PORN FILTERS DON'T WORK

San Jose Mercury News: For all their claims to the contrary, filters intended to block Internet pornography don't work. That, in a nutshell, is what a federal appeals court said Friday when it overturned a law that would have forced libraries to install porn filters or lose federal subsidies. The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals correctly noted that the law chosen to remedy one problem only creates new and unacceptable ones.
Filters don't work because they allow some porn sites to go unfiltered. But more important, they don't work because they block thousands of sites that contain no sexually explicit material, such as a site for a Buddhist nun and one belonging to the Knights of Columbus. As such, a federal requirement to impose filters in libraries violates First Amendment protections: It doesn't work within the legal framework set by the U.S. Constitution.
Quick-fix solution
The law, the Children's Internet Protection Act, is the third attempt by Congress to enact a quick-fix solution to the complex problem of protecting children from Internet porn, and the third to run afoul of the Constitution. It was challenged by the American Library Association. The appeals court decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has issued strong opinions against prior attempts to restrict adult content on the Internet.
In its opinion, the panel showed better judgment than Congress, suggesting more subtle ways to prevent children from accessing online porn at the local library. The judges said libraries could have policies that restrict what children could see online, without trampling on the rights of adults. It also said libraries could use screens on computer terminals to keep what one patron is viewing from being visible by other users.
Such suggestions are more in line with a comprehensive, congressionally ordered study conducted by the National Research Council that found that no single technical, legal or economic approach would effectively protect children from online porn. Comparing Internet filters to fences and alarms aimed at protecting children from the hazards of falling into a pool, the study concluded that "by far the most important thing that one can do for one's children is to teach them to swim." Anything less would only give parents a false sense of security.
Protecting children from Internet porn is a worthy cause. It shouldn't be attempted with a technology that doesn't work and jeopardizes legitimate speech.