Spokane7
61°
March 16, 2011 in Opinion
Editorial: Internet filtering bill offers host of headaches
Back in 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Children’s Internet Protection Act, or CIPA, Chief Justice William Rehnquist took pains in his majority opinion to note that filtering online access for underage library patrons would not inconvenience adults. They could simply have a librarian unblock it.
Any First Amendment difficulties with the legislation, Rehnquist maintained, “are dispelled by the ease with which (adult) patrons may have the filtering software disabled.”
Idaho state Rep. Mack Shirley, R-Rexburg, feels no such qualms about safeguarding freedom of information. He is backing a bill that would require public libraries in the state to filter Internet access for everyone. Why? Because smut is all around us, and blotting it out is too urgent a task to be trusted to communities.
Granted, it’s well-established that the First Amendment does not protect pornography. But a problem arises when trying to strike the boundary between what’s porn and what’s permissible. Another Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart, was quotable but not particularly helpful when he summed it up this way in a 1964 case: “I know it when I see it.”
But if the definition of pornography is imprecise, Internet filtering technology is even more so. Filtering software that was mentioned in the CIPA case couldn’t recognize whether Super Bowl XXX was a football game or an adult film, one of endless examples of benign content being screened out even as some objectionable material gets through.
Librarians are well aware of the software limitations, one of the reasons they tend to oppose proposals such as Shirley’s. Their commitment to helping patrons conduct legitimate research would be needlessly complicated by universal filtering.
And then there’s the cost, a problem in the best of times and a budgetary calamity under current economic conditions.
Rep. Shirley’s sensitivity to what he sees as an onslaught of filth (“It’s been thrust upon is. It’s everywhere.”) seems a bit of an overreaction. Even a staunch conservative like William Rehnquist saw constitutional merit in protecting adults’ right to decide for themselves what is and what isn’t appropriate to read or view.
Somehow, though, this proposal passed out of the Idaho House in spite of the ineffectiveness, the cost, the disdain for local control and the encroachment on an adult citizen’s individual liberty. Sounds like what some Idaho politicians normally would call a “nanny state.”
Let’s hope the Senate shows more restraint.
To respond to this editorial online, go to www.spokesman.com and click on Opinion under the Topics menu.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
woamike on March 16 at 9:03 a.m.
So the Spokesman is trying to defend liberty and decry the nanny state.
If that’s the case, argue against having tax dollars being illegitimately spent to buy computers and provide internet service to people.
Then, we wouldn’t be having this stupid internet filter conversation.
It’s time to stop re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic people and steer away from the ice.
Scoutster on March 16 at 9:26 a.m.
You really have to wonder about an elected body that is to the right of William Rehnquist.
eagleproducer on March 16 at 9:27 a.m.
woamike: Get bank in your bunker and leave the heavy lifting of managing a modern state to those with education, expertise and experience.
You really can’t think of a better way to spend your time than complaining about libraries and using public funds to increase information access? If the U.S is going down like the Titanic (which its not) the reasons are more closely tied to the ignorance (as often displayed in your posts) of the citizenry, not because the libraries have computers.
Do you disagree with the concept of defending liberty and the act of decrying the nanny state? Or are both of those manipulative constructs, that you only trot out when you hear a right-wing talking point that solidifies your addlepated world-view that everything under the sun is a signal of the end times?
The idea behind this legislation is to restrict adult access to material they are legally allowed to access. It won’t stand the scrutiny of courts and the state will waste more money defending this ignorant law.
I find it more than ironic Ideeho wants to replace teachers with laptops but don’t think the students will be able to access inappropriate content with them. They’ll move around that filter like they do their parents.
DickAdams on March 16 at 10:36 a.m.
When Gregoire, was AG, she was spending money hand over fist to stop internet spam . I observed how Gregoire web site worked and after 6 or 8 months of wasting taxpayer money, I sent her a note and told her to stop the foolishness as what she was doing was such a big joke. Many folks were taken in and thought Gregoire was helping the surfers not realizing it was a ploy to make the taxpayers think she was doing something worthwhile. It wasn`t long after she stopped the nonsense shutting it down, and she had her sights set on the Governor of the state. Thus her digested food through the bull re SPAM. (pardon the pun)
keithandcaroline on March 16 at 11:29 a.m.
