Internet Filters and Censorship: distinguishing between oppression and age-appropriate information dissemination.
The dawning of a new millenium has brought little change in the views of society regarding the innocence of children and the need to protect them from inappropriate materials. Examination of the history of censorship shows that as far back as the 4th and 5th centuries B.C. authors and their works were censored as being too sensational or corrupting of young people. The main issue then and now continues to be the protection of young people from 'obscenity' and inappropriate materials. Materials have been censored on a variety of grounds, from religious reasons to limitation of access to pornography. Censors of children's literature and materials generally present themselves as moralistic individuals desirous of providing opportunities for young people to engage themselves with activities and literature that will promote right-thinking, and eliminate the possibility of contact with questionable materials and ideas. With the introduction of the Internet as an inexhaustible and ever-growing fount of information and ideas, the censors have declared war on this new front of 'immorality' and corrupted ideas. The usual solution proposed is to filter the Internet with one of the many products developed for just this purpose. Filtering seems like a quick and easy solution, but there is a lot more involved than meets the eye. The big problem is distinguishing between true oppression and age-appropriate information dissemination.
�
Censorship
History
Censorship is considered
the restriction of expression. The Mirriam-Webster
Online Dictionary defines censorship as:
Date: circa 1591 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively.
To censor is defined as:
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.
Censorship of information, ideas, and other types materials has a very long history, going back to at least 850 B.C. when Homer's The Odyssey was censored, and continuing throughout the centuries. Aristophanes' Lysistrata (c.411 B.C.) was censored, and Aristophanes himself was put to death in 380 B.C. as a corrupter of youth and an atheist. This was after an entire lifetime spent teaching and writing. The list of censored works and authors is long and prestigous ? the works of Ovid, the Bible, the Koran, the Nuremburg Chronicle, writings of Erasmus, Machiavelli, and Vergil; the work of Michaelangelo, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Walter Raleigh, Francis Bacon, Shakespeare, Descartes, Pascal, and on and on through history. Modern times have seen censorship of such children's book authors as Frank L. Baum, Judy Blume, and J.K. Rowling. For an online timeline of censored materials see The File Room; for a quick look at some 'objectionable' children's materials see Banned Books Online. Almost since its inception there have been cases of censorship in the television and movie industries (think of the recent cases involving the'V-chip'), and the music industry certainly has had its share of censorship as well. Mozart's music was once considered too sensational for young people, young girls especially. Most recently the attention of censors has turned to the Internet and whether children should be allowed to use it in its unvarnished form, or be required to use filtering devices that in theory would act as 'smut sieves'.
The controversy over censorship in any form has a basis in disagreement over freedom of expression. There seems to always be a very distinct line that separates the two sides of the argument. On one side is the view that absolute freedom of expression is the only democratic solution; on the other side is the belief that absolute freedom of expression creates an infringement upon individual and governmental protection rights. Those who believe in absolute freedom of expression will often express belief in the idea that the government should not be allowed to make censorship decisions in order to protect citizens from government oppression and fear of retribution. The flip side of this is the belief that absolute freedom of expression creates a situation allowing sensitive government and individual issues to become public targets. Censorship is used in some instances as a form of opression; in many countries it is not safe to express personal opinions, or to write about subjects that might be considered subversive, or dangerous to the government.
Most censorship arguments in the United States are based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides for freedom of speech and press. However, not all types of speech are constitutionally protected: libel, obscenity, and words intended to urge immediate antagonistic response (inciting to riot, etc.) are not protected forms of free speech. Legally, obscenity and pornography (two terms often heard in discussions of censorship) do not have the same meanings. Obscenity , as defined by Mirriam-Webster:
- 1 : disgusting to the senses : REPULSIVE
2 a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage.c : repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles. d : so excessive as to be offensive. .
Obscenity is defined by the FindLaw Legal Dictionary as:
- 1: the quality or state of being obscene.
- 2: something (as an utterance or act) that is obscene: also : obscene material.
Obscenity has a narrower legal definition than does pornography, which is defined by the FindLaw Legal Dictionary as:
- : material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement.
Note: Pornographic material is protected expression unless it is determined to be obscene.
However, child pornography is illegal under federal and state laws prohibiting the depiction of
minors in sexual acts.
