In a 6-3 ruling Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an
anti-pornography law passed by Congress. The law forces libraries
to install filters on computers or lose federal funding. Morgan
Hill residents are split on the issue. Some believe that the ruling
will take rights away. Others say it is necessary to protect
children.
In a 6-3 ruling Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an anti-pornography law passed by Congress. The law forces libraries to install filters on computers or lose federal funding.
Morgan Hill residents are split on the issue. Some believe that the ruling will take rights away. Others say it is necessary to protect children.
This decision has generated waves across the country and here in Morgan Hill.
“It’s a bad idea,” said library patron Louis Goodrich. “It goes against the First Amendment.”
While the ruling places the responsibility of keeping children away from porn to the library, some people think that the responsibility should fall to parents.
“Parents should be educating their children on proper use,” said Goodrich.
The decision affects libraries that receive federal money. Because Morgan Hill and other county libraries are not funded through the federal government, the decision does not affect them. There is filtering software in place on some computer terminals.
In 1997, the library, after several heated public meetings, decided to place filtering software on children’s computers, but not on the ones used by adults. On the adult computers there are options to have the filters on or not.
“This was a way to give parents an option for their children,” said head County Librarian Melinda Cervantes. “This is an imperfect software that can keep good stuff away.”
While the filters will weed out legitamite pornography, often times other sites can be weeded out that are not porn. Sites on breast cancer, gay rights, sex education or even the site for the American Association of University Women have been blocked.
Proponents feel that there is no problem in filtering out certain information.
“It’s worth the risk,” said Brill. “If it filters out 70 percent porno and 30 percent other stuff, then it’s all right.”
Jusice William Rehnquist, joined by justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said that the law does not violate free speech. The two others, justices Stephen Broyer and Anthony Kennedy, said that it was allowable so long as filters can be disabled. The law does not specifically require that the filters be disabled.
The three dissenters, justices Ruth Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter, felt that the law violates freedom of speech. They all said that the law was a violation of the First Amendment and because the filters block more than they were intended to.
Opponents of the law have stated that the ruling goes too far. They believe that it goes against free speech and the filters will block material protected by free speech.
Allen Palmer, of Morgan Hill believes that this is just another way that the government can take control. He says that it is an intrusion by “big brother.”
“I could not be more opposed to that decision,” said Palmer. “It is the same as picking up a book that is not appropriate. What is the difference between the Internet, a book, a video or a DVD?”
“If federal moneys are tied to services,” said Cervantes, “then there is a right to put restrictions on them. But it is disturbing to make a decision that affects First Amendment protection.”
Proponents of the law say that children must be protected from inappropriate material on the web. The government argued that libraries need to limit the access of inappropriate material to minors.
“It’s fine,” says Morgan Hill resident Katie Brill. “There are lots of children using the web. I feel there is no violation of any amendment.”
Sandi Zappa, a mother from Gilroy, co-founded the Keep the Internet Decent and Safe for Kids, or K.I.D.S., lobbied during the mid-90s to have libraries install filters. The recent decision handed down has pleased not only Zappa, but also the other members of K.I.D.S.
“I think the tide has defiantly,” said Zappa While the justices ruled that filtering pornography is not a violation of the First Amendment, the software needed tofilter out the inappropriate material can filter out too much.
The decision can open the door to others that will take away more freedoms.
Palmer is afraid that the door will be opened to a modernday Salem witch trial.
“This is just the camel’s nose under the tent,” said Palmer. “Who is going to decide what is porno? Are we going to have porno judges?”
The Supreme Court blocked two previous laws dealing with operators of sites.
Staff Writer Jonathan Jeisel contributed to this story.
