Slashdot Log In
Checking Out Library Censorship
from the libraries-need-help dept.
This provision ought to be called "The Local Net Censorship Act" -- and it's close to becoming law. Lawmakers in both the House and the Senate approved a final version late last week, agreeing on a compromise approach containing elements of separate plans passed in the two chambers earlier this year. It would require all schools and libraries to install filtering software regulating the content available to any computers purchased with Federal money, blocking child pornography, obscenity and materials deemed harmful to minors. Schools and libraries would also be required to develop Net use policies that address minors' online access to "inappropriate" materials.
Much of the tech culture was asleep at the switch when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed, giving corporations unprecedented control of American intellectual property, and is now paying for its apathy. This law could increase liability for schools and libraries, give local politicians and religious crazies a significant new weapon to ban access in public institutions to material they consider offensive or inappropriate.
Representatives are already lining up to lengthen the list of sites and subjects considered "inappropriate." Sen. John McCain of Arizona is pushing his own filtering provision in the Senate, where an amendment by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has just added the further requirement that communities be able to provide input about blocking other "inappropriate" Web sites that mention bomb-making, drugs or other topics.
As most of the people reading this know, blocking and filtering programs are arbitrary and wildly ineffective. While savvy users can easily bypass them, these filters hide from most users vast amounts of legitimate information along with so-called "offensive" content. This law is a license for every political interest group to keep subjects they don't like out of local libraries and schools. The victims would be kids with nowhere but libraries to go for Net access. Most filtering programs are censorship technology, pure and simple, but at the same time less effective than simple adult or parental supervision. They are not justified by any meaningful statistics regarding children and the Internet -- perhaps because there really aren't any.
Instead of tying the hands of educators and librarians, government should be doing everything possible to ensure that as many kids as possible have free access to the Net and the Web, because it will be vital to their social, educational and economic opportunities. Laws like this demonstrate how profoundly and dangerously ignorant of technology most of our elected leaders are, and how vulnerable to their ignorance the tech culture is.
The National Education Association is fighting the law -- the still nameless legislation is attached to legislation funding the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments. The American Library Association is in on the fight, too, since the bill would for the first time force public libraries to follow the same access policies as schools. But hardly anyone in Congress will dare defend "pornography" and "offensive" material.
"For a library, it's a different ball game," a spokeswoman for the ALA told The New York Times. "If you have to filter any machine a child may use, in a library, you'd have to filter every computer. It disregards age-appropriate levels." This means older children, teenagers and adults would be arbitrarily censored by any local community that didn't like a particular kind of Web site or subject matter, from abortion information to anything resembling sexual imagery. And kids in schools would be subject to even more controlled than they already are.
Libraries -- and local communities -- already have the freedom to establish controls ranging from increased supervision to some kinds of filtering if they wish. Most libraries and schools also have the ability to block sites if they are deemed dangerous and offensive. There is absolutely no reason for Congress to make censorship technology universal and required by law. The federal provision would further complicate Net access issues for libraries, since their environments are less controlled than a public school. Libraries are open to all ages, including adults -- who have a First Amendment right to access a broader range of materials on the Net than the proposed congressional filtering arrangement would allow. Libraries also fear that the law would expose libraries to a wave of new lawsuits demanding they filter -- in accordance with federal law -- any site that could be considered "inappropriate" or "offensive" by any elements of any local community. Passage of this law would force local libraries to radically increase filtering of the Net.
Most of us don't need to go to the library for Net access, but millions of people -- mostly kids -- do. They are entitled to some kinds of First Amendment protection as well as we are. This is a dangerous law, one which injects federal moral guardians directly into the issue of Net access. History tell us this is an awful idea. If you're in the mood to contact your local congressman or woman, this is a great reason to do it. For further information, you can also contact the National Education Association and the American Library Association.
Note: If you're looking for factual evidence to help bolster your arguments against the encroachment of filters, jamie also suggests checking out The Censorware Project, Peacefire and the GLAAD report on filter discrimination.
