A May 28, 1998 Arlington Catholic Herald article reported the alliance of a Virginia NOW chapter president with Dick Black (religious right operative who authored Loudoun's Internet policy), and the right wing International Women's Forum. This case has been trumped as a test to challenge NOW's stance on sexual harassment.
Virginia NOW recognizes the importance of this issue and that it may reach the Supreme Court. We abhor the backlash women face with increasing sexual harassment in the workplace, and know that many frustrated activists are working long and hard to help end this discrimination in the workplace. We believe that we must carefully consider HOW we work on this issue. We seek to rise above the very short-term issues of threatened sexual harassement to look at the long-term and broad-based implications of this issue. We wish to enable our chapter and state leaders to speak on this issue using our own policy on Internet Filtering.
We oppose the policy proposed by Dick Black. Just as in his campaign for delegate, he is utilizing classic religious right methods to promote his policy. e.g., disseminating misinformation and playing upon people's emotions. He is misleading many into believing his policy has widespread support across the political spectrum. We oppose this policy, but favor one which offers more protection from offensive material than Black's, and does not resort to information control. We offer the following pro and con views.
Those who favor the pro-censorship policy (full filtering for everyone at all times) say it protects "women and children" from inadvertently viewing something offensive on another's terminal. However, this inadvertent viewing may occur even with a filter, because filters are not 100% effective. Therefore, we suggest installing privacy screens (which ARE 100% effective) to protect all patrons and staff at all times from viewing anything they might find offensive. (Privacy screens make a terminal appear blank unless one is sitting directly in front of it.) These screens ensure the privacy of patrons dealing with sensitive material, such as information about diseases, divorce and bankruptcy, and they would totally eliminate the possibility of "sexual harassment" of staff or patrons.
Those who support the pro-censorship policy say they want to prevent children from pulling up obscene images inadvertently, or on purpose, while they are online, and that a filter, while imperfect, is the best available means. We agree. We have always supported filtered access for children, UNLESS their parents provide written approval for unfiltered access. The pro-censorship policy denies parents the right to decide what information their children should receive and denies parents the right to decide when, and how, to teach their children to deal with adult-world issues. We believe parents should be allowed to raise their children according to their own values.
The obsessive focus on pornography and pedophiles is an emotional scare tactic to cloud what is really at stake. Illegal obscenity and child pornography are against the law and, if they appear on a computer -- whether at home or in the public library, should be reported to the authorities. However, the pro-censorship policy goes much farther than restricting pornography. It also restricts adults from viewing material "deemed harmful for juveniles" (should grownups be treated like children?) and inconsistent with "community standards of decency" (a vague, overly broad phrase which can be applied to a wide range of protected information).
These sweeping restrictions are compounded by the fact that the decision of what information fits these categories is left to a computer technician with no legal training working in a private firm that may harbor a political bias. We believe in the flow of information, free from political censure, which has no place in a public institution dedicated to objectively providing as much information as possible.
The breadth of control exercised by firms who deal in Internet filters is staggering. When first installed in Loudoun's libraries, X-Stop blocked at least 338 sites that had nothing to do with pornography. Dick Black states "arguments that filters censor non-pornographic materials are invalid." [Carbondale Times, 4/29-5/5] Not so. Filtering software does block non-pornographic material. This will always be the case, regardless of X-Stop's efforts to correct these errors, because of the rapid growth and changing nature of the Internet. X-Stop blocks 300 to 500 new Internet sites per day, and the local library does not even know which sites have been blocked because the list of sites blocked, and the criteria used, are considered proprietary information.
The real issue is this: Should adults be allowed unfiltered access to the Internet since filters tend to block much legitimate and valuable information, and should parents be allowed to choose filtered or unfiltered for their children? Or, fearing that a few may abuse the privilege, should all Loudoun citizens be denied information that is available in other Virginia libraries? We favor the compromise between full filtering and no filtering, which allows adults and parents to choose either access and guarantees no one will inadvertently view something she or he finds offensive. The pro-censorship policy does not give adults a choice, forcing a one-size-fits-all mentality on all library patrons. It also increases the likelihood of women being exposed to offensive materials. Why? Because it requires placement of Internet terminals in "full view" of library staff and patrons and requires staff to monitor what patrons are viewing and then respond to violations and unblocking requests. Thus, as Judge Leonie Brinkema pointed out during the dismissal hearing, this policy undermines its supposed purpose -- the prevention of "harassment."
(This policy was adopted at the June 20, 1998 Virginia NOW State Council Meeting, Charlottesville, VA. It passed by an overwhelming majority, with one dissenting vote. Connie Hannah, Virginia NOW President)