Editing Internet filter (section)

==Use in public libraries==
===Australia===
The Australian Internet Safety Advisory Body has information about "practical advice on Internet safety, parental control and filters for the protection of children, students and families" that also includes public libraries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pcw.vic.edu.au/Our%20School/Parents%20Guide%20to%20Internet%20Safety.pdf|title=NetAlert: Parents Guide to Internet Safety|publisher=[[Australian Communications and Media Authority]]|date=2 August 2007|access-date=24 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130419184113/http://www.pcw.vic.edu.au/Our%20School/Parents%20Guide%20to%20Internet%20Safety.pdf|archive-date=19 April 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref>

NetAlert, the software made available free of charge by the Australian government, was allegedly cracked by a 16-year-old student, Tom Wood, less than a week after its release in August 2007. Wood supposedly bypassed the $84 million filter in about half an hour to highlight problems with the government's approach to Internet content filtering.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Teenager-cracks-govts-84m-porn-filter/2007/08/25/1187462562907.html|title=Teenager cracks govt's $84m porn filter|agency=[[Australian Associated Press]] (AAP)|website=[[the Sydney Morning Herald]]|publisher=[[Fairfax Digital]]|date=25 August 2007|access-date=24 June 2013}}</ref>

The Australian Government has introduced legislation that requires ISPs to "restrict access to age restricted content (commercial MA15+ content and R18+ content) either hosted in Australia or provided from Australia" that was due to commence from 20 January 2008, known as [[Cleanfeed (content blocking system)|Cleanfeed]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310563/ras_declaration_2007.pdf|title=Restricted Access Systems Declaration 2007|website=[[Australian Communications and Media Authority]]|year=2007|access-date=24 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120324222418/http://acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310563/ras_declaration_2007.pdf|archive-date=24 March 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Cleanfeed is a proposed mandatory ISP level content filtration system. It was proposed by the [[Kim Beazley|Beazley]] led [[Australian Labor Party]] opposition in a 2006 press release, with the intention of protecting children who were vulnerable due to claimed parental computer illiteracy. It was announced on 31 December 2007 as a policy to be implemented by the [[Kevin Rudd|Rudd]] ALP government, and initial tests in [[Tasmania]] have produced a 2008 report. Cleanfeed is funded in the current budget, and is moving towards an Expression of Interest for live testing with ISPs in 2008. Public opposition and criticism have emerged, led by the [[Electronic Frontiers Australia|EFA]] and gaining irregular mainstream media attention, with a majority of Australians reportedly "strongly against" its implementation.<ref name="nocleanfeed.com">{{cite web|url=http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html|title=Learn - No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in Australia|publisher=[[Electronic Frontiers Australia]]|access-date=25 October 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100107170517/http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html|archive-date=7 January 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref> Criticisms include its expense, inaccuracy (it will be impossible to ensure only illegal sites are blocked) and the fact that it will be compulsory, which can be seen as an intrusion on free speech rights.<ref name="nocleanfeed.com"/> Another major criticism point has been that although the filter is claimed to stop certain materials, the underground rings dealing in such materials will not be affected. The filter might also provide a false sense of security for parents, who might supervise children less while using the Internet, achieving the exact opposite effect.{{original research inline|date=June 2013}} Cleanfeed is a responsibility of [[Stephen Conroy|Senator Conroy's]] portfolio.

===Denmark===
In [[Denmark]] it is stated policy that it will "prevent inappropriate Internet sites from being accessed from children's libraries across Denmark".<ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-27-2006/0004404991&EDATE=|title=Danish Ministry of Culture Chooses SonicWALL CMS 2100 Content Filter to Keep Children's Libraries Free of Unacceptable Material|website=[[PR Newswire]].com|access-date=2009-10-25}}</ref> "'It is important that every library in the country has the opportunity to protect children against pornographic material when they are using library computers. It is a main priority for me as Culture Minister to make sure children can surf the net safely at libraries,' states Brian Mikkelsen in a press-release of the Danish Ministry of Culture."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.saferinternet.org/ww/en/pub/insafe/news/articles/0606/dk.htm|title=Danish Minister of Culture offers Internet filters to libraries|website=saferinternet.org|access-date=2009-10-25|archive-date=2009-02-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090212173122/http://www.saferinternet.org/ww/en/pub/insafe/news/articles/0606/dk.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
{{#section:Web blocking in the United Kingdom|lib}}

===United States===
The use of Internet filters or content-control software varies widely in public libraries in the United States, since Internet use policies are established by the local library board. Many libraries adopted Internet filters after Congress conditioned the receipt of universal service discounts on the use of Internet filters through the [[Children's Internet Protection Act]] (CIPA). Other libraries do not install content control software, believing that acceptable use policies and educational efforts address the issue of children accessing [[age-inappropriate]] content while preserving adult users' right to freely access information. Some libraries use Internet filters on computers used by children only. Some libraries that employ content-control software allow the software to be deactivated on a case-by-case basis on application to a librarian; libraries that are subject to CIPA are required to have a policy that allows adults to request that the filter be disabled without having to explain the reason for their request.

Many legal scholars believe that a number of legal cases, in particular ''[[Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union]]'', established that the use of content-control software in libraries is a violation of the First Amendment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.spectacle.org/cs/library.bak|title=Purchase of blocking software by public libraries is unconstitutional|last=Wallace|first=Jonathan D.|date=November 9, 1997}}</ref> The Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] and the June 2003 case ''[[United States v. American Library Association]]'' found CIPA constitutional as a condition placed on the receipt of federal funding, stating that First Amendment concerns were dispelled by the law's provision that allowed adult library users to have the filtering software disabled, without having to explain the reasons for their request. The plurality decision left open a future "as-applied" Constitutional challenge, however.

In November 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington State for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon requests of adult patrons, but CIPA was not challenged in that matter.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=557|title=ACLU Suit Seeks Access to Information on Internet for Library Patrons|website=ACLU of Washington|date=November 16, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061205220253/http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=557|archive-date=December 5, 2006|url-status=dead}}</ref> In May 2010, the Washington State Supreme Court provided an opinion after it was asked to certify a question referred by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington: "Whether a public library, consistent with Article I, § 5 of the Washington Constitution, may filter Internet access for all patrons without disabling Web sites containing constitutionally-protected speech upon the request of an adult library patron." The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that NCRL's internet filtering policy did not violate Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution. The Court said: "It appears to us that NCRL's filtering policy is reasonable and accords with its mission and these policies and is viewpoint neutral. It appears that no article I, section 5 content-based violation exists in this case. NCRL's essential mission is to promote reading and lifelong learning. As NCRL maintains, it is reasonable to impose restrictions on Internet access in order to maintain an environment that is conducive to study and contemplative thought." The case returned to federal court.

In March 2007, Virginia passed a law similar to CIPA that requires public libraries receiving state funds to use content-control software. Like CIPA, the law requires libraries to disable filters for an adult library user when requested to do so by the user.<ref>{{cite news|first=Michael|last=Sluss|title=Kaine signs library bill: The legislation requires public libraries to block obscene material with Internet filters|url=http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/wb/xp-109919|newspaper=The Roanoke Times|date=March 23, 2007|access-date=March 24, 2007|archive-date=February 29, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120229022017/http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/wb/xp-109919|url-status=dead}}</ref>