Federal Funds (Score:5)
As this issue has come up in our local library, where I maintain the publicly available PC's, it appears that there may be an easy solution. Any legislation of this kind will only be able to restrict the use of systems purchased with federal money. Simply donate a pc to your local library with the express wish that it not be filtered. You may have to spring for seperate Internet access as well, since many libraries have their internal networks and net access funded with federal money. I believe that may libraries would find the donation of a PC with Linux installed and some minimum maintenance to be valued more highly a simple email to your local congress critter alone.
We have two systems for Internet access; one windows box with NetNanny for filtering and one Linux system that is not filtered. Our library policy is that children under 12 may only use the filtered box, and young adults may use the unfiltered machine if they have parential consent. A further note is that state law prohibits the display of "obscene" material in a public place, so that we may ask a patron to not view such material at the library. This lets patrons visit sites for information (GBL sites, abortion, et. al.) why still giving us the power to not have Playboy or www.whitehouse.com on public display.
One side note here is that NetNanny is one of the only filtering programs for Windows that releases the blocked site list and allows the user to alter it. This gives the knowledgeable sysadmin some leeway. If someone knows of useable Linux filtering software, please let me know.
Slippery Slopes. (Score:3)
It won't stop here, you know. The bill calls for the restriction of "objectionable" content. Objectionable is a fairly broad word; it can mean anything from hardcore sex to an opinion you don't agree with. Do we really need to give the government that kind of power?
What about large organizations? The GOP, Nike, and lots of other bodies of people no doubt have large lists of things that they find "objectionable." What happens when they can dictate what sites get filtered due to "objectionable" content?
This particular battle may already be lost. It might not be possible to turn back the tide and make the Web available to everyone in its raw, uncensored form. If that is the case, then we need to start planning now for the day when opinions that you and I hold valuable are banned, when it is no longer possible for anyone to access the Web and see what someone else thinks is questionable or objectionable.
Samizdat may be the only way to go on this. We will each of us be a lone voice crying in the desert, but better that than to be gagged in public view.
I know! I know! (Score:3)
Federal, no...local, yes (Score:4)
Keep the control at the local and parental level. Keep the federal government the hell out of it.
Almost, but not exactly, something unlike a fr0st p1st.
Libraries are already "censored" (Score:4)
If such magazines were on the shelves, then I might find the filtering software to be something of a hypocracy. I don't see everyone yelling "Censorship!" because the libraries don't carry such magazines.
The trick obviously will be for them to be careful about what they filter. Filtering programs don't do a good job at keeping out nudity while at the same time allowing information about breast cancer to get through. Of course someone somewhere will filter out things that they deem inappropriate. Abortion issues? Gun control?
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:3)
That's actually a great idea. No, REALLY. If it comes down to the old "As long as you're under my roof..." type situation, I say tell the Federal Govt. to Fsck off, and seek sponsorship. A small brass plate on the top of the monitor saying "This computer courtesy of X-corp", and a sign in front saying "Internet access courtesy of SBC" wouldn't be too offensive. Companies like the one I'm working at are getting rid of older computers all the time (A bunch of 166's are just fine for browsing/research) and the Govt. would be powerless to say anything about how these are used. Just a thought.
Heard of inter-library loans? (Score:3)
This is not the same as actively censoring all access to such material, nor is it even remotely the same as federally mandated censorship.
In addition, one can get nearly every book or magazine ever printed at your local library by making use of inter-library loans. This is where you go to the librarian, request a search for a book or document, and request that it (or a copy) be sent to your local library. It may take two or four weeks for the material to arrive, but arrive it will. So even if the local community library will not keep The Happy Hooker or Huckleberry Finn on their shelves, you can request it and, after a short wait, still pick up a copy there and read it.
Think of the internet as the world's most effecient inter-library loan system. This legislation wants to do something unprecendented: mandate exactly what libraries can and cannot share with one another, as well as what they can and cannot put on their shelves. And they want to do so at the least competent level of government: the federal level.
