Feminists & filtering

[Steve]

In Library Filtering Case, an Unusual Ally

Carl S. Kaplan
NY Times 10/2/98


In a closely watched First Amendment case, supporters of Internet
filtering in libraries have found an unexpected ally -- a group of
maverick feminists who say that libraries should use
pornography-blocking software to help prevent sexual harassment of
library employees. 

"The display of Internet pornography in a public place does
constitute sexual harassment," Marie-Jose Ragab, president of the
Dulles, Va., chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW),
said in an interview this week. 

"It creates a hostile work environment for the librarians" who might
see pornographic images on library terminals that do not have
filtering software, she said. 

Ragab's local NOW chapter, which has about 100 members, filed a
pro-filtering friend of the court brief three weeks ago in a
controversial filtering case involving the library system of Loudoun
County in Virginia. 

That landmark legal dispute involves a challenge by some residents of
Loudoun County and some Web site publishers to the local library's
policy of requiring filtering software on all its public terminals --
including terminals used by adults -- in an attempt to create a
pornography-free library zone. The lawsuit mirrors similar battles
playing out in schools and libraries across the country. 

Opponents of the filtering policy include People for the American
Way, a civil liberties organization that represents a group of local
library patrons, and the American Civil Liberties Union, representing
a handful of Web site publishers. They have argued in preliminary
legal rounds that the library's policy violates the First Amendment
rights of adults. 

They also contend that the commercial software filter used by the
Loudoun library, X-Stop, not only blocks smut but also blocks
protected speech, such as the Quaker Home Page, the Zero Population
Growth Web site and the site for the Maryland chapter of the American
Association of University Women. The library board counters that the
software's imperfections, if any, are reasonable under the
circumstances, especially given what they view as the their right to
keep pornography out of the library. 

The case is pending in Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va.,
before Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. A trial is scheduled for October 14.
All sides recently submitted motions to the court to resolve the case
before trial, and a decision on those motions is expected shortly. 

In an earlier ruling in the case, the judge appeared sympathetic to
the anti- filtering side when she refused to dismiss the lawsuit. She
said the First Amendment "fully applies to, and limits, the
discretion of a public library to place content-based restrictions on
access to constitutionally protected materials within its
collection." 

NOW's friend of the court filing was also joined by Richard H. Black,
a former trustee of the Loudoun County Library Board and author of
its filtering policy, as well as a host of local religious groups and
conservative organizations. They argued that the library had a duty
to avoid creating an employment environment that would be unlawful
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

That law, among other things, requires employers to exercise
reasonable care to prevent and correct sexually harassing behavior,
which can lead to employee discrimination on the basis of gender. 

"[E]xplicitly or constructively forcing librarians to deal with
displays of pornography could result in the development of a hostile
or abusive workplace," the filing said. 

Ragab, who has been president of the Dulles-area NOW chapter for 12
years, said she expects the Loudoun filtering case to reach the
Supreme Court. 

"We want the Supreme Court to rule on how far First Amendment rights
may go before they infringe on sexual harassment laws," she said.
"This is what is of interest to us. That is why we went along with
Dick Black and the group of conservatives. There is a clash between
the First Amendment and Title VII, and the Supreme Court must address
that." 

The Dulles-area NOW chapter is a "rebellious" group within the larger
NOW hierarchy, Ragab conceded. In June, for example, the small group
filed a friend of the court brief on its own supporting Paula Jones's
sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. 

That move caught the eye of Black, a member of the Virginia House of
Delegates and a leader of the pro-filtering faction in Loudoun
County. A self-proclaimed "conservative Republican," Black said he
called Ragab and suggested the two might share some common ground on
the issue of library filtering and sexual harassment. After
conferring with her fellow NOW members, Ragab agreed to participate
in the Loudoun amicus brief. 

Now, Ragab said she hopes her local's gadfly stance prompts the
national NOW organization and other feminist groups to see a
connection between Internet pornography and sexual harassment. But
that may be an idle wish. Loretta King, a spokeswoman for NOW, said
the national organization "is not involved in any way" with the
Loudoun lawsuit. 

The president of the statewide Virginia NOW, Connie Hannah, also
distanced herself from the Dulles group's efforts, noting that the
state organization issued a statement last June that strongly opposed
Internet filtering. She said that while the Virginia NOW opposes
sexual harassment in all its forms, library filtering was a flawed
and constitutionally suspect solution. 

Ragab's stance "puts our organization in a very difficult position,"
Hannah said. 

Lawrence S. Ottinger, a lawyer with People for the American Way who
is involved in the Loudoun case, said in a recent interview that the
sexual harassment defense of the library policy was a "sham and a
pretext for censorship." 

He said there was no evidence that patrons in Loudoun County had
accessed pornography on the Internet and that library staff were
bothered by it. 

To the extent that the library is concerned about its staff seeing
sexual images, the best solution, Ottinger said, is to locate the
computer terminals in an out-of-the-way spot and install "privacy
screens" that allow users to view the terminals but limit inadvertent
viewing by others. The statewide Virginia NOW also supports library
privacy screens as a means to prevent any viewing that could be
construed as harassment. 

Libraries have always had a policy that addressed misbehavior by
patrons, added Ann Beeson, a staff lawyer with the ACLU. Those
policies, she said, could be used to stop obvious abuses of Internet
access which could make staff members feel they were being harassed. 

"In terms of filtering being the answer, it couldn't be a worse fit,"
Beeson said. 

She noted that at a preliminary hearing in the case last week, Judge
Brinkema told the lawyer for the Dulles-area NOW, Melissa
Wells-Petry, that the organization would most likely be upset if a
software filter inaccurately blocked out the NOW site. 

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company 




* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END