MIM Supports Internet Filtering in New York City Public Libraries and Schools

Youth Committee
New York City Council
Public Hearing, 27 January 2000

My name is Robert Peters. I am president of Morality in Media, a New York City-based, national nonprofit organization working to stop illegal traffic in pornography.

Morality in Media helped shape the Internet indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and also submitted an amicus brief in support of the Government in Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court case which invalidated those provisions.

The American Library Association was an appellee in Reno v. ACLU. Its Supreme Court brief described libraries as follows:

Appellees include...libraries...All of their speech is appropriate and constitutionally protected for adults. The vast majority, if not all, is appropriate for minors as well. None is the kind of "pornography" the Government contends is the focus of the Act. Nevertheless, Appellees engage in or provide access to speech that, in some communities, could be considered "indecent" or "patently offensive".... [at p.3]

I will assume, arguendo, that this statement is accurate to the extent that it refers to materials selected by libraries for inclusion in their collections. It is clearly inaccurate if it also encompasses providing unrestricted access to the Internet.

In its brief, the ALA argued in part that the CDA was unconstitutional because it would be ineffective and because there were "far more effective alternatives that would impose no burden on protected speech" [Brief at p.9]. The Brief continued:

The vast majority of families connected to the Internet subscribe to one of the major online service providers, which enable parents to...block or to screen selectively their children's access. Other filtering software is available. If parents exercise parental responsibility, they can prevent their children from accessing indecent communications. [p.9]

The CDA is...unconstitutional because there are less restrictive measures Congress could have selected that would have been much more effective in preventing minors from gaining access to indecent online material. The district court made extensive findings about the ability of user-based [screening] software...to prevent children from accessing indecent material. [pp.35-36]

I do not understand how the ALA concluded that parents can prevent children from accessing Internet porn at school, a library, a friend's house or a job by using filters on a home computer.

I also do not understand how the ALA concluded that filters are an effective means of protecting children at home but not at a public library. In a letter to the editor (N.Y. Times, 13 Sept. 1999), William R. Gordon, Executive Director of the ALA, wrote:

Our association does not endorse the use of filters in public libraries for one reason: They are not effective. We are concerned that filters may give parents a false sense their children are protected when, in fact, they are not.

Had Mr. Gordon said filters do not provide total protection, I would agree. In Reno v. ACLU, MIM argued that the CDA was needed because filters could not alone provide adequate protection.

But some filters are better than others; and combined with other safeguards (e.g., positioning computers so that screens are easily seen by a librarian or teacher, monitoring usage and enforcing rules), filters will help to reduce minors' access to porn. I would add that it is unlikely that children's Internet use is now being adequately supervised in NYC libraries and schools, even assuming adequate supervision would solve much of the problem. As noted in "Bursting At Seams" (Daily News, 25 June 1999):

City libraries are teeming with thousands of new patrons...[T]he city's Internet equipped libraries have been resurrected as neighborhood hubs: places for...researching school term papers and waiting for working parents to come home...And libraries have no money to add staff, which has remained constant as users swamp the system.

Another argument that librarians make in opposing filters is that they are "not parents." I would agree that librarians cannot completely fill parental shoes. But are we then to conclude that libraries have NO RESPONSIBILITY to shield children from harm? Even when the City encourages students to go to libraries after school? [See, e.g., New York Times, "Hacking Away at Libraries," 20 May 1998), describing a NYC program devoting "specific librarians to the task of training public school teachers in library use and inducing students to fill libraries after school."]

In Ginsberg v. New York (1967), a case upholding the New York harmful to minors law, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:

"While the supervision of children's reading may best be left to their parents, the knowledge that parental control or guidance cannot always be provided and society's transcendent interest in protecting the welfare of children justify reasonable regulation of the sale of sex material to them."

When the New York law was drafted, sales were the primary concern. Today children can, without cost, use computers with unrestricted Internet access to view "sex material" so vile it isn't available in Manhattan's remaining "adult" bookstores.