But this stuff already exists in libraries (Score:3)
I remember the case of a photographer - sadly I cant remember his name - but he produced a book of his work photographing pierced and tattooed bodyparts (for lack of a better word). This was widely available across the UK until the police started raiding libraries to recover copies of it.
I'm sure this sort of material is not isolated and whilst your average small library might not keep much in this line, i'm sure city libraries must keep a reasonable collection of material which censorware would block (assuming it works properly).
I think by far the best principle is just to not put computers in hidden away corners and keep them out in the open. There was a student at an english university barred from using the computers after being caught hands-on in the library, and i'm sure the detterant is enough to stop almost anyone.
Actual text of the bill. (Score:3)
As usual, Slashdot comments are heavy on hyperbole, light on fact. To help swing the balance towards rationality, here are some links to the actual bill that (I think) Katz is referring to.
Amendment 3610 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator McCain [loc.gov]
Vote 149 - amendment agreed to [senate.gov]
Amendment 3635 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator Santorum [loc.gov]
Vote 150 - amendment agreed to [senate.gov]
Some discussion in the Senate about the two amendments [loc.gov] (search for "Internet")
I think this is the final version:
H.R. 4577, TITLE VI--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION [loc.gov]
Full text of H.R. 4577--FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill [loc.gov]
Vote 273 in the House - passed [143.231.123.93]
Vote 171 in the Senate - passed [senate.gov]
--Chouser
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:3)
Local governments do not have the right to override constitutionally protected freedoms. A city can't decide to ignore freedom of speech any more then they can force everyone to follow the same religion, or forcing a minority to be slaves.
And preventing people from reading/hearing the speech is the same thing as preventing people from presenting those ideas in the first place.
---
A Slippery Slope (Score:3)
Ah... there are "some topics" that are just not appropriate for kids. This is something I don't think anyone will argue with. The question, however, is which topics are inappropriate for kids. The majority of the country believes that homosexuality is a sin. Are sites advocating tolerance and equity for gays "inappropriate" for children?
When we start using loose language ("inappropriate topics") we open the door for a wide interpretation of that language. I'd rather have the choice of not letting my kid use the public library computer (or of designating a kind of filter for him to use there) than to have the Kansas board of ed and all like thinkers potentially filter the "controversial theory" of evolution one day because they think it could be construed as inappropriate material for children.
Be careful when you say that the need for effective filters is obvious. The issue isn't the fact that the filters don't work well; the issue is that someone else is deciding what is and isn't appropriate for my child (and myself!) to have access to. Even if the morality being applied is that of the public consensus, that's not okay with me. Porn we can probably all agree is inappropriate to children. Abortion information and freedom of choice? Tolerance of people who are homosexual, who have different religious beliefs, who are of a different socio-economic class? My opinions (and morals) differ in many places with the consensus of this country. Be careful not to open a door you'll find hard to close.
The Issue (Score:3)
1) How much libraries and schools should "protect" our children, and
2) Should censorware be used to do this protection
Now, in my mind, item 1 is open for discussion, as there will be good and valid arguments on both sides, and it an important issue.
However, item 2 has nothing substantial to recommend it. Censorware will do nothing that a lab monitor couldn't do - a lab monitor could keep children off the adult computers, and, at a glance, make sure that children aren't looking at porn or anything. Censorware could and would block helpful information while allowing "harmful" information, and could also be programmed per a political or religious agenda, as Katz's article mentioned. Censorware just does a bad job of censoring, all around. A human, library lab censor, would do a better job.
Remember, that I am not taking a stand, in this post, on library censorship at all. I am saying that censorware is the worst possible way you could filter information for those not yet ready to encounter it.
wish
---
Give 'em hell (Score:4)
I would suggest telling your representive that you oppose filtering on the grounds that, dispite what the marketing departments have said, the filtering is 1) Poorly implimented, and many times restricts access to legitiment information, such as university studies on Health, Sex, and STD's. 2) Filters most sites dealing with legitiment Gay, Lesbian Bi-sexual issues. (Although if you elected a republican into office you may as well leave that part off).