I thought it was a great editorial even though I would gladly claim to be politically more in concert with Justice Rhenquist than with our current clueless child President. I particularly liked the pithy “Super Bowl XXX adult film vs. football game bit. Great imagery!
Here is my take on the first three postings this morning. I see “spoketucky” as the typical arrogant “I’m smarter than anyone in the room” intellectual (by his own definition) progressive that considers ALL conservatives to be ignorant knuckle-dragging cave dwellers, while ignoring such intellectual giants as Buckley, Krauthammer, Scalia and Alito. His phrase “leave the heavy lifting of managing a modern state to those (of us) with education, expertise, and experience” is typical and clearly defines the mindset of the current Administration and it’s supporters. Spoketucky should read “The Ruling Class” by Angelo Cordavilla from Boston University.
Scoutster” no doubt thinks that Fox News is biased, but NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and the Spokesman Review are not.
“Woemike” strikes me as a pretty typical average American who has lead most of his life “non politically” until this current Administration. Like many of us, he’s simply tired of having to deal with the unintended consequences of the progressive policies put in place by Democrats that are religiously supported by people like spoketucky and scoutster since Wilson and FDR.
As for Gregoire, she’s simply in over her head, just like the guy who is now paying more attention to his NCAA Tournament picks than the fact that the Middle East is on fire. This is what it’s like to have a guy that votes “Present” all his life in the Oval Office.
Rand on March 16 at 3:01 p.m.
What you don’t understand is that responsibility and freedom are tied together. If you don’t want to take on the responsibility of paying for your internet then don’t be surprised by the loss of your freedom to access everything you want to access. I pay for my internet and am able to go wherever is legal. Strange concept I know. Your argument is akin to saying I am restricting someone’s access to a grocery store by only paying for said persons fruits and vegetables and refusing to buy them beer and cigarettes. Haven’t you ever heard the term beggars can’t be choosers?
Scoutster on March 16 at 8:31 p.m.
Keithandcaroline….
my, oh, my aren’t we just the omniscient one?!
I do think Faux News is a joke. I am interested in analysis and causes. Have you ever heard someone on Faux News complete a thought without being interrupted? Every heard anyone talk any deeper than a sound bite? And the ADS! How do people stand folks shouting at you both during the content AND the ads. It just seems masochistic to watch such crap.
The few times I watched MSNBC I found it cynical and boring. I have bare bones cable, so I don’t get either of them.
Most network news is too thin for me, but I do think CBS has gotten better.
The best news by far is the PBS Newshour. I frankly don’t see how anyone can find it biased..they ALWAYS have two viewpoints.
I think folks who believe reality TV is “real” and think Fox News is news think it’s normal to constantly be argumentative and angry on TV. But you don’t get that crap on PBS. (Or ads.) Watch it for a week.
I grew up with the LA Times—not as great as it was, but what is? I appreciate the NY Times. Don’t know much about the Post. The Spokesman seems a good reflection of the area, which means I’m not a great fan, but it’s the only game in town (like Cathy McMorris Rogers and anyone who has an R after their name on the ballot.)
I like the Irish Times, BBC, Bloomberg, All Africa, Al-Jazeera English and OregonLIve also. What does all that tell you about me, oh magnificent one!?
keithandcaroline on March 17 at 1:13 a.m.
Scoutster,
I’m almost sorry you wasted your time responding to my comments. They are so totally predictable. I’ve spent so many years painfully listening, reading, and studying stuff from people of your mindset the that could have written them myself.
I too grew up with the LA Times, and you are right on this score at least - it is no longer what it is. As a matter of fact, virtually all forms of media that you admire are no longer what they were (if they ever were) and are ALL in a death spiral. Ironically, and in dramatic contrast, the network that you despise because it is NOT liberal, and AM talk radio are the only media outlets that are growing - in economic terms, viewership, readership and listeners. In further contrast, just look at the stunning “success” of Air America. You can’t sell something that nobody wants to buy. But I’m sure that your rationale for this reality is simply that there are a lot of “unenlightened” people in America.
PS - would you like to compare the number of liberal voices on Fox with the number of conservative voices on PBS or NPR? If I were a betting man, I’d bet on me!
Scoutster on March 17 at 6:46 a.m.
OH, I’m sure there are more, many more, viewers of Fox than of the other outlets I appreciate.
So what? Does that just make it easier for you to stereotype me and put me in your cubbyhole?
