You are here: UK Essays » Essays » English Language » Internet Regulation

Free Essays - English Language Essays

The Debate over Internet Regulation at Public Libraries

In the home, the responsibility for monitoring children’s Internet access is that of the parents, but Internet computers are now present in virtually every school and public library in the country. Some people believe that the installation of filters on public library computers is a good method of protecting children and adults from being exposed to illegal or inappropriate materials, while others maintain that blocking software should not be placed on public library computers, and instead alternative methods of promoting Internet safety should be implemented. On one side of the debate, pro-filter advocates such as Bruce Watson of the nonprofit organization Enough is Enough; David Burt, president and founder of Filtering Facts, a now defunct organization that promoted filters in the late 1990s and early 2000s; and Hampton (Skip) Auld – filter advocate, ALA councilor-at-large (2003-2004) and former assistant director of the Chesterfield County, Virginia Public Library – say that Internet filters are necessary on public library computers, in order to protect innocent children from viewing harmful or obscene material. On the other side of the fence, anti-filtering advocates are represented by past ALA president Nancy Kranich; Marjorie Heins, Christina Cho, and Ariel Feldman of the Free Expression Policy Project, and Deborah Caldwell-Stone, a legal expert and deputy director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom. After evaluating arguments made by representatives from both sides of the debate, it is clear that the Internet filtering opponents make a stronger case than the Internet filtering proponents.

The need to protect children from accessing potentially harmful materials online became a major issue in the late 1990’s. The Internet was still relatively new to the majority of the public and it was growing exponentially. An unlimited array of subject matter was available at the touch of a button, and parents grew increasingly concerned that their children may be exposed to inappropriate or harmful materials while using the Internet. Content blocking software companies quickly grew, and a lucrative industry was created, offering products with names such as X-Stop, CyberSitter, and NetNanny that promised to allay parental anxiety (Bastian). Librarians were already developing methods in public libraries to promote safe Internet use such as Internet-access policies, user-education programs, safety guidelines, links to recommended sites, and reference assistance (Kranich 16).

Around the same time, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill to the Senate in 1999 that became known as the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) when it was signed into law on December 21, 2000. The purpose of the bill was to protect children from being exposed to “visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors” (Internet 2). CIPA mandated that public libraries must install filtering software on their Internet computers or else lose federal funding. In 2001, The American Library Association, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and others, appealed the Court’s decision on the basis that CIPA was unconstitutional. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that CIPA was in fact unconstitutional; however, CIPA was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003 (Caldwell-Stone16). As it stands now, many public libraries choose to forgo federal funding so that they need not place blocking software on their computers.

The question of whether Internet filters should be placed on computers in public libraries continues to be controversial. Three contentious filtering issues that are the subject of debate include:

• the problem of whether filters work
• the constitutionality of filter implementation in public libraries
• the role of filtering software in materials selection

Examining the arguments from each side of the above issues provides insight into the strength and validity of the opposing viewpoints.

Anti-censorware advocates say that filters simply do not work and often do more harm than good. Former ALA president Nancy Kranich, in her response to Hampton Auld’s pro-filter article in Public Libraries, summarizes her side's stance on the use of filters on public library computers by stating that filters “sweep too broadly, block only some sites with indecent materials while restricting access to thousands of legal and useful resources, and fail to block communication sent through other popular channels for distributing pornography like peer-to-peer file sharing” (Auld 200). Heins, Cho, and Feldman’s analysis of the current filtering debate backs up Kranich’s points. In their extensively researched 87-page report titled “Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report,” they cite recent studies by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Kaiser Family Foundation, among others, which show that filters are “still seriously flawed, despite improved technology and effectiveness in blocking some pornographic content” (Heins, Cho, and Feldman 6 ). Pro-filter advocates concede that filters might not work perfectly but say that they work well enough.

