Washington Supreme Court Approves Use of Library Internet Filters

May 7, 2010 - 10:10am — Bibliofuture

Public libraries, in theory, are supposed to be bastions of information. But with the rise of the Internet, many libraries have begun putting up online filters, to make sure users are using public broadband connections to search for actual information and not, well, porn. To many, it's a practical measure. But is it constitutional? According to the Washington state Supreme Court, it is.

Full article here

Comments

May 7, 2010 - 10:18am — Bibliofuture

Opinion

Here is the opinion from the court as a PDF file.

There was also a concurrence and a dissent
Concurrence (PDF)
Dissent (PDF)

May 7, 2010 - 3:31pm — ahniwa

Not great coverage of this story

The post you reference is a fairly basic summary; there's a lot of coverage out there, search google news for "North Central Regional Library", but in the meantime, this LJ article with its May 7 updates is much more thorough:

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6728037.html?desc=topstory

May 8, 2010 - 10:03am — Anonymous

Majority Opinion

Although your posted links to concurring and dissenting opinions
the actual majority opinion (what was being concurred or dissented) was not posted.

You can find the majority opinion here:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=822000MAJ

May 8, 2010 - 4:02pm — Bibliofuture

Look again

Look again.

The word "here" is linked to the majority opinion. I did not change this. I had a link to the majority opinion from when I first put up the comment.

That is why my language linking to the concurrence and the dissent say "there was also a concurrence and a dissent" because right above them I had already linked to the majority opinion.

May 8, 2010 - 11:51am — SafeLibraries