Internet Filtering Policy Remains an Issue
By D. Mick
Librarians continue to advocate for the right to free speech. Just because the internet has been in general use for almost 20 years, does not mean that the fight to limit information has been settled. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "The use 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, it be resolved, that the American Library Association affirms that the use of filtering software by libraries to block access to constitutionally protected speech violates the Library Bill of Rights" (www.ala.org). In 2000, Congress enacted Federal Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires public libraries to certify that they are using computer filtering software so that children do not have access to obscenity, child pornography or other material that might be harmful to minors. The ALA challenged the ruling and, in June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that CIPA does not violate First Amendment rights, because libraries may disable the filters for adult patrons, upon request (www.ncsl.org).
What does this mean for librarians? Twenty-one states have Internet filtering laws, and it is up to librarians, library boards, and school boards to adopt policies that will stop minors from accessing sexually explicit, obscene, or harmful materials (www.ncsl.org). Many libraries and schools include social networks in their blocked sites. Social networking tools allow young people to improve communication skills, share pictures and documents, collaborate, and exchange information. With this freedom of sharing comes responsibility and caution. Instead of blocking social networking sites, parents, teachers, and librarians need to educate students on how to safely navigate the information highway. Librarians and teachers should implement programs to teach parents and youth about internet safety similar to a program in Park Hill, Missouri where students are taught that "courtesy, mutual respect, and civility exist on the web just as they do in person." (Ramaswami, 2009). Restricting these sites in schools and libraries is missing an opportunity to inform and educate the overwhelming number of young people who frequently use social networks. A National School Boards Association (NSBA) conducted "study found that 96 percent of 9- to 17-year-old students participate in online social networks; of that group, 59 percent use social media to talk about educational topics, and 50 percent talk specifically about schoolwork" (Ramaswami, 2009).
Filtering computers is only partially successful. Because there are multiple types of web filters, it is up to the staff to find one that best meets its needs. There are IP and URL blacklists, content filtering, and combinations of these. All can be circumvented, and keeping the IP and URL blacklists up to date is time consuming and often disregarded. An advantage to newer content filters is that they can reduce the threats of malware that is particularly troublesome with social media sites. Brad Dinerman, founder and president of the National Information Security Group (NISG) and president of Fieldbrook Solutions, a security consulting firm urges schools to bite the bullet and replace firewalls and filters instead of using out of date versions. He remarks "relying on an old firewall is like protecting a bank vault with a screen door." (Ramaswami, 2009).
By using the right kind of filters and firewalls, schools and libraries can allow for the sharing of information in accordance with the First Amendment right of free speech and create safe learning environments for youth.
The United States stands for intellectual freedom and an educated republic. We caution other countries not to limit the access of information to their citizens. In January 2010, Google.cn quit complying with China's censorship of politically and socially sensitive issues. "US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly praised Google and called for a global end to Web censoring, prompting a critical response from the Chinese government." (Chen and Wang, 2010). This was less than a year after the U.S. government pressured China to revoke the Green Dam requirement that China was placing on all computers sold in China. Green Dam is a desktop Web filter, so not only would public computers be blocked, so would every privately owned computer. It is essential for librarians to be educated on software that will protect computers from attacks, to educate users on protecting themselves by self-censoring the personal information they share, and to continue the fight to keep a free flow of information, allowing only for the government mandated CIPA to protect the young against child pornography and obscenity.
References
American Library Association. (1997, July 2) Resolution on the use of filtering software in libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=IF_Resolutions&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13076.
Chen, T.M. and Yang, V. (March 2010) Web filtering and censoring: Information on the Web is not as uncontrolled as it may appear. Computer. 43:3 pp. 94-97. Retrieved from http://computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/MC.2010.84.
National Conference of State Legislators. (2009, December 28). Children and the Internet: Laws relating to filtering, blocking and usage policies in schools and libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/TelecommunicationsInformationTechnology/StateInternetFilteringLaws/tabid/13491/Default.aspx.
Ramaswami, R. (2010 June-July). Nothing to lol about: to dodge threats to students from social media, districts are choosing an unfortunate solution: blocking technology that has sub-stantial educational value. New filtering tools offer a better option. T H E Journal (Technological Horizons in Education). 37.6 pp. 24-25.
We need to keep in mind that there's a practical limit to librarians' (...or anyones') ability to protect minors from obscenity in a library (...or anywhere).
ReplyDeleteFor example, librarians can exclude pornographic magazines from their periodical shelves -- but they cannot stop someone from bringing such a magazine into the library and giving it to a minor.
Likewise, librarians can install filters on their computers, but they cannot prevent someone from providing a private link to obscene material to a minor; a link that is not stopped by the filtering software.
The best way to protect minors (or anyone) from exposure to harmful obscenity is to educate them as to the nature of the threat and the potential harm it could cause them. Librarians (or anyone) can then take reasonable steps to prevent exposure. And if they do that, they cannot be held accountable for exposure that happens in spite of their reasonable efforts.
Yes, there is a limit to the extent librarians can oversee minors using the library computers. Internet filters, while helpful, cannot keep all obscene or harmful material off of the computers. That is why education is important. Education by parents, teachers, and librarians to protect children from divulging too much private information, accessing inappropriate cites, reporting cyber-bullying, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat one parent regards as appropriate for their child, another may deem inappropriate. Librarians should not be called upon to make this distinction. PARENTS are the guardians of their children and are responsible for protecting and teaching moral principles to their own children.
I agree with Diane, but there is another extremely good reason to filter. As a parent, it is certainly my responsibility to police my children's use of the internet. However, to protect my family in the event that someone else’s child comes over and uses our internet connection for illicit purposes, I also filter our internet connection at home (I have five children ages 10-16).
ReplyDeleteLest you think this never happens, one of our sons was involved in an incident with a couple of his 13 year old friends. They were at one of the boy’s home’s with an unfiltered internet connection and "one of the boys" (read all of the boys) looked at some inappropriate sites. The homeowner-parents eventually discovered the breach and telephoned each of the other boys' parents to let everyone know what had occurred. Of course, the boys all blamed each other. Had this occurred at my house, not only would the boys have been unable to access the sites, but even if they had, my family could not be held liable for any harm that befell the boy’s because I filter our connection (i.e., act reasonably).
Libraries and librarians are often quick to see the "harms" of filtering, but they also need to understand that as organizations that cater to children they face serious legal consequences for being negligent. Even defending a case like this could easily costs $100k-$200k. Examined from this perspective, a filter is cheap insurance, even if it is set to its lowest possible setting.
In short, anyone that makes a computer or an internet connection available to someone else’s children should filter.
I don't think most of us are worried that our kids will discover Taoism while using a computer.....It is the unlimited access anything with inappropriate sexual content that scares us and that our kids will do something to which there is no delete key. As a pracical matter in the library, and I know not every library would have this kind of resource, I did run across what appears to be a fair solution. The basis of which is 1. No one can use the library computers for an illegal purpose. 2. The computers open to the general public including the kiddies....are filtered. 3. There is a seperate room, with a door where there are unfiltered computers and you have to be 18 and prove it to access those computers.
ReplyDelete