Seth Finkelstein writes “According to the
Family.org
site,
ACLU Offers Tips on Circumventing CIPA
“The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has prepared a memorandum outlining ways for libraries to circumvent the spirit of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA)”
Would that this were true! Has anyone seen such a memo?”
No way to contact them
I wanted to write an email to the author of the article politely pointing out that posting signs might be considered necessary since the law was ruled constitutional as long as adults could have the filter turned off. If the adults don’t _know_ they can have them turned off, how can they ever request it. I couldn’t seem to find a way to write an email to either the author or the magazine.
They ummm, looked on the ACLU website, seth?
You do know how to look at website, don’t you? Did you know that aclu.org has a s-e-a-r-c-h function Seth? Did you know that if you type in C-I-P-A into the search window you will get this:
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13270&c =252
Yup
here is it
Re:They ummm, looked on the ACLU website, seth?
Thanks, David (I presume). Even monkeys fall from trees.
Spirit of CIPA
ALA and ACLU could do something to help libraries *really* join in the spirit of CIPA by getting back to the letter of the law. CIPA requires only the blocking of visual depictions which are obscene, child porn, or harmful to minors. It’s well established that judicial proceedings are required to determine whether something is obscene, child porn, or harmful to minors. ALA and/or ACLU would aid libraries immensely by compiling a state-by-state list of sites which have been found in court to meet CIPA’s blocking criteria and by making that list available to libraries.
Religious hysteria
Typical “Protect The Children” hysteria.
There is almost certainly nothing illegal about
what the ACLU is doing. One of the tenets of lawyering is that you cannot
advise your client to commit a crime. It’s a safe bet that if it were
illegal to advise clients about loopholes in a law or to how far that law
extends, the ACLU would not do it.
It most
assuredly will not do that since “pornography” is a subjective
determination and the term is used by the ultra-religious to label factual
information about human sexuality that no reasonable person would consider
obscene. Furthermore, it is well known that one of the problems with
filtering software is its failure to block some material that actually is
pornography.
Which is
perfectly legal. CIPA is legislated blackmail, and the victim has the
option of refusing to go along with blackmail attempts. The law does not
say that all libraries will install filtering software regardless of
circumstance, it says quite specifically that the library can opt to lose
its federal funding and refuse to install the censorware.
It is not belittlement to present factual
information about the flaws inherent in a thing.
Which the libraries
are going to be required to do in any event. The U.S. Supreme Court has
ruled that a library must disable the software at the request of a client.
Therefore, the library has a legal requirement to inform patrons that they
have such a choice.
Michael Nellis, a writer of creative fiction and
student and tracker of censorship movements and free speech issues thinks
that religious lunatics are out of step with the rest of reality.
It is equally clear that the ultra-religious
want to subert the will of the people everywhere.
Now this part is
interesting:
If CIPA states that filtering software must be
installed, but does not say that it must be run, that could create a
loophole. Off hand, though, I’d say that to disable the software as a
matter of routine would constitute contempt of court.
This is an Argument Ad Vericundium; a
logical fallacy which uses an Appeal to Authority to exploit the admiration
of the famous to try and win support for an assertion. That Bill Clinton
ratified this law does not make the law itself either a good law or a
necessary law. It only makes it a law. And, quite frankly, I rate
legislated censorship right up there with the 18th Amendment prohibiting
the consumption of alcohol from 1920-33. Don’t try to tell me that wasn’t a
total fiasco. Sure, it was The Law, but it was still a total
fiasco.
And what is not being said in this section is that some Supreme Court
justices dissented. It was not upheld unanimously. This argument would be
much more persuasive if it were used properly.
Which is perfectly in keeping with all those
Supreme Court rulings upholding the rights of anonymous publication.
Just as I have a right to speak anonymously, I also have a right to seek
information anonymously. Secondly, this statement suggests to me that the
ultra-religious expect libraries to now function as Big Brother drones and
to spy on patrons on behalf of the ultra-religious. I wonder how long it
will be until some self-righteous, humourless old fart in the DOJ tries to
use the USA [un]PATRIOT Act’s S.215 to find out who is getting censorware
disabled in public libraries.
But, then, I’m a cynic.
Re:Religious hysteria
In my totally unqualified opinion (other than reading and writing WAY too much about this stuff), ACLU’s memo is misguided in one sentence–and one sentence only:
“We think libraries could probably have a bank of computers where the librarian turns off the software every morning or maybe even where the computers have been permanently configured with the software turned off. ”
Other than staff computers–where a staff member is presumably an adult and the “session” lasts all day–I don’t see how you can read the SCOTUS decision that way. I believe that censorware–but note, censorware that *only* blocks images, and *only* on a narrow range of sites–needs to be active at the beginning of each new session. But I also believe (and suggested a few weeks before ALA) that the “turn it off when asked, with no reason given” comments by justices of SCOTUS implies that librarians can, indeed, delegate the turn-off function to the computer itself, as long as the patron makes an explicit request (pushes a button) and demonstrates that he or she is 17 or older.
Apart from that one sentence, ACLU’s memo is a free-speech-oriented discussion of ways to comply with CIPA. That’s what ACLU is supposed to be doing.
[As of today, more than 3,000 people have downloaded my CIPA special,
http://cites.boisestate.edu/civ3i9.pdf
Which says something about the level of interest…]