US Supreme Court rules against libraries; upholds blocking software

[Jancaz Bru]

This morning the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, reversed a lower court's unanimous decision and upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act, requiring the use of blocking software for adults and minors in libraries that receive federal funding. The American Library Association had challenged the law as a violation of the First Amendment.

Fortunately, neither the Reuters and Associated Press stories about the
decision made the mistake of saying that the law only requires blocking
software to be used for minors. However, the stories also don't emphasize that the law requires blocking software for adults, so many pundits and members of the public will probably be confused about this, saying that the law only requires blocking software for people under 18. The text of the law, which is here: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/legal/001218cipa.html does explicitly say that blocking software is required for all ages to block "obscenity and child pornography" and that the only difference is that users under 18 also have to be blocked from material "harmful to minors".

[Maj1013]

What's the problem? The software has to be able to be disabled by the librarian, in case an adult is the one requesting access, or in the case that it's for research purposes.

[W0RF]

Did you expect any less Surebrec? When people rely on government to solve all their problems, the government's gonna start making all the rules to do the job we gave them.

[Zarkazm]

Originally Posted by Maj1013

What's the problem? The software has to be able to be disabled by the librarian, in case an adult is the one requesting access, or in the case that it's for research purposes.

Did you possibly get bored halfway through the quote? It clearly says there "The blocking software is required for all ages." As in "adults can't request unblocked access."
I don't think it's really such a bad thing though. If you want the gov to give you money, you play by their rules.
There are internet cafes where you can do what you want.

[Sam_The_Man]

Originally Posted by Zarkazm

I don't think it's really such a bad thing though. If you want the gov to give you money, you play by their rules.

The government doesn't give you any money, nitwit. You give them money, then they spend it on stuff that you don't want but should apparently have.

(Sorry about the 'nitwit' comment, but I see so many people say 'the government does such-and-such for you' to justify the most ludicrous things )

Anyway, I don't exactly see the problem, as long as they're not blocking the Stop The War website or anything.

[hal]

This is a problem, why?

[TWD]

Bah if you want to look at porn goto your house.

If there is a website that you really need to visit at the library but is blocked, you can ask the librarian and they can turn off the blocker.

I really don't see why this is considered a big issue.

[Jancaz Bru]

Its censorship in a nation that supposedly prides itself on freedom of speech and of press.

[TWD]

Please. When the library starts blocking religious websites, or view opposing bush or al jazeera.com I would start to worry. This is the simple blockage of porn. Besides you'd have to be a complete and utter idiot to look at porn while your in the library...

[flookster]

Originally Posted by TWD

Besides you'd have to be a complete and utter idiot to look at porn while your in the library...

Unless 'danger wanking' is your thing.

[MetalMickey]

Please. When the library starts blocking religious websites, or view opposing bush or al jazeera.com I would start to worry.

Presumably, the fear is that this is just a first step. The quote mentions blocking 'obscene' content. Who gets to decide what is obscene? Is there a danger that some of those things could eventually be branded obscene?

Anyway, I though we were all against government interference in private citizens lives. Surely it is not up to the government to decide what adults can view on the internet, it is up to the citizens themselves?

[Jinx256]

This is a really touchy subject, but I'm going to have to side with Surebrec here. The ability of the government to dictate what we can and cannot see is the principle of the issue. The issue is not: "Oh noes I don't gets teh pr0n." If "they" think that they can get away with this much, what's to stop them from pushing just a little more, and a little more, until we justify them in shielding our eyes from *anything* that they consider to be obscene?

[Maj1013]

Originally Posted by Zarkazm

Did you possibly get bored halfway through the quote? It clearly says there "The blocking software is required for all ages." As in "adults can't request unblocked access."
I don't think it's really such a bad thing though. If you want the gov to give you money, you play by their rules.
There are internet cafes where you can do what you want.

Actually, I went to the link and read the text of the law itself, which states that the blocking software must be capable of being disabled by the librarian or authority figure in question.

So it can be turned off when it's being used by someone of age, or for proper reasons.

[anaemic]

ugh thats really ****ty, i hate blocking software. as it is my schools blocks everything. buf is banned because it contains "explicit content" and they block erowid because its an evil drug site ? and they block all sorts of places becuase they are "criminal skill sites". and thats just the default net nanny of whatever list :|

[Cap'n Beeb]

Or... with a little bit of intelligence, you could simply disable it yourself by slipping through a proxy. I've yet to see a public terminal, especially one in a library, that had that setting locked out. Just make sure you put it back up when you leave.

Originally Posted by TWD

Bah if you want to look at porn goto your house.

Uh... since the only porn reference I found in that link was to child porn, I dont see how you saying that holds any relevance. There's a world of difference between the two.

[Maj1013]

It's not child porn, it's to keep kids from seeing any and all porn. That's my take on it, anyway.

[Nemephosis]

Some of you people are seriously screwed up.....

if you want to view offensive content, do it in your own home. Public is not the place for it. Learn this phrase:

"There is a time and a place for everything." In public is neither of those for porn or such.

[Corsair1009]

why is child porn the big thing now? arab terrorists must be bitter and hate kids cuz they've watch too much child porn or something, everything can be attributed to child porn
f*** the kids man, they need to see a nipple or two, otherwise they won't know what to do when The Time comes, the human race will be doomed by children who don't know how to make little children

and parents\adults can't explain it worth **** anyway, they always give you that birds and the bees crap.
the cock goes into the vagina people. that's all you need to say, stop beating around the bush!!! (awful pun not intended)

and yes, it is easily a first step to blocking what The Man thinks is obscene, just lump it all under there, they lump anything questionable now under the Homeland Security Act.

but I digress. I'ma go jump in the shower

[Maj1013]

I fail to see how keeping 8 year olds from pictures of women with spooge dripping from their chins is the first sign of the downfall of humanity.

[Corsair1009]

lmao
that's a little extreme, but I didn't think it cover it in my shotgun of an answer.

it probably isn't the end, but consider that a plug for the quality of the failing education system in america, either way you'd like to slice it.