S.L. libraries snub filters

It looks as if Utah state government will be $22,000 richer come this July, since the Salt Lake City Library Board is poised to keep its long-standing no-filter policy on public Internet access at all five branch libraries and the Main Library downtown.

The decision would make the libraries ineligible for state grant money under a new law passed by the Utah Legislature and signed by Gov. Olene Walker.

While a final decision on the filters likely won't come until next month — ahead of a July 1 deadline — both proposed budgets the library board forwarded to the City Council this week don't include the $22,000 in state grants.

Moreover, public comment the board has received has come in about 2 to 1 against filters, Salt Lake City Library Systems director Nancy Tessman said.

"The current policy is not to filter," Tessman said. "We've been doing some surveys looking at what people are feeling about filters."

Under Utah's Children's Internet Protection Act, public libraries must install pornography filters if they are to continue to receive state funding.

"State funds may not be provided to any public library that offers use of the Internet . . . unless the library has in place a policy of Internet safety for minors, including the operation of a technology protection device," the act reads.

In Salt Lake City, however, it would likely cost more to install the filters than the city would gain in state funding.

Tessman said a filtering system would cost $80,000 to install and more than $22,000 annually to maintain.

Filtering debates aren't unique to Utah. Four years ago Congress passed the federal Children's Internet Protection Act, which denies federal funds to non-filtered libraries. The American Library Association challenged the federal law on First Amendment grounds, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act was constitutional in 2003.

Even after the ruling, the ALA spoke against filters. It hopes to get the law changed, saying education is a better alternative to censorship.

"The American Library Association again calls for full disclosure of what sites filtering companies are blocking, who is deciding what is filtered and what criteria are being used," the ALA said in a press release following the court's decision. "Findings of fact clearly show that filtering companies are not following legal definitions of 'harmful to minors' and 'obscenity.' Their practices must change."