Library may use filters to battle Net porn

Whether it's politically viable is another matter.

Republican Supervisor Ray Carroll has pushed for the library to require filters on all computers to prevent patrons from viewing pornography. He became aware of that possibility after a local television news team showed him video of men viewing pornography on library computers.

Carroll said the report "revealed the dark underside of our libraries."

He said the county attorney's opinion shows the county is within its rights to require more filtering.

As of July 1, the county runs the regional library system, and the Board of Supervisors is also the library's Board of Directors, with the power to set policy.

Other supervisors say they don't want children exposed to pornography but worry that too many restrictions would impinge on patrons' rights.

"Do I like the thought of someone sitting there looking at pornography? No," said Supervisor Ramon Valadez, a Demo-crat. "But we are bordering on a First Amendment issue. Whatever solution we come up with, we have to be very cautious."

The supervisors plan to discuss the issue Tuesday. Not all the supervisors could be reached Friday for comment, but Valadez and Republican Supervisor Ann Day were not sure they want to filter everything.

The Child Internet Protection Act says libraries that accept discounted rates for their Internet access — including the Tucson-Pima Public Library — must filter Internet access to block obscenity and child pornography.

The American Library Association and other groups challenged the law, and the Supreme Court upheld it, provided adults can get access to any material that is not illegal.

After looking at that decision and other case law related to restricting pornography, the county attorney's opinion gave the supervisors four options:

● Keep the existing policy but add protections like privacy screens and recessed monitors.

● Filter all computers all the time, and remove the filter only if specifically requested.

● Block all access to pornography and sexually explicit material based on evidence of "secondary effects."

● Provide access only to sites that meet the same criteria applied to print materials.

Library Director Nancy Ledeboer said implementing any of the recommendations would represent a change from existing policy, which she thought was adequate.

All computers used by children have filters. Adults can choose whether to filter or not, but all adults must comply with the Internet-use policy, which prohibits viewing obscene material, child pornography and material harmful to minors. Not all pornography meets the standard for obscene material.

Ledeboer said librarians have asked patrons to stop viewing certain sites and even to leave the library. Some repeat offenders have been barred.

But what is offensive to some might not be grounds for blocking access.

Ledeboer said she has had parents complain about an older teenager looking at pictures of Britney Spears' bare midriff and about a man shopping the Victoria's Secret catalogue.

If there is a policy change, Ledeboer said she would be most comfortable with adding privacy screens between computers, which also would protect financial and medical information.

She estimated it would cost $35,000 to add screens at the library system's 446 public computers.

She said applying standards similar to print materials to the Internet would be "impossible, just with the sheer volume of Internet sites."

Ledeboer warned against assuming filters are the answer.

"If you just filter everything and think it's going to be fine, well, filters aren't perfect," she said. "It could give a false sense of security."

Filters work in one of two ways, either searching for certain key words or preventing access to a "blacklist" of inappropriate sites. They don't screen e-mail or sites like MySpace, and they can't always screen pictures, as opposed to words.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom, which opposes filters, said the technology has gotten better. They usually are sophisticated enough to allow access to sites about breast cancer, for example, while still blocking pornography.

However, sites dealing with medical issues, especially sexual health and birth control, still are the most likely to be blocked by filters that aim to keep out pornography, she said.

Occasionally, sites get blocked for unknown reasons. Caldwell-Stone said she has seen instances in which filters blocked NASCAR-related sites and even homework sites for children.

"They still block perfectly innocuous material while allowing sexually explicit material to get through," she said.

Librarians can override a filter.

Carroll said he had no problem removing a filter to allow access to medical information, but he didn't think the library should accommodate those who want to look at porn.

"I've had hundreds of calls and e-mails, and they are 99 percent in favor of not spending tax dollars providing pornography in our libraries," he said. "I've also heard from those whose children got their first view of pornography in a public library."

Day said there is a need for balance. She thinks a filter might have hindered some of her research last year as she tried to stop a sex shop from opening next to a children's dance school on North Oracle Road near Rudasill Road.

"We have to protect children, but you don't want to tighten it too much that you couldn't do legitimate research," she said.