Not All Libraries Created Equal: Washington Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Filters

By Amy Koenig

This article is an opinion piece. It looks at the importance of the library system and the ways that the system is currently applying freedom of speech.

Strange small drawers filled with little cards, shelves towering above marked by a bizarre number system, an eerie silence and the smell of age and dust envelopes the space—the public library.

The public library in Cashmere, Washington, hasn’t changed in 20 years. Not even the librarian. Paul Anderman, branch librarian, a writer and children’s entertainer, is still checking out books on Saturday mornings.

Even though the appearance and people haven’t changed, as technology advances, so do the conflicts that come along with it. Freedom of speech is a central issue at the heart of the public library system and a debate that rages today.

As we move past the April 10 National Library Week date, the larger changes of the library system can be seen. This year’s National Library Week was not just promoted in schools and communities, but through cyberspace. However, both the Lakewood Public Library and the Cashmere Public Library failed to promote the event.

Neil Gaiman, award-winning author of books such as “The Graveyard Book” and “American Gods” was selected to be the honorary chair.

One of the more interesting tools used to promote this year’s library week was “An Evening with Neil Gaiman,” an online event. Gaiman’s video was streaming live from the University of Minnesota and interacted with members of the Jessamine County Library in Kentucky via the Internet. The event was a combined effort of the Jessamine County Public Library, Internet2, the University of Minnesota, and the American Library Association.

The event was viewed by more than 700 people and is available online through the @your library website. It did not, however, go off without a hitch. What you will not see in the edited version are the technical complications during the live event-- the back and forth banter reminiscent of saying “Can you hear me now?” when your cell phone loses signal.

After the bugs were hammered out, Gaiman began to explain what libraries mean to him. He said that around the age of seven, he convinced his parents to drop him off at the library, and he would spend his day reading through the children’s section.

Having moved from England 17 years ago, Gaiman has a unique perspective on the library's role in freedom of speech and censorship—something that is a critical concern for the library system.

“I think that defending free speech is always going to be about defending the indefensible,” Gaiman said. “You need to defend the indefensible…the moment you start drawing lines based on taste, opinion, and what I find offensive, then you have created a world in which they can come for the stuff you do like and you can’t say a word about it.”

Margret Anne Murphy, a senior branch assistant at the Lakewood Library, said she felt it was very important in a free society for people to be able to learn, explore and investigate anything, even if the topic was one she personally disagreed with.

“That’s what makes us different from a totalitarian society or dictatorship,” Murphy said.

Though Gaiman is clearly opposed to censorship, he is not opposed to putting age restrictions on items available in the library.

“If stuff cannot be taken out by somebody under the age of 16 unless a parent signs off on it, then great, get the parents involved. I think that’s wonderful. On the other hand, if a parent does say, I’m fine on my child reading this, then hand it over.” Gaiman said.

Pierce County libraries do not restrict access to most information, however they do have regulations when it comes to the Internet.

According to Murphy, children under the age of 17 are required to be granted access only to a filtered internet. Adults, on the other hand, have unfiltered access to the Internet within the Pierce County Library system. This means they can access any website that the government deems legal.

Not all libraries, however, are created equal. The North Central Regional Library, of which the Cashmere public library is a member, applies a filter to their Internet service, not just to children but also for adults, according to a news release from the NCRL website.

“We believe that the important and varied duties of public libraries are intertwined with fundamental rights of free speech,” a news release from the NCRL website said. “We filter because it is an efficient, effective means of including Internet-based resources in the collection according to our Mission and Collection Development Policy. We filter because doing so makes us eligible for important federal funding. We also filter because it enhances an appropriate, safe library experience for all, including many school-age children who depend on our libraries for educational needs.”

What comes into question is the way filters work. According to Bradburn v. N. Cent. Reg'l Library Dist., NCRL’s filter blocked sites such as the craigslist personals section, courting-disaster.com, a sexual advice and comic website and womenandguns.com, a publication produced by the Second Amendment Foundation.

Charles Heinlen, a plaintiff in the case, is the only person to have asked for the filter to be disabled prior to the case.

Heinlen said that two things led him to start what has become a long process. Because he was working on the road at the time, public libraries were his primary source of Internet access. The library wouldn’t allow him unfiltered access to the Internet, and the filter was blocking sites that shouldn’t be blocked.

The ACLU is representing not only Heinlen but two other library patrons, according to the ACLU website.

“NCRL's policy of full-time filtering for adults is overbroad, and the library has no reasonable justification for denying adult patrons access to the substantial amount of information it blocks,” the ACLU website said.

The Washington State Supreme Court heard oral arguments in June, as follows:

May 6, 2010, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington published their opinion ruling 6-3 to keep Internet filters in place.

“We conclude that a library can, subject to the limitations set forth in this opinion, filter Internet access for all patrons, including adults, without violating article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution,” the opinion, written by Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen, said.

According to the opinion, the decision was made based on the fact that libraries are allowed to limit and control their collections.

“A patron would not have a right to receive information in a public library if that information was not part of the library's collection. And a patron does not have the constitutional right to force a public library to acquire a particular book or type of book. Analogously, this right would not exist with respect to Internet sites that have not been added to a library's collection,” the opinion said. “Given the traditional and historical role of a public library, and the discretion necessarily entailed to make content-based judgments about what to include in its collection, we conclude that article I, section 5 is not violated by a public library's Internet filtering policy if it is reasonable when measured in light of the library's mission and policies, and is viewpoint neutral.”

Justice James M. Johnson wrote a concurrence stating: “I agree with the majority's conclusion but write separately because the majority overcomplicates the analysis.”

“Scarcity of resources is particularly relevant in the present case. The North Central Regional Library District's (NCRL) twenty-eight branch libraries in five rural counties also serve as school libraries for fourteen school districts. Sixteen branches have only one or two computer terminals available for patrons. Twenty branches are staffed with only one librarian,” said Johnson in his concurrence.

Justice Tom Chambers wrote the dissenting opinion, and was joined by Justice Debra L. Stephens.

“While the purpose seems to be to protect children, the libraries within the library district flatly refuse to remove the filter on the request of an adult patron, or use any less censorial ways to accomplish their aims,” Chambers said in his dissent. “I am not unsympathetic to the goal of protecting children. But that laudable goal has all too often been advanced as a ground to restrict constitutionally protected speech generally though, at least in our state before today, usually successfully. Animated by the understanding that freedom to say what might annoy or offend others comes with the corollary cost that others may say what might annoy or offend you, the founders chose risk as the price of freedom.”

It seems vastly clear that for now, the Internet will be censored, at least in the NCRL. What effects this ruling may have throughout the state, we will have to wait and see. We have protected the children, but was it at the cost of freedom?