You may also wish to detail that most filtering companies consider the lists of sites they filter to be a trade secret, and that they are slow to fix incorrect filtered sites.
We've got an election comming up people. Let's get moving on this.
Re:What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:5)
Do we need to create separate childrens' libraries, so there IS someplace that I, as a parent, can send my children without worrying that they'll see (insert favorite porn site here)?
If your kids have a favorite porn site, you're in trouble already! *kidding*
These are public libraries, funded by yours and my tax dollars. Ergo, they are bound not by the standards of a few, but by the constitution (in the USA, anyhow). Ironically, most of the libraries in Canada don't use filtering software, at least not on the East Coast - and we don't have a consitution per se. (The charter of rights and freedoms is close, but most people couldn't even tell you who wrote it let alone what's on it). Common sense, people.
You are free to start a privately funded library for kids if you want, hell, fill it with religious propaganda-of-choice if you're paying for running it. Public libraries are different.
Something else people are missing is that most 10 year olds aren't that interested in pr0n. Sex, maybe, but that's not a problem, that's healthy. It's not until you get hormones into the mix a couple years later, and by that point, most of 'em are probably playing around anyhow, geeks or no. Unless of course, you as a parent have imparted your moral values to them, in which case, they'll make up their own minds. God forbid.
The irony is that you can get GRAPHIC depictions of violence anywhere, yet this isn't seen as a problem, but looking at n3kk1d breasts is. Go figure.
My Experiences with this subject (Score:4)
The solution I came up with (which worked very well for our small population) was to keep a log of sites visited. Every couple of days I would scan the list of sites. Didn't take too long, as the "inappropriate" sites tended to jump off the list. A few banned accounts and everyone stayed in line.
Naturally, that solution would not work for a school with say, six thousand students surfing every day (we had 80), which brings up the main point. No cookie cutter solution can possibly address all the scenarios for different schools and libraries. Each place will need to come up with their own solution to what most people will agree is a legitimate problem/concern. Easy examples: should a kindergarten only school have an internet as open as a high school? How about vocational schools (with many adult students)?
If Congress really wants to be helpful about this, let them require that such issues be addressed in each library and school's technology plan, but leave the implementation up to the local level where the administrators and communtity might *gasp* actually know what is needed at that specific locale and for that specific audience.
Won't work - (Score:4)
What's wrong with parents censoring their kids? (Score:5)
This law is a license for every political interest group to keep subjects they don't like out of local libraries and schools. The victims would be kids with nowhere but libraries to go for Net access.
Bingo. Or, the disadvanges, or the mass of americans that don't have access to computers. I'm wondering why the lobby groups for the poor (are there those in the USA? Or do you have to be a representable minority? *sarcasm*) aren't freaking out, because they will be disproportionaly affected by this bill. Alternate names for this bill have been suggested already, but how about "Let's censor poor electorate, oh wait, they don't vote anyhow!" -> boy, I'd love to see online voting happen. Maybe a few terms of WWF representatives in Washington put some good 'n proper fear into elected officials, just like the old days (tm).
If you don't want your kids being exposed to pr0n, they shouldn't be in a library unsurpervised, unless they started censoring books since I was a library rat. There's lots of good stuff if you know where to look :).
Today's pr0n, tomorrow's Michelangelo!
Me first (Score:3)
If you are looking for another Jon Katz article with wild statements, over generalized statements and no factual data, you have come to the right place.
"Instead of tying the hands of educators and librarians, government should be doing everything possible to ensure that as many kids as possible have free access to the Net and the Web.."
We do. It is called the Universal Access Fee (federal tax) which I pay every month on my two phone lines. It was setup to subsidize Internet access to schools some time ago. At least I hope it was. I have not seen any numbers which show monies have actually been distributed to schools by the federal government.
"..because it will be vital to their social,
educational and economic opportunities."
