Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1999/RRE.filtering.in.librari.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
[RRE]filtering in libraries
``` [I have taken the liberty of reformatting this message.]
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html or send a message to requests@lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre
---
Date: 1999-05-20 17:52 From: lists@BENTON.ORG Subject: Headlines Extra -- Libraries 5/20/99
This week's Extra highlights the hot topic of Internet filtering and libraries. With the help of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the American Library Association (ALA) and other sources, we try to put into perspective recent legislative efforts to require Internet filters in public libraries.
---
HEADLINES EXTRA -- LIBRARIES 5/20/99
Introduction The Debate *Filtering the Internet in American Public Libraries: Sliding Down the Slippery Slope (First Monday) *After Filter Summit, ALA May Revisit 1997 Resolution, Children's Access Legislation *Children's Internet Protection Act *Safe Schools Internet Act of 1999 *In the States
INTRODUCTION "Never before have students - of all ages - been able to gain so much access to information in support of their studies. But we also recognize what some have referred to as the 'dark side of the Internet.'" -- Jeanne Hurley Simon, Chair of the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
In response to the potential harmful material available to children over the Internet, the NCLIS provides these possible solutions (see Kids and The Internet: The Promise and The Perils (www.nclis.gov/info/kids.html):- Libraries can implement procedures for gaining parental permission that describes what sort of access is permissible for their children.- Separate terminals can be provided for adults and children, or multiple profiles can be installed on terminals, so that children are not allowed the same access as older people.- Libraries can restrict the use of chat by children to sites that have been specifically approved (e.g., moderated chat groups, designated interactive sites, such as homework helpers, museums, and zoos).- Privacy screens or recessed monitors can be installed on public terminals so that only the terminal user can see what is displayed.- Libraries can require users to sign up for the use of Internet access terminals and acknowledge their understanding of the libraries' Internet use policies.- Libraries can present their own home pages that point children to sites that are pre-selected and evaluated.- Libraries can provide Internet training, education, and other awareness programs to parents and teachers that alert them to both the promise and the perils of the Internet and describe how they can help children have a safe and rewarding experience online.- Internet access terminals can be configured with software - which can be turned on or off - that restricts access to designated Web sites or specific Internet functions.
On her April 15th show, national radio talkshow host Dr. Laura Schlessinger criticized the American Library Association (ALA) for providing a link to a health information Web site, Go Ask Alice, on the organization's Teen Hoopla Web site (www.ala.org/teenhoopla/). In an message posted to Filtering Facts (www.filteringfacts.org), "an online source for information about making Internet access in libraries safe for kids," the ALA maintains the Web site was selected "because it is a factual, straightforward and comprehensive source of health information". Dr. Laura, as she is popularly know, called the ALA policy on filtering as "indefensible" in that it allows children to access sexually graphic and pornographic material.
ALA's official policy on filtering is that everyone should have the right to access to all information on the Internet. "I, for one, fear that in our haste to find Internet solutions, we may be in danger of selling our children and their First Amendment rights as adults down the river," said ALA President Ann K. Symons at the Annenberg National Conference on the Internet and the Family.
The Dr. Laura broadcast has not only brought attention to some of the key aspects of the issue -- access to information, child protection, and freedom of speech -- it has resulted in concrete losses for libraries. On May 3, Toys ''R Us canceled its plans to fund children's reading rooms in public libraries nationwide. On her show, Dr. Laura encouraged her 20 million listeners to demonstrate their opposition to ALA's non-filtering position at the ALA conference in New Orleans on late June. For additional information, see Dr Laura continues crusade against ALA (www.ala.org/alonline/news/1999/990517.html#drlaura) and Filtering Facts (www.filteringfacts.org/).
THE DEBATE
FILTERING THE INTERNET IN AMERICAN PUBLIC LIBRARIES: SLIDING DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
Since the American Library Association (ALA) issues its first Library Bill of Rights in 1939, libraries in the United States have struggled to ward off censorship and promote intellectual freedom. More than a half a century latter, libraries are still engaged in the never-ending battle for protect free expression, but the focus of debate has shifted from the printed word to the electronic world. Libraries and librarians around the nation must now struggle to determine what free speech means in the age of the Internet.
Information, The Public Library, and the Internet
With Internet access available in most of the nation's public libraries there is a growing national debate about how to best protect children from undesirable material online. On June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court declared that the federal legislative attempt to limit access to the Internet in the name of protecting citizens, the Communications Decency Act, was unconstitutional. The Court declared that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship". In reaction to the Supreme Court decision, ALA Council by adopted a resolution affirming that "the use of filtering software by libraries to block access to constitutionally protected speech violates the Library Bill of Rights."
The ALA statement, however, "did not resolve the problem for public libraries who must answer to boards, to parents and to their constituencies," writes the author. Despite recent legislation and court decisions regarding libraries and filtering, public libraries must resolve these issues at the local level. "The very real issues arising from pornography on the Internet are not going to be resolved by the courts; they are going to be resolved by public libraries and public library users," explains the Director of the Cleveland Public Library.
