The U.S. Supreme Court has handed Congress the keys to the nation's libraries. On Monday, the high court upheld a statute that requires libraries to utilize Internet filters as a condition of receiving federal subsidies. A plurality of the court brushed aside concerns over the clunkiness of current filtering technology that blocks a certain amount of constitutionally protected material as it searches for obscene and harmful Web sites.
The damage this decision may cause is not limited to libraries. Every cultural institution that receives federal funds should be wary. If Congress can put limits on public libraries, then why not universities and museums?
Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act to prevent minors from using library computers to access pornography and other "harmful" materials. But in seeking to protect minors from cyberspace's seamier side - a legitimate interest of government - Congress wrote the law in a way that infringes on the First Amendment rights of adults.
Under CIPA, if a library accepts funds under either of two programs established to provide federal assistance for Internet access, antipornography blocking software must be installed at every computer terminal. The result is that adult Internet access is limited to what is appropriate for a 5-year-old.
Current filtering technology is notoriously inexact. In addition to blocking sexually explicit material, the software invariably blocks valuable Web sites on art, reproductive health and public advocacy. Congress understood these access issues when it passed CIPA. Even so, the law provides no option for local librarians to use less restrictive means to protect minors, such as by offering separate adults-only terminals. The only way for an adult patron to see a blocked site is for him or her to request the removal of the blocking.
Rehnquist, writing for a four-member plurality, found this to be a minor inconvenience without constitutional import. But two concurring members of the court, Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy, whose votes were needed to obtain a majority, expressed reservations about the difficulty of switching off filtering programs. The justices suggested that in some library systems, an unblocking request could take days to fulfill. They invited future court challenges if access to blocked sites becomes too burdensome - something library patrons should take them up on.
The ruling is a terrible precedent, giving Congress new-found power to control the dissemination of ideas in a way that could reach well beyond the nation's libraries.