There are many more “action” movies made where things blow up and thousands die than what I would consider “quality” movies where a story is told without gratuitous violence.
There are many more misogynist rap songs sold than what I would consider interesting music.
There are many more poorly produced but spectacularly profitable reality TV shows than what I would consider tight, well written stories broadcast on TV.
There will always be a market for quality, fortunately.
Didn’t mean to make you defensive.
Scoutster on March 17 at 6:50 a.m.
As to the comment about the numbers of liberals on Fox News…
My point remains. If there is no chance for intelligent discussion and analysis of issues, it wouldn’t matter if liberals outnumbered conservatives 100-1, would it?
If you want to have a bet on who digs deeper into issues, patiently listens to both sides (without trying to drive the answers or push the discussion to a predetermined end) and where conversation is civil regardless of the issue, I’ll take that one.
Duder on March 17 at 8:52 a.m.
Whatever one may think of this opinion, it reveals an amazing intellectual laziness on the part of the Spokesman-Review. The statement “Granted, it’s well established that the First Amendment does not protect pornography” is completely wrong. The opposite is true: it is well-establish that the First Amendment DOES protect pornography. Only two types of pornography receive no first amendment protection: obscenity and child pornography.
The suggestion that internet filters are ineffective is outdated. I tried searching the example provided, “superbowl XXX” using the filtered computers at my library and the results were excellent. On the first page of the Google results, no sites were blocked and all sites were on the superbowl while none were pornographic. I would bet that the Spokesman-Review never even tried the search but just repeated this old argument that may have been true back in 1999 but hasn’t been true for years.
Just a minimal amount of research on this topic would have lead a person to “Bradburn et al v. the North Central Regional Library,” a case decided by the Washington State Supreme Court in 2010 which addresses this specific topic in a definitive manner.
While it’s OK to be morally opposed to censorship, shame on the Spokesman-Review for this sloppy and weakly argued opinion. Never do you address the heart of the issue, which is how do we balance the right to speak freely with the government’s interest in protecting children from harm. If the Spokesman Review is saying that it is OK for children to be exposed to pornography in order to preserve the right of a person to view pornography in a public library, then I say shame on you.
Rand on March 17 at 9:36 a.m.
It tells me that you probably spend a great majority of your day smelling your own farts and that you drive or wish you could drive a Prius.
DemoDriver on March 18 at 3:03 p.m.
How short our memories are. The ACLU took on the Wenatchee based North Central Regional Library over their refusal to unblock Internet filters for adult patrons upon request at its 28 branches in five rural, eastern WA counties. This case was heard by the WA State Supreme Court in Olympia, where the ACLU lost. Writing for the dissent, then Justice Richard Saunders’ opening line was that there was no way this case will withstand a Federal appeal.
As it stands now both sides are yet wrangling; with NCRL trying to play “keep away from the Federal courts” against the ACLU, who obviously wants to continue the fight.
That Idaho couldn’t wait another year or two for the outcome of this case is surprising, but in the meantime:
1) Having been a victim of NCRL’s policy I can state as fact that overblocking is a reality.
2) Most any given teenager has the smarts and the gumption to set up a proxy server on a private computer, outside of the filter’s purview in order to render it moot.
3) Privacy screens, if bought in bulk, run around $5.00 each and several patrons would happily donate dedicated funds for same in order to block the voyeuristic vantage points of a vocal fringe crowd of puritannical lookie-loos.
4) Smart phones come with unfiltered access built in. Many of us have our own laptops, and free, unfiltered public wi-fi hotspots abound.
Perhaps a bigger question is this: who pays for the upcoming, inevitable courroom brawl over this? How have Idaho state legislators factored this buget reality into the primordial ooze they call law?
NCRL was warned by members of WA State Librarian Jan Walsh’s office that the ACLU was on their way and went down this very rathole with gleeful abandon—and now as a result five dirt-poor, rural eastide counties could very well get saddled with a huge legal bill they neither want nor need.
No way Boise thinks they’re not looking at a ticket on the exact same ride.
That many of the people who voted for this ran on platforms of smaller, more restrained government is hypocrytical at best, and downright laughable on even an average day.
This legislation is a diversion, a distraction, a waste of precious dwindling public resources, and a humiliating kick in the groin to what’s left of individual liberty in the post patriot-act US.
So if this passes, I guess we’ll see these bozos in court—at taxpayer expense, naturally.