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?