Philadelphia: Net filtering in U.S. District Court

--part1_11e.ec4bff4.29e4aedb_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2002/03/24/net_filtering/index.html
http://censorware.net/
http://www.getnetwise.org/
http://www.nofilters.org/

Court hearings to begin on Net filtering
By Joann Loviglio

March 24, 2002  |  PHILADELPHIA (AP) --

A battle over free speech and online pornography returns to the nation's
birthplace Monday as librarians try to convince a federal court that
requirements to block adult materials amount to censorship.

Library officials and free-speech advocates want the U.S. District Court in
Philadelphia to invalidate the federal requirements, saying the filtering
technology used to block porn is imperfect and can also inadvertently block
important information on health, sexuality and social issues.

"Instead of relying on filtering technology, we should be educating
children," said Judith Krug of the American Library Association. "It's not
only learning the difference between right and wrong but how to use
information wisely. ... There are no quick fixes."

The trial before a three-judge panel starts Monday and is expected to last at
least a week.

The lead plaintiffs are the American Library Association and the Multnomah
County Library in Portland, Ore., which wants to offer patrons a choice
between filtered and unfiltered Internet access.

The latest battle is over a 2000 federal law requiring schools and libraries
to block pornography to continue receiving certain federal technology grants.
The lawsuit challenges only the requirement on libraries, which have until
July to comply.

The government contends that the law does not censor libraries because they
can simply decline to accept funding.

The law's supporters say that printed pornographic materials are not in a
library's collection so there is no reason why they should be online.

Supporters also say that filtering software has vastly improved since the
measure was passed, making fewer mistakes and allowing librarians or other
administrators to unblock sites blocked in error.

"They're still not perfect but neither are safety belts, and we use them,"
said Miriam Moore of the Family Research Council. "It's a preventive
measure."

Critics say they shouldn't be forced to pay for flawed technology that
hinders more than helps.

Krug cited examples of filters blocking Web sites of House Majority Leader
Dick Armey and golfer Fred Couples, as well as American Indian groups because
of references to peyote -- a plant used in native religious ceremonies but
banned in many states for its hallucinogenic properties.

Filters can be set to block sites that appear on a "denial list" or contain
objectionable words. Some filters can also block e-mail and chat room
messages.

Some porn still goes through unless the filters are based on lists of
preapproved sites, but that approach also rejects more legitimate content.

Congress first tried to combat online porn in 1996 by making it a crime to
put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. The Supreme
Court struck down the law in 1997, saying it was too vague and trampled on
adults' rights.

A year later, Congress narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and
defined indecency more specifically. Sites must collect a credit card number
or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed
"harmful to minors."

A federal appeals court has barred enforcement of the 1998 law, saying the
standards are so broad and vague that the law is probably unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule this year.

Like the latest lawsuit, challenges to the 1996 and 1998 laws began at the
U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.

forwarded by

Dr. David Feeney
[email protected]
Director of Digital Education, http://foxonline.temple.edu
FOX School of Business & Management, http://sbm.temple.edu
Temple University, http://www.temple.edu
300 Speakman Hall
215-204-2727 office
215-204-5698 fax

--part1_11e.ec4bff4.29e4aedb_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2002/03/24/net_filtering/index.html<BR>
http://censorware.net/<BR>
http://www.getnetwise.org/<BR>
http://www.nofilters.org/<BR>
<BR>
Court hearings to begin on Net filtering<BR>
By Joann Loviglio<BR>
<BR>
March 24, 2002&nbsp; |&nbsp; PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- <BR>
<BR>
A battle over free speech and online pornography returns to the nation's birthplace Monday as librarians try to convince a federal court that requirements to block adult materials amount to censorship. <BR>
<BR>
Library officials and free-speech advocates want the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia to invalidate the federal requirements, saying the filtering technology used to block porn is imperfect and can also inadvertently block important information on health, sexuality and social issues. <BR>
<BR>
"Instead of relying on filtering technology, we should be educating children," said Judith Krug of the American Library Association. "It's not only learning the difference between right and wrong but how to use information wisely. ... There are no quick fixes." <BR>
<BR>
The trial before a three-judge panel starts Monday and is expected to last at least a week. <BR>
<BR>
The lead plaintiffs are the American Library Association and the Multnomah County Library in Portland, Ore., which wants to offer patrons a choice between filtered and unfiltered Internet access. <BR>
<BR>
The latest battle is over a 2000 federal law requiring schools and libraries to block pornography to continue receiving certain federal technology grants. The lawsuit challenges only the requirement on libraries, which have until July to comply. <BR>
<BR>
The government contends that the law does not censor libraries because they can simply decline to accept funding. <BR>
<BR>
The law's supporters say that printed pornographic materials are not in a library's collection so there is no reason why they should be online. <BR>
<BR>
Supporters also say that filtering software has vastly improved since the measure was passed, making fewer mistakes and allowing librarians or other administrators to unblock sites blocked in error. <BR>
<BR>
"They're still not perfect but neither are safety belts, and we use them," said Miriam Moore of the Family Research Council. "It's a preventive measure." <BR>
<BR>
Critics say they shouldn't be forced to pay for flawed technology that hinders more than helps. <BR>
<BR>
Krug cited examples of filters blocking Web sites of House Majority Leader Dick Armey and golfer Fred Couples, as well as American Indian groups because of references to peyote -- a plant used in native religious ceremonies but banned in many states for its hallucinogenic properties. <BR>
<BR>
Filters can be set to block sites that appear on a "denial list" or contain objectionable words. Some filters can also block e-mail and chat room messages. <BR>
<BR>
Some porn still goes through unless the filters are based on lists of preapproved sites, but that approach also rejects more legitimate content. <BR>
<BR>
Congress first tried to combat online porn in 1996 by making it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. The Supreme Court struck down the law in 1997, saying it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights. <BR>
<BR>
A year later, Congress narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically. Sites must collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed "harmful to minors." <BR>
<BR>
A federal appeals court has barred enforcement of the 1998 law, saying the standards are so broad and vague that the law is probably unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this year. <BR>
<BR>
Like the latest lawsuit, challenges to the 1996 and 1998 laws began at the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.<BR>
<BR>
forwarded by<BR>
<BR>
Dr. David Feeney<BR>
[email protected]<BR>
Director of Digital Education, http://foxonline.temple.edu<BR>
FOX School of Business &amp; Management, http://sbm.temple.edu<BR>
Temple University, http://www.temple.edu<BR>
300 Speakman Hall<BR>
215-204-2727 office<BR>
215-204-5698 fax</FONT></HTML>

--part1_11e.ec4bff4.29e4aedb_boundary--