Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

  • Advertisements

Kids on Internet: Controls or no controls?

A Philadelphia court case weighs whether mandatory computer filters curb free speech.

(Page 2 of 2)



  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions

The Supreme Court has already rejected an earlier attempt to keep pornography off the Internet on First Amendment grounds, and it's weighing an appeal of yet another. The librarians argue that this latest effort – making funds dependent on censoring the Internet – is just as serious a constitutional violation as the earlier outright bans.

The law's supporters dismiss that as nonsense. They contend that blocking software is no different from the judgment the librarians themselves use when deciding what to buy for their collections.

Then there's the whole issue of the blocking software itself: Does it work or not? On Tuesday, the librarians presented several expert witnesses and their studies showing that even the best blocking software couldn't filter out all the porn. And those that did that most successfully also had the worst rates of "overblocking" – the term used for filtering out legitimate, constitutionally protected speech.

One study of more than 7,000 websites that had been blocked by the various software companies found that between 65 and 70 percent of the sites were "deemed to have potential value" to a library user.

"It's a lovely, self-assuring thought to think this kind of software is going to achieve the goals we want, but it's a fallacy. It will never happen," says Joseph Janes, a professor at the Information School of the University of Washington in Seattle.

Better technology

But the law's supporters argue that the technology has advanced so far so fast, those concerns have become moot. They presented experts that found that of 26 tests of filtering software, 19 were found to be "effective," four were of "mixed effectiveness" and only three were found to be ineffective.

As to worries about over-blocking, they note the law allows adults to ask a librarian to turn off the blocking software.

"It's the same as when people ask to see the rare or valuable books that are kept in a research or reference section," says Bruce Taylor, president of the National Law Center for Children and Families in Fairfax, Va. "It doesn't take the information out of circulation. It just needs to be requested."

But the librarians argue that the mandatory filter does take discretion away from librarians and their communities, which pay for about 80 percent of the average library's budget, and gives it to the federal government.

They point out that most libraries around the country have already set policies – created with their communities – about how to deal with the problem of Internet porn. Indeed, 43 percent already offer the use of some kind of filtering device. But they believe it should be up to the local communities, not the federal government, to make such decisions.

After this three-judge panel rules, one side or the other is expected to file an appeal, and that will go directly to the Supreme Court.

Page: Previous Page 1 | 2

  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions