TalkBack Live

Filtering the Internet for Children: Censorship or Protection

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She typed in chocolate chip cookies, hit the search button, and immediately there appeared before her eyes a picture of a nude woman.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: Libraries are under pressure to filter Internet pornography from the eyes of children. Yet the American Library Association has taken a firm stand against filters, calling them censorship and a violation of the Constitution. Besides, critics say, filters have drawbacks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID SOBEL, GENERAL COUNSEL, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER: To believe that a piece of software is going to create a meaningful barrier to a technologically sophisticated young person is just foolish.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBIN RASKIN, EDITOR IN CHIEF, "FAMILY PC MAGAZINE": You know, there are many instances where a kid will be doing a report on breast cancer and that word breast will be -- not be allowed to be found, or a statue of David or Michelangelo's work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Does intellectual freedom include a child's possible exposure to graphic sexual material, or for that matter, hate sites or recipes for making bombs? Must you choose between protecting your children and protecting your rights?

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.

As early as next week, Congress could vote on the Children's Internet Protection Act. It would deny some funding to public schools and libraries that refuse to block Internet smut. The bill is proposed by several groups, including the American Library Association and a congressional committee assigned to study the very issue. We'll hear from them in just a few minutes, but let's start by talking with Congressman Chit Pickering, a Mississippi Republican who co-sponsored the bill.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

REP. CHIT PICKERING (R), MISSISSIPPI: Bobbie, it's good to be with you.

BATTISTA: What would this legislation do exactly?

PICKERING: It's very simple and straightforward, and it's a common-sense, constitutionally consistent way to protect our children. And if you care about children, what is happening today gives a great opportunity, especially in education and in our libraries: What we are seeing with the Internet is a great discovery and teaching tool if it's used correctly. But as we know, it can also be a very dangerous area and danger zone for our children with the proliferation of pornography and obscenity and child predators.

And so what we're trying to do is use a tool -- technology filtering devices and others -- to be able to keep what is good and block out that which is bad. We require that schools who accept over $4 billion in federal funds, subsidies to link our schools and libraries to the Internet, that if they accept those funds, at no cost to them because the funds will also pay for the filter or the blocking device, that they block out what is already illegal: child pornography and obscenity. And then the local community, based on their standards of what is indecent or obscene or inappropriate or harmful to minors, can also block out other material. But that is the local community's choice.

BATTISTA: So I was going to ask you about that, the criticism that these filters also block out a lot of innocuous material that people, and kids for that matter, may need access to and that some pornography can get through it also. Does that sort of defeat the purpose a little bit?

PICKERING: We had great news today. The COPA commission, Child Online Protection Act commission, actually found that filter technology is effective. That was a major finding on page 19. Other studies have shown that filter technologies and devices can be up to 99.9 percent effective of keeping that which is bad out, and while letting that which is educational, instructional and good in.

We believe that this is just a common-sense tool, and those who would say that we should have no types of protection for our children for what is harmful, what is hateful, what is pornographic, what is obscene, that's not -- when we send our children to school -- and I have five boys, ages 10, 8, 7, 5, and 2 -- I don't want them exposed to things that are hate-filled, that would teach them how to make a bomb, that would expose them to pornographic and obscene, that which denigrates and degrades people.

That's not what we want as parents, as mothers and fathers around this country, for our children in schools and libraries. BATTISTA: On the phone with us, by the way, is a member of that commission, so I'm going to bring him in. Alan Davidson is staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology. He helped, as we say, he helped to write the congressional report for the commission on online child protection.

ALAN DAVIDSON, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY: Hello, Bobbie. Hi.

BATTISTA: Hi, Mr. Davidson. How are you?

The chairman of the commission is quoted as saying "We looked at mandatory filtering and we unanimously rejected it." Why?

