House Bill 2689, the Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act, was introduced in the Illinois General Assembly on February 19. (So far, no action has been taken on the legislation since it was referred to the Rules Committee that same day.) The sponsor is Representative Peter Breen (Republican–48th District, Lombard), who just started his first term in the General Assembly. The Act would mandate that every public library in the state implement a “technology protection measure”. Such a measure would prevent patrons from viewing, on a public computer, any visual representation that could be construed as obscenity, child pornography, or anything else harmful to minors. Although libraries would be allowed to disable the protection measures so that adults can partake in “legitimate research”, the term is not defined, leaving it open to broad interpretation. Also, even if libraries do not already have filtering software that can meet the Act’s requirements, those libraries would not be reimbursed for the cost of buying or updating the necessary equipment.
To check the bill’s current status, click here.
The Illinois Library Association has voiced strong opposition to this legislation, with the largest objection being that the Act would impose a “one-size-fits-all” approach to determining whether filters are appropriate for a specific library and its clientele and, if so, how access to content should be managed. In the process, the Act undermines local control by library staff, trustees, and other community stakeholders who play a role in decisions affecting a library.
Even though the legislation does not impact academic and research libraries, the issue of filters is still quite pertinent, especially in the case of medical and hospital libraries, as content on anatomy, for instance, could be interpreted by a filter as being “obscene”. The ILA has drawn up a list of “talking points” on the issue.
Filters Hurt Libraries–they take decision-making abilities away from those most familiar with the needs and resources of an individual library
Filters Don’t Work–numerous studies have documented that filters often block useful information on many topics, while still allowing material that could be considered inappropriate to get through, presenting libraries with liability issues
Filters are Expensive–library budgets are already stretched to the limit, and forcing libraries to spend money on filters that may or may not be effective prevents those libraries from investing money in other technology, such as additional computers and high-speed Internet access, that are far more crucial
Filters Hurt the Poor–on a related note, filters prevent patrons in less-affluent communities, who may not have Internet access at home, from viewing government or health information that might be crucial to one’s work or personal well-being
Filters are Inflexible–a filter works the same way, regardless of whether the individual using a library computer is a grade-schooler, a college student, or a senior citizen, and users are not always aware that they are being prevented from accessing particular types of material, meaning that those individuals won’t know when to request that a filter be turned off
Filters are Biased–the companies that design filters determine what kinds of materials the filter will recognize as inappropriate, meaning that what kinds of materials get blocked could reflect the ideology or personal biases of the designers.