The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was passed by Congress in 2000 to “protect” minors from certain objectionable material available on the internet. Under its mandates, schools and libraries that receive E-rate funding, LSTA grants, and ESEA Title III funds must establish filtering technology on their computers. Considering the amount of inappropriate information accessible on the internet, CIPA appears to be a law that is necessary and useful in keeping children safe.
The technology protection is intended to block or filter only material that visually depicts obscene material that can be harmful to children. However, there is currently no filtering technology that will block out only illegal content, and it is instead blocking out access to constitutionally protected materials. In fact, in my own public school, students recent research based searches blocked articles lending information on “steroid use”, “medical marijuana,” and even “Madonna.” Obviously these are topics that are not harmful. Hence, the ALA and many other vigilante groups are challenging CIPA as unconstitutional.
Not only does CIPA deny our first amendment rights, it also seems to be in direct conflict with the Library Bill of Rights, which allows free access to resources and services in school libraries. The ALA interprets Article V of the Library Bill of Rights to say; “The 'right to use a library' includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V.” Libraries, both public and school, have a duty to provide and allow, not deny, their patrons access to information.
CIPA leaves librarians no choice but to defy their own bill of rights, while at the same time denying their patrons their rights as American citizens. A casual study conducted by Julia Aiken (2007) reported that over 50% of libraries are not conforming to Article 5. One cannot help but ask if perhaps this Library Bill of Rights is non-applicable to our internet –based society. However, to allow librarians to control information presented to children gives them parental responsibilities that they are not inclined to hold. Even in the situation we are in now, where most parents are working and cannot monitor their children’s computer use, it should not fall in the librarians hands.
School libraries follow a separate set of circumstances. Children are entrusted to staff daily, and are expected to receive a full, appropriate education while at school. Therefore teachers and school librarians may hold more responsibility in the decisions of students. However, denying information is still unacceptable. Why can't teachers and librarians simply monitor student computer use? I would hope that any good educator knows what their students are doing in their classrooms. If the student is not acting appropriately (which in this case means going to non-approved websites) they would receive the same reprimand as if they were writing a note to a friend in class.
Although the idea behind it – to protect children – is clearly one that is held in high esteem, it is undemocratic. The freedom to access information is covered by freedom of expression, one of our basic human rights. These constitutional rights are not dismissed when students enter a school, regardless of school board decisions. The fourteenth amendment protects citizens from the state when a decision clearly denies guaranteed rights. A situation denying freedom of expression should easily be decided in this manner. However, our national government is contradicting itself with CIPA. It’s a mess of stipulations; of course keeping children safe is important, but so are our freedoms.
Aiken, J. (Sept. 2007). Outdated and irrelevant? Rethinking the Library Bill of Rights. Does it work in the real world? . American Libraries, 38(8), 3.
"ALA Intellectual Freedom Issues," American Library Association, .http://www.ala.org. (Accessed June 07, 2009)
"ALA Interpretations," American Library Association, .http://www.ala.org. (Accessed June 07, 2009)
Children's Internet Protection Act (10/27/2008). Federal Communications Commission Retrieved June 6, 2009.
Dobija, J. (Sept 2007). The First Amerndment Needs NEW Clothes. American Libraries, 38(8), 50.
Internet Blocking in Public Schools (June 26, 2003). A Study on Internet Access in Public Institutions (Vol. Version 1.1). San Francisco: Online Policy Group.
7 comments:
Jillyan, thanks for this post. It's interesting, CIPA seems less about protecting minors and more about placating parents and conservative groups. Looking also at Andrea's blog, violence in media is just as big, if not more of a problem, than "obscene" websites. CIPA wants to mandate the filtering of pornography but violence is a go! It takes up the issue of education, not just formal education but social education and education at home. Children need to be taught and given the tools, to decide what is real, what is acceptable, and how to make decisions about what they see and read and experience. It's easy for me to say as I have not had to raise children, but I know that without the tools my parents gave me, and without social integration, it would have been much more difficult to make informed decisions and to understand the good and bad in the world.
My understanding was that way back when the Internet was in its infancy, the suffixes at the end of websites: .com, .gov, .edu, were created to separate sites and perhaps find websites easier. For instance if you go to www.whitehouse.com you do not go to the official White house web site, but to something very different where as if you go to www.whitehouse.gov, you are at the official site. (I know this thanks to one of my 11 year old patrons!) Back to the suffixes...at one time there was talk of adding .xxx for the specific purpose of, well you can guess what for. I think it is too bad this wasn't developed. I am sure it wouldn't have solved all the world's pornography problems, but it may have limited them.
It is interesting to note that although a computer may be filtered, if an attachment comes through an email that is sexually explicit, the user has no problem viewing it. This was also courtesy of a middle school patron!
I like that idea of the .xxx suffix. Seems like that would have solved a lot of issues; or opened up a whole new can of worms!
The CIPA is meant to protect children, which I get, but in essence it also ends up restricting/censoring information from adults as well (if is used in a library) So, in essence, it really is somewhat counter productive if you, as a library, are trying to protect user rights and follow the library code of ethics, etc. It's kind of like the Patriot Act and ALA Code of ethics, Library bill of rights issues we have been talking about on the boards. Talk about confusing.
My question would be, what if a parent/legal guardian comes to the library and specifically asks that their children not be allowed to view violent media on the library computers. The first amendment is a noble right that we should uphold, but what about the rights of a parent to determine what their children have access to at the library? Is there a middle ground that libraries could take which allows open access to material, unless a parent/guardian says otherwise? Couldn't there be choices in library accounts that allow a parent to chose what they deem appropriate for their child? I guess the question I would raise is how is the library not acting "In Loco Parentis" by allowing unrestricted access to children in spite of what their parents might want for their child? Isn't saying there are no limits on access a de facto usurpation of parental rights?
Note: I have no idea what the answers to these questions are, but I think they are questions we as a profession need to ask ourselves because the answers make a huge difference in whether we see ourselves as community servants (who cater to the needs of our specific communities) or if we see ourselves as civil liberty servants (who uphold our ideals and never back down no matter what).
Note: This is cross posted with the Violence in Media thread, but it has relevance to both of these topics so here it is again.
"One cannot help but ask if perhaps this Library Bill of Rights is non-applicable to our internet–based society."
This is an interesting thought! How could we fix it to be more appropriate to today's societal needs?
Also, Peter, your point about violence verse pornography really made me think! It reminds me of movie ratings. Violent and sexual scenes are treated differently.
As Peter - To raise kids it is not just formal education but social education and education at home is a fact. Libraries and schools are very much involved in every aspect of children’s education and growth. Implementation of CIPA at libraries has advantages for kids and in turn affects other type of patrons. So the issue with intellectual freedom in libraries is very complicated. As far as applying filters in public libraries with limited computers has become a problem. Most of the libraries do not filter Internet access. It is the responsibility of the parent or child-care provider to monitor children's computer use. Now days we see sticky notes on library computers used by kids stating no’s to some websites. But is that a solution?
Post a Comment