Library censorship

[Dougthegreat]

I believe the distinction between streaming and downloading has not directly been litigated de jure, but I know in cases that involve streaming through a proprietary interface or protocol (online radio, RealPlayer etc), there is definitely a de facto distinction between that and downloading.

For instance, there is no precedent that would indicate that illegally distributing a movie through means of streaming versus allowing direct download infringes the copyright holder's rights any less - however, there is a civil distinction between broadcasting content and distributing content that has been implicitly recognized in recent suits involving video-on-demand and internet radio.

 

[Dougthegreat]

I used to work tech support on a university campus, and part of the training covered running computer labs (in case we had to pick up slack) and that training included making sure we understood that we were in no way allowed to prevent anybody from looking at any kind of websites (unless the material is actually illegal e.g. "kiddie porn"). If any staff or other patrons in the lab were offended by any material that a user was viewing, the most we were allowed to do was ask them to move to a more secluded area of the lab, and we couldn't actually force them to move.

To counter this example, I too worked for a publicly-funded university a few years ago, and we were definitely allowed to kick people off for trying to view adult content through proxies or using Google cache.

I suspect it's entirely up to the terms of use that users agree to.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

If users are permitted to download any material, the choice of what they download cannot be restricted by the library staff other than if the material is illegal (ex. child porn, copyright violations) or harmful (ex. virus). It is a first amendment issue.

If a user can go to Newsweek online, they can go to Playboy online. Both magazines produce and distribute legally protected free speech.

Some people find Fox News or Abc News offensive. What happens when the library restricts sources of online information based on perceived political idealology?

The library could impose a policy restricted the size of downloads, but this would have to apply to all downloads.

 

[tranquility]

Nope, sorry Ozark_Sophist. Not only can a library filter internet traffic by policy, they are REQUIRED to under Children's Internet Protection Act if they receive ANY federal money.

See UNITED STATES et al. v. AMERICAN LIBRARY
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al. 539 U.S. 194 which begins:

"Because public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights, CIPA does not induce libraries to violate the Constitution, and is a valid exercise of Congress' spending power."

The support for the content-based restriction comes from the case:
"To fulfill their traditional missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons. This Court has held in two analogous contexts that the Government has broad discretion to make content-based judgments in deciding what private speech to make available to the public. Arkansas Ed. Television Comm'n v. Forbes, 523 U. S. 666, 672-674; National Endowment for Arts v. Finley, 524 U. S. 569, 585"

The court also stated as a logic exercise:
"The decisions by most libraries to exclude pornography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently."

So, to bring it full circle as to if it is allowed for a library to prevent a person from downloading "adult" material, the legal answer is:

Of course it is. I bet it will be in the usage guidelines for the library's computer.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Nope, sorry Ozark_Sophist. Not only can a library filter internet traffic by policy, they are REQUIRED to under Children's Internet Protection Act if they receive ANY federal money.

Sorry, libraries are only required to comply with CIPA if they receive funding from E-Rate discounts. And...

Sorry, but the CIPA is limited to what can be blocked. Even then, an authorized person "may disable the blocking or filtering measure during any use by an adult to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes."

Justice Rehnquist stated "Assuming that such erroneous blocking presents constitutional difficulties, any such concerns are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled. When a patron encounters a blocked site, he need only ask a librarian to unblock it or (at least in the case of adults) disable the filter"[1] FCC Order 03-188[2] subsequently instructed libraries complying with CIPA to implement a procedure for unblocking the filter upon request by an adult.

 

[tranquility]

Can the library filter content? Yes.

The problem with what you posted is it refers to the specific context of congress making a law to filter content-based speech and does not have to do with the right of a library to do so. Read the case, and if you still want to argue, the cases it refers to. The library clearly has the right to prevent pornography from coming in over the internet.

Period. If you disagree with the fact that a library can filter content, say so and we can discuss it. You will come out on the wrong end of the discussion, but at least we can clarify what each are trying to say. My point is that your previous post (except for the last line) is incorrect in broad strokes and in detail (with the other exception being people can find different things objectionable). While it is arguably a first amendment issue, not only it is NOT illegal, but also in certain circumstances--REQUIRED.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

The library can filter content and are REQUIRED to ONLY if they receive E-Rate funds. But if they do filter, they also have to have a policy to turn off the filter if an adult requests it for research or other lawful purposes to allow access to Constitutionally protected speech. Pornography is protected. Obsenity is not.

