WASHINGTON – When Jessica Bishop goes to the Cumberland library to get on the Internet, the computer is looking out for her.
Allegany is one of a dozen counties in Maryland that have installed “filters” on their public computers to keep patrons from visiting obscene and, in some cases, violent or hate sites.
That’s fine with Jessica, 16, a Fort Hill High School student who said her schoolwork has never been hindered by an overzealous filter that kept her from a site she wanted to visit.
“Of course there should be filters, otherwise people would be going to sites they aren’t supposed to be looking at in the library,” she said.
But not everyone shares her view. Maryland libraries are split on the question of filters, which critics say are too crude to effectively shield children from obscene material and which can violate the First Amendment by restricting access to legitimate information.
“They restrict perfectly legal information,” said Carla Hayden, the executive director of the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore. “Libraries have always held the position that people have a right to know and read whatever they want. We have always been against censorship.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up the question in a case challenging the constitutionality of a federal law — the Children’s Internet Protection Act — that would require filters in any public library that accepts federal technology grants.
The law was signed in 2000 but is not being enforced because of court challenges.
In Maryland, some counties have installed filters on their own. About half of the state’s 24 library systems have some type of computer filtering, said Michael Osborne, an official with the state Division of Library and Services and Development. Some counties filter all of their computers, while others filter only computers that are used by children, or give patrons the option to have filtered Internet access.
Maryland law requires that each county library system prevent minors from accessing obscene materials on the Internet. But filters are not the only way to meet this statute: Some libraries put terminals in a public place, monitor Internet usage or post signs telling users not to visit obscene Web pages.
But even those who support filters said it should be a local, not a federal, decision.
“We have taken the view here that to filter or not to filter is a local decision made by our board of trustees,” said John Taube, director of Allegany County’s libraries.
Hayden — who is also the incoming president of the American Library Association, which is challenging the federal law — agrees that Internet policing should be a local decision, like the library’s right to select its own books and materials.
“It’s perpetuating the myth that children are safe, but also taking away local control,” she said. “It’s a major concern to have a federal law telling local jurisdictions what they can and cannot provide.”
Osborne said Maryland libraries currently receive about $4 million in federal funds that are tied to the federal law. Hayden said if the Supreme Court upholds the law, her library and others across the state will have to scramble to install filters.
“It’s going to mean more expenses in terms of having to install filters that we didn’t budget for,” she said. “You’re talking about a couple hundred thousand dollars. There is no federal funding for it, and that is a concern.”
Although still relatively new, Internet filters have become more sophisticated in recent years. Early filters blocked Web sites that contained keywords dealing with sex or violence. But that prevented students from doing research on breast cancer or finding out how a beaver builds a dam.
Newer filters restrict access based on a Web page’s address, grouping Internet sites into categories and letting each library choose its level of access.
The shortcomings of filters have led some counties to try other ways to prevent children from accessing obscene materials on the Internet.
In Baltimore, Hayden said the library believes education and public placement of Internet terminals are much more effective than filtering. Classes on responsible Internet use are offered, and the computers are out in the open, where everyone can see if a patron is looking at pornographic material.
Lorna Bishop, the head of the Allegany County Council of PTAs, acknowledged that there are shortcomings in current filtering technology. But Bishop, who is also Jessica’s mother, said she supports the county’s decision to filter all of its public computers that are online.
“I think it is necessary, because there is pornographic stuff out there and they have to filter to protect children,” Bishop said. “You have to be careful because you can just push the wrong button and be taken somewhere you don’t want to go.”