The U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide if the government can restrict Internet surfing at public libraries, the third case pitting free speech concerns against efforts to shield children from online pornography to reach the justices.

The Court will resolve whether federal funding can be stripped from libraries that don't install filters on computers to block sexually explicit Web sites.

The decision would affect more than 14 million people a year who use public library computers to do research, send and receive e-mail, and, in some cases, log onto adult sites.

A three-judge federal panel in Pennsylvania ruled last spring that the Children's Internet Protection Act violates the Constitution's First Amendment because the filtering programs also block sites on politics, health, science and other nonpornographic topics.

The judges recommended less restrictive ways to control Internet use, such as requiring parental consent before minors are allowed to log in on an unfiltered computer or having a parent monitor a child's Web use.

"The filtering turns the Internet into something fit for a 5-year-old, and not even that. It blocks enormous amounts of protected speech," said Charles Sims, a First Amendment lawyer in New York. "Congress can't get it right."

Lawmakers have passed three child protection laws since 1996, but the Supreme Court struck down the first and blocked the second from taking effect. Those dealt with regulations on Web site operators. Legislators tried a new approach with the 2000 law, arguing that it should be able to regulate government property.

"The government has more authority when it's controlling the purse strings than when it's deciding what people can do with private funds and private property," said Eugene Volokh, a conservative constitutional expert at UCLA Law School.

Still, Volokh predicts the government will lose as the Court again grapples with the balance between protecting children and preserving free speech. The Court has been very protective of First Amendment rights.

The Bush administration said in its filings that libraries are not required to have X-rated movies and pornographic magazines and shouldn't have to offer access to pornography on their computers.

The law is opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association and other groups.

"The public library is for everybody. That's why it's called public," Barbara Gloriod, a librarian in Washington, D.C., for more than 20 years, said Tuesday as patrons surfed the Internet nearby on computers without filters. "Filters are just not good enough. They don't filter out all the bad and they do filter out some of the good."

The state of Texas joined the federal arguments at the Supreme Court.

"Parents should not be afraid to send their children to the library, either because they might be exposed to such materials or because the library's free, filterless computers might attract people with a propensity to victimize children," wrote Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who was elected to the U.S. Senate last week.

Congress knew the latest law would be challenged, and directed any appeals to go straight to the Supreme Court after a trial before a three-judge panel.

U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the lower court panel's ruling hurts Congress' effort to ensure that money spent for education does not pay instead for access "to the enormous amount of illegal and harmful pornography on the Internet."

Paul Smith, the library association's attorney, said thousands of Web sites that have nothing to do with sex are blocked by filtering companies. "You have an awful lot of censorship going on, and it's censorship the librarian is not in control of," he said.

The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. The Court said the law violated free speech rights because it would keep material from adults who have a right to see it.

This year the Court upheld part of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which required Web sites to collect credit card numbers or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed harmful to minors. But justices did not rule on the law's constitutionality, and the government was barred from enforcing it.

The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361.
Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX - ALBUQUERQUE CAMPUS

Course              This course focuses on ethical issues confronted by individuals in carrying out their managerial and
Description:        professional responsibilities.  The application of moral concepts to practical decision-making is
                          stressed.  The obligations of business to the community and society-at-large are also discussed.

Location:          Albuquerque Jefferson/Osuna Campus
Schedule:           Thursdays, 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Calendar:          Begin 14 Nov 2002;  End 19 Dec 2002

Required Texts:    Ethical Theory and Business,  5th edition [UoP Special Edition Series]
                            Beauchamp, T.L., and Bowie, N.E.,  Prentiss-Hall, 1997

Instructor:         Mr. Dennis Manzanares

Biography:       Mr. Manzanares graduated from the College of Santa Fe in 1973 with his B.A., majoring in Teaching of the
                        Social Sciences (secondary education certified).  He then received his Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown
                        University Law Center (Washington, DC) in 1976.  During the course of his 25-plus years as a licensed
                        attorney, Mr. Manzanares has been both a government attorney and in private practice.  Mr. Manzanares has
                        been a trainer and consultant for businesses and organizations since the ‘70s and in 1999, Mr. Manzanares
                        began his interactive commerce business, e-Comm Professional Services.

Telephone:
Home:                        505.758.8660
Office:                        505.758.8660
Fax Number:              505.751.3066
Toll-free Message       866-883-9405
Email Address:            mailto:taosatty@quixnet.net 
Web Page:                  http://laplaza.org/~taosatty/bus_law_syl.htm
                                  www.taosatty.digitale www.taosatty.digitalebiz.com biz.com

Availability:               Before and After class and by appointment

Assignments:           As provided in the Module.  By UoP policy, no changes are permitted for Class 1.  Subsequent changes
                                may be made as class needs dictate and, if any changes to the module are made, such change(s) will be
                                announced in class, posted on the instructor’s website, and an email will be sent to all students

Grading:                   Sample grading scale based on a 100 point scale (actual points assigned may vary).
                                  %       Grade                    %           Grade
                                95+       A                        73-75        C
                                91-94    A-                       70-72        C-
                                87-90    B+                       67-69        D+
                                83-86    B                         65-69        D
                                79-82    B-                     <64              F
                                76-78    C+
        A    =    Excellent performance.
        B    =    Above average performance
        C    =    Average performance.  Accomplishes only the minimum requirements. Oral and written communication is at an
                        acceptable level for a graduate student.
        D    =    Below average but passing.  The student demonstrates minimal competencies.  Student’s work may demonstrate
                        knowledge but lacks application and/or synthesis.  Assignments may be incomplete or missing.
        F    =    Failing.  Student is unable to document or demonstrate evidence of meeting minimal expectations for the
                        appropriate college level work.  Work submitted is insufficient to justify a passing grade.

General Standards:
All written work will be graded according to APA guidelines, as appropriate for the program. Twenty percent of the grade will be based on style, content and format including such items as clarity of communication, sentence and paragraph construction, punctuation, spelling, and grammar.

Page limitations will be adhered to (does not include cover sheet, bibliography, or attachments), as well as adherence to the focus of the assignment.

Assignments are late if not submitted on or before the due date.  A penalty will be assessed for all late work as defined in the syllabus.  If late, the assignment of an “ A “ will be rare as timeliness is a requisite in defining excellence.

Course Standards:
The University of Phoenix Adult Teaching Learning Model is based on the assumption that in preparation for every course, students will satisfy all prerequisites.  During the course itself, students will achieve certain learning outcomes.  All performance assessment depends upon the accomplishment of these outcomes.  Students are graded on achievement, rather than effort.  It is the responsibility of the student to come to class prepared for each workshop.

The University trusts that each student will maintain high standards of honesty and ethical behavior.  All assignments submitted in fulfillment of course requirements must be the student’s own work.  All assignments except those designated as “group” are meant to represent the effort of each individual student.  Group projects and assignments should represent equal efforts by all group members.

While the University’s Teaching/Learning Model emphasizes the sharing of professional experiences in the context of analyzing relevant course materials, it is against the policy of the University of Phoenix for students or faculty members to share information in class about present or past employers that would be considered proprietary, confidential, company sensitive, or trade secret.

It is assumed that students will perform professionally in preparing work required for this class.

Attendance:  Attendance at all class sessions is mandatory.

Absences:    Participation should account for a minimum of 20% of the student’s overall grade.   Students who miss
                a class, or who leave early, will not receive participation points for that class, as appropriate.  If an
                absence is necessary, the student must contact the faculty member.  Second Absences are not allowed.
                Please note:  Any absence may affect the student’s grade.

In the midst of it all, her company in peril, owner Poindexter fired a client. Although she declined to give the details, Poindexter said the decision came down to a question of right and wrong, not dollars and cents, when the customer repeatedly violated government regulations.

"I personally sleep better knowing that what we do every day is something that I can live with. If that means my business is not as vigorous as someone else's, that's OK, because that is not my primary goal," she said.

Financial consultant William Parker called Poindexter's move courageous in the face of intense financial pressure.

"For somebody to do something like [that], to the point of putting their own business at risk, is really a hell of a move," said Parker, who nominated PRM for the Georgia Business Ethics Award in the small-business category. Parker, president of ABG Financial Services Inc., has consulted for both Poindexter and her company for more than 10 years.

Judges chose PRM as the winner of the Atlanta chapter of the Society of Financial Services Professionals' award in part for its spirited emphasis on ethical business practices, even while facing serious short-term difficulties.

"The judges were looking for companies that not only talk the talk, but can walk the walk as well," said Ellwood Oakley, a professor of business ethics at Georgia State University, and chairman of the judging panel.

Uncomfortable with the boom
The go-go economic boom of the late 1990s treated PRM well, Poindexter said. As with many small firms, growth came easily. A provider of clerical support, billing and collection services, staffing and office management for health plans and physicians, PRM experienced strong profit growth, and the company once employed 30 people. Even so, Poindexter said that she grew uncomfortable with the actions of some competitors — even clients — that bordered on the dishonest. Although she would not elaborate, Poindexter suggested that some organizations seemed to have no qualms about fudging on insurance reimbursement filings.

"We observed many practices that made it very difficult for us to hold on to our beliefs. It would have at times been easier to cheat a little than to do the right thing," she said.

Unwilling to eschew ethics for profit, Poindexter enlisted the help of Atlanta management consultant Gary Rollins, who developed the Principle Impact Program. All employees participated in the 18-month syllabus, which centered on fostering integrity, responsibility and accountability in both their business and personal lives.

PRM canonized its ethical standards into a seven-point statement of corporate principles, covering legal compliance, business ethics, conflicts of interest, business relationships and asset protection. The document also established policies for reporting and investigating suspected violations of regulations and procedures. An accompanying code of conduct goes into greater detail and lays out specific procedures.

"I carry a big responsibility to set the tone for ethical behavior in this company," Poindexter said. "Some other business leaders may not be called to that level of accountability."

Ethics over economy
The cost of running an ethical business is, at times, steep. PRM began 2002 with 23 employees. It has fewer than half that number now. Poindexter estimates that the company will finish the year with revenue of about $1.5 million, down $200,000 from 2001.

Poindexter concedes that as her company overcomes obstacles and begins to grow again, it will be challenging to monitor ethical compliance as closely as can be done in a smaller operation. She is encouraged, however, that establishing a good base now will bode well down the road.

"When leadership is responsible for routinely articulating values, there is a better chance that you can minimize some of the bad things that can go on," she said.

William Parker hopes that other companies take notice of what PRM is doing. "When you have an organization that can achieve recognition of this type, particularly in today's environment, it speaks well for America," he said.

© 2002 American City Business Journals Inc.

Click Here to Email Dennis Manzanares

Return to UNM Courses Home Page

Return to Manzanares Home Page