DAVIDSON: Well, I think that the commission did note in its exploration of this really important problem that there -- that filtering can be an effective part of a solution for some families and some communities. But the commission also recognized that the technology raises real First Amendment concerns, in part because of all the testimony we've heard for overblocking, for blocking a lot more than what the filters, what people might exactly want it to do.

And so I think the commission is really reflecting the idea that filtering is really one arrow in the quiver of possible tools, but that the decision to use filtering really is one that is sort of best left to a particular family or a particular community.

BATTISTA: Congressman, do you not share some of those First Amendment concerns?

PICKERING: Again, we only require that you block out that which is obscene, which is illegal, and child pornography, which is illegal, and then the community can make its own decision as to what its standard is, as to what is appropriate and not harmful to minors. And again, that is only that which is harmful. And we need to remember this is not a mandate: It is only saying that if you accept federal funds, you should use these technologies as a tool to protect our children. If they decide not to use these funds, then they do not have to -- to use the filter technologies or block it out.

This is simply an incentive, simply and solely like we do in highway construction, or when we send federal funds to states, and we ask them to accept these funds, you must have child seats or seatbelts or a 21 age before you -- for alcohol. And those are safety issues. I look at this as not a speech or a constitutional speech issue. It's a child safety issue.

BATTISTA: Go ahead, Alan.

DAVIDSON: Yes, for many -- unfortunately, for many, especially poorer communities, you know, these attachments to federal funds are a virtual mandate...

(CROSSTALK)

PICKERING: Which -- which is -- the great thing is that in our legislation the funds that are available for Internet links are also available to pay for the filters.

DAVIDSON: So the communities that receive these funds now are going to be required to spend thousands of dollars of the money they receive for these filters, which might ultimately be their choice, but...

PICKERING: That is a gross exaggeration. They're up to $3 a month of subscription. Many companies are giving it away free. This can be done at no cost or very inexpensively. And the benefit is tremendous.

We're protecting our children from child predators, from hate and bomb-filled sites and material that we don't want in our classrooms or libraries.

The White House uses filters to keep out pornography. Why cannot the schoolhouse?

BATTISTA: Is this one step, congressman, toward the federal government regulating or policing the Internet?

PICKERING: No, I do not think it is regulating. It is simply giving a tool, a common-sense tool that I do believe is constitutionally consistent to our teachers, to our principals, to our school boards and to our librarians.

We're seeing suits across the country of librarians who are faced with a hostile work environment because adults are coming in, and many times minors unfortunately, and watching and viewing porn sites. And it's creating such a hostile work environment that they're bringing suits to try to stop or block that type of work environment.

BATTISTA: Alan, what were the alternative ways that the commission, if they did, recommend to Congress, if the filter was only one way -- and if that was an effective way, why didn't you just go ahead and recommend it?

DAVIDSON: Well, I think the commission really recognized that what worked in New York City isn't necessarily going to work in Ogden, Utah. It didn't make sense to implement a sort of one-size-fits-all, one-technology-being-the-answer approach. And instead, the commission put forward a set of other recommendations that we feel very good about in terms of being a positive roadmap for Congress and for policy-makers, and starting with a massive education campaign to teach parents, you know, we can -- about what the -- what tools exist out there, including tools beyond just filtering: monitoring tools, acceptable use policies, contracts with kids, and how to just be a good parent online. If we can teach people to look both ways before they cross the street, we ought to be able to teach kids to, you know, to be safe online.

And that's really the No. 1 priority, because in the end, these mandates, these laws tend to end us just back up -- back in court and aren't necessarily going to be effective in protecting kids.

BATTISTA: Let me take an Internet question for the congressman. Let's put that up on the screen here if we can.

"What does Representative Pickering mean when he says that obscenity is illegal?"

PICKERING: Obscenity -- there is a broad body of law and precedent of court decision of defining what is obscene. And we now have, unfortunately, a lack of prosecution and enforcement by this Justice Department, starting in 1995, against anyone distributing, disseminating obscene material.

Prior to that time, there was major efforts by previous administrations to enforce our obscenity and our child pornography laws. One of the reasons that we are advancing this legislation is that, if you have no enforcement or prosecution of existing law, then that only makes our children more vulnerable and more exposed, and the access, I am afraid, easier for them to see and to be exposed to this harmful material.

That's why it is, in my view, just a common-sense tool that we can give our teachers, our parents and our librarians to protect children.

BATTISTA: I have a -- I have a teacher in the audience.

Milly, right? And you -- you had filters on your computers at school?

MILLY: We had Cyber Patrol put on. And the problem was that it -- we were being cut off to too many sites that we felt were beneficial, because of one word being thrown in and we couldn't get through anymore. We had it removed.

BATTISTA: Oh, so, you couldn't even get your way around it, is what you're saying.

MILLY: We couldn't get a way around at all. And we did have them removed. And then we were more or less responsible for monitoring the kids. We had to really watch where they were going.

BATTISTA: Do you think that that works better?

MILLY: It's works. I mean, it has worked for us. But we had to really be on top of it.

BATTISTA: Yes.

MILLY: And we couldn't use it -- unfortunately, a lot of people use it as the old TV baby-sitting-type thing. You know, put me in front of the computer and let me go where I want to go, like we did with TVs years ago.

DAVIDSON: And I'm afraid that under -- this is Alan Davidson -- I'm afraid that under the legislation, if passed, your decision to remove those -- that filter would put you at jeopardy of using your federal funding, or some of your federal funding, which is a serious problem. And that's why we think the communities really ought to -- and teachers ought to have the choice, rather than imposing a federal rule on what works best.

BATTISTA: All right, I have...

PICKERING: Well, let me just...

BATTISTA: Congressman, quickly.

PICKERING: Let me just add that the schools who are looking at this do have flexibility and choice. They can take a filter. They can choose between the whole range of devices that are not now available and products. We do not mandate one size fits all for all. And the other thing, you can have an electronic library that groups are putting together -- that which is good and beneficial in keeping out the bad.

And you don't have to necessarily use the filter. You can actually buy a pre-packaged, good library -- electronic library of using that which is already, by the community, something good, or that they see as something good.

BATTISTA: All right. Congressman Chip Pickering and Alan Davidson, thank you both very much for joining us. We will continue with this debate in just a moment. Take a minute if you will and vote in our TALKBACK LIVE "Online Viewer Vote" at cnn.com/talkback.

Today's question: Are you in favor of Internet filters in public schools and libraries? And we will have hear from the American Library Association next. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We'll continue in here just a moment, but first we need to go to Carl Rochelle in Washington from some breaking news -- Carl.

(INTERRUPTED BY CNN COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS)

BATTISTA: All right. Carl, thanks very much. We will get back to you for anything new.

Joining us now: Emily Sheketoff, executive director at the American Library Association's Washington, D.C. office, and Crystal Roberts, legal policy analyst with the Family Research Council.

Welcome to both of you.

EMILY SHEKETOFF, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION: Thank you.

BATTISTA: Emily, if I may start with you: Why is the American Library Association against these filters?

SHEKETOFF: Well, we are against these filters because we feel they create a false sense of security with parents and children. We think education is the proper way to go. As everyone knows, librarians care about children. We have a long history of working with children. And we want to supply them with the tools they'll need now and in the future to use the Internet effectively.

BATTISTA: Why...

SHEKETOFF: We commend the COPA Commission for their recommendations. And we agree with what they're saying. Education is what is needed. And it's needed right now. We wish the Congress would listen to these recommendations and take a leadership role in creating the programs that are necessary to educate the community, the public, parents and children to use the Internet effectively.

BATTISTA: Why do you say it's a false sense of security?