The problem with the legal definition for obscenity is that it is far too broad, and allows for a great deal of interpretation on the part of the individual. The general definition is considerably more specific, but still allows a great deal of room for individual interpretation. Who will decide what constitutes obscenity is usually the issue - often it is a judge or jury of peers. Sometimes a community survey will be conducted to get a broader view of community standards of morality and ethics. The issue of who decides what is best for everyone else is where the problem lies, and this has not changed throughout history. The main difference here and now in the United States is that We The People have the right (according to the Constitution) to choose for ourselves and not be dictated to by others.
�
Grounds
for Censorship
There are numerous reasons
that have been used for censoring materials. Materials (children's
books in particular) suppressed on social grounds, which generally
refers to materials that depict or describe sexual conduct in
a patently offensive manner; declared "obscene", materials
banned, challenged or censored because of language, depiction
of sexual orientation, social class, racial characterization,
or drug use by characters; various social differences viewed as
objectionable. Materials suppressed on religious grounds include
those items listed in the Index, the Catholic list of censored
materials; books such as The Giver by Lois Lowry which
is said to promote New Ageism (as well as infanticide); and many
more. Challenges to children's books generally take several forms:
Sexual Content is the biggie, with books like Heather Has Two
Mommies and Daddy's Roomate topping that list. Satanic,
Anti-Christian, and Witchcraft Content is certainly right up there
as well, with Harry
Potter currently topping the list of most frequently challenged
books; profanity, racisim, and sexism are often listed as reasons
for challenging books such as The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn and Caddie Woodlawn; and anti-family and anti-American
concerns in written materials such as Judy Blume's Blubber,
in which the children who terrorize an overweight child are not
punished for their actions, and concerns that the book promotes
lying and stealing.
The desire to control the thoughts of others often takes the form of censorship.Challenges to children's books in particular have been on the increase for a number of years according to the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. The list of most frequently challenged books from 1990-1999 is long and probably familiar to most readers. Most books and websites contain messages; few are simple chewing gum for the mind. Censors seem to feel that by allowing such books and sites to exist, and to be read or viewed by minors, is the same thing as endorsing the messages, that somehow their very existance constitutes approval and condonation of the messages presented within. This is a misconception. The very basis of democracy is the unfettered interchange of ideas and communication. Democracy's toleration of divergent opinions exists because of the individual desire to express one's own opinion; toleration does not constitute endorsement.
�
Censorship
in Children's Literature
Censorship in children's
literature is based on the basic idea that childhood is a time
of innocence, and that this innocence must be protected at all
costs. Hence the censor ? the protector of innocence. Definitions
in most dictionaries give a definition of childhood as the period
between birth and puberty. If childhood is considered a set of
ideas, rather than a period of time, it is then possible to take
into account the types of ideas that have predominated childhood
during various times in history. One belief held that children
were inherently wicked from birth, and thus must be kept from
any and all materials and ideas that might corrupt. Another belief
is that children are born with minds like a blank slate, and that
children need not be made to feel guilt-ridden without cause,
since they were lacking in original sin. Another belief is that
children are naturally good, an idea tied to sentimentalism and
romanticism about childhood.
Child-rearing books began to be produced in the early 1800s by proponants of the childhood-innocence idea, and the books promoted the idea that parents must preserve this innocence as long as possible. This concern for the preservation of innocence let directly to modern ideas and concerns regarding outside influences and the effects those influences have on children. These affecting cultural forces are those things which the censors are attempting to control. The first signs of the attempts to control these cultural forces can be seen in the early 1800s with the emergence of children's literature. Most of the literature published for children during this period was moralistic, and intended to promote intellectual and moral growth. A firm belief in the idea of childhood innocence had taken hold of Americans by the mid-19th century, and this led to production of materials whose primary function was entertainment. Since innocence was considered inherent in children's natures, any failure to live up to the role was considered the fault of the parents. This attitude can be seen in society today ? problems of the child are invariably the fault of the parents.
Modern censors are continuing the propagation of the idea of childhood innocence as inherent in the makeup of the child. Modern children are presented with a plethora of materials intended primarily as entertainment. Books for children now have extremely limited moralistic tendencies, though of course there are always some exceptions to this rule. In our entertainment-driven society there are any number of ways for children to encounter materials that may provide a shock to an innocent mind. The Internet, for example, is the gateway to a world of ideas that people a hundred years ago would have never considered a problem. Their children would not in their lifetimes have encountered much of what modern children might run across in the course of an average afternoon. This is where the role of the censor comes into play.