The following are key questions that librarians must address in developing public libraries role as a gateway to the Internet:- Are the well-developed library procedures of selection and mediation of information applicable to the Internet?- Should a librarian abdicate those responsibilities in the name of access?- Does a library have the same responsibilities toward the potential information that may be received via the Internet that it assumes over all the other materials in its collection?- Finally, how does the public library reconcile its role as a government institution while at the same time as safeguarding community standards in an Internet environment?
Filtering, The Librarians and The Public
The number of commercial filtering products on the market is rapidly proliferating. Currently, there are approximately eighteen different types of filtering programs available. The most widely used method of filtering is keyword blocking, which blocks sites that contain specific words or phrases. Another method is host or site blocking, in which specific Internet sites are selected for blocking. Protocol filtering, which is the blocking of entire domains, is heavily used in homes and schools. The problem is that all these methods can result in the unintentional blocking of useful and constitutionally protected material.
Filtering issues are increasingly being discussed on listservs and the Internet. One example is Peacefire, a Web site that claims to be a "revolutionary space where teenagers from all over the world can gather to form a political community, share values, fight for political rights, and support and defend one another from continuous assaults on their freedom." The Web site monitors software filtering developments, reviews new programs, and links to other like-minded sites. Presenting an opposing view, the Filtering Facts Web site brings pro-filtering librarians together to contest the ALA's position against blocking software.
Active and heated discussions on filtering are also taking place on listservs. PUBLIB (public libraries) and LIBADMIN (library administration) hold continuous discussions but little is ever resolved. Though worthy forums for people to voice their concerns, people usually stand deeply divided on the issue and those seeking consensus are often outcast as 'traitors'.
Parents and the general public have often praised filtering efforts in areas such as Boston (MA), San Francisco (CA), and Orange County (FL). But after hearing objections from the ALA and ACLU, the Boston Public Library has adapted its initial stance on filtering all its computers by installing "two different Internet versions, one unfiltered for adults and one filtered for children". Nationally syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman commented on the issue saying she supports the "Boston solution" but only as a temporary child protection measure. In the name of intellectual freedom, she called for a better solution to the problems of libraries and the Internet.
Filtering and the American Library Association
At its 1996 Midwinter Meeting, ALA membership unanimously approved a new Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights -- "Access to Electronic Information, Services, and Networks". The Interpretation affirms the rights of the users, including minors, to access electronic information and states that "users should not be restricted or denied access for expressing or receiving constitutionally protected speech. The statement concludes, "it is left to each user to determine what is appropriate."
Subsequently, ALA had issued statements that discuss the use of filers, explain some of the problems associated with filtering software, and offer suggestions for promoting access to the Internet without compromising adherence to the association's resolution. Not addressed by the ALA, however, is the critical issue of dealing with information on the Internet that is not constitutionally protected. The author argues that by "leaving decisions on appropriateness up to the user, ALA leaves public librarians stranded with no real tangible guidelines to help them provide electronic services."
Possible steps that might bring libraries and communities closer to a solution, include:- compelling technology vendors to provide an interface that would allow libraries themselves to label those pornographic and obscene sites that do not fall within constitutionally protected speech, while still protecting intellectual freedom and 'community values' benchmarks;- assistance by the ALA in defining those constitutionally unprotected sites, perhaps by setting standards for identification libraries could keep within the bounds of First Amendment rights; and- librarians reasserting their responsibility for the information that is in their libraries, whether it is on the Internet or in the stacks.
"The use of commercial filtering software as described in this paper will inhibit access, will deny fair use and will gradually lead librarians away from the principles that have glued the profession together," concludes the author. "But if librarians also eschew responsibility for the information on the Internet," she warns, "then they are headed down another 'slippery slope', one on which their services will be less and less required and one from which there is no return." [SOURCE: First Monday, Vol.2 No.10 - 6 October 1997, AUTHOR: Jeannette Allis Bastian] (www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue2_10/bastian/)
AFTER FILTER SUMMIT, ALA MAY REVISIT 1997 RESOLUTION, CHILDREN'S ACCESS After the ALA met with representatives of Internet filtering companies on March 12, 1999, ALA representatives voiced their readiness to revisit the ALA 1997 resolution that opposed any library use of filtering software. "Given where we were, this [1997 resolution] was the right decision at the right time," said ALA President Ann Symons. ALA leaders were pushed to acknowledge the "awkwardness of their policies" when filter makers stated their positions. The awkwardness of the ALA position emerged when Steve Herb, Chair of the IFC, listed features that ALA may want from a filtering system -- a system that their policy opposes.
ALA President Ann Symons said she stands by the ALA's lobbying statement: "Internet policies should be local decisions; individual users -- not the library -- should be able to control Internet access; and every library should have an Internet access policy". The meeting demonstrated to the ALA that it can't ignore the diversity of positions on filtering within the ALA, she said.
