Several civil liberties groups and the American Library Association are standing together against a federal law that would require Internet filters to be placed on computers at school and public libraries.

The groups filed a lawsuit against the law Tuesday in the same court where two other similar laws have been put on hold pending investigation. Both of those laws, the 1996 Communications Decency Act and the earlier Children’s Online Protection Act, were meant to shield children from online pornography.

The current law under question, the Children’s Internet Protection Act, would censor constitutionally protected information from use in libraries.

Some might say that any law that protects children from pornography is an OK idea. And in many ways that is true. Children do need to be closely observed while using the Internet, as there is no restrictions as to what can be placed online.

But under the same circumstance, children also must be closely watched as to what books they are reading, what television shows they are watching. Most parents would not let their children read a pornographic book, so take the same interest in what your kids are doing online.

If we begin to censor the Internet, are we also going to start holding book burning parties for every book that may not be meant for children?

These laws that require Internet filters for public libraries don’t only protect children. The take away the right of free expression and speech from Internet users. And they are unconstitutional.

Stefan Presser, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said in an Associated Press article that the law would most affect adults and children who cannot use the Internet at home.

“The unintended consequence is the widening of the racial digital divide,” Presser said in the AP story.

This is a serious problem these laws bring up. Not only are these laws breaking laws, they are discriminatory. People who are unable to afford the use of the Internet in their homes will only be able to use a filtered version of the Internet at their public libraries.

And, the filters do not only block smut. They often also block information such as health, sexuality and social issues. Words that may have a certain meaning in one sense, may have a very innocent meaning in another, and would be blocked by the filters because of the one meaning. In effect, websites that are not vulgar in nature, but are perhaps educational, will not be able to be accessed through filtered computers because of words with double meanings.

We, as Americans, don’t stand for it when someone tries to silence our speech, or censor our books. Why should we, why would we, stand for someone censoring what we can access on the Internet? Especially at a public institution such as a library.

Libraries should be institutions of information, places to learn about the world around you.

Parents need to watch what their kids are reading or viewing, it is not the responsibility of the government to step in and tell the public as a whole what they can or cannot see.