December 22, 1997
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Mainstream Loudoun, a non-profit grassroots organization, and eleven plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court today seeking to halt implementation of the Loudoun County Library Board of Trustees’ unconstitutional Internet policy. Representing the plaintiffs are Robert Corn-Revere, a Loudoun County resident and attorney with the D.C. law firm of Hogan and Hartson, and People For the American Way.
This October, the Board adopted an Internet policy which requires full filtering for all library patrons, adults and children alike, with no option for adults to choose unfiltered Internet for themselves or their children. In addition, Internet computers must be in close proximity to, and in full view of, library staff. “Rather than designing an Internet use policy that restricts all users based on fear that a few may abuse it, we believe that there are more responsible and legally sound ways to deal with the issues that come with Internet access,” said Mainstream Library Committee Chair Elaine Williamson. “Our major concern is who has the right to control what patrons access on the Internet in public libraries, individual adults and parents, or a government agency?”
Mainstream Loudoun’s concerns regarding this policy are legion. First, the Board’s policy infringes on Loudoun residents’ First Amendment right to receive information, since filters frequently block protected speech. Furthermore, the policy’s provision that the software installed on all computers “block material deemed Harmful to Juveniles under applicable Virginia statutes and legal precedents” relegates all Loudoun adults to the electronic version of the children’s reading room and denies them access to information available to all other D.C. area residents.
Second, the policy usurps parental rights by allowing the government to decide what information is appropriate for all children, even though parents may disagree with that decision. As a Washington Post editorial (10/25/97) stated: “...it makes no sense to eliminate the option of unrestricted access for adults--or for parents who want their kids to learn about the adult universe, as is surely their right.” “ Parents must be empowered to decide whether their children are granted filtered or unfiltered Internet access. A policy that denies individual parents the right to promote their own values is not a pro-family policy,” said Williamson.
Third, the Board’s policy relies on filtering software to make judgments about what information is or is not protected under the First Amendment. Somewhere in Anaheim, California, a software firm will decide what Loudoun citizens may or may not access. “This means Loudoun residents are virtually leaving their constitutional rights in the hands of software designers,” said Mainstream Loudoun President Jeri McGiverin. “These employees or their firm may have political affiliations or agendas or may harbor prejudices, all of which could influence what information they choose to deny us. Allowing government to ‘privatize’ censorship by adopting privately-created restrictions on speech, and then suggesting that the restrictions are based on legal standards, is an illegitimate attempt to automate censorship.”
Fourth, the Board’s policy was formulated and vetted by pro-censorship organizations such as Enough Is Enough and Family Friendly Libraries and was endorsed by Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice. That this policy may be further used to censor materials other than the Internet in our public libraries means more protected speech may be on the chopping block, and we are concerned about who is wielding the axe.
Fifth, framing this issue in terms of “sexual harassment” not only demeans the seriousness of true workplace harassment, it expands even more the list of materials which can be restricted.
The Board never considered Mainstream’s compromise policy of optional filters, which would have allowed adults to choose filtered or unfiltered Internet access in private when they log on, and parents to choose filtered or unfiltered Internet access for their children. In a democracy, adult autonomy and parental rights should trump “Big Brother” every time.
Furthermore, the Board consistently ignored Mainstream’s numerous warnings about the unconstitutionality of their policy. In fact, after receiving our letter of demand, in which we spelled out the problems with the policy and stated that we would file suit if they were left unchanged, the Board adopted an even stricter policy.
“The Library Board has approached the Internet issue from a position of fear, creating a policy that is an extreme overreaction to a perceived problem; it has approached Loudoun citizens from a position of distrust, condescendingly denying us our First Amendment rights in the guise of ‘protecting’ us,” concludes McGiverin.
Links || How to Contact Us || Guest Book || Quotes from the Right || Home