Viewpoint-based library filtering, as to adults and as to children

[Timothy Zick]

I'm actually surprised there are not more reports of this sort of
satellite litigation with respect to filtering, especially in light of
the Court's decision in American Library Ass'n.  That case permitted the
government to condition federal funding for internet services in the
public libraries on the libraries' filtering for certain categories --
obscenity, child pornography, and HTM materials.  As many know, the
filters can be set to filter categories like "hate" and "tasteless and
gross" (autopsy pictures and the like), as well as varieties of sexually
explicit speech.  The ALA Court relied on the principle that librarians
have a certain degree of editorial discretion to make acquisition
decisions, and in particular to deny access to pornography (which they
have never collected in print).  The Court also noted that the libraries
do not create a public forum by providing Internet access.  

 

That legal framework and treatment of Internet access may apply with
respect to filtering an entire category, like "pornography," that does
not necessarily convey a viewpoint and has not typically been included
in print collections.  But the example seems to suggest that the
libraries may be engaged in site-specific viewpoint discrimination.
That is, they have filtered by category and then refused to permit
access to the site based upon its content.  This of course is not
permissible even in a non-public forum.  I'm not sure that ALA speaks to
the scenario at hand.  Thus, it would seem that the libraries must
permit access -- by both children and adults.   

 

Tim Zick            

St. John's University School of Law

718-990-6633

zickt at stjohns.edu

   

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 12:18 PM
To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Viewpoint-based library filtering, as to adults and as to
children

 

      Any thoughts on this?  I'm not at all sure myself what the rules

should be as to library filtering, especially of material accessible to

children, but I thought this was an interesting example to use in

thinking about this.

 

      Eugene

 

 

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)

March 18, 2006 Saturday

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A6

HEADLINE: Group charges libraries filtered out Web site

BYLINE: By Peter Shinkle ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

 

The Council of Conservative Citizens, a nationwide group that has been

portrayed as racist, is suing four libraries in the St. Louis area for

allegedly blocking patrons from viewing its Web site. . . .

 

The site, cofcc.org, does not feature the racial epithets commonly used

by racist groups. It does, however, provide a slate of news stories

about crime by blacks or immigrants. It also offers for sale a T-shirt

with the words, "White Pride," "Deutschland" and "Save Our Culture." . .

.

 

Baum filed a suit in U.S. District Court on Monday claiming the

Maplewood City Library, University City Public Library, Valley Park

Community Library and Festus Public Library had violated his

constitutional right to free speech by blocking access to the Web site.

At least two of the libraries say they now permit patrons to view the

site. . . .

 

Maplewood City Library Director Terrence Donnelly sent the group a

letter replying that the Internet filter service the library uses had

blocked the site after tagging it as being in "the categories of Hate

and Discrimination."

 

On Friday, however, Donnelly said that changed after the library's board

discussed the issue on Wednesday and he consulted with a lawyer.

Donnelly said the Web site is now accessible at the library. . . .

 

The University City Library stopped blocking the group's Web site after

it received a letter from Baum in November, said the library's director,

Linda Ballard.

 

"We have turned off the hate speech filters for the adult machines, but

they're still in place for the children's machines," she said.

 

It was unclear whether the two other libraries block the site. . . .

_______________________________________________

To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu

To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

 

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060320/a244e9da/attachment.html