Supreme Court looks at free speech

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court considered on Wednesday whether library patrons should be able to surf the Internet without government-ordered pornography filters.

Justices will decide before July if Congress can require public libraries to install software to filter out pornography as a condition of receiving federal money.

The case pits free speech rights against the government's ability to protect the public from the seamy side of the Internet.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued that libraries don't have X-rated movies and magazines on their shelves and shouldn't have to offer access to pornography on their computers.

"The First Amendment does not require libraries to sponsor the viewing of pornography," Olson said.

Librarians and civil liberties groups contend that filters are censorship and that they block a vast amount of valuable information along with the pornography.

Paul Smith, an attorney for the American Library Association, told justices that with 11 million Web sites, it's impossible for filter operators to keep up with pornographic sites.

Skeptical judges

Some justices seemed skeptical of the challenge to the Children's Internet Protection Act.

"What is the great burden on speech?" asked Justice Stephen Breyer.

Breyer said that Web surfers can ask librarians to disable filters to get to a particular site. "You can have it, you just have to go up to the front desk to get it," he said.

But Smith countered that it stigmatizes a person doing legitimate research.

"You've got to go up and say 'Please turn off the porn filter."'

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor compared the interruptions to the waits required in doing traditional research, asking a librarian to find a certain book.

More than 14 million people use public library computers to do research, send and receive e-mail, and, in some cases, log onto adult sites.

A three-judge federal panel in Pennsylvania ruled last year that the library law violates the First Amendment because the filtering programs block too much nonpornographic material.

The law has been on hold since Congress passed it in 2000.

The law governs money from two programs Congress had previously approved to help libraries take advantage of the Internet.

The programs have provided libraries about $1 billion since 1999, including tax money and telecommunications industry fees.

Opponents of the law argue it's particularly unfair to lower income people who cannot afford their own home connections and those in rural areas where Internet access may be expensive or difficult to get.

The lower court judges had recommended less restrictive ways to control Internet use, such as requiring parental consent before minors are allowed to log in on an unfiltered computer or having a parent monitor a child's Web use.

Failed attempts to legislate

Congress has passed three child protection laws since 1996, but the Supreme Court struck down the first and blocked the second from taking effect.

Those dealt with regulations on Web site operators. Legislators tried a new approach with the 2000 law, arguing that Congress should be able to regulate government property.

An estimated 17 percent of libraries already use filtering software on at least some of their computers, with varying degrees of success in screening out only objectionable material.

The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361.