FC: Librarian to DoJ: I won't testify in support of your anti-porn law

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

*********
My article on Justice Department recruiting anti-filtering advocates to 
testify during COPA trial:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-01104.html
*********

> From: "Karen G. Schneider" <kgs () bluehighways com>
> To: <gail.walker () usdoj gov>
> Cc: "Will Doherty" <wild () sfo com>, "Gordon Flagg" <gflagg () ala org>,
>         <declan () well com>
> Subject: Letter To DOJ Declining Opportunity to Testify
> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 23:29:54 -0400
>
> Ms. Walker:
>
> Enclosed please find my response to your request.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Karen G. Schneider kgs () bluehighways com
> Assistant Director of Technology
> Shenendehowa Public Library, Clifton Park, NY
> http://www.shenpublib.org

***********

Gail Walker
United States Department of Justice
May 16, 2000

Dear Ms. Walker,

I am writing to explain why I will not testify regarding the deficiencies 
of Internet content filters in your upcoming retrial of the Child Online 
Protection Act.

As a librarian, my first impulse was to agree to testify, because I have a 
professional responsibility to share information impartially, regardless of 
the user's intention.  I believe information is a public good, and that no 
information is in itself harmful.   As an expert on the topic of Internet 
content filters, I was very tempted to reemphasize the points I made in 
legal testimony as well as in my book, A Practical Guide to Internet Filters.

However, after reviewing the information you shared with me regarding the 
government's intent with respect to COPA, I realized that testifying about 
the defects of Internet content filters would actually be in conflict with 
my professional responsibility.

I have worked with children, I have used the Internet for ten years, and I 
understand what open access to the Internet implies.  In the course of 
analyzing Internet filters, I have seen quite a bit of objectionable 
content on the Internet.  Nevertheless, I believe the true danger to 
children would not come from exposing them to an unfettered information 
medium of such magnitude that it has become a matter-of-fact part of daily 
life for a majority of Americans.  The greater harm would come from 
weakening the First Amendment to the point where children would grow up to 
become adults in a shrunken, compromised democracy, deprived of the 
freedoms we now enjoy.

In terms of obligations, I owe it to the people who wrote the First 
Amendment to assume they knew what they were doing.   As someone with no 
legal skills whatsoever, I apologize for my hubris in analyzing the 
Constitution, but I have to believe there is a reason why our founders left 
its wording so broad.  They were not stupid men, and they were not in a 
hurry.   They knew that intellectual freedom is a delicate ecosystem, 
easily subject to destruction by those who do not understand the law of 
unintended consequences.  They were also aware that if it were left up to 
individuals or special-interest groups, there would be very little 
information available to anyone, ever.  Their guidance rings with prescient 
clarity: "make no law."  I take these words as literal guidance.

Finally, as a lesbian, it saddens me to think that the Department of 
Justice would deny teenagers access to "objectionable" information until 
they were 17.  I know what it means to be labeled "objectionable."  Many 
people would describe me that way.  Gay teenagers have enough trouble 
coming to terms with their sexual orientation without finding out that the 
government has banished information about their very existence into the 
same realm as cheap pornography.  My research into Internet filters points 
out the disquieting reality that when third parties intervene to decide 
what others should see, oppressed minorities sufferand homosexuals are a 
favorite target of any group attempting to regulate what others can see.  I 
do not trust the federal government to allow children access to 
age-appropriate gay-themed websites when it cannot stomach concepts as 
simple and mundane as an openly gay person serving her country, or two 
people of the same gender choosing to marry.

Think again about the law of unintended consequences.  Matthew Shepard died 
because two young men grew up believing people like Matthew are 
"objectionable."  Again, if the government is truly concerned about 
protecting children, what does it have to say to Matthew's 
mother?  Teaching children that homosexuality is "objectionable" will only 
lead to a rise in hate crimesand contributing to an increase in crime 
conflicts with your professional responsibilities.

Ms. Walker, in several years there will be new technological concerns and 
challenges.  The promise of the next-generation Internet includes a 
directory structure so rich and complex that children will not be able to 
stumble into sex sites any more than I can wander onto 42nd Street in 
Manhattan from my house in Albany.   In the meantime, I regretfully decline 
to provide testimony for your trial.

Sincerely,

Karen G. Schneider
Author, A Practical Guide to Internet Filters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------