SHEKETOFF: Because, unlike what people have said in the past, filters are not fool-proof. They are machines. They cannot judge material. And they do let inappropriate material through. It would create a false sense of security with parents if they thought they could just drop their children in a place where there is filtered Internet access and the children will be safe.

Technology is constantly changing. And children are very sophisticated. We need to give them the tools to use the Internet appropriately, and to know how to use the Internet's safely. And this comes only with education.

BATTISTA: Let me clarify your position further. If they did, for example, come up with a filter that was perfected and that it did only what it was supposed to do and didn't infringe on any other sites, for example, would you be in favor of that or are you just against filters all across the board?

SHEKETOFF: We do not think that as technology changes and children become more and more sophisticated that depending on these technologies is going to work. We believe that you must equip children with the tools they're going to need now and in the future to use this technology effectively.

And that equipment is education, continuing education, both for parents and for children. Libraries offer many groups, classes, programs where the family can come in and learn how to use the Internet, where parents can work with their children. This is what should be done.

BATTISTA: Crystal, the filters here, the be-all and end all? I mean, does she have a point about education?

CRYSTAL ROBERTS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, certainly education is -- we certainly support increased education for how to use filters and how to maneuver your way around the Internet. But I think it's important to point out again, that we're talking about filtering out material that's already illegal. You cannot purchase this material if it's obscenity, child pornography, it's illegal to even possess it.

We're simply looking for a method of creating a parallel situation in which you cannot get access to material that you'd -- it's otherwise illegal to try to access through a video store or a bookstore. Secondly, with the effectiveness of filters, we did a survey earlier this year that -- and we released it in March, in which we actually went through logs of certain major metropolitan library systems and we found filters to be 99 percent effective.

And of those sites that they did block out, 76 percent of those sites that were blocked out were commercial pornography sites. We found that only 2 percent of those sites that were blocked were incorrectly and mistakenly blocked.

SHEKETOFF: This does not work. What happens to the children is they become more sophisticated, and if they don't understand how to use the Internet safely and effectively, they will get around these filters and be exposed to this inappropriate material. Educating children, parents talking to their children about how to use the Internet appropriately is the way to go.

ROBERTS: But children know...

SHEKETOFF: We of course do not endorse pornography. To say that is insulting to librarians who dedicate their lives to helping families and helping children. But what we want is for children to be safe and effective and the way you do that is educating them, not making them dependent on some faulty technology.

BATTISTA: Hang on just a second, Crystal, because I'm pushing a break here. So I've got to take that first and then we'll continue in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Under the E-Rate program, about $4 billion has been distributed to schools and libraries over the last three years. This is funded by a mandatory fee on long-distance phone bills.

Let me check with the audience here quickly. Jean-Claude, go ahead.

JEAN-CLAUDE: Right, and it's actually crystallized a little more, thanks to some of the panel members you have. I think that it's a matter of freedom of speech and I really do agree with -- it really does set up a crutch for you, that you think your children are going to be safe from this.

If you any of you have ever developed a web site or put anything out there, you can pretty much develop it any way you want, put any sort of content on there, and then mislead any surfer into thinking that you were looking about George Washington's teeth or whatever you want.

So by putting a filter out there and expecting that it's going to keep that it's going to keep all of the pornography or all the distasteful information from your children, I don't think is really a good answer and then so I would agree with the education process.

BATTISTA: And Judy? JUDY: I definitely support the filters. I think that as a parent, as well as a grandparent, I send my children to school for the academic part of their education, and if the Internet can enhance the academic part I think it's wonderful. But any other kind of information I think I should be in charge of.

I'd like to say, I don't think the Constitution is about providing rights or license to minor children. I think that we as parents have a right to know what our children are exposed to, and I think children have a right to be safe.

BATTISTA: One of the things that I'm a little unclear on and, Emily, maybe you can clear this up for us is the way libraries work. For example, when you purchase stock for the -- for a library, do you purchase pornographic material, say like "Playboy?" Is that in your periodical section?