In OP's case, the library evidently DID NOT FILTER, thus they do not receive E-Rate funds and the CIPA does not apply.

Reno V. ACLU would also apply.

 

[tranquility]

The library can filter content and are REQUIRED to ONLY if they receive E-Rate funds.

I'm glad we agree it is not unconstitutonal and against the first amendment to filter content. Which was your argument before. We have a reviewed law by the Supreme Court and know Congress can not have a valid unconstitutional law.

But if they do filter, they also have to have a policy to turn off the filter if an adult requests it for research or other lawful purposes to allow access to Constitutionally protected speech.

Per your FCC regulation which only deals with CIPA. (I am assuming the regulation is valid as I have enough respect for your opinion to not throw in rubbish.) It only deals with the mandatory filtering REQUIRED by CIPA and not the filtering ALLOWED by law.

Pornography is protected. Obsenity is not.

A library may CHOOSE (as in the OP case) to filter pornography. As the Supreme Court wrote (and I quoted):
"Because public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights", I then gave the court decisions which supported that statement by the Supremes. Filtering DOES NOT violate their patrons' First Amendment rights. Let's look at the Dissent from Stevens:
"“To fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide their patrons.” Ante, at 6. Accordingly, I agree with the plurality that it is neither inappropriate nor unconstitutional for a local library to experiment with filtering software as a means of curtailing children’s access to Internet Web sites displaying sexually explicit images. I also agree with the plurality that the 7% of public libraries that decided to use such software on all of their Internet terminals in 2000 did not act unlawfully. " Even a justice which disagreed with the decision admitted, libraries that decided to filter DID NOT ACT UNLAWFULLY. Further:

As the plurality recognizes, we have always assumed that libraries have discretion when making decisions regarding what to include in, and exclude from, their collections. That discretion is comparable to the “ ‘business of a university … to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.’ ” Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 263 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result) (citation omitted).4 As the District Court found, one of the central purposes of a library is to provide information for educational purposes: “ ‘Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves.’ ” 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 420 (quoting the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights). Given our Nation’s deep commitment “to safeguarding academic freedom” and to the “robust exchange of ideas,” Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967), a library’s exercise of judgment with respect to its collection is entitled to First Amendment protection.

Which points out the tradition of leaving the decision to the libraries and, as a contrary argument, VIOLATES the LIBRARY'S first amendment rights.

In Souter's dissent:

See In re Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service: Children’s Internet Protection Act, 16 FCC Rcd. 8182, 8204, ¶53 (2001) (“Federally-imposed rules directing school and library staff when to disable technology protection measures would likely be overbroad and imprecise, potentially chilling speech, or otherwise confusing schools and libraries about the requirements of the statute. We leave such determinations to the local communities, whom we believe to be most knowledgeable about the varying circumstances of schools or libraries within those communities”)

Finally, Souter agrees with you:

The question for me, then, is whether a local library could itself constitutionally impose these restrictions on the content otherwise available to an adult patron through an Internet connection, at a library terminal provided for public use. The answer is no. A library that chose to block an adult’s Internet access to material harmful to children (and whatever else the undiscriminating filter might interrupt) would be imposing a content-based restriction on communication of material in the library’s control that an adult could otherwise lawfully see. This would simply be censorship.

However, he recognizes he LOST and that is NOT the LAW:

The Court’s plurality does not treat blocking affecting adults as censorship, but chooses to describe a library’s act in filtering content as simply an instance of the kind of selection from available material that every library (save, perhaps, the Library of Congress) must perform. Ante, at 11 (“A library’s need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet than when it collects material from any other source”).

He did make a "scarcity" argument where there is a paper or two on SSRN on how this new Constitutional test could be used in the future. (If he gets 8 more votes.)

 

[justalayman]

I then gave the court decisions which supported that statement by the Supremes.)

so what does Dianna Ross have to do with all of this?