�
The censor, according to Mirriam-Webster, is:
Who is the censor in our
society? The answer to that is anyone. Parents, teachers, librarians,
writers, publishers, church officials, government officials, persons
who feel some type of moral outrage as a result of have read or
viewed or heard of something that they feel is detrimental to
the innocence of children. Parents challenge materials in school
and public libraries; a list of most frequently challenged materials
includes the works of such authors as Mark Twain, Judy Blume,
and J.K. Rowling. Teachers challenge materials they are asked
to present to their students by sending home requests to parents
for permission for students to read or view certain types of materials.
Librarians censor by materials selection policies; it can be much
easier to simply say there wasn't enough money in the budget to
purchase a copy of "Heather Has Two Mommies" than to
deal with the almost certain challenges that will come as a result
of placing the book on the shelf. Publishers censor by refusing
to publish materials they feel to be questionable, or allowing
certain types of materials to go out of print when they "no
longer accurately reflect current thinking" . Church officials
censor by asking congregations to refrain from allowing their
children to read certain materials, or use the Internet. Government
officials censor by working to promote legislation that requires
censorship on the part of schools and libraries. This includes
the recent law passed in the state of Arizona requiring Internet
filters on computer terminals in public schools and libraries,
or resulting denial of universal service to those that fail to
implement filtering or blocking of the internet. The purpose of
this law is to "protect American children from exposure to
harmful material while accessing the Internet from a school or
library".
From some of the comments made by would-be censors regarding Internet filters it seems that many censors have a mental model of Internet filters that is faulty. A mental model, in terms of cognitive psychology, was determined by Johnson-Laird (1983-88) to mean either an "analogical representation or a combination of analogical and propositional representations" defined by human reasoning and understanding of language. A mental model is to be considered distinct from (although similar to) images, and helps the person in question gain an understanding of the structure of the condition/function/state of things. Stated more clearly by Donald Norman, a mental model is the model people maintain of themselves and others, the environment around them, and things that are objects with which they interact. A useful example of how mental models work is that of the auto crash-test, used to determine how well a car's structure will hold up in an accident, and tested before the car model is released to the public. People do the same thing with mental models to make predictions regarding outcome of things before they actually take place. This use of mental models is essentially what many censors do with Internet filters. With little prior, firsthand knowledge on the subject of Internet filters and how they work the censors are predicting that the filters will solve all the problems with inappropriate information on the Internet. Many have not researched filters enough to know that while it is possible to block sites in various ways, it is not possible to eliminate all questionable material, because there is just too much out there, and new sites pop up literally every minute. The censor also is often unaware that in addition to blocking unwanted information, many types filters also block materials that are perfectly legitimate. Many who would filter the Internet are also unaware of the legal issues surrounding censorship of adult's rights to access materials, and the public library's role in presenting information to the community. Without this information it is impossible to have an accurate mental model of the benefits and problems of filter use.
When children's materials are censored, is it not possible that the censorship is an attempt to hide from children situations that exist in society? Perhaps because even though children may be faced with such situations, they "should not really know about these things, because really nice people don't admit such things exist!" (Bedinger, p. 38). It is this attempt to hide information from others that often borders upon, or crosses over into, oppression. While parents have the right or responsibility to guide their children in their learning and access of all types of information, they do not have the right to dictate what others should be allowed to access. In the attempt to censor children's access to the Internet, it seems likely that filtering, though well-intentioned, will continue to be self-defeating until such time as a better method of filtering than is currently available comes to pass.
�
�
Censorship
and the Internet
The Internet is the largest
collection of information and ideas ever known to man. So much
information is available that it would be impossible to view every
page on the Internet in an entire lifetime. There is currently
no effective way to limit the types of materials people may place
on the internet, since it is possible for anyone to put up a web
page with whatever sort of information they want to present. The
result of this has been freedom of speech in a way never before
known. But freedom of speech often comes at a price.
The freedom of speech currently available on the Internet has caused quite a furor in some circles. The rules for censorship on the Internet are broad, and fairly ill-defined. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) criminalized some types of free speech, and was applied to the Internet using such terms as "indecent", which unfortunately is not defined to except material of scientific, artistic, literary, or political value. The words "depicting or describing" when applied to Internet situations were used to criminalize text, including sexually explicit material, that could not be considered illegal under obscenity laws when printed in books; the term "patently offensive" , which came from the 1973 Miller case on obscenity, permitted a jury to determine whether material is illegal based on their own feelings about it, combined with demonstrated contemporary community standards. "Contemporary community standards" also emerged as a legal term from the Miller case, and allowed communities to determine what obscenity is based on their own standards. The term "sexual or excretory acts or functions" when applied to the CDA allowed censorship of non-fiction and fiction materials of a perfectly legitimate nature, including medical materials. In an appeal by the ACLA and attorney general Janet Reno decided on June 26th, 1997, it was determined that the CDA was too vague, and that the specific terms listed above were found to abridge rights of citizens determined by the First Amendment.
