It is no surprise that librarians are reluctant to use software that rates sites as acceptable for children. In Boston, over the protests of librarians, Mayor Thomas Menino recently required the libraries to install blocking software. Local commentators called this a typical anti-pornography campaign, done for the PR, and all the more popular because the civil libertarians complained loudly. The software the librarians finally agreed upon is relatively sophisticated, in that it allows librarians to choose sites instead of using arbitrary criteria or a previously chosen list maintained by the software company. Still, this feature could put the decision at particular risk of being declared unconstitutional, according to an article by attorney Jonathan D. Wallace, because choosing sites to block is clearly analogous to removing books from shelves.
Internet connections can certainly lead to annoying situations.
Several cases have been reported in which mischievous individuals have brought up pornographic images and left them in full view. But filtering and blocking software strikes wounds deeply into role of the library as a key democratic institution. And such software affects all patrons, not just youth. An adult researching the latest news about a medical problem may find help unavailable, simply because the problem is located in the wrong part of the body. The failure of the notorious Communications Decency Act to pass court approval so far is a good omen for Internet access.