Supremes Mull How To Block E-Porn Without Blocking Free Speech

How to block cyberporn without concurrently blocking free speech is the question the U.S. Supreme Court began considering March 5. The high court is taking another look at the Children’s Internet Protection Act, under which Congress can force public libraries that receive federal funds to install Web filtering software that blocks news, health, and other mainstream sites while it blocks porn – when it isn't letting some porn through, that is.

Says the Bush Administration: Libraries don't collect skin magazines and adult films, so they shouldn't have to offer cyberporn on their computers. Never mind if blocking offensive content means legitimately useful Websites get blocked in passing, argues Solicitor General Theodore Olson. "Public libraries may reasonably conclude that it best furthers their missions to use a resource that is effective in keeping out pornography, even if that resource keeps out some material that is not pornographic," he said in a court brief.

On the other side of the issue are First Amendment defenders. "I've got three kids, and if they were at the library, I wouldn't want them to see adult material," said Free Speech Coalition's Scott Tucker. "As an adult, on the other hand, I feel adults are free to choose and free to make decisions on their own."

Tucker thinks Olson's argument amounts to trying to hurry things along without serious preparatory thought. "We need to find a way to make everyone happy," he said. "I'm not so sure (Olson's is) the right way. It sounds like he's rushing to come to some sort of solution, and the solution should be worked on. It's important to make the right decisions."

Librarians and civil libertarians generally believe mandatory filtering equals censorship. They block out too much serious information while trying to keep the raunch from rolling. "This is not the answer," said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the Washington office of the American Library Association, in a published report. "It is not the answer because it does not protect children, and it is not the answer because it censors ... health information, scientific information, social information and political information."

Last year, a panel of federal judges in Pennsylvania ruled that CIPA violates the First Amendment because the filters block too many non-adult Websites. "The law would affect more than 14 million people who use public library computers to do research, send and receive e-mail, and, in some cases, log onto adult sites," the Associated Press noted, adding that the law would be unfair to lower income people who can't afford their own home computers. CIPA has been enjoined since its 2000 passage by Congress.