More recently the Childrens' Internet Protection Act (CIPA) enacted in December of 2000 has brought another round of lawsuits by the ACLU and the American Library Association, again protesting that this act, like the CDA, prohibits or limits constitutionally guaranteed free speech. It will be interesting to see the results of these legal actions. For libraries and librarians the issue of freedom of information is of great importance, and the effects that CIPA will have on public libraries will not be small. It is important to take stock of all the issues and be aware of what this new law will permit and what it won't.
Arizona has had a version of this law in place for over a year now, and there have been some definite ramifications for libraries, librarians, and library users. In an effort to assist libraries and librarians to understand the requirements of the law, the Arizona State Library has developed a workshop to define the law, and help library workers feel comfortable with its implementation. The law defines the term "harmful to minors" and lists various other definitions pertaining to the law. The full text of the law is available in the Arizona Revised Statutes, ARS Title 34, Chapter 5 - Computer Access Harmful to Minors. A class being developed by Professor Betty Marcoux and others at the University of Arizona will provide an overall look at the Arizona law, its ramifications, and how it affects libraries and librarians in the state.
The requirement of the law to protect minors using Internet filters has resulted in library systems such as the Tucson-Pima Public Library branch in downtown Tucson installing filters on all Internet terminals on the first floor, on the main terminals of the 2nd floor, and only on the terminals in the entryway to the third floor. The further up you go, the fewer filters there are. The reasoning behind this is that the Children's Room is on the first floor of the library, and contains both fiction and nonfiction materials. It is unlikely that young children would go upstairs for materials until they reach middle- or high-school. This set-up is felt to provide adequate protection from materials harmful to minors as provided under the law.
It seems likely that nearly everyone agrees there are certain things minors should not be allowed to read or see. It is difficult to image a teacher, librarian, or parent who would be anxious to present materials containing graphic violence or obscenity to minors, though certain groups have certainly represented public libraries and schools as purveyors of 'smut' and violence via the Internet and books. And it is true that those things are available online. For the censor the issue is what should be kept out. For the rest of the population the main issue ought to be: should we censor? Who should make the decisions regarding what is good and what is bad (and should someone other than ourselves, particularly the government, be allowed to make those decisions?). If it is necessary to provide some sort of filter, what should that filter consist of? Many groups are proponents of electronic Internet filtering devices, some of which are more effective than others. Other groups promote Internet user-education, and suggest that teaching children how to avoid harmful material is the best defense. Still others would suggest complete abstinence from the Internet as the best prevention. There are good, defensible arguments for most positions. The pro-Internet-education group claims that by providing electronic filters there will be gained an inappropriate sense of safety, since current technology is less than perfect. This group also states that by providing filters instead of Internet education a disservice is being done young people by not teaching them how to use the Internet appropriately. When adulthood is reached, will the filters still be there? The use of filters exclusively is rather analogous to placing a fence with a locked gate around a swimming pool, and never teaching the children living near it how to swim. When adulthood is reached, each individual is given a key to the locked gate. Having never learned to swim as children, will they instantly, upon gaining adulthood, be able navigate the waters? Or will many of them drown? The near-perfect solution would be perfect filters, ones that did not block valid information, yet kept out undisirable material, plus user education. The best of both worlds. The main problem is, once again, who gets to decide what is undesireable information.
�
�
Internet
Filters in Public Schools and Libraries
In December of 2000 the
U.S. passed a federal law (mentioned above) intended to protect
children from harmful material on the Internet. The law, called
the Children's
Internet Protection Act (CIPA), has been challenged by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in several recent cases,
as to the federal government's right to force schools and public
libraries to filter their public Internet access. Libraries and
schools will lose federal grants, known as Universal
Service Funding, intended to support communications technology
unless computer filtering software that blocks access to online
material deemed ``obscene,'' ``harmful to minors'' or ``child
pornography'' is installed. The effect of the law is that libraries
are expected to be in compliance by July 31, and have obtained
certification by October. The recently filed lawsuits challenge
parts of the law that affect libraries, rather than schools. The
contention of the lawsuits is that the law violates freedom of
speech, in effect forcing the level of free speech appropriate
for minors on adults. Public libraries now have until July of
2002 to obtain certification of Internet filtering technology
installation. This is a definite issue for libraries dependant
on the funding for their communications, as it can provide from
20 to 90 percent of funding support depending on the financial
makeup of the community. Financial eligibility for schools and
libraries is determined by the percentage of students in the community
who are eligible for the national school lunch program.
