 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
Pornography Filters in Public Libraries
Update
On Wednesday, June 11, the San Jose City Council Rules and Open Government Committee pulled the internet pornography filter policy from the June 17th City Council Agenda.
In speaking with Mayor Chuck Reed prior to the meeting, he emphasized that his support was still very strong for internet filtering but that the City Council agenda on June 17th was very full. He suggested pulling the item as he wants to ensure that there is enough time for the Council to adequately hear the matter and make an informed vote. The issue will be on an August agenda. (The City Council is on summer hiatus during the month of July.)
The delay gives us more time to deal with four major issues:
- Are Internet filters effective?
- Do filters block legitimate research?
- Are the costs prohibitive?
- Are our First Amendment Rights protected?
Are the filters effective? Contrary to what you may read in the newspapers, two tests referenced by the Librarian, in her report to the City Council, conducted and published in 2008, found pornographic and obscene IMAGES were effectively blocked 93.1% and 97% of the time. The internet pornography landscape is changing daily, making it virtually impossible to develop a filter system that is 100% effective. The internet filter software providers are always chasing the pornographers as the pornographers try their latest to get around the filters.
Do filters block legitimate research? WebSense, a filter provider and vendor to the Phoenix Library System, is very concerned about the possible blocking of legitimate research, medical, and sexual information sites. A test of a "Phoenix configured" computer did not find that any of the sites cited by the library in their "135 test questions and scenarios" were blocked and unavailable to library patrons. Blocking software has come a long way in protecting those that wish to conduct legitimate research. Our proposal to the City Council is that only IMAGES, not text, be blocked.
Are the costs prohibitive? The Librarian, in her report, quoted a cost of approximately $400,000 to install and operate an internet pornography filtering system in the San Jose Public Library in the first year of implementation. This budget estimate is entirely over inflated. In working with members of the City Council, we believe that the program would cost between $100,000 to $130,000 to install and operate in the first year. The Library, because it currently has no filtering software in place, has foregone over $100,000 in e-Rate funds and CIPA funds. As you can see, the cost is almost met by the additional revenues available to the Library.
Are our First Amendment Rights protected? The City Attorney has opined that the City can install internet pornography filters without running afoul of the U.S Supreme Court ruling, US vs. American Library Association, Inc. The First Amendment accommodations required by the ruling are met in the proposed policy. The proposed policy is a mirror policy of the Phoenix Internet Policy currently in effect in the Phoenix Public Library system. In fact, the ACLU acknowledged that the Phoenix Internet Policy met the provisions of US v American Library Association, Inc. in its Spring 2005 ACLU-AZ newsletter.
You will be notified when the matter has been placed on a City Council agenda. At that time, we will begin calling, faxing, and emailing our Council Members letting them know of our desire to protect our children and grandchildren from pornography in our Public Library.
