There’s a bill wending its way through the state legislature. It’s called the Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act (HB1727), and it “[p]rovides that each public library must have a technology protection measure to prevent the display on a public computer of any visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors.”
The bill is supported by the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) and SafeLibraries.org. IFI points out that “[f]or public libraries, the Internet is perhaps the best research tool ever available. The Internet, however, is also responsible for the proliferation of adult and child pornography…. Pornography is now readily accessible to anyone using unfiltered Internet computers, even children in many neighborhood libraries.”
But libraries are against this measure. The Illinois Library Association (ILA) says in an “Action Alert” from March that it “supports local control. Local officials — library trustees, librarians, and other professional library staff — are the most qualified to decide how Internet access should be provided to their patrons.” They then go on to list “talking points,” under the headings: “Filters Hurt Libraries,” “Filters Don’t Work,” “Filters Are Expensive,” “Filters Are Biased,” “Filters Hurt the Poor,” etc. The Journal Star reports today that some libraries are staging a protest against filtering requirements.
But ask a member of the ILA (like, for instance, the Peoria Public Library) if they currently have filtering on their computers, and you may be surprised to find out the answer is “yes.”
Why? Money, of course.
The library can get telecommunications discounts of 20-90% through the state’s E-Rate program. One of the stipulations for receiving the money, though, is Internet filtering:
E-rate applicants must follow the Children’s Internet Protection Act [CIPA] if the application covers Internet access and/or internal connections.
CIPA is a federal law that was enacted in 2000. It states (emphasis added): “In order to receive discounts for Internet Access and Internal Connections services under the universal services support mechanism, school and library authorities must certify that they are enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes measures to block or filter Internet access for both minors and adults to certain visual depictions.”
So, if you ask librarians to filter Internet content to protect children from harmful pornographic images, the answer is a litany of reasons filters are evil and fraught with complications. But if you ask librarians to filter Internet content so they can get a discount on their telecommunication costs, the answer is, “you bet!”
Behold the power of money.
According to the PJS the Director of the Chillicothe library is going to deny patrons internet use for a day to “protest” this bill. I urge everyone to write the Chillicothe Library Board to demand they take disciplinary action against this director, who denies taxpayers the services they have paid for due to her personal political beliefs. It’s outrageous.
That law is going to get struck down in court.
There is no good way to screen images yet. Google probably has the most advanced means to do that and it still does not work terribly well. I don’t think their software is analyzing the image but rather the context in which the image is displayed, using keys words and phrases.
The net effect is that it will shut down a much broader pool of content than simply porn, like sexual education, sexually related medical info, controversial art, etc.. Which.. after looking over the IFI website would seem to fit well with their political agenda.
Filtering is a hit-and-miss affair, generating a huge number of false positives. Surfing with a commercial blacklist guarantees that you’re going to block non-obscene sites. The Chilli director is just giving people that pain all in one day.
If a library must install filtering, it should be off-by-default. If an unsupervised minor wants to use the computer, or if a child’s parent requests filtering, then a librarian should activate it for just that session. No adult should have to specifically request that his browsing session not be censored.
Give me a break! A bunch of perverts sitting around the computers looking at their favorite porn sites is not what a library is all about. If folks like ben do not think that the web should be censored, do they also believe that porn movies should be added to the shelves? How about we add porn mags to the shelves? Kids need to learn about sex and what better way then to have them check out a f–k video from the local library. Give me a break ben, you can go and browse Brown Bag Video if that is what you want. The library needs to be a place I can feel safe sending my kids!
The librarians are right on the money with this bill. It is a feel-good bill for politicians, and will seriously bind the hands of the very people we pay to provide solid information to the public for free.
Mahkno and Ben have it – the technology does not exist yet to screen porn without also screening sexual information from sites like WebMD or Planned Parenthood. This is not a political agenda for the ILA, this is a political football for politicians.
I work as an internet researcher and filtering is the bane of my existence. Google sure as shootin’ doesn’t have the technology down, I use their site many, many times a day and I often have to wade several pages into a search to get the information relevant to my request – and I’m not even looking for porn. While most of my searches will produce some kind of porn site, even if I’m searching for “Joe Smith” and “Lutheran”.
I also work at a local higher ed institution with an excellent IT staff, and our email spam filter is totally hit and miss. It catches plenty of stuff, for sure, but at least once a week quarantines emails sent by a close friend and allows me to receive penis enlargement promotions.
Filtering technology in our libraries is akin to using a sledgehammer to kill flies – more good content will be eliminated in the process of catching a handful of porn pests.
Sorry for the pun at the top of my last post – but while I”m on the subject – it has nothing to do with money CJ. Your argument is very stilted. They already have filtering technology, so that they can get the discount. But yet you bash them for complaining about paying for more filtering technology.
If they already have filtering technology, why is this bill necessary? What is the difference between what is already in place, and seems to be working since they are following a federal law, and what this seemingly superfluous state law is asking them to do?
And, who knows better about what a library needs – a librarian with a degree in library science or some family activists? I’m putting my stock in the librarian. And as I know several members of the ILA, all of whom are very level headed and intelligent, again, I go with the ILA. How often do they protest anything?
And, have you been to the library lately? The one’s I’ve been to (Lakeview and Downtown) – the computers are located dead in the middle of the floor. What folks are looking at is pretty darn visible to just about anyone around them. So I would think that the librarians could easily police the perverts and the school children without having expensive and ineffective software shoved down their throats to pacify the family values crowd.
Buba seems to have missed Ben’s point. I don’t think Ben was advocating “porn mags on the shelves.” His opinion was that filtering software is unreliable and often blocks sites that have nothing to do with pornography while missing some pornographic sites.
So you’d rather have a false sense of security, Buba? You might as well just bury your head in the sand instead.
Here’s a radical thought, Buba … why don’t you just keep an eye on what your kids are viewing on the internet instead of pushing off your parental responsibilities onto the public librairies?
However, I do agree that it is hypocritical of the librairies to protest this legislation but allow filtering in order to receive discounted internet services.
Knight: I am sick and tired of this “it’s the parents responsibility”
s–t. Parents have to work, sometimes more than one job, to take care of the tax-eaters, monopolist utilities, etc., etc., and then they are supposed to follow their kids around 24 hours a day because you can’t trust the public libarary, or anywhere else – except of course the public school, where parents are not supposed to have any rights, except the right to pay higher and higher taxes. Sorry, I don’t buy it. And my earlier point was not that the librarians can’t have a position on this. They can say what they want, but they have no right to deny the public services the public has paid for because of their political beliefs. You can imagine the howl if the Director of the Library burned every secular-socialist piece of trash on the shelf. She wouldn’t last the day and you know it.
Buba made a few mistakes in his attempt to counter my opinion….
1. Porn on the shelves is nothing like porn online. Porn on the shelves is expensive, both in terms of the cost to purchase and in the opportunity cost of shelf space that could have gone to other material. Porn online (anything online!) is cheap, in that it is free to obtain (on the assumption that you already have internet access to non-porn sites) and does not exclude any other material from the library.
2. In my original comment, I said that I’d be okay with unsupervised children being forced to use a filtered connection. Given that, how is it unsafe to send your kid to the library alone?
3. You actually made my point when you claimed that I must want kids to learn about sex via “f–k videos”. Under your ideal solution, a filtered Internet, how _do_ you propose that a kid learn about sex in what you’d consider a “healthy” manner? From the studies I’ve seen, commercial filters smack down Planned Parenthood and sexual Wikipedia pages just as surely as they shut down tranny midget horse porn, or whatever you think is the ultimate evil.
Illinois librarians’ May 14th protest was calculated to mislead the public. Under the guise of “educating†their patrons, librarians across Illinois parroted talking points directly from the Illinois Library Association’s website in an effort to build opposition to pornography filters.
Even the librarian’s own Library Journal conceded that the protest was misleading because librarians purposely “demonstrated†the filtering software with all setting on “maximum,†something Library Journal pointed out would not be required under HB 1721. Aside from the fact that librarians have no right to use public funds and facilities to wage a political protest, the public deserves the full story in order to fill in the gaps of these “talking points.â€
Talking Point: If HB 1721 passes, libraries could be forced to discontinue Internet service. Fact: This is utter nonsense. Virtually 100% of the public libraries in the United States provide Internet access and 21 states have legislation similar to HB 1721. Obviously, Internet filtering legislation has not led to the loss of Internet access in public libraries.
