In United States v. American Library Association, case no. 02-361 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Children's Internet Protection Act, proclaiming that imposing filters against internet pornography on public library computers is not a violation of free speech.

Check out the article at CNN.com Court: Libraries can be forced to use anti-porn computer filters

“We challenged this law because filters are very blunt instruments that block more than illegal speech, including a great deal of speech that is not even sexual in nature at all," said Paul M. Smith, the Washington attorney who represented the American Library Association. "We're disappointed that the court said that this one-size fits-all answer is the way to handle this problem of sexual content on the Internet in the library setting."

Okay, so on one hand you have a bunch of parents and other people who are concerned about children gaining access to pornographic Internet sites utilizing public library Internet access. On the other side you’ve got librarians and other people who feel that by forcing the use of filters on these public computers, you are blocking first amendment freedom of speech rights, as these filters not only block what they are supposed to, but also other sites that may be found more “suitable” for library patrons of all ages.

My opinion on the topic? Libraries should not be forced to use these filters, not because they are “blunt instruments” that block more than they are supposed to, but because the blocking of ANY information from a person, regardless of content goes against those rights guaranteed in our first amendment.

Now, I’m not saying that we should go out and find pornographic sites to share with our children, but I think that the filtering of information should be done through the parents. And it should not be parents putting locks or bars against what they want to “protect’ their children from. That is another form of censorship. I’m saying that parents should instill such moral standards in their children that they are confident the children will make the right moral decision regarding such “distasteful” information.

So much goes into what we allow our children to read, what books we ban from school libraries and cut of reading lists. When is a person old enough to be considered under the first amendment? When is a person old enough to make his or her own decisions out the information they are taking in? I recognize that parents have the moral obligation to raise children the best that they can, but does that give adults the right to censure information from the younger generations? I don’t believe it does. I think everyone in our nation should be protected by the laws of the country, guaranteed the rights of citizens, and taught by parents, teachers, religious establishments about morality, allowing them to make “enlightened’ decisions about which information they partake in. Certainly things can, and should be discouraged, but by limiting access completely to something, aren’t we just sending the message that what we are hiding is something that must really be worth seeking out? Just the act of making something hard to get to makes it more coveted.

Anyway, those are my thoughts today on this topic. They may change tomorrow. Just a little food for thought.

The views of this article are absolutely the views of the creator of this website, but they are just personal opinion. If you don’t agree with the views expressed here, tough cookies. Ain’t freedom of speech great? If you have another perspective on the topic above, you may feel free to e-mail me. (Please include a name so I can give proper credit for the submission.) I may, depending on the number of responses, time constraints, and how I feel on any given day, post other people’s opinions on the topic.