Among other arguments, those who oppose mandatory Internet filters in public libraries say the cost of installing those could equal or outweigh the federal funds lost if they don't install them. And they have some evidence to support them now - a report that a lot of Kansas public libraries will spend as much or more to put filters in as they would lose in federal funds if they don't.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory Net filters tied to federal library technology funding didn't violate the First Amendment. But many librarians and civil libertarians argue that not only was the court wrong to rule that way, the court and lawmakers who push for mandatory filtering ignore the technical shortcomings that cause non-adult and other non-"objectionable" Websites to bypass filtering software programs.
"It's our responsibility to the public that's causing us to continue to provide unfiltered access," Hays, Kansas library director Melanie Miller told the Associated Press. "I think it's deceitful to reassure the public that filters will keep pornography out."
Miller recommended her board give up the library's estimated $5,000 federal funds rather than give in to the filtering mandate. Other libraries, in Kansas and elsewhere, like in Minnesota recently, are considering likewise no matter how much money the federal funds involves.
Another Kansas librarian, Topeka-Shawnee County Library automation manager John Opgaard, told the AP filtering's main problem is responding to text rather than images, with the latter being mostly what adults don't want children seeing. He also told the AP discussion of a state filtering requirement was actually closed to library computer users, even though the bill barely made it out of committee and died before a full state House of Representatives vote.
On the other hand, Kansas State Librarian Duane Johnson says most of his state's libraries will put in the filtering anyway, regardless of cost, because they've been told to do so, the AP said. Johnson told the AP the possibility of lost federal funds had no play in that decision.
"For many libraries, they're looking at it as a Supreme Court endorsement of a federal law," he said. "A lot of boards are looking at this as a matter identified as a law of the land."