SHEKETOFF: Bobbie, the library does not...

BATTISTA: I mean, there's a reason I'm asking that question.

SHEKETOFF: I understand why you're asking that question. The library does not supply pornography to patrons but libraries make decisions about what they want to have for their patrons based on patron's interest. And that does not include pornography. But patrons are very interested in access to the Internet and this brings up a very important aspect that we have not talked about and that's the digital divide.

The library is the number one place for those that not have Internet access at home or at work to get access to the Internet. And that means that the under-served population are going to be discriminated against because they will not have the same access that other people who can get unfiltered access at home or at work can get that access. And so this is just pushing them further and further behind in that digital divide. And that is very discriminatory.

BATTISTA: But one of the things I was curious about, though, is that when do, when you purchase the access to the Internet for the library, you have absolutely no control over what that brings to you.

SHEKETOFF: Bobbie, what 95 percent of the public libraries that have Internet access have done is met with their patrons, their trustees, and other community leaders and developed an Internet acceptable use policy. And that lays out for the patrons how the Internet is going to work, what people will have access to. And that is totally developed locally.

Each library decides how they want their Internet access to work based on that area so that the patrons are served as the patrons want. And that is what we're talking about. We're saying that each library should make these decisions on their own.

Now, there are some libraries who have decided as one of their tools to use technological measures. But most libraries use education. There are a few programs, they're quite oversubscribed. As we do surveys of our patrons and ask they want, what they want are more classes, more Internet access. And this is what we should be spending our money on. I'm afraid I have to disagree with the congressman when he talks about there'll be no financial impact by this. This is an unfunded mandate and it is not paid for in the legislation. They are saying that some of the E-Rate money could be used for this filtering technology, but it's very expensive. And there's a finite amount of E-Rate money, and it would be all used for by a very few libraries and schools if they used to pay for this technology, which would leave nothing for the vast major of schools and libraries which have benefited from the E-Rate.

It also would withhold LSTA money, which is library service technology money and school money for technology. So this is...

BATTISTA: Let me interrupt...

SHEKETOFF: ... this is going to have a huge impact on those schools and libraries that could least afford -- yes, I'm sorry.

BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call quickly from Joe in Pennsylvania.

Joe, go ahead.

JOE: Yes, I keep hearing about these First Amendment rights. Now I don't think that the people that put together the Constitution and wrote the First Amendment had any idea that the spirit of this amendment was going to go into what we are now. It's ridiculous. The freedom of expression, you know, are we going to have sex on the park bench at high noon?

BATTISTA: Well, actually it does go farther than the pornography, Crystal, in the sense that why focus just on pornography in the sense that go after these, you know, hate-speak Web sites or Web sites that teach you how to build a pipe bomb. You know what I mean? It seems like there's so much more, and that could be a slippery slope.

ROBERTS: Well, right. But quite honest, again, the difference between those things and obscenity and children pornography and material harmful to minors in most states is that those materials harmful to minors, obscenity and child pornography, they're not protected by the First Amendment. It's illegal to get access to these things anywhere else, and it's illegal to give minors access to material harmful to minors, which is considered "Playboy," "Penthouse." So...

BATTISTA: But some pornography -- a lot of pornography is protected by the First Amendment. I mean, soft-core...

ROBERTS: That's material...

BATTISTA: Soft-core pornography.

ROBERTS: That's material harmful to minors. But then again, even with material harmful to minors, the only person who has a right to decide that my child can see that is the parent. And for the libraries or for anyone else to step in and say, we're going to give you broad access to all of these things, including this material...

SHEKETOFF: But...

ROBERTS: ... it's unconstitutional for any of you to access is, quite honestly, it's just ridiculous.

SHEKETOFF: But the way the law is written...

BATTISTA: Why don't we put those Web sites out of business if they're breaking the law?

SHEKETOFF: But, Bobbie...

ROBERTS: No, this law is written consistent with extensive amount of case law that's out there.

