CIPA ruling opinions

Fang-Face writes “There is a brief follow up note at American Libraries Online about the fall out from the CIPA ruling. Pursuant to the last story suggestion, which excited no small amount of comment, I am posting this link to an advisory letter by the law firm of Ropes and Gray. This firm was asked to look at the ruling and give its advice about it by the ALA. Adobe Acrobat is required to see the letter. One interpretation of note: viewing porn in the library is not harrassment. Harrassment is perpetrated by one’s coworkers, not by patrons.”

September 15, 2003 by Blake Uncategorized 9

Anonymous Patron says:

September 15, 2003 at 4:44 pm

Can people here honestly discuss porn?
On 9/11 I submitted a link to a story about a Salem, OR man who spent 18 years in prison for kidnapping and sodomizing a 12-year-old boy, and who was banned from the library for twice viewing pornography on library computers. The story was not posted, and I have to wonder why. Librarians are supposedly unbiased seekers of information, but the rejection of this story shows me that the reviewers are more interested in political correctness. Ok, flame away…

Reply
Anonymous says:

September 15, 2003 at 5:13 pm

Re:Can people here honestly discuss porn?
It was rejected because we Beat Them To It, by over a week.

The rejection of this story shows the currency of LISNews, not political correctness. I don’t think anyone here is interested in political correctness.
Try Searching first next time, we do miss ALOT, but most of the interesting stuff ends up here the day it happens, not a week later.

Reply
cdnlibrarian says:

September 15, 2003 at 7:49 pm

A question…
I read the entire letter and didn’t see anything that could be construed as an opinion on harassment – unless FangFace means the section on no “private right of action” under CIPA (but the infamous MN harassment case wasn’t brought under CIPA anyways, was it?).

Did I skim too quickly and miss it? IANAL (and don’t even play one on the net), so please let me know if I overlooked something.

Reply
Anonymous Patron says:

September 15, 2003 at 8:11 pm

Patrons are the harrassers
Patrons who view pornography are the harrassers.
Adminstrators who do nothing about the harrassment, are contributing to it.

Adamson et al of the Minneapolis Public Library
just settled a suit which contradicts this statement…

“One interpretation of note: viewing porn in the library is not harrassment. Harrassment is
perpetrated by one’s coworkers, not by patrons.”

August 15th posting on LisNews….

Librarians settle Internet porn case

“Minneapolis library officials will consider restricting patrons’ access to Internet porn and pay $435,000 to a dozen librarians to settle a lawsuit that alleged the prevalence of the images constituted a hostile work environment, the librarians’ lawyer said Friday. Library officials confirmed the settlement in a statement. They didn’t confirm the amount, but said it involves a payment from their liability insurer.” (from AP)

Reply
Anonymous Patron says:

September 15, 2003 at 8:23 pm

No mention of Harrassment
I read the document too. There is NO mention of “harrassment” at all. Please get your facts traight, “Fang Face.”

What’s more interesting about this document is that it veers dramatically away from the Jenner/Block hardline and takes a very middle-of-the road course, such as this quote, which does not interpret the ruling as mandating disabling:
“minors have no right to access obscenity or other indecent material. For a library to disable the Internet filter generally during use by a minor, would undermine CIPA’s
purpose and would violate CIPA. Libraries receiving E-rate funding should not disable their Internet filters at the request of minors…. The Court did not address whether unblocking services must be provided for both minors and adults. However, the Court did emphasize that public libraries have â€œbroad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons.â€?

Reply
Fang-Face says:

September 15, 2003 at 9:29 pm

Re:A question…
Crap. I got the wrong memo; my brain must have spontaneously cross-wired itself again. The material was in the Concerned Women of America memo by Janet LaRue, in which she quotes from the ACLU memo about the ruling.

Q: Would libraries that do not use blocking software be liable for sexual
harassment in the library?

A: No. Workplace sexual harassment laws apply only to employees, not to
patrons. The remote possibility that a library employee might inadvertently view
an objectionable site does not constitute sexual harassment under current law.

For those who so dogmatically assert that the Minnesota case goes otherwise, I’ll remind you that case was settled out of court, and it wasn’t about the staff being harassed so much as it was about the library’s not responding to their complaint in a timely fashion.

Reply
cdnlibrarian says:

September 15, 2003 at 10:02 pm

Re:A question…
Thanks for the clarification.

Reply
jay currie says:

September 19, 2003 at 7:57 am

Harrassment and CIPA not connected
It is pretty important to realize that the issues raised by harrassment cases and the process of CIPA compliance are only glancingly related.

This memo, which is a pretty comprehensive summary of the law and which could serve many libraries as a guide to compliance with CIPA, does not address harrassment because that issue is outside the ambit of CIPA.

Reply
jay currie says:

September 19, 2003 at 8:05 am

Safe Harbour
As part of the process of complying with CIPA a number of libraries and library boards have been looking at getting a legal opinion as to what constitutes compliance. The Ropes and Gray memo could well serve as that legal opinion or as part of a legal opinion. Which would save a good deal of time and more than a few dollars.

Local counsel could be given the memo and asked to write an opinion of the form, “We have read the opinion of Ropes and Gray and agree that the issues outlined therein are those which must be addressed to comply with CIPA.” The library could then address the issues, outline how it has done so and fall within the terms outlined. As CIPA compliance requires only a “good faith” effort this proceedure could well provide safe harbour in the event any question was raised as to compliance.

Reply