This funding percentage is important to public libraries because, according to Nancy Kranich (American Library Association 2000-2001 president) the direct result of the Universal Service Funding program has been that 95% of public libraries in the United States now have Internet service for library users and staff, and 25% of the population uses the public library as the "sole log-on point". With this consideration in mind, take this just a step futher and consider the possibility that those who log in exclusively at the public library probably do so because either personal Internet service is too costly, or unavailable to them due to location (rural areas, etc.). Add to this the fact that the Federal government has determined that the use of filters in public schools and libraries constitutes age-appropriate information dissemination and must be mandated by law. But does this mean that the 25% of the U.S. population whose Internet access is exclusive to the public libraries consists entirely of children? It would be folly to assume this. If the government forces the CIPA ruling on public libraries it will mean that much of that 25% of the population will receive only filtered Internet access. This constitutes adult access to information having been limited to information appropriate for minors. It must be left up to Internet users to decide if this determination is truly age-appropriate information dissemination or oppression on the part of the government.
The CIPA act means that many people in some of the poorest areas of the country will lose access to the Internet, or receive only filtered access in public libraries. The poorest libraries are those that stand to lose the most as the result of loss of e-rate (Universal Service) funding, and are the most likely to follow the goverments' filtering standards. This means that those in the poorest areas are the most likely to receive only filtered access to information, in effect, loss of freedom to access information via this very rich electronic information resource. It has the ring of a violation of First Amendment rights.
For public schools the issue is compounded, since the act requires public schools to install filters on any terminal with Internet access, including staff terminals, regardless of educational needs. In Arizona the legislation proposed by senator John McCain passed through the house, requiring installation of filters in public schools and libraries. Funding for purchase, installation, and maintenance of the software and support personnel is not provided. Filters are imperfect at best, and of those that function using site lists, only one will release the list for review by parents, teachers, and librarians. Sites can be sent to the vendors for reconsideration for adding or removal from the list, but generally that is as far as the vendor will go. It is likely to be a while before the perfect Internet filter is developed, and even a filter that works exactly the way it is supposed to will still be subject to the other issues of imposing 'what is good for one is good for all' upon every user of a filtered Internet terminal.
�
�
The
Problem With Censorship
There is a certain power
attributed to the written word: the ability to influence and change
peoples feelings and behavior, the ability to enlighten, to enrich
and to corrupt. From the point of view of American citizens censorship
as a concept attacks the foundations of free speech and the first
amendment to the Constitution. But there is more than one viewpoint.
Some view censorship as a means of 'cleaning up' society, eliminating
'smut' from the eyes of vulnerable citizens. On the other hand,
censorship can have very real and horrifying effects. In Nazi
Germany books were heavily censored, many destroyed or altered
beyond recognition. In other cases the books appeared to suffer
little outwardly in the way of changes. But to the discerning
eye was the evidence that censorship in the form of psychological
attack on the very emotions, beliefs and attitudes forming the
foundations of society was occurring. In a children's book about
Christmastide, religious symbols had been altered or eliminated
completely, replaced with Nazi propaganda and ideology in such
a way that it was easy for parents to simply overlook the changes,
while children became indoctrinated to the new symbols . Once
censorship has begun it can spread uncontrollably. And censoring
materials will not alter the morals of society, but eliminating
the ability for a society's citizens to choose for themselves
to censor or not will effectively eliminate the ability to choose
morality.
Does electronic filtering constitute censorship? It can - as with everthing it depends on the audience and the circumstances. Surely no one would argue that providing an electronic filter for children under age six with the sole purpose of eliminating obscenity/pornography would constitute unreasonable censorship. Children that young need to be protected from that sort of thing. But the determination to use the filter should belong to the parent/guardian of that child. If the sole access to the Internet for the persons in question is the public library, then absolutely the library should provide the option for parents/guardians to help their children use electronic Internet filters if desired. The filter option should be available for anyone who wants to use it, and many public libraries are providing that option now, before the CIPA law has gone into effect. For example, the Jefferson County Public Library offers the option of filtered or unfiltered Internet searching, believing there is value in both types. Timberland Regional Library is another who believes in the value of offering the option of both types of searches. That option, the right to choose to read or view or listen to the types of materials in which one has interest, is the basis for democracy, and by forcing libraries to use filters without option, the government may be imposing unreasonable censorship on the people of the United States. And unreasonable censorship is equivalent to opression.
