I arrived at around two (the hearing was scheduled for 2:30) with Jim D'Entremont of the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression. Another hearing was in session, which broke around 2:10. At 2:15 another BCFE member, Ian MacKinnon, arrived. And then, almost at 2:30, came John Roberts and Wendy Kaminer of the ACLU of Massachusetts. No one else was there. We decided the hearing must have been postponed. I checked at the office of Councilor Maureen Feeney (who called the hearing) and was told it would go on. When I returned to Council Chambers, Feeney came up to me and said they were running a little late.

At about 2:50, John Roberts and Wendy Kaminer left, leaving their written testimony for submission. The hearings finally commenced at three. The three Councilors present were Feeney, Jim Kelly (well-known arch-conservative and general troglodyte -- at one point he said with pride, "I don't even know how to spell computer"), and my own City Councilor, Thomas Keane -- who is very good.

Extensive testimony was given by the new BPL president, Bernard Margolis, who outlined the terms of the compromise that has been reached. Cyber Patrol will be installed in the children's rooms of libraries within the BPL system. It will not be installed on other computers. Children may use computers without blocking software if they have parental permission to do so.

Unanswered questions were: What Cyber Patrol settings will be used in the Children's Room? How will the parental consent system work? (Will the default be permission to use unblocked terminals, or vice versa? Would parental permission be given just once, or would it need to be given every time a minor wanted unblocked access? At what age would parental permission no longer be needed?)

Councilor Keane was quick to zero in on the basic flaw in the compromise. He pointed out that children do not need parental permission for unfettered access to books in the BPL. He pointed out that Boston's Museum of Fine Arts just had a big Herb Ritts show (terrible, by the way), and that the show was heavily promoted by the city. He pointed out that Ritts's work is just the sort of thing that Cyber Patrol blocks. Also, he pointed out that books in the BPL contain Ritts's work and that minors have unfettered access to these works. So Keane's essential question to Margolis was, How can the BPL require parental consent in one medium but not another when the content is identical? Margolis was never able to give a satisfactory answer to the question.

I testified next, and raised 8 objections to Cyber Patrol. (I'll work my testimony into HTML and link it to the Menino page.) I granted that the compromise probably would pass Constitutional muster if adults were granted unblocked access and children could have unblocked access with parental permission. But I concurred that Keane had raised a valid point. I also mentioned that the compromise policy still violated the ALA policy against age discrimination, and that public libraries in Massachusetts are bound to ALA policies by a law passed in 1982. Margolis didn't respond to these points, however, because he had to leave for another engagement.

After my testimony I faced hostile grilling by Kelly, who was concerned about kids seeing images of bestiality. I tried to point out that these images were much more likely to be found on Usenet than on the Web, but I didn't do a very good job of explaining the differences between the internet, the WWW, Usenet, etc.

I also talked about the harmful-to-minors standard, and that blocking harmful-to-minors materials for kids was consistent both with the law and the Library Bill of Rights. Councilor Feeney was under the impression that it was illegal for minors to attend R-rated movies unaccompanied by their parents or guardians. I was able, I think, to straighten her out, citing MPAA v. Spectre.

Ian's testimony pretty much followed the lines of my own. He also suggested the appointment of a citizens' committee to investigate these issues and to report back.

Although the compromise is not final, and although there will be legal problems with it, I predict it will go unchallenged. If adults have full access, and minors have full access with parental permission, I doubt anyone is going to mount a legal challenge -- even though the policy is in violation of state law requiring adherence to the Library Bill of Rights.

An interesting question: Where does this leave the Library Bill of Rights? Will they leave the age-discrimination clause intact, or will they modify it? Will they find it acceptable to allow age-discrimination for the internet, but not for printed material?

The Boston compromise -- like all compromises -- does not fully satisfy anyone's concerns. But I think it will stick because the costs of challenging it outweigh the benefits. But it puts the ALA in a difficult position, and it's by no means certain how this whole thing is going to play out.

Councilor Feeney was obviously very disappointed by the turnout. The hearing received NO media coverage whatsoever. She promised that the hearings will continue.

After the hearing, I had a little chance to talk with Tom Keane, who greeted me with, "So you're the one with the nude cat." Jim and I just moved to Boston last summer, and we've never had a chance to see our representative in Boston City government in action before. I was very positively impressed with him. He seems smart; he seems very computer literate; and he seems to have an appreciation of First Amendment issues.