Mainstream Loudoun opposes the Library Board's Internet use policy for the following reasons:

INFRINGES ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO RECEIVE INFORMATION

This policy requires permanent filters that not only block "child pornography and obscene material" but also "material deemed Harmful to Juveniles." By prohibiting access to any site that is considered inappropriate for children, the Board has relegated all adults in Loudoun County to the electronic version of the children's reading room. Blocking speech which is Constitutionally protected for adults, without giving them the option to disable the filter, is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

• Framing this issue in terms of "sexual harassment" not only demeans the seriousness of true workplace harassment, it expands even more the list of materials which can be restricted. Furthermore, no court has ever upheld the use of workplace discrimination to limit what library patrons may read. Quite to the contrary, courts have emphatically struck down local obscenity laws that were framed as "sexual harassment" laws, for the same reasons that the courts invalidated campus speech codes that sought to enforce notions of "political correctness."

• Governments cannot "privatize" censorship by adopting privately-created restrictions to speech, some of which may even restrict access to information based on an overt or covert political agenda.

• Virtually all filtering programs restrict far more than pornography and limit access to a wide range of protected speech. Most importantly, no screening software can make judgments about what information is or is not protected under the First Amendment.

We support the right of adults to simply choose filtered or unfiltered Internet access in private when they log on. This provides the option for those who want filtered access yet does not infringe on the rights of those who want full access to information.

USURPS PARENTAL CONTROL

We support the reasonable regulation of children's access to the Internet.

• We support the approach of actively directing children to positive information.
• We support requiring minors to have written parental permission before Internet access is allowed.
• We support allowing parents to choose filtered or unfiltered Internet access for their children.

• We oppose leaving parents no choice but filtered Internet access for their children. When the government decides what information is appropriate for all children, parental rights are usurped.

  "Even for a community that decides it wants such protection [filters], though, it makes no sense to eliminate the option of unrestricted access for adults--or for parents who want their kids to learn about the adult universe, as is surely their right. Loudoun ought to think carefully about whether it really means to offer its citizens such artificially limited horizons." Washington Post editorial, October 25, 1997.

  OVERREACTION

  The Library Board has overstepped its bounds of authority with a policy that is an extreme overreaction to a perceived problem. The Board's decision to rely on filtering software to decide which speech is appropriate and which is not, and to suggest that the decision is based on legal standards is an illegitimate attempt to automate censorship.

  The door to censorship was cracked open when the Library Board eliminated the American Library Association Bill of Rights from Loudoun library policy in 1995. That door is now being forced open wider, because the same arguments used to promote this Internet use policy can be applied to other material in our public libraries. The suggestions for a fair and reasonable policy that Mainstream Loudoun has offered to the Library Board preserve First Amendment and parental rights in public libraries as well as alleviate the fears of those concerned with pornography on the Internet.