Library Censorship: A Blow at Free Thought

Billy Dinsmore

Ms. Anderson

AP Language Arts

30 April 2007

The First Amendment is one of the most valued, important, and most threatened amendments in the United States Constitution. The American people are often censored and “protected” from this sickeningly harsh reality.

The FCC censors nudity, crude language, and information that is considered potentially harmful to the interests of the American government and/or its people. Recently, however, the standards for what is considered sexually and verbally explicit have become increasingly flexible. Even the allotted information has undergone an increase since its sudden decrease near the start of America’s involvement in the Middle East in 2001.

Despite the change in society’s opinion on what is and isn’t acceptable for public access, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. American Library Association that libraries were required by law, that in order to receive federal funding for internet access, they must install filters that censor websites containing child pornography, obscene material, and material that is harmful to minors onto all terminals that are within public access. If needed, however, citizens over the age of 18 can request that their filters be shut off, but only “to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose.” (Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part II, § 254) Adults, however, are still not allowed to legally view obscene material and/or child pornography.

What is meant by obscene material? The law defines obscenity using the Miller test. The Miller test asks:

“(a) whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” would

find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the

work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically

defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks

serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

The first two prongs of the Miller test are to be decided by the jury with the consideration of community moral standards (Pope v. Illinois). In Brockett v. Spokane Arcades the Supreme Court held that material is not obscene if it “provoke[s] only normal, healthy sexual desires.” And in order to be obscene it must appeal to “a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.”

For a federal act, the CIPA seems to be rather vague. It denies everyone access to sexually explicit materials, unless they are not too sexually explicit and the viewer is of the age of 18. If the sexually explicit images only make the adult viewer feel “normal, healthy sexual desires” then the images are perfectly legal for viewing. The use of feelings and popular opinion to determine the legality of the viewing of sexually explicit content is absurd. The United States Government is merely attempting to withhold an unconstitutional act by making ridiculous exceptions to it.

Sexually explicit material should not be able to be accessed by minors at public terminals. However, individuals over the age of 18 should have unrestricted access to the internet so long as they abide to the laws of which they must on their own personal computers. Allowing adults to view obscene material in a public place, however, is still potentially harmful to minors. Minors within view of an adults computer screen might mistakenly, or willingly, view pornographic materials displayed on an adults screen. This, however, can easily be solved in many ways. First all computer screens should be equipped with privacy monitor filters. Privacy monitor filters are screens that attach onto the monitor and make it so that one can only view the screen when sitting directly in front of the monitor. Second, special areas could be set aside for adult computer usage.

Many argue that one should not have the need to access sexually explicit materials from public access terminals. The purpose of these terminals is for access to resources and collections for recreation. Many often forget that the pornography industry is not just a lewd practice for the morally and sexually disturbed. It is also a legitimate, profitable, and enormous industry. If one wished to research jobs within the adult film industry, why should they be discriminated against? Why should they be denied the right that is given to others to research careers? It is true that the access to pornography may attract sex offenders, but regardless it is the act of sexual offense that