SHEKETOFF: Bobbie, the way that law is written flies in the face of what Crystal just said...

ROBERTS: No, it does not.

SHEKETOFF: ... because it is taking the decision away from the parent...

ROBERTS: No it doesn't.

SHEKETOFF: ... And it is a congressman in Washington saying, I know better than you...

ROBERTS: No, it's not. Obscenity...

SHEKETOFF: ... and I'm telling you what to do...

ROBERTS: Obscenity is defined by a local jury..

SHEKETOFF: ... The congressman is saying, you must have these technological measures, which we don't believe work...

BATTISTA: I've got to take a break.

SHEKETOFF: ... and that the parent can't make a decision about what their child can and cannot see.

BATTISTA: I'm sorry, Emily. We do have to take a break and we need to say goodbye to you.

Thank you very much for joining us today.

SHEKETOFF: Thank you for having me.

BATTISTA: Appreciate your input on this.

SHEKETOFF: And the librarians appreciate it, as well. BATTISTA: All right, and still ahead we will continue our discussion. Crystal will be staying with us.

And have you ever wondered how far a lawyer defends pornography? Well ask ACLU President Nadine Strossen. She'll joins us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Last month, the Venice Public Library in Florida barred a 17-year-old boy for a year, saying he used library computers to access pornography and sexually oriented chat rooms.

Welcome back.

Joining us now is Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and author of the book, "Defending Pornography."

Nadine, thank you for joining us.

NADINE STROSSEN, ACLU PRESIDENT: Thank you for having me, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: A lot of folks having a little bit of difficulty wrapping their arms around the First Amendment rights that you're protecting.

STROSSEN: I think they would have an easier time, Bobbie, if they understood that the term "pornography" is not a legal term of art. It's not a category of unprotected expression, as you yourself recognized. Pornography is a demonizing term that everybody uses to describe anything in the realm of sexually oriented expression that they don't like.

And, in fact, under that epithet, including on the Internet, what has been targeted includes material that many parents consider not only not to be harmful but actually to be affirmatively beneficial to their own children: for example, material that Planned Parenthood about safer sex puts online about safer sex, about contraception; material that Human Rights Watch puts online about sexual abuse and human rights violations that involves sexual abuse around the country.

The problem, one of the major problems, with this law is that by broadly condemning all sexually-oriented expression, it does not make an exception for even material that has serious value. And that is the distinction between the legal definition of obscenity, which is not constitutionally protected -- it has to lack serious value -- and these broad laws, which squeeze in any sexual material.

I think that it's important to note, Bobbie, that even so-called "traditional family values organizations" have opposed these filters because some of them have suppressed material that is consistent with cultural conservative and religious conservative values. For example, the American Family Association had its own Web site blocked out by the cyberpatrol filtering software because of the anti-gay and anti- lesbian values, which I personally disagree with but I completely defend the right of the American Family Association to purvey anti- homosexual views.

In essence, the First Amendment really makes a very practical and, I think fair point. And that is that it is up to each individual parent to make his or her own determinations consistent with his or her own beliefs, especially in this realm of sexuality, which is so subjective. No two adults possibly agree with each other about what is appropriate or what's not appropriate for a particular child.

That decision cannot be delegated to the government. It cannot be delegated to the public library.

BATTISTA: Let me let Crystal answer that again.

Crystal, how do you not throw the baby out with the bath water?

ROBERTS: Well, first of all, this law does definite the material that's prohibited along those lines of obscenity and child pornography. It specifically uses those legal terms.

STROSSEN: It goes beyond that, Crystal, to harmful to minors.

ROBERTS: And it allows localities to determine, based upon their state material-harmful-to-minor statute, that material to which they're going to restrict minors access to via the Internet-accessible computers in their libraries.

You don't have a Constitutional right to all the material in the world via your public library. It's completely within the Constitution for a public library to determine what material it will or will not provide. You're not restricting anything.

