Public libraries always have used broad discretion in selecting books and magazines to be offered to patrons. Clearly, decency and good taste often influence those decisions. So why can’t that same policy be applied to Internet access at public libraries?
We last posed that question in early 2006, before the Fort Vancouver Regional Library system decided to filter pornography out of Internet offerings. The previous year, “only” 59.3 percent of voters supported a $44 million library bond issue, falling agonizingly short of the required supermajority approval. But in 2006, after the Internet filters were applied, 62 percent of voters passed a $43 million bond issue.
That decision to filter Internet access at public libraries was correct four years ago, and it was correct Thursday in the eyes of the state Supreme Court. Acting on a case from the five-county North Central Regional Library District (based in Wenatchee), the court ruled 6-3 that local policies to filter Internet access are not unconstitutional. The case now goes back to federal courts, which will be guided by similar rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Free-speech advocates make a strong but unconvincing point that public libraries should offer a broad variety of information in books, magazines and websites. But that does not mean unrestricted access to all information available. That’s why libraries don’t offer smutty print documents, and similar discretion should be applied to Internet offerings.
Bruce Ziegman, executive director of the Fort Vancouver Regional Library District, said Thursday’s court ruling is “a practical, common sense decision … a vindication of the policy approved by the FVRL Board of Trustees in April 2006.” That policy, after immense pressure had been applied by local anti-porn activists and just a few months after the narrow defeat of the 2005 bond issue, states that “viewing of pornographic websites is prohibited in the FVRL libraries.” The simplicity of the policy belies the complexity of the issue.
The Columbian is a consistent and ardent supporter of free-speech rights. That doesn’t mean, though, that community standards are to be ignored and that no rules should be applied in selecting public library offerings. After all, it’s public money that’s involved, and as Ziegman said, “While I understand that everyone does not agree with FVRL’s policy or the state Supreme Court decision, we believe it best serves our communities.”
Remember, too, that library patrons may request that a filter be removed from a website and, in many cases, that request will be granted. Another key point is the widespread availability of pornography via countless other venues beyond public libraries.
Washington State Librarian Jan Walsh agreed Thursday that the issue is not about free speech but community standards, as well as the limited resources of taxpayers and libraries. “If you want to see the demise of support for libraries, just keep going the way of wide-open access to all of these ugly sites,” Walsh said in a written statement. “People won’t let their kids go there, and the libraries won’t be places that feel right.”
Fort Vancouver libraries are growing both in patronage and facilities. That 2006 bond issue led to the new Cascade Park library and the massive downtown library that’s under construction at Evergreen Boulevard and C Street.
It’s good to see libraries and the public advancing beyond the porn-filters issue and providing more information to more people in more and better places. Knowledge — offered in compliance with reasonable community standards — is every library’s hallmark. Applying those standards carefully will maximize the use of libraries, and that’s a worthy goal that taxpayers deserve.
