More Questions Than Answers on Filter Law
Staff -- Library Journal, 1/22/2001
Though a successful lawsuit may preclude the need to comply with the new filter law, Midwinter Meeting attendees found more questions than answers at a session sponsored by the ALA's Washington Office. "If you think the law is lacking coherence, you're right," said attorney Thomas Susman. He noted that libraries receiving E-rate funds for Internet access face more requirements (including safety provisions regarding minors using e-mail and chat) than libraries receiving LSTA funds for computers or Internet access. No one could give librarians clear answers on how they could make legal definitions of obscenity. "You have the requirement to find something that will block or filter obscenity," said Susman. "The person selling it should tell you," he added. Later, Washington Office Director Emily Sheketoff observed that agency officials have said that libraries must certify that they have policies in place, not that the policies are necessarily working. She reminded librarians that they need not take immediate action. It will take several months for rules to be issued, and libraries must certify compliance with the act only by October 28, 2001. As libraries implement this law, "there's going to be a heightened emphasis" on Internet access, said Sheketoff, who noted that filtering supporters have been far more vocal than opponents. "At this point they [Congress] don't believe the public doesn't want this."
