Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4725, 26 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1609, 2 F. Supp. 2d 783 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public library that provides internet access may not enforce content-based restrictions on constitutionally protected speech for adult patrons unless the restrictions survive strict scrutiny, meaning they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
Facts:
- The Loudoun County public library system, managed by the Board of Trustees (Library Board), provides patrons with internet access.
- On October 20, 1997, the Library Board adopted a 'Policy on Internet Sexual Harassment.'
- The Policy required the installation of 'site-blocking software' on all library computers to block child pornography, obscene material, and material deemed 'Harmful to Juveniles.'
- To implement this policy, the Library Board installed 'X-Stop,' a commercial filtering software product.
- Adult library patrons, including members of the plaintiff association Mainstream Loudoun, found that the software blocked access to websites they believed contained constitutionally protected speech, such as the Quaker Home Page and the American Association of University Women-Maryland site.
- The library's procedure for unblocking a site required a patron to submit a written request, including their name and telephone number, explaining why they needed access, with library staff having discretion to grant or deny the request.
Procedural Posture:
- Mainstream Loudoun and ten individual patrons sued the Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Public Library and several individual officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The plaintiffs brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the library's internet filtering policy.
- The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Individual Defendants, asserting various forms of immunity.
- The defendants also filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, arguing the filtering policy was constitutional.
- The District Court considered these motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public library's policy of using content-based filtering software on its internet-accessible computers, which blocks access to constitutionally protected speech for adult patrons, violate the First Amendment's free speech clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Brinkema, District Judge
Yes. A public library's policy of using content-based filtering software to block constitutionally protected speech from adult patrons violates the First Amendment. The court reasoned that unlike the school library in Board of Education v. Pico, which has an inculcative mission, a public library is a place for 'freewheeling and independent inquiry' for adults, and the justifications for affording schools discretion are not present. The court characterized the act of filtering the internet not as a selective 'acquisition' of materials but as a 'removal' from a vast collection already made available, as providing internet access makes all publications instantly accessible. Therefore, the library's content-based restriction is subject to strict scrutiny. The policy fails this test because it is not narrowly tailored; it suppresses a substantial amount of protected speech for adults in an effort to protect children, effectively reducing the adult population to seeing only what is fit for children, a practice found unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU. The unblocking procedure also imposes an unconstitutional chilling effect by requiring patrons to petition the government for access to disfavored speech.
Analysis:
This case was one of the first to address the constitutionality of internet filtering in public libraries, establishing a crucial distinction between the roles of public libraries and school libraries under the First Amendment. By applying strict scrutiny, the court set a high constitutional bar for any public library seeking to implement content-based internet filters that affect adult patrons. This decision affirmed that once a government entity creates a forum for speech by providing internet access, it cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination without a compelling justification, significantly influencing subsequent litigation and policies regarding internet access in public institutions nationwide.
