Our view

Government coerces libraries

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will rule on whether the government can require public libraries to install Internet filters to block sexually explicit Web sites.
 
In the case U.S. v. American Library Association, the court will decide if the government can withhold federal funding from libraries that refuse to install the computer filters.
 
Last spring, a federal panel in Pennsylvania ruled that the Children’s Internet Protection Act violates First Amendment rights because the filters also block non-sexually explicit sites.
 
We hope the Supreme Court agrees and rules along the same vein as the Pennsylvania court on the current case before them.
 
Public libraries should not be coerced into installing filters, and the government is using coercion by threatening to withhold federal funding if they do not comply with the demands.
 
The fact is, there are other less restrictive and less coercive ways to shield children from Internet pornography.
 
Libraries can simply require that children have written parental consent before they are allowed to use an unfiltered computer, or libraries can require that a parent accompany a child when he or she needs to use the Internet.
 
The most valid argument against the proposed requirement is that it would block extensive amounts of useful, non-pornographic information, information that is protected under the First Amendment.
 
The Supreme Court has struck down or blocked the last two lawmaker-passed child protection laws that involved Internet regulations. In order to protect First Amendment rights, the Supreme Court must maintain a commitment to the rights granted to us in the U.S. Constitution.

Calendar

Display Ads