Talking Point: Filters are too expensive. Fact: The cost of installing filters is offset by federal funding and actually saves taxpayers money in the long run. Poor/urban libraries gain the most federal funding once they filter.
Talking Point: Since filters aren’t perfect, librarians can’t “in good conscience†sign a pledge to follow this law because they don’t want to be held accountable if some pornography slips through. Fact: Librarians will be held accountable for utilizing the filters, not ensuring their perfection.
Talking Point: This law takes away local control. Fact: No, it doesn’t. Libraries get most of their revenue from local sources, not the state. This law only affects state funding. Libraries can choose to forego state funding if they really want to continue to provide access to Internet pornography. As it is, these libraries are already passing up federal funding for the same reason and passing the costs on to the taxpayers.
Talking Point: Filters are inflexible. Fact: No, they’re not. Incorrectly blocked sites can be easily unblocked.
Talking Point: Filters hurt the poor. Fact: Utilizing filters saves libraries an average of $17,000 per year in federal funding and libraries in poor areas are entitled to the greatest discounts. The fact is that NOT filtering hurts the poor.
@Denise: Would you mind explaining your last talking point? I don’t any reason why filtering should hurt /or/ help the poor. What does filtering have to do with income level??
Also, you keep saying that libraries are ‘saving’ money by getting Federal tax dollars. Beg your pardon, but that is not saving money! It’s just taking money from my left pocket instead of my right pocket.
Ms. Varenhorst is wrong on several points:
Her “Fact” #1: Virtually all of the public libraries in the United States provide Internet access and 21 states have legislation similar to HB 1721. Obviously, Internet filtering legislation has not led to the loss of Internet access in public libraries
The truth: The libraries that have been forced to filter have lost access to many areas of the Internet due to the very nature of filtering. Many libraries have had to seek increased taxes or other means of funding to cover the expenses…legal, technological, and staffing…to provide those filters and the staff to accommodate what are broad sweeping, reactionary laws. Smaller, poor libraries have had to cut back services and/or seek other means to help their patrons with Internet access.
Her “Fact” #2: The cost of installing filters is offset by federal funding and actually saves taxpayers money in the long run. Poor and urban libraries gain the most federal funding once they filter
The truth: This is the single point that is constantly put forward in this argument that is completely false. E-Rate, the funding system that is dependent on CIPA, only provides funding *if* the public library meets a set of criteria based on the poverty/school lunch program of their districts. The larger libraries get very little to nothing from such funding and have to pay the bill (with taxpayer money) to implement the filters being pushed on a larger populace by a few people. Also depending on the actual implementation of the Internet and technology within the library that funding actually cannot even be used to buy nor support filtering software, hardware and the yearly support necessary for it (and definitely not staffing).
Her “Fact” #3: Librarians will be held accountable for utilizing the filters, not ensuring their perfection.
The truth: Obviously she completely skipped over the FACT of the law, so let’s look at it, here is the attestation part:
——————
Section 20. Rules; annual attestation.
(a) The State Librarian shall adopt rules to implement and administer this Act.
(b) The head of each administrative unit must annually
attest in writing that all public library locations within the jurisdiction of the administrative unit are in compliance with Section 15, as a condition of the receipt of any State grants distributed through the State Librarian under the Illinois Library Systems Act.
——————
Now, notice that it refers back to Section 15, the actual law, so let’s look back at it:
——————
Section 15. Public library Internet safety policy. Each
public library must create and enforce an Internet safety policy that provides for the:
(1) installation and operation of a technology protection measure on all public computers in the library that protects against access through those computers to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors; and
(2) disablement of the technology protection measure by an employee of the public library upon an adult’s request to use the computer for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose; and
(3) disablement of the technology protection measure by an employee of the public library upon the request of a minor to use the computer for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose if that minor is adequately supervised for the duration of the minor’s use of the computer by an individual who is 21 years of age or older.
——————
So to be in compliance the library must assure the installation (1) “…protects against access through those computers to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors” where due to the subjective nature of “obscene” or “harmful to minors” that law could be open to anyone’s subjective interpretation.
