Library Is Sued Over Boy's Access to Pornography

Library Is Sued Over Boy’s Access to Pornography

By JOHN M. GLIONNA

Jan. 3, 1999 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

Ten times last summer, a 12-year-old boy visited the Livermore Public Library, floppy disk in hand, and took his place at the public computer ports.

There he downloaded dozens of sexually explicit images from the Internet, which he later printed on a relative’s computer and showed to friends around school.

When the boy’s mother learned about the photographs, her wrath was swift: She sued the library and the city for allowing her son access to the obscene materials.

The suit is the first nationwide in which a library has been legally challenged for not installing software that blocks pornographic sites, according to lawyers for the city.

On Jan. 13, an Alameda County Superior Court judge will decide whether Livermore is liable for the dissemination of materials that, according to the suit, are harmful to minors.

The family’s attorney says the boy’s rights have been violated because he was given public access to such materials.

“It’s a violation of constitutional rights for the library to hold themselves out as a safe place for children while it is, in fact, harming them,” said attorney Michael Millen.

The boy’s mother, a resident of nearby Concord identified in the suit as Kathleen R., could not be reached for comment.

Livermore Deputy City Atty. Gabrielle Whelan said holding the library responsible would set a dangerous precedent.

“Our position is that a public library should offer everything under the sun to the public,” she said. “Libraries in general should not be put in the position of being a censor. That job is up to each individual family.”

Millen first filed suit during the summer, saying the city wasted public funds and created what is described in legal terms as an attractive nuisance by failing to restrict Internet use.

Superior Court Judge George C. Hernandez Jr. agreed with the city’s argument that the library was protected under the 1996 Communications Decency Act. City lawyers had contended that Congress intended to hold World Wide Web site providers accountable for electronically published materials, but not third parties such as libraries and Internet service firms.

But in November, Millen amended his suit, adding a claim that the city had abridged the boy’s constitutional rights in a way that “shocks the conscience.”

“It’s the same as if the library had a razor blade display case and allowed children to handle blades and the kids got cut. It’s so outrageous that it rises to the level of constitutional deprivation,” Millen said.

Across California and the nation, the issue of children’s access to pornography through computer ports has resulted in many librarians placing filters on their systems. Several bills before the Legislature would mandate filtering for children in public libraries.

Some libraries have sought alternate solutions.

Last summer, Orange County officials began requiring written parental permission before minors could use the Internet at 27 public library branches.

Others, including the Los Angeles city library system, continue to allow unrestricted access. The Los Angeles system has 500 computers in its 67 branches.

In Kern County, lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union recently challenged library officials for installing filtering software on Internet terminals. After a review by county attorneys, the libraries added an unfiltered terminal at each of the system’s 26 branches.

For the filtered terminals, Kern County hired a private company to block sites containing materials considered inappropriate for minors under state law. The county now bars access to about 60,000 sites.

Meanwhile, in Livermore, deputy city attorney Whelan says that move was sweepingly broad. “Unfortunately, technology has yet to come up with an answer to solve the problem,” she said.

“For example, if you type in ‘breasts’ on a filtered terminal, you can’t get any information at all about things such as breast cancer or other medical information. In that case, what good is the public library?”

Millen, the mother’s lawyer, said he is seeking a city policy that forbids minors from using computer terminals without parental supervision. “We’re not asking the libraries to play policeman,” he said.

Nonetheless, Whelan said, it is a parent’s job, not the library’s, to place Internet restrictions on children.

“Parents need to have a good relationship with their children and let them know what they can, and what they can’t, have access to on the Internet.

“That’s just not a librarian’s job.”