[KLUG Advocacy] Re: [KLUG Members] CIPA unconstitutional

[Adam Williams]

>>>CIPA has just been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
>>>of the United States.
>Yes, somewhat overstated, only part of it was.
>>The decision says that the government is...
>>permanently enjoined from withholding federal funds from any
>>public library for failure to comply with §§ 1712(a)(2) and
>>1721(b) of the Children's Internet Protection Act, 20 U.S.C. §
>>9134(f) and 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6).
>>20 U.S.C. 9134(f) is the portion that applies to schools.
>My undertanding, and limited experience with ruling of this type is that
>they are confined to just what they say.

IANAL.  Does enjoining to withhold funds actually remove the
requirement,  or simply restrain the gov from punishing (directly)
people who fail to comply. 

>>I would hope that most schools would keep that filtering intact.
>Why?

Good question.  I can't see any good way to go about filtering sites
based on content,  and filters are easily defeated.

>>It is good to know that the federal government is not trying to dictate
>>local policy from Washington but filtering is a great and needed thing
>>in the libraries.
>Congress was, by passing the act. The courts have removed that requirement,
>in some small degree.

Content filtering is a terrible and unnecessary technique for libraries
and schools to use in order to "control" content.

>>And yes libraries do censor material. Simply by buying some books and
>>not others, and in the decisions about what to cull out of the collection, 
>>the library is making censorship decisions.
>There is a difference between censorship and editorial choices that librarians 
>are required to make, given finite resources. It is simplistic to blur the
>difference between these two.

Exactly.  The Grand Rapids press does not "censor" by only covering
issues at pretty white peoples schools.  It may be irresponsible and
racist,  but it isn't censorship.  It's "editorial bias".  I personally
don't see much evidence of (gross at least) bias on behalf of
libraries.  I live in a predominately white city,  but I can go to the
library and find a copy of Malcolm X's writings or autobiographies of
members of the Panther movement.  I live in a predominately Protestant
city,  but I can find copies of the Talmud(s), the Koran, and even the
predominate Wiccan texts.  I've found most people trained in "Library
Science" (which is nothing to 'snigger at) are vehemently opposed to
censorship.  

Unfortunately filtering software has been *****PROVEN***** to restrict
access to fringe political sites as well as religious content (Islam,
Wiccan, as well as conservative Protestant).  This is completely
unacceptable.

>>Just look at the number of Windows books in
>>the library compared to the number of Linux books!
>Which we think is unfortunate, but is not "proof" of censorship.

Probably fairly representative of the user demographic.    They also
don't have any books on VisiCalc,  but that doesn't mean they discourage
the use of VisiCalc,  simply that there is no interest.  Remaindered
books are offered for sale to the public at ridiculously low prices.

>>I can see IPCOP with squid guard and dans guardian being a great
>>solution for schools and libraries!
>Technical fix to what is essentially a social/political problem

Exactly.  I don't see any use for squid here, and would object to
proxies even if they did so much as store a log of requested sites. 
They best way to avoid a "witchhunt" is to not provide any means for the
"hunters" to find the "witch".   At least in this neck of the woods
discrimination (or even retribution) based upon merely the possession of
certain information is a real possibility.  And I doubt this is the only
city in the good old USA to suffer from this general haze of oppression.

>Not a 
>bad idea in of itself, but probably an answer to a question that has not
>been asked (on this thread).
>IANAL, But a friend of mine is, and he writes:
>"My best guess is that it applies only to non-school libraries, even
>though the law refers to 'public elementary school or secondary school
>library'.  If they meant to extend it to that, they would have said so
>explicitly.  There are very different First Amendment issues involved in
>K-12 than in non-school libraries, the First Amendment has very, very
>limited scope in K-12 

True, unfortunately.

>but is in full force for non-school libraries.  In

Yes.

>K-12, for example, the school can prohibit T-shirts with political
>messages, can censor student writings, etc., etc"

I don't see a clear trend that this is true.  Schools also have a
problem enforcing universal dress codes, etc....    There have been
cases decided both ways.