By a 6-3 majority, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled today that public libraries can filter pornography—or subjects banned by library policy, including guns, violence, and other web content—for the purpose of protecting children. But the case stemmed from adults who requested that those filters be turned off for them (sometimes the filters even block research on breast cancer because sites contain the word "breast," for instance), but were refused by library staff.

"We conclude that a library can, subject to the limitations set forth in this opinion, filter Internet access for all patrons, including adults, without violating article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution," writes Washington Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen. She concludes:

A public library has traditionally and historically enjoyed broad discretion to select materials to add to its collection of printed materials for its patrons' use. We conclude that the same discretion must be afforded a public library to choose what materials from millions of Internet sites it will add to its collection and make available to its patrons. A public library has never been required to include all constitutionally protected speech in its collection and has traditionally had the authority, for example, to legitimately decline to include adult-oriented material such as pornography in its collection. This same discretion continues to exist with respect to Internet materials.

State Librarian Jan Walsh rejoiced at the news, writing in a statement, “I know that the library community is divided over this issue and certainly as a veteran librarian I understand the points of view about unfettered access versus policies that protect our school children and others from pornography and other objectionable and potentially harmful material. I believe this 6-3 Supreme Court ruling, and the federal ruling that we expect will follow, provides public libraries with permission to adopt a reasonable filter system if that fits the needs of their community. We support libraries listening to their patrons. If that value is to have no filter, then that’s fine."

But the case, brought by library patrons and the American Civil Liberties Union, drew the dissent of three judges. In a dissent authored by Justice Tom Chambers, he wrote, "I am not unsympathetic to the goal of protecting children. But that laudable goal has all too often been advanced as a ground to restrict constitutionally protected speech generally though, at least in our state before today, usually unsuccessfully."

"Simply put," Chambers concluded, "the State has no interest in protecting adults from constitutionally protected materials on the Internet. These policies do exactly that. The filter should be removed on the
request of an adult patron. Concerns that a child might see something unfortunate on the screen must be dealt with in a less draconian manner."

The case now returns to a federal district court, where the case originated. The US District court had remanded the case to the state, requesting the state supreme court examine Washington's constitutional provisions for free speech.