Library Censorship: A Blow At Free ThoughtEssay Preview: Library Censorship: A Blow At Free ThoughtReport this essayBilly DinsmoreMs. AndersonAP Language Arts30 April 2007The First Amendment is one of the most valued, important, and most threatened amendments in the United States Constitution. The American people are often censored and “protected” from this sickeningly harsh reality.
The FCC censors nudity, crude language, and information that is considered potentially harmful to the interests of the American government and/or its people. Recently, however, the standards for what is considered sexually and verbally explicit have become increasingly flexible. Even the allotted information has undergone an increase since its sudden decrease near the start of Americas involvement in the Middle East in 2001.
Despite the change in societys opinion on what is and isnt acceptable for public access, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. American Library Association that libraries were required by law, that in order to receive federal funding for internet access, they must install filters that censor websites containing child pornography, obscene material, and material that is harmful to minors onto all terminals that are within public access. If needed, however, citizens over the age of 18 can request that their filters be shut off, but only “to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose.” (Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part II, § 254) Adults, however, are still not allowed to legally view obscene material and/or child pornography.
The ACLU of Washington filed a court challenge to the new requirement of this law in December and successfully argued during the brief before the court in October, but the Court refused to accept that argument, ruling that while the “reasonable” restriction on the access of adults and students of a class based solely on their gender and age does not appear to extend to all students, it has no application to those with certain disabilities.
One of the reasons for the court’s refusal to make sure all students who are subject to the rule would be considered protected under that provision, however, is that such students, on the other hand, must face an additional requirement that has nothing to do with their gender or age and is applicable only to their work and services, including the administration of college-level education.
Furthermore, many students of color in that time would not have faced this law and therefore were not eligible to be a part of that law’s protections.
Further, a recent study that examined whether the rule actually would have a wide impact on students of color by comparing how their access to academic programs and academic courses are viewed in the U.S. public school system with that of students who are actually not as likely to enroll by college in order to gain educational access could be cited by the ACLU as evidence that the rule would have consequences for a particular color group.
In addition, the study also found that the rule affects students of color disproportionately and disproportionately in the U.S. public school system.
The U.S. Supreme Court also refused to take a view of the Obama administration’s policy on transgender persons and to take a position on whether the Obama Administration should treat it as one of his top priorities.
In fact, the court found that the Obama Administration had already begun discussions with state government to extend its LGBT policy with regard to its own public school enrollment rate.
In February, the courts also decided, among other things:
In its conclusion, the Court found that by granting constitutional authority for Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Obama Administration could use the same legal protections that were also incorporated into the 1964 law to further the goals of the civil rights movement. For example, it stated that it would “provide an opportunity for states to apply to the Federal Government the same legal protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which, though applicable to the minority community, did not apply to African Americans.” The court cited the following provision of the 1964 civil rights act:
A. Title IV provides for the federal government to provide affirmative action for people who are at least eighteen years of age, and who demonstrate an interest in achieving those objectives. Persons under 18 years of age are not required to be protected against discrimination in federal law as adults who are enrolled in federal programs. Persons under 18 years of age are also subject to the same constitutional protection in the federal civil rights laws under which they were enrolled. A. Title IV
What is meant by obscene material? The law defines obscenity using the Miller test. The Miller test asks:“(a) whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” wouldfind that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether thework depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specificallydefined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacksserious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”The first two prongs of the Miller test are to be decided by the jury with the consideration of community moral standards (Pope v. Illinois). In Brockett v. Spokane Arcades the Supreme Court held that material is not obscene if it “provoke[s] only normal, healthy sexual desires.” And in order to be obscene it must appeal to “a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.”
For a federal act, the CIPA seems to be rather vague. It denies everyone access to sexually explicit materials, unless they are not too sexually explicit and the viewer is of the age of 18. If the sexually explicit images only make the adult viewer feel “normal, healthy sexual desires” then the images are perfectly legal for viewing. The use of feelings and popular opinion to determine the legality of the viewing of sexually explicit content is absurd. The United States Government is merely attempting to withhold an unconstitutional act by making ridiculous exceptions to it.
Sexually explicit material should not be able to be accessed by minors at public terminals. However, individuals over the age of 18 should have unrestricted access to the internet so long as they abide to the laws of which they must on their own personal computers. Allowing adults to view obscene material in a public place, however, is still potentially harmful to minors. Minors within view of an adults computer screen might mistakenly, or willingly, view pornographic materials displayed on an adults screen. This, however, can easily be solved in many ways. First all computer screens should be equipped with privacy monitor filters. Privacy monitor filters are screens that attach onto the monitor and make it so that one can only view the screen when sitting directly in front of the monitor. Second, special areas could be set aside for adult computer usage.
Many argue that one should not have the need to access sexually explicit materials from public access terminals. The purpose of these terminals is for access to resources and collections for recreation. Many often forget that the pornography industry is not just a lewd practice for the morally and sexually disturbed. It is also a legitimate, profitable, and enormous industry. If one wished to research jobs within the adult film industry, why should they be discriminated against? Why should they be denied the right that is given to others to research careers? It is true that the access to pornography may attract sex offenders, but regardless it is the act of sexual offense that is illegal, it is not the act of lustful thinking.
Pornography, however, is far from the only thing censored by these web filters. The filters are built to censor anything that is considered “harmful to minors.” They censor things like: violence, explicit language, weapons, drugs, gay, lesbian, and bisexual interests, tastelessness, proxy avoidance, and much more. Not all