Finally put to rest

For ten years the ACLU and the ALA have resisted government efforts to implement the Childrens Internet Protection Act (COPA), which would place restrictions on Internet content that children might see. In court cases judges have ruled the law unconstitutional, but the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to overule this decision. Today the Supreme Court refused to take on the case, which means the law will disappear. Many parents and some media commentators have wondered why librarians should oppose a law aimed at ending online pornography, but history has shown there are good reasons for this. The issue raises a lot of questions and very few answers: What is pornography? What is bad for young people? To what extent should children be protected against knowing how people behave? Do all children react in the same way to sensitive material? The United States is built on the principle of freedom of speech, even of speech that is unpleasant, immoral, and which supports values we don't like. Whenever speech is to be limited to any group of people, it should be limited as little as possible. Parents are the only people in a position to know how their child will react to specific information or presentations, and often enough even parents are wrong. Now that technology allows parents to limit what their children can view online, that protection is sufficient to serve the public good. Filters make it possible for parents to control access and they are the ones who should take the responsibility to do so. The Supreme Court's decision not to take the case is a vindication of librarians' convictions that freedom of speech is basic to any democratice society. After ten long years the decision is finally made. Three cheers for the Court, for ACLU, and for ALA.