WebJunction

Filter? Yes, we do.

Before the CDA, before COPA and before CIPA, the Board of Trustees of the Carroll County Public Library voted to accept a LSTA grant. The 1995 grant project, to provide Internet service to local government via the library's computers, demonstrated the application of new technology. At first it was simple; we were dealing with text-based Pine email. Not long into the project, however, “Mosaic” emerged, which made both text and graphics available through something called the World Wide Web. Soon Mosaic, the first browser, was eclipsed by Netscape as the WWW became increasingly commercial and gained in popularity.

By 1997, it was time to discuss with the Board the success of our LSTA grant and our plan for going forward. WWW sites were growing exponentially. Information available on the web was a fabulous addition to library resources. Patron information needs could be served in ways we only dreamed about in library school.

When staff met to plan our presentation to the Board of Trustees, we knew we needed to explain the entire range of information and “other stuff” available on the Web. We explored some of the “other” sites ourselves, and knew we had a problem. The problem, of course, was what could be called up on the screen: porn. How to explain to the Board, in light of our Collection Development Policy, the kind of “stuff” easily accessible to library patrons on our computers?

Our Collection Development Policy, like those of other public libraries, is a lengthy, weighty document that cites many ALA positions like the Library Bill of Rights, and adheres to intellectual freedom principles. After reading over our Collection Development Policy many times, I just couldn't justify making “stuff” that we wouldn't purchase for our print collection available on library computers. There were a few other issues, too: Library Internet users must comply with the same behavior standards we expect all patrons to meet; staff has better things to do than monitor porn viewers; and filters can be easily disabled on request. Therefore, I recommended that we purchase an inexpensive filtering system for our branch Internet access computers. Although my recommendation to filter was approved, several Board members were uncomfortable with the decision (and remained so until the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on CIPA).

Objections to Internet sites have not been a major issue in Maryland libraries, whether they filter or not. So, we kept on keeping on with our filters. Meanwhile, staff responsible for applying for e-rate discounts took their job seriously. Subsequently we have received a substantial return in e-rate money for their work. By the time e-rate discounts became part of the court case that resulted in CIPA, we were already filtering and spending e-rate money on services to our patrons—without apology. Knowing how the media loves a First Amendment story, and standing on the lonely side of the filtering issue, it did not surprise us to hear from national reporters every time there was a complaint about porn in libraries.

We revisited our filtering decision with the Board several times between 1996 and the CIPA ruling. Two years ago, we installed Guardianet software on Internet computers in one of our branches. Guardianet is now known as PAMS and is owned by 3M. The software works through a chip on a library card to perform several tasks: it schedules patron Internet use, works as a debit card to recover copy costs, saves patron search “favorites,” and enables the patron to choose an individual Internet filter level. I told the Board that as soon as I could find funds, I planned to install Guardianet-like software system-wide so that any Internet filtering decision would be made by the individual patron rather than Board policy. In other words, Internet access from library computers would be unfiltered; the insertion of the individual's card would specify their predetermined level of filtering.

This was a great plan until CIPA. With the CIPA ruling I think the basic filter will remain throughout the system. Adult patrons can choose to turn off the filter for their entire session, but the filter will automatically resume at the start of the next session.

The U.S. Supreme Court clearly said that because the filters can be removed, public libraries are not infringing on free speech. The Court also stated that our own Collection Development Policies limit our claim to public forums, and that if we don't need the money we don't need to filter. At Carroll County Public Library, we will abide by the Court's ruling on free speech and the public forum argument, and then I will spend the e-rate money on improving service to patrons.