Rant of the Day: Library Internet filtering

K. brought to my attention the situation in the Ottawa, Ontario, public library, where a union representing library staff has filed a lawsuit to force use of Internet filters on library computers, arguing that it creates a hostile workplace environment when library staff see obnoxious images and websites accessed by people using uncensored Internet terminals. American librarians may well note the similarity to a recent lawsuit involving the Minneapolis Public Library.

I wonder -- does this mean that if I am mortally offended by websites run by, say, Planned Parenthood, or the Mormon Church, I can insist the library not permit them to be displayed, on the ground that seeing them creates a hostile environment for me? And what about books, including illustrated books and magazines, that portray things which I or other library staff find obnoxious? Can librarians summarily toss all those stupid Dr. Atkins diet books, Jackson Pollock's ugly paintings, and "Doctor" Schlessingers' self-righteous moralizing tracts in the trash because they offend... well, somebody?

This is just the latest clash between two competing and incongruent views of libraries.

One seeks to make libraries nice, safe sanctuaries from controversy and from everything that they regard as unpleasant or undesirable, a place where suburban mommies can safely dump the kiddies for free day care while they go shopping. A place where no one will ever find anything that might disturb their delicate sensibilities. Holders of this view are neither exclusively conservative nor liberal; in fact, the argument from percieved "workplace hostility" is lifted directly from the playbook of traditionally liberal-friendly sexual-harassment lawsuits, not from the moralistic Right's playbook of blue laws and obscenity statutes.

The other views libraries as gateways into the world of information and ideas, and acknowledges that such access inevitably means access to controversial, unfamiliar and sometimes ugly and obnoxious ideas and images. It believes that such access is essential for democracy or education to function properly, or for freedom of speech, press, religion, etc., to exist. And it recognizes that, given the power to censor, the advocates of censorship will not stop with banning squicky sex stuff. Peacefire, an anti-censorship website, provides ample examples of censorware banning political websites or advocacy groups, including, most arrogantly, sites like Peacefire that criticize filtering software. (The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation also have useful anti-censorship resources.)

In other words, it's perceived security versus liberty, just like the ongoing debate over the Patriot Act and related matters. And it's exacerbated by a refusal to acknowledge any difference between library usage by children and adults.

Neither side is willing to settle for a rational middle ground that would allow parents to designate a level of filtering to be applied to their children's Internet access, but preserve uncensored access for adults. Each insists on demanding all-out victory, the American Library Association demanding total unfiltered Internet access for children regardless of parental wishes, and the censors (N2H2, Focus on the Family, "Doctor" Laura, et al) demanding the power to pre-emptively ban adult citizens' access to anything and everything that they deem unpleasant. The ALA's insistence on recognizing no difference between adults and children is politically foolish, and difficult to defend in light of traditional parental prerogatives over children; the censors' insistence on controlling adults' as well as childrens' access shows their real motive, which is not to protect children, but to control what people are permitted to think.

American librarians, meanwhile, are trying to decide how to react to the US Supreme Court's July decision upholding the so-called "Children's Internet Protection Act", which mandates that any library receiving federal "E-Rate" technology subsidies install internet filters on all library computers, including those used by adults and staff, ostensibly "to protect the children". The midsummer issue of Walt Crawford's Cites & Insights newsletter is must reading on this topic. He analyzes the Court's decision and points out a number of things that librarians and library users should be aware of. Among other things, the Court's reasoning explicitly assumes that librarians are able and willing to promptly disable a filter whenever requested by an adult patron, without delay or intrusive questioning. Any library which fails to do so is operating outside the model endorsed by this case, according to Crawford.

Although I am not a lawyer, I note that although CIPA mandates filters, it does not specify how permissive or restrictive those filters must be, and I see no particular reason why libraries should be obligated to spend public tax money installing censorware which is likely to incorporate political or religious bias. The Court acknowledges that all filters overblock or underblock. Are libraries compelled to err on the side of overblocking? Are there permissive filters being developed which seek to minimize or wholly avoid the blocking of First-Amendment-protected material?

There are unintended financial consequences as well. If filtering software costs as much as or more than the federal subsidy that requires it, it makes the subsidy meaningless and eliminates any positive effect it might have had in making Internet access available to poor or rural libraries.