Hampton Auld, in his article “Do Internet Filters Infringe upon Access to Material in Libraries?,” asserts that filters are in fact effective. Citing statistics from a 2003 survey published by the Library Data Service in Public Libraries, Auld states that filters can be bypassed quickly and that only a small number of requests to have filters bypassed by customers has been reported (197). Yet, on this point, Auld fails to address the actual number of innocuous Web sites that are still being blocked by filters. Nor does he address the fact that filters often fail to block the inappropriate material for which they are designed. His argument that filters are effective does not actually address the issue of effectiveness, but rather is an example of a straw man logical fallacy. He misses the point, and argues something other than the question of whether filters work. Bruce Watson, in his article “Public Schools and Libraries Should Install Internet Filters,” shares the belief that filters are effective and attempts to prove his point by criticizing the opposing side, stating that the ALA and ACLU are engaged in “an astonishingly persistent disinformation campaign” (24). Watson stresses repeatedly that 92% of the public disagrees with the anti-filtering advocates, citing a survey by the Digital Media Forum (22). Watson’s entire article is rife with logical fallacies, from appeals to emotions and fear, poisoning the well to make the opposing side appear unintelligent and misguided, and appealing to popularity, by repeatedly asserting the statistic that 92% of Americans want pornography filtered out of school computers (22, 23), to name but a few. Therefore, on the point of filter effectiveness, the anti-filtering advocates have a much stronger argument because the content-blocking software supporters commit logical fallacies or employ unfair methods to attempt to discredit the opposition rather than discussing the actual filtering issue.

Another point that is often debated is the constitutionality of public libraries being compelled to block Internet content. Opponents of filtering believe that being compelled by CIPA to install filters on public library computers amounts to censorship. The free speech rights protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution are of seminal importance to public librarians who view libraries as “bastions of democracy that safeguard free speech as well as provide safe and enriching havens for both children and adults” (Auld 201). Deborah Caldwell-Stone, in “Public Libraries and the Internet,” states that librarians view CIPA as an “unconstitutional prior restraint” and a “threat to the libraries’ ability to provide free access to information on the Internet” (Caldwell-Stone 16). Filters infringe upon the rights of library patrons to receive information and upon the free speech rights of the authors of “at least 20 percent of three billion benign Web sites – a whopping 600 million-plus sites” (Kranich 15) which are erroneously blocked by filters. Heins, Cho and Feldman list example after example of documented protected speech that was incorrectly blocked by filters (6). This is a particularly effective technique of arguing because of the sheer amount of objective evidence they present. The other side of the argument though, maintains that citizen’s rights are not violated by the use of filters. In the ruling upholding CIPA in 2003, Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained that even though filters “erroneously block access to constitutionally protected speech that falls outside the categories that software users intend to block,” rights are not violated because of the “ease” with which a filter can be disabled by a librarian (Internet 3). In his “Statement of Filtering Facts in Response to the American Library Association Statement to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on Indecency on the Internet,” David Burt, a vocal filtering advocate whose research informed the Court’s decision to pass CIPA in 2000, insists that the amount of “collateral damage” done to First Amendment protected speech is “trivial.” He states that the number of Websites erroneously blocked by filters is only a “few dozen or a few hundred,” a number which has since been proven to be considerably under estimated (Libraries 2). Burt began his statement by asserting that librarians exhibit “what could only be called an extreme stand on the free speech rights of children” (Libraries1 ). Like Bruce Watson, Burt “poisons the well” and attempts to appeal to emotion by quoting ALA President Judith Krug out of context: “Blocking material leads to censorship. That goes for pornography and bestiality, too. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. That goes for children too.” (Libraries 1). Both men confuse the free speech issue by insinuating that librarians view pornography as “protected speech” and believe children should be allowed to access it on library computers (Libraries 1, Watson 25). Furthermore, Watson calls libraries “unsafe for children” and then inexplicably invokes the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal, in an attempt to associate librarians with an unsavory incident that was still fresh in American minds earlier in this decade. Again, the pro-filtering side, as represented by Burt and Watson, fails to convincingly argue that filters do not threaten First Amendment rights. On the other hand, Caldwell-Stone and Heins, Cho, and Feldman maintain an objective tone and do not fall prey to using logical fallacies. On this point, the anti-filtering advocates win the argument.

Finally, there is the question of whether filtering Internet content is comparable to the selection of print materials for inclusion in the library’s collection. The anti-filtering side, as represented by librarians in particular, has asserted that being forced to filter Internet content amounts to censorship, whereas the de facto filtering that is a part of the selection of print materials does not entail the conscious withholding of information from library users. In addition, Nancy Kranich maintains that content blocking software does not match the selection criteria that a professional librarian would use, and Internet filters do not have the “expertise” of professional librarians in selecting materials. Furthermore, she explains that these software companies have no accountability to the public. Librarians have long been considered “gatekeepers” to information for the public they serve, and this role is denied them and essentially being taken over by a non-human entity. Kranich’s tone is impassioned, and she backs up her claims with solid sources (Kranich 17).

