CIS 101
Lynn Martin
The information age that we all live in presents new dilemmas every day for which we have to devise solutions. Protecting children from harmful situations is a high priority for parents, teachers and other caregivers. The Internet represents a real and present danger to children, in the minds of parents and educators. The wealth and breadth of information available on the Internet is truly staggering; it is a hypothetical minefield for unsupervised young people. Internet filtering is a solution that has been and continues to be much debated as it relates to the First Amendment.
Both sides have valid points; the proponents of internet filtering feel that at this point their best defense is using filters to keep young people from viewing harmful material, either accidentally or on purpose.
Opponents of internet filtering feel that it violates First Amendment rights and gives adults a false sense of security. Opponents of filtering do not feel that every child should be given carte blanche with Internet access; very young children should never have unsupervised access, but teenagers need to start making decisions about their world and how they fit into it. Critical thinking skills need to be taught; shielding them from any harmful information prevents growth and maturity.
What kinds of information do we want to keep from minors? Many states have outlined material or performances to be harmful to minors if:
The CIPA, or Children's Internet Protection Act was passed in 2000, requiring that libraries and schools that receive federal funding for Internet access install filtering software. (Manley, 2001) How do Internet filters accomplish this task?
Software filters offer three types of filtering: site blocking, content blocking and session recording. Site blocking is the most common filtering mechanism, and the most basic. Filter manufacturers have review panels in place that review sites and recommend them as acceptable or unacceptable for minors. The unacceptable sites are blocked by the computer unless a password is entered by the user. Categories that are commonly blocked are: violence/profanity, partial nudity, sexual acts, gross depictions, racism/ethnic impropriety, satanic/cult, drugs/drug culture, militant/extremist, gambling, questionable/illegal, and alcohol, beer and wine. (Cate 74)
Content blocking is rapidly evolving as a filtering technique. Content blocking impedes the computer user from searching for certain words or terms set up by the parents. If those words are searched the characters show up as "xxx" on the screen. Content blocking also prevents the child from entering personal information into the computer. Session recording does just that, records sites that have been visited by children. This type of filtering does not restrict the flow of information, but records it for the parents to police.
Why is seeking to protect children from "harmful" materials objectionable? The problems with filters are, according to anti-filtering proponents, over filtering and under filtering, and the subjective judgments of the panels reviewing the websites. Most importantly, the criteria which the panel uses to determine which sites will be blocked are not available to consumers. Who are these panel members, what is their bias, why should they decide which sites library patrons can visit?
Constitutionally protected information and information supporting different viewpoints are often blocked by filters. (Elsner 21) Filters may block access to legitimate sites while failing to block "harmful sites." Filters have been known to block such home pages as the Super Bowl XXX, the Mars Exploration site (marsexpl), the Quakers, Mother Jones magazine, the National Rifle Association, the Democratic Party, and Beanie Babies.(Kranich 7)
The American Library Association strongly opposes internet filtering on the basis of First Amendment rights. The ALA's statement is as follows, "The use in libraries of software filters which block Constitutionally protected speech is inconsistent with the United States Constitution and federal law and may lead to legal exposure for the library and its governing authorities; now, therefore, be it resolved that the ALA affirms that the use of filtering software by libraries to block access to constitutionally protected speech violated the Library Bill of Rights." (ALA) The ACLU has joined the fight alongside the ALA for intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. They also believe that installing filters in public libraries turns librarians into "thought police." (ACLU)
Parents, educators and even some librarians are critical of the ALA's stand on internet filtering. They feel that filtering protects children from harmful materials that they could be exposed to either intentionally or otherwise. Many pro filtering supporters do not care if some sites that do not contain subversive materials are filtered erroneously; they feel that if one good site gets filtered out with ten "bad" sites, that is acceptable to them. Proponents of filtering feel that over filtering is better than under filtering; their goal is to protect minors at all costs. Problems with over filtering may mean that inquiring minds will find little information on topics which are of utmost importance to older youths; information on safe sex, sexually transmitted diseases and other such topics may be unavailable at the critical time when such information is needed to make healthy choices.
There are no easy solutions to this modern dilemma; there is no single cure that will satisfy either side on the issue of internet filtering.
May, 2002 a Federal Court in Philadelphia ruled that the CIPA was unconstitutional in public libraries for precisely for the reasons discussed previously: over blocking and under blocking. By blocking certain sites which are deemed inappropriate, certain constitutionally protected free speech may be blocked as well, leading to the ruling.
June 2003, the Supreme Court took up Internet filtering again an ruled that the CIPA must be withheld. The decision was narrowly approved, with Justices Kennedy and Breyer "Not joining Chief Justice Rehnquist' opinion, but only joining the judgment." (ALA) The reason that the two justices did not join opinion was that they felt the filtering could be turned off for adult patrons who request such, which was not seen as a significant barrier to freedom of information. There is, of course, a way for libraries to get around this CIPA, and that is not to accept federal funding, which some libraries could choose to do. This is an issue on which we have not seen the end of the debate.
Frightened and threatened by the plethora of information available to their children, parents have grasped for solutions to ensure their safety and well being. Internet filtering has become the security blanket people were asking for; large and slightly smothering yet keeping the drafts at bay. Internet filtering is not the definitive solution to the problems we face regarding children and the Internet. Filtering gives parents a false sense of security; they feel that their children are protected when they are anything but.
"Today, citizens are being asked to unite in the cause of democracy and freedom. But to serve freedom and democracy, American libraries must continue to provide materials and information that some will consider controversial, dangerous, and yes, even subversive."
(Henderson, 2001)
ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org 29 May 2003.
American Library Association. http://www.ala.org. 6 June 2003.
Cate, Fred. The Internet and the First Amendment: Schools and Sexually Explicit Expression. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation: Bloomington, IN., 1998.
Elsner, Edward. "Legal Aspects of Internet Filtering in Public Libraries." Public Libraries 40.4 (2001): 218-222.
Henderson, Douglas. "Controversy is not a Crisis." Library Administration and Management. 15.1 (2001): 26-29.
Kranich, Nancy. "Libraries, Democracy and Online Access." American Libraries 32.5 (2001): 7.
Manley, Will. "Wooden-headedness." American Libraries 32.5 (2001): 128.