Follow-up from the Post on a somewhat old and somewhat sore subject.
Web Porn Ruling Filters Down
Role of Censor Shifted From Libraries to Parents
By Leef Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 18, 2002; Page B01
Donna Ruland has no problem with her 12-year-old twins using the Internet on the family's home computer, where screening software blocks out pornography and other material she considers inappropriate for youngsters.
But it's a different story when Ruland's children visit Centreville Regional Library in Fairfax County. There, just as at most libraries in the Washington area, Internet access is unfettered and available to everyone, regardless of age.
Therefore, said Ruland, 40, her children "are not allowed to use the computers at the public libraries."
More than 100,000 free pornography sites are on the Web and Internet access is expanding daily, presenting parents nationwide with tough decisions about how to protect children in the vast electronic universe. The thorny issue has been the subject of court cases and at least one study ordered by Congress. Solutions are elusive.
A recent court decision by a panel of federal judges in Philadelphia has again focused attention on the limits of libraries to protect youngsters from inappropriate material on the Internet. Last month, the three-judge panel ruled that by putting filters on computers available to the public, libraries would be infringing on the free-speech rights of patrons by blocking inoffensive as well as offensive Web sites.
Many parents assume that libraries use filters to protect young patrons from Internet smut, but most libraries in the Washington area do not. According to the American Library Association, a plaintiff in the Philadelphia court case, parents must educate children about navigating the Internet, not look to librarians to police the Web.
"It doesn't mean we're not here to help," said Ann Friedman, director of Arlington County public libraries. "But this is a very different world, and the responsibility for what their kids view on the Internet rests with the parent. We cannot take on that role."
Kay Bowman, a librarian at Davis Community Library in Bethesda for six years, said she is taken aback when a parent comes in to complain that a youngster has been "allowed" to check out something inappropriate.
"I can respect a parent who thinks the library is not a safe place and doesn't want their children to come here. But don't send your kids and then tell me it's my job" to police them, she said.
It is not the librarian's job to decide what is and isn't right for someone else's child, Bowman said. "Intellectual freedom is . . . our bottom line."
Still, many parents say they could use a little help.
"I was outraged" at the court decision, said Mary Tapscott, 52, a District resident and mother of two who visited Davis Community Library last week. "I know there are a lot of teenagers who come to the library to seek out free access to X-rated material on the Internet. It's frightening what these kids can access. Whatever we could do to filter it out would help."
Libraries in the District and Alexandria and Prince George's, Fairfax and Arlington counties do not provide filters. Montgomery County libraries each provide at least one computer with filtered Internet access in their children's sections. But library officials there say anyone who walks through their doors -- young or old -- can use an unfiltered machine.
Unchanged by the Philadelphia ruling -- which struck down a law requiring libraries to install filters by July 1 -- is the right of libraries to use filters specifically for young children. Libraries in a few jurisdictions, such as Loudoun County, leave the decision to parents. The courts struck down an earlier, more restrictive filter system there.
In March, Prince William County installed filters to block obscene material on computers used by adults. There are more restrictive filters on computers for children. The ACLU has called the policy "blatantly unconstitutional." But county library officials say the software will stay until the Philadelphia decision makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In spite of the lack of filters locally, most libraries try to discourage patrons from looking at objectionable material and offending others. In many cases, Internet-accessible computers are in the center of libraries to create what librarians call a "fish bowl effect."
In some libraries, privacy screens are available for those who do not want others to see their screens; Internet policies are posted, and in some places librarians intervene if they see patrons looking at sexually explicit material.
Ellen Coolidge Burke Regional Library in Alexandria is across the street from a middle school, and librarians there occasionally have to stop children from looking at sexually explicit material, officials said. The computers at Burke are in a quiet corner where privacy is easy to find.
"I don't know why they decided to configure it that way," said one librarian who asked not to be identified. "Nobody wants to see middle school boys looking at porn."
Several parents said they had assumed that their libraries have Internet filters and were disturbed to find that most do not.
"I didn't know," said Jeremy Lopynski, 42, who was visiting the Centreville Regional Library last week with her four young children. Her oldest, Ryan, 11, is not a regular computer user, but she said he will soon be old enough to use the Internet as a research tool.
"I'd be concerned," Lopynski said. "Adults don't need to be looking at porn in here to begin with."
The debate over protecting children from Internet pornography is hardly new. In 1998, Congress requested a comprehensive study. In May, the National Research Council unveiled its report, "Youth, Pornography and the Internet." The report concluded that no single approach -- technical, legal, economic or educational -- is sufficient to protect children from online pornography.
Keeping children from the dangers of the Internet is analogous to protecting kids from swimming pools, said former U.S. attorney general Dick Thornburgh, who headed the report committee.
"One can install locks and put up fences and deploy pool alarms," Thornburgh said when the study was released. "All of these measures are helpful, but by far the most important thing one can do for one's children is to teach them to swim. In an Internet context, adults are responsible for teaching children about the potential pitfalls . . . and educating them as to how to handle difficult situations."
As a mother and a librarian, Bowman agrees.
"I'm sure my child has read or seen objectionable material," Bowman said. "I'd rather he didn't, but if I'm doing my job as a parent right, it's not going to kill him."
© 2002 The Washington Post Company |
