Menu Main Page |
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." After reading this statement, a proclamation of every American's right to free speech, one would assume that these rights extend to the internet as well. The truth is, though, that many public libraries infringe upon this right by requiring patrons to access the internet through a filter. Proponents of the filtering system claim that by eliminating web pages with "inappropriate" content, they are protecting children from such content as pornography or drug culture. The truth is that, because of the methods that filtering systems use (blocking by word or address) there will always be some sites that are blocked unfairly and others that are not blocked but should be. This is not a software problem that can eventually be fixed, it is a flaw inherent in the methodology of filtering. When sites are blocked by word, sites that contain certain words can't be accessed. This creates problems because a page will be blocked if it has information about medicinal marijuana or health issues. The problem with systems that block by address is that there are so many web sites created every day, filtering systems can never hope to check each one for offensive material. Filtering systems are not effective and, beyond that, they can be very harmful because of the importance of the material they often block. For instance, The Safer Sex Page is frequently blocked, preventing many people from accessing the important resources there. Another blocked site, Banned Books On-Line provides the full text of books that have been involved in censorship debates, including Little Red Riding Hood and Ulysses by James Joyce. The entire website of the San Francisco Examiner is blocked, due to columnist Rob Morse's sometimes controversial articles. Some other sites, like Peace Fire are blocked simply because they speak critically of the filtering software itself. Even more dangerously, some filters seem to have an agenda all their own- for example, the filter X-Stop prevents access to several gay rights themed sites while allowing pages that condemn homosexuality. Other filters have been known to block pro-choice sites and not pro-life sites or to block feminist sites but not those preaching that the woman's place is in the home, not in the business world. This one sided approach to filtering is infinitely more harmful than not filtering at all because it can leave people with the impression that only one viewpoint exists. Another argument in favor of filtering in public libraries is that any sites blocked by the system can be viewed at home. This is a remarkably short-sighted viewpoint however, because a recent Nielsen Survey revealed that forty-five percent of internet users go to public libraries for internet access. One more factor to consider is the cost of filtering software. One library recently estimated that the initial installation of blocking software would cost $8,000 and an additional $3,000 a year to maintain. It seems wasteful to spend such an inordinate amount of money on censorship when the money could clearly be put to better use buying books, periodicals, or computer equipment. After all this time and effort expended on the part of pro-filtering advocates, one would assume that the issue of children and offensive material was very far reaching. In fact, the reverse seems to be true. Mike Goodwin, staff counsel of Electronic Freedom Foundation explains, "As far as we can tell, this is mostly an invented problem, not [an] actual one. There don't seem [to be] too many cases of children accidently finding pornography on the internet." So why, then, is there so much controversy over filtering? Christine Link of the American Civil Liberties Union thinks she knows the answer, stating that "Kids and pornography are a rallying cry. They're not thinking about kids at all, it's just a great organizing issue for people who are part of the radical right." Filtering infringes on the first amendment rights of patrons, and can even be more harmful than not filtering when the software manufacturers have an agenda. Additionally, the cost of filtering programs cuts into the budgeting for other, more important materials. Though some claim filtering protects minors from bad influences, many who have studied the problem believe that right wing organizations have blown the problem out of proportion. For all these reasons, filtering should not be present in public libraries. If a patron finds a site offensive, then they should just avoid that site. |