STROSSEN: The public library is the government, let's not forget that. In our system, it is for the individual to decide, not the government to decide.

ROBERTS: If that's the case, then every selection...

STROSSEN: Just listen to the term, "harmful to minors."

ROBERTS: If that's the case...

STROSSEN: Some parents consider the information that your organization puts up harmful to their children. I'm sure people in your organization consider the ACLU's Web site to be harmful to minors. These are very subjective, value-laden decisions that we cannot give to the government.

ROBERTS: Along the definition that you're saying, every selection the library makes in unconstitutional.

BATTISTA: You know, let me make this even more confusing because, you know, the Internet is global; so if a site is coming from Thailand or something...

STROSSEN: Exactly; what this kind of law does is reduce us to the lowest common denominator... ROBERTS: No it does not because the same material is still available on the Internet.

STROSSEN: ... of what the least tolerant parent will -- it's not available on the Internet, first of all to the many families...

ROBERTS: Yes it is. This is only a filtering legislation.

STROSSEN: ... to the many families who do not have access to the Internet except through libraries.

So we are engaging in discrimination, a violation of civil rights as well as a violation of freedom of speech.

ROBERTS: You don't have a Constitutional right to have the government provide access to all of the material that is available out there.

BATTISTA: I've got to take a break. We'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Let me go to Howard here, quickly, in the audience.

Howard, you are leaning towards filters.

HOWARD: I'm leaning towards filters. I think that, when we're talking about libraries in schools, we're talking about public institutions; and I think a municipality has the responsibility to make sure that material is morally uprightous (ph) in that there's no access to immoral -- either pornography or whatever. Images...

BATTISTA: Let me take Dave on the phone from Massachusetts.

DAVE: Hi, Bobbie.

I just totally disagree with, even the person you were just talking to. I don't think there should be any filters in the school or at your library. In the school, you need supervision, and if the teacher thinks that, maybe a student might be seeing pornography, there's a way of -- every site that you go to, they put a cookie and that tracks -- you can see every page that a person has been to.

And also, as far as the library, I should be able to go into the library and view on a computer just as -- anything that I want, just the same as any book, also. Thank you.

BATTISTA: Thank you, Dave.

Nadine, are there currently -- I mean, what is on the books currently in terms of pornography laws on the Internet?

STROSSEN: Well, the laws that have directly censored harmful-to- minors materials, indecent and patently offensive materials beyond the traditional categories of obscenity, as we talked about, have unanimously been held unconstitutional, including by the entire United States Supreme Court in a case called ACLU versus Reno.

And, essentially, the court said the Internet should be as free as books in a library. Now, interesting enough, Bobbie, there has been only one decision challenging a filtering -- mandatory filtering system in a public institution. It involved a public library and the judge in that case said that the Internet mandatory filtering was the equivalent of book-banning, and therefore, it was equally unconstitutional.

BATTISTA: But Crystal -- Let me ask Crystal, because you know what's in books and you don't know what's on the Internet, though. There's a big difference in terms of knowing the content.

ROBERTS: Well, I'd actually differ with the characterization there.

A librarian is not, effectively, selecting the material on the Internet the same way that they are a book. When a librarian selects a book they're making a judgment decision that that book and the message in that book is more worthy of being on their shelves than the three books that are next to it.

And that's, essentially what we're saying -- we're not even making a decision that broad with the Internet. All we're saying is that illegal material should not be accessible via these Internet computers.

STROSSEN: It's equivalent to removing books from the shelves, and that is exactly why librarians oppose it.

ROBERTS: With both the Communications Decency Act and decency sections as well as the Louden (ph) County case, the judges in both of those cases upheld the application of obscenity and child pornography laws to the Internet in the library.

STROSSEN: And we're not quarreling with that. That's a false question. I'm saying we should not take it beyond those categories.