Seattle Public Library Director Deborah Jacobs said she thought the 1997 resolution "harmed our credibility". She was hopeful after the meeting that the ALA was willing to rethink a policy that many practicing librarians oppose. Symons said she would like to see the 1997 resolution be reconsidered by the (IFC) Intellectual Freedom Committee. [SOURCE: Library Journal, (March 16, 1999)] (http://www.bookwire.com/ljdigital/leadnews.article$27656)
LEGISLATION
Children's Internet Protection Act HR 896 Rep Bob Franks (R-NJ)/ S 97 Sen John McCain (R-AZ)
The bill would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to make an elementary school, secondary school, or library ineligible to receive or retain universal service assistance unless it certifies to the Federal Communications Commission that it has selected and installed (or will install) a technology for computers with Internet access which filters or blocks material deemed harmful to minors.
The bill requires the determination of what shall be considered inappropriate for minors to be made by the appropriate school, school board, library, or other responsible authority, without Federal interference.
Safe Schools Internet Act of 1999 (H.R. 368) Rep Bob Franks (introduced 01/19/99)
The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit universal telecommunications services from being provided to any elementary or secondary school unless its administrator has certified to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that it has selected and installed a system for computers with Internet access which filters or blocks matters deemed inappropriate for minors. The bill would prohibit such service with respect to a library having Internet access unless it certifies that it employs such a filtering or blocking system on one or more of its computers. The bill requires a library to notify the FCC within ten days after changing or terminating such a system.
It also requires the determination of what shall be considered inappropriate for minors to be made by the appropriate school, school board, library, or other responsible authority, without Federal interference.
Senate Hearing summary At a Senate hearing May 20 on the proposed Children's Internet Protection legislation, witnesses offered testimony on the proliferation of hate, violence, and sexual content on the Internet. Sen John McCain (R-AZ) opened the hearing by recognizing that parents are the first line of defense against this harmful content and that schools and libraries are partners in protecting kids especially concerning access to the Internet as a result of the E-rate program.
Dr. Peter Nickerson, President and CEO of N2H2 -- a server-based Internet filtering company -- testified that in a given week his staff of 75 Web reviewers find an average of 180 hate pages, 2,500-7,500 adult and child pornography pages, 400 violence pages, and 50 murder and suicide related pages. The N2H2 service allows clients to select what material should be filtered and to override a filter with a password. He stated that schools and libraries understand the need for filters and most want to implement them. If Congress cares about filtering inappropriate materials to minors, than the funding for filters ($.50 to $3.00 per workstation per month) should be included in the E-rate.
Mark Potock of the Southern Poverty Law Center testified that "the Internet has done for hate groups what the printing press has done for literature". A few years ago, a Klansman would have to put out substantial effort and money to produce a pamphlet that might reach 100 people. Today, all that is needed is a $500 computer and the Klansman can produce a slick Web site with a potential audience of thousands. Hate on the Internet cannot be blocked by filters, he said. Web sites are constantly changing and it may take several pages into a site before hateful content is apparent. Instead, hate sites should be a catalyst for thoughtful discussions between parents and children.
Howard Berkowitz, the National Chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, noted that hate sites are often disguised as informative and academic sites, such as the Holocaust-denying site of the Institute for Historical Review. Respecting the First Amendment, he recommends that Congress consider requiring public libraries with multiple computers to only monitor children's use and allow unrestricted access to adults.
Special Agent Mark James of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms testified that publications once only marketed through "counterculture markets" like "The Anarchist Cookbook" are now widely available on the Internet. From 1985-1995, 35 bombing incidents were attributed to information on the Internet about explosives. One solution ATF is currently pursuing involves working with Internet Service Providers to hyperlink explosive information sites to Web sites about the dangers of explosives.
Senator Hollings (D-SC) asked if the Children's Internet Protection Act could really work to block kids from inappropriate material. Dr. Nickerson answered, "it works where it is in place, but kids can always get around it". Mr. Berkowitz said that filtering should be voluntary. He raised the concern of who will decide what should be filtered. Sen McCain replied that the bill would require schools and libraries to filter the Internet according to community standards, as they decide what books to put on the shelves. "Or a community may choose not to use it all," he said. The bill allows local determination of which Web sites are harmful to minors, but a library must certify it has installed a filter to block information harmful to minors in order to receive E-rate funding for Internet connection.
In the states In addition to pending federal legislation, twelve states have proposed filtering legislation. The state bills are similar to the federal Children's Internet Protection Act and Safe Schools Internet Act in requiring that public schools and libraries implement filters. The states currently examining possible filtering laws, according to Filtering Facts, are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
---
(c)Benton Foundation, 1999. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. This service is available online at (www.benton.org/News/Extra/).
Headlines Extra is a free online news service provided by the Benton Foundation (www.benton.org/cpphome.html). Much like our daily, Communications-related Headlines, Headlines Extra is intended to keep you up-to-date on important industry developments, policy issues, and other pertinent communications-related news events.
---
To subscribe to the Benton Communications-Related Headlines, send email to: listserv@cdinet.com In the body of the message, type only: subscribe benton-compolicy YourFirstName YourLastName
To unsubscribe, send email to: listserv@cdinet.com In the body of the message, type only: signoff benton-compolicy
If you have any problems with the service, please direct them to benton@benton.org ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.