CyberTimes
toolbar
Click here for WQXR
April 10, 1998

Bill Would Put Net Filters in California Libraries
By REBECCA FAIRLEY RANEY Bio

As the national debate on the Internet and free speech focuses on the issue of filtering obscene material, a California legislator has introduced a bill that would require all public libraries in the state to install filtering software on computers that provide public access to the Internet.

The California Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union are lining up free speech arguments against the bill, but the author, Assemblyman Peter Frusetta, said the interests of protecting children from pornography outweigh the First Amendment.

"I don't think First Amendment issues apply to children of these tender years," said Frusetta, a Republican from Tres Pinos, Calif.

He said providing Internet filters would be like providing a "wrapper" that hides adult magazines from children's view in liquor stores (which, in California, sell more than just liquor).


Related Articles
Virginia Library Lawsuit Seen As Litmus Test for Internet Freedom
(March 2, 1998)

Filtering Companies Assailed For Blocking ‘Unpopular’ Voices
(December 11, 1997)

ACLU Attacks Filter Software in Libraries
(August 21, 1997)

The proposal would affect the state's 1,169 libraries and branches. Sixteen million library cards have been issued statewide.

The Assemblyman became interested in filtering because a group of parents in his district have been lobbying the library in Gilroy, Calif., to provide filtering software for more than a year. The 2,000-member group, called KIDS, which stands for "Keeping the Internet Decent and Safe," has many members who rely on public libraries in home-schooling their children.

Cynthia Walker, a leader of the group, said the battle in Gilroy has been futile so far, which is why a state law is necessary. She keeps a box of material that details the group's campaign and a timeline of actions taken, meetings attended and meetings picketed. She said parents in the community have supported the group's efforts.

"Every place we picketed, it was the same," Walker said. "People said, 'I thought they were doing something about it.' The reason it needs to be handled on the state level is because it's not being handled on the local level."

To librarians, the bill is a travesty. First of all, they say, filters don't work. They filter out information on issues such as breast cancer and sexuality. Also, the concept of filtering goes against the librarians' creed.

"Filters block out information people need," said Linda Crowe, chairwoman of the California Library Association's legislative committee. "Libraries are there to give information to folks, and if the information is filtered, we can't do our job."

Civil libertarians state the sentiment more strongly.

"It's a problematic, frankly unconstitutional bill," said Francisco Lobaco, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union in California. "You're removing the decision making from librarians and putting it in the hands of software manufacturers. It goes against the whole notion of a library as a bastion of intellectual freedom."

The bill has attracted support from unexpected quarters. Two pornography industry groups -- the Adult Entertainment Industry Education Fund and Adult Liberties & Erotic Rights are Threatened -- registered support for the bill.

Michael Ross, the lobbyist who represents the groups, said the position is "a smart move." His clients are confronting 32 bills in California this year that affect the adult entertainment industry, and the library bill brings an opportunity.

"I'm trying to get votes on my side," Ross said. "Breasts belong in the library, but they belong in the health section. I am not going to stand up in front of a committee and say I want porn in libraries. These guys would not even talk to me if I was stupid enough to say porn belongs in libraries."

The proposed law in California was introduced as filtering becomes a national issue. A citizens group in Virginia filed a First Amendment lawsuit in Federal court in December to challenge the use of filtering software in Loudon County libraries. Last month, several residents of Ventura County, Calif., and the local Libertarian party filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the library system's requirement that Internet users sign an agreement that they will not access sexually explicit material online.

The California bill is scheduled to go to the Assembly's Local Government Committee on April 15. Frusetta said he might be willing to compromise on the bill: to offer an amendment that would require only half a library's computers to carry filters for children. Either way, he said, protecting children is essential.

"I say that this is needed, number one, because not all children are from perfect homes and are not able to resist pornography on the Internet," Frusetta said. "How do those children show off to their peers? In the library, the logical progression is to get on the Internet and bring up pornography."

Walker, the parent who has been battling the library in Gilroy, resents having been labeled a censor.

"They're hyper-sensitive about censorship," she said. "This is a different scenario, I think. Every library resource until this time has been selected. The Internet has not been. They're filling kids' minds up with garbage at the local public library."

Related Sites
Following are links to the external Web sites mentioned in this article. These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The Times has no control over their content or availability. When you have finished visiting any of these sites, you will be able to return to this page by clicking on your Web browser's "Back" button or icon until this page reappears.

Rebecca Fairley Raney at rfr@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions.



 Click here for WQXR
Home | Sections | Contents | Search | Forums | Help

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company