ROBERTS: The court struck down that the indecency section specifically citing the availability of filtering technology and its use across the board.

STROSSEN: That is completely inaccurate.

ROBERTS: No that's not inaccurate. It's not inaccurate at all.

BATTISTA: You guys are getting real legal on us.

STROSSEN: No, this is not legal, this is very practical, Bobbie.

What the courts said was that parents, in their own homes, could use filtering technologies if they so choose. That is completely different from the government imposing filters on all parents in public libraries and schools.

ROBERTS: As applied to obscenity and child pornography. BATTISTA: I've got to take a break. We'll be back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience. We have sort of an argument going on here.

Jim, go ahead.

JIM: Well, I am --- I'm against censorship, but I am a Republican, I'm a conservative guy. But I don't want somebody telling me what I can watch or make a decision for me and my children. I don't want -- because the government can go overboard on that, and I don't want them involved because we don't know where it can end.

BATTISTA: Inga says the government should be involved, it's children.

INGA: Well, this is children, and you cannot be there every moment to watch your child. But the filter can do it and they can make it 100 percent effective. I do believe that. We're in a technological age.

JOHN: Well, who's going to determine -- who's going to determine what's pornography, though? For somebody in Thailand or somebody -- I might have an entirely different idea of what's pornography than you do. So who's going to...

INGA: Yes, but this is money that my telephone bill is paying for.

JOHN: But let's save this money.

INGA: Not in Thailand.

JOHN: Let's put it to better use in something that's proven.

INGA: This is right here now, not around the world.

BATTISTA: If the federal government, if it is federal funding, Nadine, does the government have a right to that mandate, if it's federal tax dollars?

STROSSEN: No, it does not. The Supreme Court has said in a number of decisions, Bobbie, that the government may not do indirectly through the carrot of threatening -- or threatening to withhold the carrot of government funding what it may not do directly through direct censorship. If the end result is to suppress certain expression because it's deemed offensive to the government, that violates the First Amendment.

ROBERTS: But obscenity and child pornography again are not considered expression.

STROSSEN: And we're not talking about them. We're talking about the broader category of harmful to minors... (CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: Of material harmful to minors, which minors cannot access.

STROSSEN: And as John said, no...

ROBERTS: And when you apply that to minors, it's constitutional.

STROSSEN: ... what one considers is harmful, the parents who objected to the religious right Web sites -- they considered that harmful to their minors and other parents...

ROBERTS: That's not -- that's not...

(CROSSTALK)

STROSSEN: ... have a different definition.

ROBERTS: ... sexually explicit material...

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Let me go to Pam in the audience. She -- this is a -- we've got arguments going on all over the place. Pam disagrees with her father, Howard, on this issue.

Pam, go ahead.

PAM: One of the things I think is that we actually need to separate the schools from the libraries. You know who's in the schools, they are minor children, and yes, I think that we should be able to regulate what they can and they can't go to.

Adults are able to go to public libraries. I think that's a totally different discussion.

But also, when we -- if -- say we do put the filters on, then you've got these kids -- we've got 13-year-old kids hacking into NASA. So tell me that you think 13-year-old kids aren't going to be getting around the filters and doing things like that. If you're going to do something, you have to make sure that it's going to work. If it's not going to work, then not only are the kids going to get around it, but then it can also block them from the other sites that maybe their teachers want them to get to. And it's a lose-lose all around.

BATTISTA: I've got to take a break. We'll be back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Well, our audience has pretty much decided this is not an easy question. Taking a look at our online vote, "Are you in favor of Internet filters in public schools and libraries?" 48 percent of you are saying yes, 52 percent are saying no. It's a difference of about 24 votes or so. Our audience is kind of the same way on this. So I'm sure we'll be talking about it again.

Nadine and Crystal, thank you both very much for joining us today. Appreciate it.

We are out of time. Enjoy the weekend. We'll see you again on Monday. "STREET SWEEP" is next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com