And minors do access Internet porn. A 1999 Yankelovich poll (Time, 10 May 1999) found that 44% of teen Internet users had seen web sites that "are X-rated or carry sexual content." Another 1999 Yankelovich poll found that 25% of teen Internet users said they went to "X-rated" sex sites ("Teens Unseemly Web Visits," Newsday, 7 Sept. 1999). Among teens with lower grades (C-F) or poor school attendance, the percentage rose to 34% ("Gasp! Kids look at sex & violence online," New York Post, 7 Sept. 1999). Of teens who accessed "objectionable" sites, 79% did so from school computers (Newsday).

Even children who aren't seeking porn can be exposed to it. For example, using a search engine to type in innocent words like toys, kitty, or teen can lead children to the worst of web porn sites (see, e.g., "Online smut: Too easy for kids to find?", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4 May 1998; "Porn sites' 'traps' are raising eyebrows and worries," Philadelphia Inquirer, 8 Oct. 1998).

Some Internet pornographers purposefully use words like whitehouse, Titanic or Madonna in their web addresses or metatags to attract innocent seekers (see, e.g., "Snooping on Young Internet Users," Reuters World Report, 28 May 1998; "Porn evokes use of celebrities," The [Youngstown] Vindicator, 8 Aug. 1999).

Other Internet pornographers use domain names that are very similar to those of popular web sites, knowing that many users will mistype the popular names (see, e.g., "Porn Sites Hope Kids Can't Type," Business Wire, 17 Feb. 1999).

Some web sites that carry ads for sites that are "X-rated" purposefully attract children by linking their own sites to sites intended for children (see, e.g., Dawn Chmielewski, "Shocking Report Details How Children are Lured to CyberPorn, Orange County Register, 4 July 1999). They do so because they get a fee each time someone clicks one of their ads for an "adult" sex site. That young children are unable to purchase the porn is irrelevant because once a child clicks the ad, the site gets a fee.

Another argument that librarians make in opposing screening technology is that such technology mistakenly blocks material that is not pornographic or otherwise harmful to children. This may be true, but does that mean screening technology must be flawless before a government agency can install it to protect children? I do not believe the Supreme Court would so hold, and I would think the [New York] State Court of Appeals wouldn't either.

Furthermore, there are many different types of screening technology to choose from -- some specifically intended for use in public schools and libraries. There should also be a procedure for promptly unblocking sites that are blocked erroneously.

Another argument against use of screening technology is that there is no need for it since there is no conclusive proof that minors are harmed by porn. In Ginsberg v. New York (1967), however, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that conclusive scientific proof is required before government can regulate sex material that is harmful to minors.

[On the subject of pornography's effects, I have attached to my testimony copies of a letter from a clinical psychologist; pages from his article about pornography's effects; a column, "Pull the plug on sitter's porn," by Dr. Joyce Brothers (Daily News, 13 Jan. 2000); and a news article, "Boys might be youngest charged with child porn" (Chicago Daily Herald, 14 Nov. 1998).]

The last argument against use of screening technology that I will address today is that the First Amendment prevents libraries from doing so. As I see it, the First Amendment does not require public libraries to provide unlimited Internet access to patrons. The purpose of public libraries is to further public education and research and to provide a means of preserving valuable materials that would otherwise be lost to future generations. Libraries can under the Constitution adopt Internet policies consistent with that historic purpose. By adopting such policies, libraries would not have to concern themselves about Internet porn sites because access would only be provided to Internet sites containing material with serious artistic, literary, political or scientific value.

But alas, we no longer live in the "good old days" when common sense prevailed in the local libraries, instead of adherence to ACLU-style, absolutist ideologies. We are here today because a Bill has been introduced which would require New York City public libraries and the Board of Education to do what they should have done long ago, without the need for legislation.

Morality in Media supports Councilman Oddo's bill. By limiting its reach to web sites which are "characterized by an emphasis upon the depiction and description of 'specified sexual activities' or 'specified anatomical areas,'" the bill is intended to reach web sites that are the cyberspace counterparts to the sex establishments that once dominated Times Square.

Not too long ago, this Council had the courage to thumb its nose at the NYCLU and the best porn attorneys money can buy and to enact legislation to reduce the deleterious neighorhood effects associated with sex businesses. It should now enact legislation to protect children in public libraries and schools from access to sex material provided by similar establishments in cyberspace.