|
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.
Ragab said she expects the Loudoun filtering case to reach the Supreme
Court.
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. |
