Congress Approves Filtering Bill

Under the law, the filters can be disabled only for "bona fide research or other lawful purposes."

The new statute was a major source of concern and confusion for librarians attending the American Library Association's (ALA) midwinter meeting in Washington, D.C., where hundreds of people turned out for an explanatory session held by ALA's Washington office. Though the audience was full of questions, panelists admitted they didn't have clear answers. That's because the new law was "cobbled together" at the last minute from three separate bills and contains "conundrums, ambiguities, and unanswered questions," said Thomas M. Susman, an attorney who counsels the Washington office.

Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the office, urged librarians to mount an all-out offensive to convince Congress to roll back the filtering mandate. Indeed, when patrons complain about the regulations, librarians should be ready with the names and addresses of their members of Congress, she said. "We've done a poor job communicating this [problem] to library users," Sheketoff said of the library community. "We're going to have to work a whole lot harder to make this groundswell happen."

At the same time, librarians were told not to stop applying for e-rate funds and other federal aid, since it's still unclear when, how, or even if they'll have to comply with the filtering mandate. For one thing, though the law is scheduled to go into effect on April 20, compliance will be phased in gradually. Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission and other government agencies still need to develop regulations and guidelines to implement the law. And perhaps most important, the statute is already being challenged in court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has announced it will file suit against the filtering act, and at least two library groups, the Maine Library Association and the Connecticut Library Association, have signed on as plaintiffs.

"Who knows what's going to happen next?" Kate Moore, school and library director of the federal agency that gives out e-rate grants, told the Washington audience. "If libraries fail to participate [in the program], I will be personally devastated. We need you. We want to serve you."

After a week of discussions, ALA's executive board also decided to mount a legal challenge to the filtering law. Such a lawsuit could cost upwards of $1 million, according to Candace Morgan, chair of the Freedom to Read Foundation. The foundation, said Morgan, is already raising money to cover the costs.

Ann Beeson, ACLU staff attorney, says her group's challenge will most likely focus on the act's effects on public libraries, rather than on school libraries. But Judith Krug of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom thinks that the suit "should not protect one type of institution and leave another type hanging." The ALA Executive Board still must decide what form its suit will take.

Under the new law, schools and libraries that receive e-rate money will be required to install filters, as will schools and libraries that purchase Internet computers or Internet access using funds from the federal Library Services and Technology Act and Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

--Andrea Glick and Walter Minkel