The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a much-debated Act that demands web filters to be installed on all school or public library computers, including patron and staff terminals, that receive federal funding. Its purpose is to protect minors from images that are 1) obscene, 2) child pornography, or 3) harmful to minors. Libraries that refuse to comply with this Information Policy will lose federal Internet funding. Due to this, some libraries have elected to forgo funding in order to maintain un-filtered web access. Within the libraries that have restricted web access, a recent stipulation to CIPA allows adult patrons to access restricted web content. However, the patron needs the permission of a librarian to do so, who must un-block the material in a timely fashion. Web software filters can vary in restrictions, with much innocent material being filtered in the process. An overview on different vendors available, along with the exact nature of what is being filtered, can be found at http://libraryfiltering.org/.
There has been much resistance to this Act, including from ALA and the National Coalition Against Censorship. The NCAC states, “…every trip to the library may entail a Big Brother-ish experience—being protected from unseeable material that an unknown reviewer has decided to block based on undisclosed criteria” (Bertin, Joan). In addition, the IFLA Glasgow Declaration on Libraries, Information Services and Intellectual Freedom has also issued a statement that can be applied to this debate. The Declaration states that, “libraries and information services shall make materials, facilities and services equally accessible to all users. There shall be no discrimination for any reason including race, national or ethnic origin, gender or sexual preference, age, disability, religion, or political beliefs” (“The Glasgow Declaration”). According to IFLA, age becomes a discriminating factor with the demand of software filters on library computers that receive federal funding.
A New York Times article “Tools to Keep the Web Safe for Children” reveals another side to the filtering debate, stating, “…by relying too much on technology, rather than education and supervision, children will be unprepared to deal with exposure to inappropriate content when it does eventually occur” (Tugend, 2007). The author believes parental supervision in their children’s web activities is beneficial, while web filtering in libraries opens a controversial topic.
Further Information:
CIPA Regulations:
“Children’s Internet Protection Act”
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html
The American Library Association’s Q and A on CIPA
Questions for Discussion:
What are your views on web filtering software?
Is it appropriate that the public and school libraries receiving federal funding must comply with CIPA regulations in order to continue the funds?
Sources:
Bertin, Joan. “Court Errs on Upholding Library Web Filters.” http://www.ncac.org/internet/related/20030805~USA~CIPA_-_Newsday_Childrens_Internet_Protection_Act.cfm
Tugend, Alina. “Tools to Keep the Web Safe for Children.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/technology/14shortcuts.html
IFLA. “The Glasgow Declaration on Libraries, Information Services and Intellectual Freedom.”
14 comments:
It is interesting to think of three four five year olds surfing the interenet without adult supervision.
I have a ten year old and an eight year old daughter. I have to think about a lot of these issues lately, especially with the older being as an avid reader as well as manga fan and technology fan as she is. I don't suggest that I have solutions to anything, but my personal opinion is that I would rather she has access to everything than support the imperfect ways society tries to shelter youth.
I have long decided to approach parenting from the open and honest perspective. My daughters know what it means to menstruate, to have sex, to become pregnant. All from conversations that issued from their observations and curiosity. The flipside of the coin is, they also know what's being honest, loving and have caring friendships and relationships. We talk about the Internet, and how anybody can put content up on the web, and what that means, They know thay have limits as far as time spent on the internet, and as far as appropriate material.
The thing that bothered me about the child internet protection act is that "Schools subject to CIPA are required to adopt and enforce a policy to monitor online activities of minors" (from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html)
Regardless of the filtering issue, monitoring doesn't sound right to me.
But it gets confusing, because on the same website, underneath what I quoted above, it reads "CIPA does not require the tracking of Internet use by minors or adults." Isn't monitering the same thing?
At any rate, I think libraries should enforce an inappropriate content policy but not through filtering. Have patrons agree to a contract that says they wont look at pornography, and if they do, kick them out for x days. simple. It's not that hard to catch them. I just did yesterday.
The First Amendment gives everyone the right to unrestricted access to information, and there is nothing that states that children are excluded from this right. The ALA promotes Intellectual Freedom and uncensored information and materials. The ALA says that the rights of patrons can't be abridged based on their age and filters do seem to abridge those rights. Also, they make it hard for anyone to do research when they block things that shouldn't be blocked.
Like Kinga said it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children about what is right and what is wrong. Parents should be able to trust their children when they surf the Internet and it is not the responsibility of the librarian to be a babysitter. In some libraries, there are one or two computers that do not have filters, and this may be a way to provide unccensored access to information but it still infringes on the rights of people by requiring them to confide their private matters to a librarian to get access to those computers.
It’s a tricky situation. I understand the pros and cons of both sides of the issues. I think that parents/guardians need to be made more aware of the information available on the internet regardless of filters or not. Too often, parents/guardians don’t realize what their children are doing at the library. They don’t monitor what their children check out or the fact that they are on the internet. I really believe that when patrons sign their children up for cards that they are made aware that the library does not monitor what their children use the library for. Furthermore, patrons need to realize that the library is a public place and is used by patrons of all race, age, ethnicity, and beliefs. I would hope people would respect the rights of others, and realize that perhaps some of the things viewed on the internet are considered offensive to others.
I agree with Kinga in that proper parenting is the key. It should not be the libraries' responsibility to protect minors from viewing potentially "harmful" materials. Each parent can and should decide what is harmful to their child, and take steps to either shield the child from those materials or teach the child their views.