To be in compliance the library and staff must assure that disablement of the filter is (2) “…for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose.” by who’s interpretation of “legitimate” or “lawful?”
Last the library staff must be with at all times in the absence of a parent or guardian, which happens VERY, VERY frequently since libraries are SAFE and parents leave their children there, that the (3) “…minor is adequately supervised for the duration of the minor’s use of the computer by an individual who is 21 years of age or older.”
If any of the above three are in any way challenged by someone the library, and therefore the taxpayers, lose a huge amount of state funding that far exceeds what Federal funding usually provides. Note how in all three there must be the need for the technology to work, and in a certain way, how with #3 anyone under 21 MUST have an adult nearby therefore any child cannot look at anything blocked by a filter which consists of huge amounts of detailed information from health to politics to religion. So yes, Librarians will definitely be held accountable.
Her “Fact” #4: No, it doesn’t. Libraries get most of their revenue from local sources, not the state. This law only affects state funding. Libraries can choose to forego state funding if they really want to. As it is, these libraries are already passing up federal funding to avoid filters and passing the costs on to the taxpayers.
The truth: Clearly Ms. Varenhorst doesn’t understand how funding at public libraries even works to make such a statement. To “forego state funding” would lose libraries tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the library and district. The libraries I have worked at would lose anywhere from $65,000 – $100,000 in state funding. Where are libraries to get that much money from? They are already hampered by TIF districts and tax caps. This adds an even greater burden. Basically the laws of this nature are a form of blackmail that says “filter or else” and not something that is designed to work with the cooperative environment libraries already have in place with their communities and which have led to the more than 100,000 libraries and their hundreds of thousands of users to have very safe experiences for decades.
Her “Fact” #5: No, they’re not. Incorrectly blocked sites can be easily unblocked.
The truth: Again, very short response to what isn’t a short answer. Yes, sites can be easily unblocked with *some* filters, however as noted in the law above Librarians are now being asked to make a legal judement call as to whether a user will be doing legitimate work or stand by a minor and watch what they do the entire time the PC is unblocked. And yes filters are inflexible in the fact that they are corporate owned and their lists considered by most to be proprietary information. Libraries are no privy to what a company considers “obscene” or “objectionable” and how that criteria is developed.
Her “Fact” #6: Utilizing filters saves libraries an average of $17,000 per year in federal funding and libraries in poor areas are entitled to the greatest discounts. The fact is that NOT filtering hurts the poor.
The truth: The majority of users of public libraries are usually the lower income or poor classes who cannot afford the high-end computers, software, high-speed Internet, color and laser printers, etc. Those people, who are looking for free and open access to information, are being targeted by such laws as these. They do not have a choice at home to filter as parents who can afford computers do, they don’t have a choice of what their kids can or cannot look at on the Internet as richer parents have. They rely on the library for themselves and their children to be able to access any sites they want without having to resort to asking library staff to constantly open up the filters or stand with their children (which for someone 20 years old looking at HIV or other deeply personal information is a horribly intrusive situation).
Have their been instances where public library staff have made a bad call or a policy went wrong? Of course. So have community centers, shopping malls, schools, etc. They are public institutions that will invariably have something happen that is a mistake. The media though has over-hyped how much happens and some people have glommed onto these over-blown stories without looking at the facts.
The fact is that filters do not provide the security that is being attempted by these reactionary laws and provide a false-sense of security to parents.
The fact is that public libraries work closely with their communities and law enforcement to assure the best balance of protection for patrons (young and old) against the necessary laws of the library.
The fact is that over 100,000 libraries in this nation serve hundreds of thousands of patrons every day without any unfortunate instances.
The fact is that when something occurs the library staff work hard with the local law enforcement to do the right thing.
And the fact is that library staff consist of mothers, fathers, grandparents, and family oriented people who care very much and very deeply about such issues and work much harder than anyone realizes to assure the best balance of protection for patrons and access to information.
Take it from someone who is not a librarian but has worked in libraries (six directly) for the past 18 years as a network administrator. I have not just looked at some media hyped articles or spent a few hours here ‘n’ there in libraries, but interacted with the librarians, directors, other network managers, etc. and can attest to how hard library staff work and how much they care about their patrons.