We are concerned about your recent directive to use blocking software on Boston Public Library computers and we would like to take this opportunity to voice our point of view.
First, we believe that it is misleading to frame this issue as one of "acceptable use" (as does Michael Hernon, among others) rather than the First Amendment issue it really is. As City Councilor Maureen Feeney exhorts us to make public libraries "a safe haven for our children," we must not lose sight of the fact that, as Deborah Liebow of the American Library Association puts it, "libraries are the gateways to free and open access to information and ideas." This sentiment is enshrined in the ALA's "Library Bill of Rights," which like the one appended to the US Constitution, guarantees First Amendment rights to all who use our libraries, including children. Indeed, we believe that one of the best ways to preserve public libraries as "a safe haven for our children" is precisely to protect the free access to information for which they were intended.
We view your proposal to use blocking software as a violation of the First Amendment and, therefore, one which is not analogous to the judgments librarians make in deciding which books to purchase, as has been suggested by a number of partisans. In this instance, substantial effort is being put into preventing people from gaining access to material that would otherwise be available; the situation is more analogous to performing an affirmative act to deny public access to "books" that are already "in" the library. This is exactly the kind of action that prompted the US District Court in Philadelphia to strike down portions of the Communication Decency Act as unconstitutional.
In practice, your proposal amounts to a clear case of banning information based on content. In this regard, we must note that blocking software blocks much more than pornography. Censorware is not some magical software that can instantly recognize an "indecent" picture (as if society could even agree on what that is). Rather, it operates on the basis of blacklists of specific websites (and the key words and word segments used to retrieve them) and requires dozens of flawed human beings making arbitrary decisions according to nebulous policy directives that the software companies refuse to divulge on the grounds that they are trade secrets. Is this the process that should determine what is and isn't allowed in libraries? It makes far more sense in this instance to trust the judgments of trained librarians than entry level computer personnel. Are we so distrustful of the people who run our public libraries that we do not think that they would weigh the needs of children appropriately? Are we prepared for a strategy that reduces default adult access to material that is suitable only for children?
In sum, we believe that your current proposal is a misguided attempt to place libraries in the role of parent and to undermine the freedom of access to information which should be their primary mission in the process. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Reebee Garofalo, Chair
New England Free Expression Network