The United States is home to people of incredibly different perspectives on just about any topic you can think of. For any person or group of people to push their particular set of beliefs of what is appropriate and what is not onto the general public through CIPA in schools and libraries is wrong. Sex, violence, drugs, etc. all exist in this world and we are not making our children better global citizens by hiding them from it. They should understand that these things exist, and be taught the humane, caring way to deal with them.
Nothing's ever simple. :) The hard facts of life are that if kids, or whoever, want to view what the Federal Government has termed as inappropriate content, they're going to find a way to do it. Harsh, but true.
My personal opinion on that matter is that library's should follow suit with what the government is wanting in order to maintain their funding. In the long run, its really not going to matter. Because, as previously stated, kids will find a way. Not to mention if they're just looking for nudes they can pick up any book or art and get an eye full that way...those would also be in the library, just in books. :)
What the government is trying to do, vainly in my opinion, is define what information is acceptable and unacceptable for people of a certain age. And while they can try and do this until they're blue in the face, this will not stop that same demographic from getting the information if they want to. And, to be really honest here, parents raise their children differently. R rated movies are often used for educational enhancement. Mostly the Oscar winners, but you get my meaning, right? I, for one, remember having to watch Dances with Wolves in the seventh or eighth grade. Learned some from that movie...mostly I felt badly about the dead buffalo.
Not that that has anything to do with anything, but thought I might toss that out there too. :)
And I would add that filtering sometimes keeps out useful information as well. And while I agree that it really comes down to parental responsibility, I accept the fact that this is not necessarily the majority viewpoint. A lot of people out there honestly believe that someone else needs to be looking out for the interest of children, be it theirs or someone else's. I think ours could be a minority view right now; which ultimately means that congress (elected by the majority) may, at least for the time being, continue to enact these overbearing laws.
I think that having filters is a perfect way to protect a library from problems concerning minors. Parents seem to expect the library staff to take full responsibility for anything their child views (I disagree with this parents should be responsible for their children). Having a filter in place protects not just the child from seeing objectionable material but also the staff from angry parents. Besides if a patron wants to view material that might be blocked by the filter its possible, depending on the system, to have the block removed for their various searches. The bad thing about this is that it will decrease their sense of privacy. Overall I still think it is a good idea to use filters.
Quite honestly I feel that there will always be a loser in this deeply complex situation. As previously stated, the only people a filter stops are people old enough to view whatever they want...because most often they don't know how to use a proxy to get around the filters, like the younger more tech savvy young people do. I do see the usefulness of filtering in school libraries, parents do expect a certain level of safety surrounds their child while at school. However, in a public library, I believe that responsibility lies completely with the parent. That being said, although my kids are now grown, I personally would have liked that hedge of safety that filtering provides around my child when they were growing up. I do not believe that what is blocked on a minor's computer in a public space is going to adversely affect his/her life- or impair their ability to obtain information that is vital to their life. I always trusted my kids, but if I could protect them, even just a little bit, from some of the freaks and freakish ideas floating around on the internet (which utilizing is my favorite pasttime, yet many use it for evil rather than good.) than I am for it. I have yet to have a young person use a proxy to get around a filter to obtain info for a school report..... And certainly there are times when innocent information is filtered, but overall, much more bad is filtered rather than the good being inadvertently filtered.
Nate mentioned the idea that parents be made aware that their children's internet activity is not going to be monitored for content. I think it's a great idea to tell parents this at the time they get their child a library card, this may get them at least to think about this. It's probably true that some parents may expect that their child is "safe" at the library because the staff will look out for them.
I personally do not agree with web filtering but I can see where in many instances it could be benefical. Web filtering In an elementary school,I think,is not as restrictive and does somewhat protect students from inappropriate sites. In general, I think web filtering is not a good idea and government should not pressure libraries to implement it. It is not fair that these libraries are forced to give up funding if they don not want to use the web filters. I think if other options where given to libraries such as giving them more funding to create an additional computer station for children that has web filters and allowing the adult computer section to not have have web filtering installed would be a better option. An another option is if filtering software was created which would allow for obtaining many resources and pages which are typically blocked by traditional web filtering software. This is another better option than just giving libraries very limited options and in a way forcing them to either comply or give up their funding. If other options and softwares where available I think that that would be more democratic but the way government is going about it now is not in any way democratic. Legislation must be reformed so that ,at the least, libraries are given more options.
I agree with many of my classmates that ultimately the responsibility should rest with the parents, because they know their children and their maturity level best. As stated web filtering software is not 100% effective. Some obscene content can still slip through depending on how it is describe. Also information that is not obscene can be blocked. One library in my area offers both filtered and non-filtered internet access. Filtered access is available in the children’s section. Non-filtered access is available in a separate area of the library. Here adults or minors with a parent or guardian can access the internet unfiltered. The monitors are equipped with privacy screens so that those walking by cannot see what is being displayed.
My problem with the CIPA is that it seems to be the imperfect compromise between two beliefs. Firstly, Congress at the Federal level and at the state level have shown over and over that they don't really understand the technology they are regulating, and so are prey to the fears of an unknown territory. Because of that, they insist on filtering software. They have an obligation to support free speech, so they try to do that as well. The result is "you can't have access to constitutionally protected areas of the internet unless you really want it, and we say it's okay." Librarians are sometimes told that looking at porn in the library can be a form of sexual harassment and can be restricted for that reason.
This creates a real policy problem for librarians which we have endless training sessions to figure out. There is no way to communicate the expectations to patrons, so its easy to understand why libraries would forgo Federal dollars just to have the ability to set policy themselves. My attempt at a solution has been to keep the filter set as unobtrusively as possible and keep two computers for children's exclusive use. I am also fortunate because I only have six computers total to deal with.
Post a Comment