State court: Internet filtering at libraries constitutional

Libraries that choose to filter Internet access are not engaging in censorship, according to the Washington Supreme Court.

The court made its decision late last week on 6-3 vote, with the majority noting that libraries are not obligated to provide universal access to all constitutionally protected speech just because it exists. Still, the dissenting justices feel that filters should be removed at the request of an adult, and that the decision is "draconian." The case was originally brought against the North Central Regional Library (NCRL) by three patrons who found that they were unable to access certain sites on the library's computers. NCRL had implemented a use policy—as well as FortiGate filtering software across all its branches—that barred access to certain kinds of content, such as porn, gambling sites, Web chat services, proxy avoidance tools, and other "adult" content. According to NCRL's policy, sites that were erroneously blocked could be unblocked at the request of an adult patron, but otherwise, the filter remained in place even if an adult were to request immediate access to certain forbidden sites. The patrons, Sarah Bradburn, Pearl Cherrington, and Charles Heinlen, said in their suit that NCRL's filtering policy was unconstitutional, particularly the part that barred adult patrons from requesting that the filter be lifted on the spot. After all, public libraries are just that—a public service—and barring access to sites like "Women and Guns" is not far off from China's Great Firewall, which blocks sites that talk about Tibetan liberation. Or is it? According to the Supreme Court judges, libraries like NCRL have to consider their resources when it comes to both printed and electronic materials.