Point of contention. Produce facts, studies, etc. which prove that having Internet access actually produces a better adjusted, educated, economically viable citizen. I contend this is your opinion fostered by the "Digital Divide" crowd. It would be far better to train young people on hardware, operating systems, coding, applications and ethics before throwing them into the maelstrom of the Internet - my opinion.
"Most of us don't need to go to the library for Net access, but millions of people -- mostly kids -- do"
Sorry, Jon. I am not accepting your statements as fact. Journalists learn how to make statements stick which involve numbers with the simple phrase, "According to ____, in 199____, over ____ of children depended upon libraries and schools for access to the Internet". Please present factual data to back up your sweeping generalizations.
Unlike many detractors, I could do a better job at this than you are currently. You know how to contact me. In the meantime, the University of Missouri has an excellent Journalism program you might want to investigate.
Re:Federal, no...local, yes (Score:3)
The government could just as easilly pull funding for those computers and connections entirely, and nothing in the constitution would stop them.
This is an argument about what is right, not what is legal. Filtering software greatly reduces the usefulness of a web terminal, and expanding federal control of local libraries is a Bad Thing.
Suggested readings... (Score:3)
In Europe, they calls those politicians fascist.
In the States, how are they called again? Somehow, puritan comes to mind...
Re:Libraries are already "censored" (Score:3)
This is far different than filtering web sites. Books and other print publications do not arrive by the truckload, for the library staff to sort through and determine what to shelve and what to toss.
Even in a situation where the library has chosen to include particular material, no librarian sits down and reads every single item to determine if there might be a dirty word in it somewhere. If this were the case, no public library would subscribe to any periodical because of the time it would take to determine if the latest issue of Newsweek had a review of some R-rated movie, an article about abortion or favorable comment on homosexuality.
There are many challenges every year from people who want to censor this or that because it is "inappropriate" based on their personal opinion. If libraries only had books that were acceptable to every single one of their potential patrons, they would be very small buildings, indeed.
The vast majority of libraries, and the American Library Association, have long been clear on their position of censorship, or monitoring. Some years ago there was an attempt by the government to use public libraries as a spy network -- tracking who checked out what book. ALA turned them down flat, and refused to even discuss it.
More recently, some libraries have removed Internet access altogether rather than submit to filtering. If the pressure to filter continues, I predict that more public libraries will remove the Internet connections rather than filter, particularly with the wildly inaccurate tools available and the heavy-handed pressure on many subjects that are well-represented in traditional print collections.
Re:Me first (Score:3)
And what in nine hells does the web has to do with hardware, operating systems and coding? The web is an information resource. Having a clue about computers is not necessary to access and use it. You sound like one of those people that believed that one should first be taught programming in Basic before being allowed to use a word processor (anybody remembers mid-to-late 80s?).
And ethics?! Exactly whose ethics are you going to teach?
Kaa
It's a good thing (Score:3)
This is actually a good thing because at school, we are not allowed to go online because the teachers are afraid we're going to look at porn. With the filters, the teachers may let the students go online to research more without supervision because they don't have to make sure every student is not looking at innappropreate things. Students have "accidentally" went to porn sites and I, as a student am VERY afraid I'll search for something and the result is a porn site because I may get disaplined.
Although this is censorship, it will help students research on the 'net more. Just make sure the filters don't filter out /. :)
Community Censorware? (Score:3)
As I see it, the main problem with the censorware programs that exist now, is that they have lists of sites that they block, which may or may not be just, or right. They often block sites to further their own agenda, ect. What if we had a user contributed list?
Something like the OpenDirectory that there was a while ago, or somesuch. People could submit sights that they thought were "bad", where tehy would be added to a pending list. From there, they could be voted on.
So the submitter would say:
"I went to playboy and it had pr0n. Block it?"
People would then see the site, and vote for it.
You could set userlevels in the client program, "require [5] votes to be blocked".
I think that having the list out in the open, and community might be a halfway decent way to do a not so great thing. The lessor of evils, you might say. What do you guys think of this idea?