Who is ever going to say "I feel like unlawfully surfing the Net. I'm looking for child pornography, the younger the better."?
People this stupid exist in numbers large enough to keep criminal-defense lawyers in business.
That aside, the paper just seems to be saying that libraries do not have the option of unblocking filters; they're required to do so if a patron asks. And they don't need to investigate the reasons or ask the patron what he wants to look at that's so risqué. "It's lawful and none of your business" is more than sufficient.
There doesn't seem to be any requirement that libraries check to see if adult patrons are, in fact, removing the filter for a lawful purpose.
Posted by mythago at April 9, 2004 11:21 PMWhile you're right that it made no sense for SCOTUS to reduce CIPA to meaninglessness (for those over 16), I'm relieved to find that Mary Minow read the decision the same way I did--that's what SCOTUS did, sensibly or not.
("Relieved" because Mary does know both libraries and law, having both degrees, and has spent a LOT of time working on these issues--making her opinion, say, about sideways-8 times more meaningful on the subject than mine is.)