Libraries Challenge Net Filter Requirement

Testing the boundaries between free speech and protecting children from obscenity online, a group of public libraries is scheduled to go to court today in Pennsylvania for the beginning of a trial challenging a federal law that requires them to use Internet filtering software.

The case consolidates two lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that claim that the Children’s Internet Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment by requiring the use of software that also can block legitimate information.

The groups that filed the lawsuits include seven public libraries from around the country, four teenage girls who rely on their local libraries for online access and an Oregon man whose Web site, which advocated the use of Internet filtering software, was unexpectedly blocked.

“Congress has tried twice to censor the Internet, and the courts have struck down both of the previous attempts,” said plaintiff attorney Charles Sims. “The fact is the law grossly over-censors and is under-effective as well.”

Justice Department officials declined to comment. Officials with the U.S. attorney’s office in Pennsylvania could not be reached for comment.

The root of the case is a federal program that subsidizes public Internet connections. Thousands of schools and libraries across the country access the Internet thanks to the “education rate,” or e-rate, which was created with the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

About 4,500 libraries and 800 other educational groups were given about $250 million in 2001, the plaintiffs say.

After the e-rate system was approved, some congressional leaders expressed concern about minors’ use of federally funded computers to view pornography. The solution was the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which was sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The act--passed last year--requires institutions that receive e-rate funds to install filtering software to block access to content deemed inappropriate for minors. Schools and libraries that receive e-rate funds have until 2003 to install such software.

But critics have argued that although the act is well-intentioned, it has serious practical and technical flaws. Many of the most popular filtering products--including Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol and Cyber Snoop--are designed to target sex-related Web sites but can inadvertently block material that has nothing to do with pornography.

One of the Pennsylvania plaintiffs, Jeffery Pollock, initially supported the use of such filters in public schools and libraries.

A Republican candidate in the 2000 congressional election in Oregon, Pollock had a Web site to issue statements and detail his campaign. Part of his campaign hinged on his support of libraries and schools using filtering software.

His site contained statements concerning the e-rate issue and the difficulties of protecting children from online pornography. He advocated the use of Cyber Patrol in public schools and libraries.

To Pollock’s surprise, his Web site was blocked by the Cyber Patrol software.

The case comes amid a stepped-up government push against online pornography. Next month, a Pennsylvania law will hold Internet service providers criminally liable if they do not block sites that the state attorney general’s office deems to offer child pornography.