IntroductionAfter the Supreme Court's decision that the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) (2000), which required school and public libraries to place filtering technology on all of their computers, was constitutional, public libraries have had to make the decision whether to filter Internet usage or forego federal funds. Although many libraries cannot afford to offer Internet service without the government money in the form of E-rate and LSTA funding which assists libraries in both purchasing computers and paying for Internet access, many libraries, such as the public facilities in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, have chosen not to filter, relying on local and state funding to maintain services.Many libraries are choosing to forego federal funds because they believe filtering is a form of censorship. Although public libraries, as a rule, do not collect print pornography for their patrons, and certainly no library can collect child pornography, no filtering software currently available is able to block only pornography and child pornography. Thus, libraries feel that the overblocking of nonpornographic websites results in censorship. This overblocking coupled with the fact that, despite the best efforts of filtering companies, some pornography may still get through the filter (underblocking), causes some libraries to dislike filtering. But, despite the law, what is a librarian's duty to children and to parents to make the library a safe place for all? Many children do not want to access pornography, but even if they do, their parents may not want them to have access to it. Librarians, as the gatekeepers of information, have a duty both to provide information to people of all ages, and to allow parents to make moral decisions for their children concerning the information they can access at what age. However, parents see the library as a place where their children may play and explore with minimal parental supervision. If librarians provide no supervision and parents are under the impression that they do, then children are placed in a position of being at risk perhaps through exposure to pornography through Internet searches they perform or through accidentally viewing pornography on another library patron's screen.Although much has been written concerning CIPA (2000), many articles have focused on the First Amendment rights of youth to access materials (Buss, 2004; Nist, 2004; Nunziato, 2004). The American Library Association (ALA) has created numerous documents, available on the World Wide Web, concerning its stance against filtering and how education is the key to protecting children from web pornography (American Library Association, 2004). Still, some have written about the impact of filters on their libraries (Auld, 2003; Eberhart, 2004) and one author has discussed the various roles that the court in United States v. American Library Association (2003) viewed librarians to assume (Ratzan, 2004). This article examines the role of a librarian as monitor of patrons' Internet usage in order to protect its young patrons from exposure to pornography and other materials harmful to minors.This article will explore the dilemma of what ethical duty a librarian owes to its young patrons. First, it will examine ALA's views on access to information and its stance against filtering. Second, it will look at the librarian's duty from the parents' perspective. Next, it will review how judges perceive the librarian's duty to patrons by looking at recent court cases such as United States v. American Library Association (2003) and Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library (1998). Fourth, it will examine how librarians feel about monitoring the Internet usage of children. Finally, it will attempt to balance the competing views. This article will particularly focus on whether or not a librarian should monitor a patron's Internet usage, and if so, whether this conflicts with the librarian's duty to provide information access to all patrons. …
Read full abstract