August 6, 1999

Michigan Law Leaves Library's Internet Filters Open to Debate

By PAMELA MENDELS

or three days this week, the only way for patrons to get unfiltered access to the Internet on terminals in the public library of Georgetown Township, Mich., was to plunk down $100 an hour.

Now, no amount of money will buy an unrestricted view.

Late Wednesday, the Township Supervisor, Henry Hilbrand, announced that filters to block access to sexually explicit material would be installed on all eight terminals in the town's one public library. And he said he believed the action was acceptable under a new Michigan State law regarding public library filtering.

Not so, said a representative of the Michigan Library Association. She said that under her reading of the law, libraries that use filtering are also required to set aside at least one terminal with full Internet access.

Whatever the case, Georgetown Township has become one of the latest localities to find itself in the middle of a debate that pits free-speech advocates who want full access to the Internet against public libraries that seek desire to shield young patrons from inappropriate material online.

The township is not the only place in the United States where filters are going up on all library terminals, regardless of whether they are used by adults or children.

Ann Beeson, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said she knew of 5 to 10 public library systems across the country that have an only-filtered-access policy. Perhaps the most recent to join the group is the public library in Oak Ridge, Tenn., which last week put filters on all 12 of its patron terminals with Internet access.

Related Articles Librarian Seeks Evidence of Complaints About Internet Misuse (April 20, 1999) Reviews Follow Ban on Library Internet Filter (Nov. 25, 1998)

Nonetheless, these libraries are a small minority. Only about 14 percent of public libraries offering Internet access employ filters, and most of those install the devices only on some of their terminals.

That may be in part because filtering-only policies appear to run counter to a decision last year by a federal district court judge who declared that the use of filters on all terminals in the library system for Loudoun County, Va., violated the First Amendment.

But Daniel L. Elve, township lawyer for Georgetown, a suburb of Grand Rapids with about 40,000 residents, notes that while that decision may be influential, it is binding only in Eastern District of Virginia.

A filtered-access-only policy went into effect in Georgetown Township with the introduction of Internet access to the library there late last March, according to the director of the library, Sheryl VanderWagen. Georgetown was apparently the only public library system in the state that used filters on all its terminals, and the system in place in the library blocks access not only to sexually graphic material, but to hate speech and violent content, too, VanderWagen said.

Then last week, town officials learned of a state law regarding library filtering that was to go into effect Aug. 1. On an initial reading of the statute, they feared the new law would require that libraries that filter also set aside at least one terminal with unrestricted access to the Internet.

The response was a novel deterrent: On Monday, the library began putting up signs saying that unfiltered access would be available on one library terminal -- at a fee of $100 an hour.

Public response to the pay-per-view policy was overwhelmingly supportive.

It was a policy that Wendy Wagenheim, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan characterized as "outrageous," and, indeed, no one took the town up on the offer. But public response to the pay-per-view policy was overwhelmingly supportive, VanderWagen said. "We were flooded with calls from people in the community who are saying 'Finally someone stood up for what's right' and 'I'm glad they declared war on Internet porn,'" she said.

Wednesday, after Elve made a close reading of the new law and its legislative history, Hilbrand decided the filters could go back up on all terminals with impunity. The new law, he said in a news release, is ambiguously worded, and the town is taking the position that it allows for municipalities to offer filtered-only access on all their library terminals.

The law says that libraries may restrict access to minors "in the following manner" and then lists two requirements, "A" and "B."

"A" holds that the library make available one or more terminals that block sexually explicit material that is harmful to minors. "B" holds that libraries provide one or more unrestricted terminals for adults or minors accompanied by parents. The problem, says Elve, is that there is not an "and" or an "or" between "A" and "B," so it is unclear is whether a library has to fulfill both of the requirements or just one.

"Our analysis indicates that you do not have to reserve at least one terminal on an unrestricted basis," he said.

Related Article Judge Halts Michigan Online Porn Law (July 30, 1999)

Marianne Hartzell, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the American Library Association, which opposes filtering in libraries, said she disagreed. She said her organization did not oppose the legislation, because it concluded the language required libraries that decide to filter to leave at least one computer unblocked. "Our attorneys believe that because both statements are there, both conditions must be met if the libraries are to be filtered," she said.

For her part, Nancy Cassis, the Republican state representative who sponsored the measure, said that the law sought to give local governments the power to introduce filtering for minors, while allowing for at least some unrestricted adult use.

"It isn't 'A' or 'B.' It's both," she said. "We did not intend to trample on the First Amendment rights of adults."

Hilbrand said the filters-only approach was introduced because the library is used largely by families and children. "We are getting 100 percent support from our community," he said. "Our community is saying that loud and clear."

But support from other quarters is far less enthusiastic. When told of the Georgetown filtered-only policy, Wagenheim, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, said: "This is clearly something we will be looking into."

The ACLU recently won a legal victory over another Michigan law that took on the issue of online material considered inappropriate for children. On July 30, a federal judge in Detroit issued a preliminary injunction against a law intended to shield children from online sexual predators. In that case, the judge said the statute was so broadly worded that it would curb legitimate speech online. It is now up to the State of Michigan to decide whether to appeal the judge's order or to seek a full trial.

---

Related Sites
These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The Times has no control over their content or availability.

• Georgetown Township Library

• Michigan Library Association

• American Civil Liberties Union

• Loudoun County decision on the the ACLU site

• American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan

---

Pamela Mendels at mendels@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions.

---