On the other side of the question is pro-filter activist David Burt, who points out that “filtering out porn is the rule already. No library carries porn” (Libraries 1). He argues that pornography in print or video format is not present in the library collection due to the “conscious decision” of librarians. He states that pornography is not appropriate in the library setting. Burt addresses the anti-filtering side’s point that the installation of blocking software “transfers the professional judgement about the information needs of the community from the librarian to an anonymous third party.” Yet, he says, while it is true that some of the selection of materials is turned over to the software company, this is not a new phenomenon. He cites the reliance of librarians on vendors who pre-select print materials. As the “bibliographic universe” continues to grow, Burt explains, outsourcing selection of materials to a third party has become a neccessity for many libraries (Libraries 3). In this particular argument, Burt does refrain from personal attacks and focuses on the issue. In this instance, he makes a convincing argument by examining some of the current practices of librarians and showing how they correspond to the selection functions of filtering software. Because both Kranich and Burt provide solid justification for their viewpoints, and both refrain from fallacious logic, in this particular instance, both sides of this argument win. Each was successful in communicating the finer points of their arguments.

After examining the arguments for and against Internet filters on public library computers, the winner on all three points of contention is the filtering opponents. On the topics of filter effectiveness and constitutionality, the filtering opponents provided clear, compelling arguments for their side. Conversely, the filtering advocates resorted to using logical fallacies and other methods to argue their points, but did so unsuccessfully. On the third topic examined, the question of whether Internet filters are related to traditional selection methods, both sides of the debate were declared winners. Overall, however, the anti-filtering contingent are the victors, while the pro-filtering advocates came up short, with only one successfully argued point.

As public debate continues over the relative merits and disadvantages of filtering Internet content in public libraries, pro-filter advocates could strengthen their arguments by avoiding letting themselves be represented by people who engage in fallacious reasoning in order to discredit the opposition or who appear to hold a political or religious bias. An appearance of objectivity and neutrality allows people to analyze the issues on their own merits, and not be distracted or unfairly influenced by assaults on people who hold an opposing viewpoint. If the pro-filter side can focus on the issue at hand, like David Burt did in the selection argument, without resorting to personal attacks, or other fallacies of logic, then they will make a more effective case for their position in future discourse on the filtering issue.

Works Cited

Auld, Hampton. "Do Internet Filters Infringe Upon Access to Material in Libraries?" Public

Libraries 44.4(2005):196-204.

Caldwell-Stone, Deborah. "Public Libraries and the Internet." Municipal Lawyers 44.6 (2003): 16-9. 08 Aug. 2007<http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/civilliberties/cipaweb/newsarticles/pub liclibrariesinternet.pdf>

Heins, Marjorie, Christina Cho, and Ariel Feldman. "Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report, 2nd Ed." Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. 17 May 2006. The Free Expression Policy Project. 08 Aug. 2007 <http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/filters2.pdf>

“Internet Filters Should Be Used In Libraries.” Opposing Viewpoints: Censorship. Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. University of Maryland University College. 28 July 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010113281&source=gale&userGroupName=umd_umuc&version=1.0>.

Kranich, Nancy. “Why Filters Won’t Protect Children or Adults.” Library Administration & Management 18.1 (2004): 14-8. 10 Aug. 2007 <http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/whyfilterswontprotect.htm>

"Libraries Should Regulate Internet Access." Opposing Viewpoints: Mass Media. Ed. Byron L. Stay. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. University of Maryland University College. 22 July 2007<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010152229&source=gale&userGroupName=umd_umuc&version=1.0>

Watson, Bruce. "Public Schools and Libraries Should Install Internet Filters." Should There Be Limits to Free Speech?. Ed. Laura K. Egendorf. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2003. 22-6.

All of the essays in this section were written by students and then submitted to us to publish and help others. Thanks to all of the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essays on your exact essay questions, then have a look at our essay writing service.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: