally protected material to both children and adults. There is no way for the library to comply with the proposed court order without denying access to websites protected by the First Amendment," she added.
In its brief, the ACLU argues that under federal law, libraries are immune from civil suits concerning censorship because of their vital and longstanding role as an information resource for people of all ages and backgrounds.
To support its arguments, the ACLU cites recent cyber-case law, including a 1997 lawsuit filed against America Online for failing to censor anonymous postings with offensive messages and a 1998 libel suit brought by White House Counsel Sidney Blumenthal against cyber-columnist Matt Drudge. Courts in both cases rejected the lawsuits.
In the Blumenthal case, the court concluded, "Congress has conferred immunity [from lawsuits] as an incentive to Internet service providers to self-police the Internet for obscenity and other offensive material, even where the self-policing is unsuccessful or not even attempted."
Similarly, the court in the AOL case ruled that "permitting service providers to be held liable based on the speech of third parties" would lead them to eliminate "any controversial expression that might subject them to civil liability."
The ACLU brief also argues that using blocking software to prevent access to potentially offensive material constitutes a "prior restraint" -- a virtual gag order -- that is prohibited by the First Amendment.
Ann Beeson, a Staff Attorney with the National ACLU, said that so far, 18 federal judges have ruled in favor of online free speech, in cases filed by the ACLU. "We think they'll also agree that in this context, forcing the library to censor the Internet is a prior restraint on free speech," Beeson said.
Beeson, an expert on cyberspace issues, is co-author of a recent ACLU report, Censorship in a Box: Why Blocking Software is Wrong for Public Libraries. The report proposes guidelines for libraries and schools looking for alternatives to clumsy and ineffective blocking software as a means of addressing controversial Internet content.
Problems with blocking software have been reported by a wide range of groups, Beeson said, because the software censors speech based on subjective views about what is offensive. She noted that the American Family Association, a conservative religious group, protested when it learned its website was blocked based on "intolerance" of homosexuality.
And in response to growing concerns, the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative think tank headed by Paul Weyrich, recently formed the Coalition for Constitutional Liberties to "update and mobilize against legislative and judicial attacks on our constitutional liberties in regards to privacy and technology." The group is not involved in the Livermore case.
"Parents have long understood that by using filtering software they can reduce the danger of their children viewing pornographic material online," said Lisa S. Dean, Vice President for Technology Policy at the Free Congress Foundation. "But parents also need to understand that filtering software is designed to block out anything the user chooses, not just pornographic material."
"Blocking software is designed to filter out sites according to political or ideological agendas, and that's a real danger that parents need to be aware of," Dean explained.
The ACLU's Beeson said that the new interest from the right marks a turning point in the fight for cyber-liberties. "Groups that in the past supported Internet censorship are now seeing things differently as they realize their speech is at risk, too." Beeson said.
The California case is Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, No. V-015266-4. Lead attorneys on the friend-of-the-court brief are Ann Brick of the ACLU of Northern California, and Ann Beeson of the ACLU National office.