Features

SAN FRANCISCO — A conservative group, claiming a 12-year-old boy was traumatized by viewing Internet pornography at Livermore’s main library, asked an appeals court Tuesday to block such access to minors. 

In a hearing before a panel of the state appeals court, the city of Livermore fought the challenge – the nation’s first test of whether libraries must accommodate parental demands to limit Internet access. 

If the group is successful, parents in California could demand that courts order local libraries to curtail or reduce Internet access, a decision opposed by the state’s counties, civil libertarians and library associations on grounds it violates patrons’ rights to access free speech. 

A panel of three justices of the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco did not indicate when or which way it would rule. But one justice noted that a Virginia library was subjected to a successful suit when it blocked pornographic access and was ordered to reinstate full access. 

On the other hand, the California appellate court was asked Tuesday to sanction suits against libraries for not filtering such material. 

“The libraries are basically in a dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t position,” Justice Patricia K. Sepulveda said. 

Bringing the suit was Public Justice Institute, a conservative, family values group in Sacramento. The group said a young boy over several days downloaded a host of obscene, pornographic pictures from the library and printed them at a relative’s house. 

“We’re not talking about simple Playboy pictures,” institute lawyer Michael Millen said. “We’re talking about extremely obscene images.” 

The city maintains that children or adults don’t have a “constitutional right to be free from this material that comes over the Internet,” said Daniel G. Sodergren, assistant city attorney. 

Also, Sodergren said, the library is immune from the suit – as are Internet service providers, such as America Online, which Congress said cannot be prosecuted for hosting indecent material on its network. 

Making this case unique is that the institute and the boy’s mother are not suing for damages. Instead, they are seeking a court order to prevent the library from allowing children to access pornographic material on the Internet. Such a request has never been tested in the nation’s courts. 

“This is not about money,” Millen said. 

Congress recently approved legislation demanding that libraries use so-called pornography-blocking filters on computers to prevent children from being exposed to indecent material. 

That measure, which the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging, does not apply to the Livermore case.  

The law requires filters for libraries that accept federal funding, and Livermore’s three branches do not. 

In Tuesday’s argument, the ACLU argued that limiting access to children could hinder the rights of adults. It argued that Internet filtering devices are unreliable and they often screen material that is not considered indecent. 

Even so, libraries throughout the country have taken preventative measures. Some have required parental consent to use the Internet, while others have equipped all or some computers used by minors with filters.