Filtering the Internet in the USA: Free Speech Denied? Richard S.Rosenberg

Introduction Much of the motivation for filtering and blocking programs arises from the efforts in the U.S. to defeat the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) People were trying to control access at a local level, rather than leaving the burden up to the Internet Service Providers (ISP)

Introduction (cont) Those opposed to the CDA thought that these filtering programs would only be used in the privacy of one’s home They soon began to show up in public places such as libraries, schools, and community centers This imposes restrictions on the general public for those that choose not to purchase these filtering programs

Censorship or Not The U.S. Congress suggests that these filtering programs will be made mandatory If these programs are made mandatory, then the individuals using the software must be made aware of the filtering criteria- such as keywords, local or remote lists If these individuals are not made aware then this is a form of censorship

Filtering/Blocking Uses Restrict access to Internet Content: -Based on an internal database -Through an external database -To certain ratings assigned -By scanning content for keywords -Based on the source of information

Who Sets the Filter? Access criteria are preset by the manufacturer and can be altered by downloading updates Some may also by altered by the active user Most users are likely to use the default criteria and therefore have minimal awareness of what sites and newsgroups are unavailable

Rating Programs Rosenberg calls these rating programs, “potentially more dangerous” than filtering programs Two rating systems: -RSACi (Recreational Software Advisory Council on the Internet) -PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection)

Rating Programs (cont) These two programs are intended to first encourage, and later require, that web site and newsgroups rate themselves along a certain number of dimensions Browsers could then be programmed to return certain results under a certain profile

Problems with Filtering/Blocking Programs The main concern is that the features for blocking access are determined by a criteria that is not the user’s Religious and political conservative groups are urging the government to take action to protect their children from Internet dangers This segment of society has set the agenda for regulation and control with the result that filtering is the only way

Mainstream Loudoun, et. al. v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library This was a court case in which a group of citizens filed a lawsuit against a library in Virginia because they installed a filtering program, known as X-Stop, on its nine computers (1997) The case was filed because the citizens believed that their first amendment rights had been compromised by restricting the access to sites that had no legal cause to be restricted

The Court’s Decision In 1998, the court ruled that the filtering program was unconstitutional and that it compromised the citizen’s first amendment rights The court also agreed that you can not block free speech information for an adult, simply because the information is unfit for minors

Canadian Library Association (CLA) CLA encourages libraries: -to incorporate Internet use principles into overall policies on access to library resources, including time, place, and manner restrictions -to educate their publics about intellectual freedom principles and the role of libraries in facilitating access to resources in various forms of media, including the Internet

American Library Association (ALA) Immediately following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affirming that sections of the CDA were unconstitutional, the ALA issued a statement about the use of filtering programs in libraries “Uphold the First Amendment by establishing and implementing written guidelines and policies on Internet use in your library in keeping with your library’s overall policies on access to library materials”

Where is the Argument? There is little argument about the use of filtering programs in the privacy of one’s own home However, once the software arises in the public domain, such as libraries and schools, then we would hope an informed public would use the software sparingly The argument begins when the software is brought into these public places

Other Library Associations The statements of the ALA are echoed in the recommendations of other national libraries and international library associations Ex: The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, (1999) “calls upon libraries and library staff to adhere to the principles of intellectual freedom, uninhibited access to information and freedom of expression and to recognize the privacy of library user”

NCLIS Recommendations National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) Recommendations: -Separate terminals, or multiple profiles, can be provided for adults and children - Libraries can provide Internet training, education, and other awareness programs to parents and teachers

NCLIS Recommendations (cont) Recommendations (cont): -Internet access terminals can be configured with software that can be turned on or off and restricts access to designated web sites of specific internet functions

Discussions The commitment of librarians to the basic principle of free and open access to information, whether in hard copy or in electronic form, must be supported by the population at large For public agencies to restrict access to the internet by means of filtering programs is a dangerous activity that compromises first amendment rights

Discussion (cont) One issue is that we are concerned about what “dangerous” material our children will encounter on the internet, either by choice or accidentally Rosenberg says, “Self-rating is destructive of art, quality, and self-respect”

Conclusions If filtering software is going to be used, then these guidelines should be followed: -The criteria for censoring must be approved by the Library Board -This censorship must be maintained by library staff, not an outside source -The censored web site must be listed with the reason for them being censored -Should be a procedure for members of public to ask library staff to reconsider some web sites

Conclusions (cont) In 1999, the U.S. Congress passed the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act, which included an amendment to install technology to screen out material “harmful” to minors, as a condition of receiving a federal Net access subsidy, known as e-rate How will harmful be defined?

Conclusions (cont) This Act was passed because of the murders of the school children in Littleton, Colorado; were they say violence and sex on the internet is to blame However, legislators found it impossible to restrict guns, a more probable factor in the Littleton tragedy than free speech If filtering if the answer, what exactly is the question?