Internet Filtering : Should libraries filter internet content? Paul M. Schoenhard ’00 CS 99, 00W 7 March 2000

Internet Filtering: Should libraries filter internet

content?

Paul M. Schoenhard ’00CS 99, 00W

7 March 2000

Internet Filtering… The Issue The Facts The Stakeholders The Positions The Cases The Alternatives Conclusions


The Issue

Should libraries [be required to] filter internet content?

What is a library’s role in the community?

Who should decide what a library grants access to?

What are the costs and benefits of internet filtering?


The Facts – Basic Statistics Over 60% of the

public libraries in America offer Internet access to the public

45% of Internet users gain access at public libraries

The Facts – Filtering

How it works Software works with browser to block

transmission of “objectionable” sites Keyword-based filtering

Text-based searches to categorize sites List-based filtering

Explicitly identifies sites which may be considered “objectionable”

The Facts – Filtering

It doesn’t work well http://www2.epic.org/reports/filter_report.

html American Red Cross San Diego Zoo Smithsonian

Others: The Safer Sex Page American Family Association Banned Books On-Line


The Stakeholders Library Patrons

Libraries

Government

Everybody

The Key Players “If libraries allow access to porn,

even for adults, then the public will be subsidizing a peep-show booth.”

Robert Peters, PresidentMorality in Media

“Censorship in any venue is a danger to liberty. Though the technology is different, the arguments are the same.”

Christine Link, Executive DirectorACLU (Ohio office)

The Key Players Pro-filtering

AFA Morality in Media Congress Religious Right

Anti-Filtering IFEA ACLU ALA People for the

American Way


Position – Pro-Filtering Basic Arguments

Legal Communications Decency Act Internet School Filtering Act

Ethical Protection of Minors Hostile Work Environment Subsidized “peep-show booth”

Position – Anti-Filtering Basic Arguments

Legal 1st Amendment Commerce Act

Ethical Freedom of Expression Library may be most comfortable/only

location to research sensitive topics Better Alternatives


The Cases New York Boston California CDA (ACLU v.

Reno) Virginia Michigan

Case – CDA (ACLU v. Reno)“In order to deny minors access to

potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another… As we have explained, the Government may not ‘reduce the adult population… to… only what is fit for children.’”

Case – Loudoun Co., Virginia First major court case on library

filtering Sexual harassment argument in

addition to general access issues Verdict: “unconstitutional” “What we were trying to achieve in our original

Internet policy was to treat Net access like our book and movie collections where there is judgement involved in picking the materials”

Case – Holland, Michigan First city to put the issue on the ballot “shut its doors rather than install the

filters” Added issue: Holland comprises only

1/3 of taxpayers who fund the library Voted 4,379 to 3,626 against the

proposal


The Alternatives Internet Usage Policies Privacy Screens Internet “Driver’s-Ed” Links to “Good” Sites Parental Control Shoulder-Tap

The Alternatives Internet Usage Policies Privacy Screens Internet “Driver’s-Ed” Links to “Good” Sites• Parental Controlx Shoulder-Tap


Conclusions Internet filtering in public libraries

is WRONG: Acceptable alternatives DO exist Filtering blocks valuable content Any content blocked abridges basic

freedom of speech and expression

Documents

Internet Filtering : Should libraries filter internet content? Paul M. Schoenhard ’00 CS 99, 00W 7 March 2000