The main problem with censorship is that the censor's idea of 'perceived good' may differ from his neighbor's idea of 'perceived good'. If 99 out of 100 parents agree that reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in class is ok, should that one dissenting parent have the right to eliminate the book from the classroom curriculum? Should that one child be required to read the book anyway? Should that one parent have the right to prevent all the other children from reading the book? Most likely the majority would say no. Modern censors are here ? though the subjects for censorship have changed. The concern is now not so much for communism and four-letter words, but instead racism, sexism, elitism, materialism, new-agism, etc. And there is of course a grain of truth in the claims ? this is what causes the difficulties. It is much more difficult to fight against a falsehood that contains a grain of truth than it is to fight against a total lie and win.
�
�
According to the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) any person who knowingly sent or displayed materials that might be interpreted as 'indecent' or 'patently offensive by contemporary community standards' in such a manner to persons under 18 years of age faced the possibility of imprisonment and/or substantial fines. The terms 'indecent' and 'community' standard have not been fully defined, therefore leaving very large grey areas open to interpretation. The overturning of the CDA made way for other rulings: the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Universal Service Funding, intended to support communications technology (sometimes known as E-Rate), the Arizona state law, available in the Arizona Revised Statutes, ARS Title 34, Chapter 5 - Computer Access Harmful to Minors, and some other legislation as well. The CIPA law allows the government to restrict E-Rate money to those public institutions installing filters on their Internet terminals, and the Arizona law has a similar function.
These laws will make it easier for law enforcement to intervene in cases of purported obscenity and pornography. When it becomes necessary for the law to intervene, often the defense lawyer in a case of obscenity will find it necessary to walk a fine line between the law and the community standards. The issues are usually whether the material violates "the public's ideas of decency and morality" or if the material in question actually falls within an accepted range of content. The comparison of accused obscene materials to the community standard is generally where the difficulty lies, and why so many people are willing to say 'we must filter!'. So much of the stuff on the Internet that is questionable can be viewed easily by mistake, and what community would be willing to stand up and say "we are a community that accepts bestiality as a community norm", or sadism, or any of a number of subjects generally not acceptable by most communities. In cases where obscenity, etc. is what is being determined a sociologist will often do community surveys to assess what community norms are in actuality for the community in question. This is essentially a normalization of sex and sexually oriented materials that allows for a clearer determination of what is considered acceptable.
This type of assessment works well in specific, defined cases. The problem is that we are talking specifically of obscenity on the Internet, the 'global community'. There is some feeling amongst filter proponants that the material content available on the Internet ought to conform to the the most conservative community norms of any community accessing the Internet. The problem is that it is simply not possible to judge what is right for every citizen of the planet with access to the Internet. Filtering proponants would like to be able to let their children use the Internet without having to teach them appropriate navigational techniques. This is why Internet education is so important - people must become aware of the benefits and dangers of any tool, toy, process, or procedure they use. Who would turn loose their untrained eight-year-old child in the garage workshop full of power tools and say "Have fun - see you in an hour!" ? The dangers of the Internet are no less real, and yet parents leave their untrained children unattended at Internet terminals in public libraries every day. Legislating to ensure the safety of children seems like a good idea on the surface, but underlying the pretty picture is a seething mass of intellectual freedom and parental rights issues.
�
Conclusion
The information age has brought with it many concerns regarding the Internet and how it should be accessed by both minors and adults. The realization that the Internet is a purveyor of free speech as well as obscenity makes the issues much more complicated than may have been first realized when ARPANET was developed for the government in the 1960s. The protection of minors from inappropriate information is a concern that has changed little over the last two centuries, but the issues surrounding Internet access to an unregulated flow of information have compounded the concern of would-be censors. Continued legislation efforts have attempted to regulate the flow of free speech, not only in books, but now on the Internet via electronic filtering devices. Until filtering devices become more perfect vehicles for prevention of access by minors to very specific categories of information, it is important that children and adults be educated in the use of the Internet, and that parents/guardians act as guides and mentors to their children. Age-appropriate information dissemination is an important issue to anyone who deals with the Internet and with minors. It is also important for publicly funded facilities to provide the option for people to choose to use filtered Internet access, or not to use filters, as they desire. Failing to provide that option conjures up visions of book burning, book banning, and persecution of 'heretics' promoting new ideas that may change the way the world thinks, and it is the lack of an option to choose that equates with opression. Censors take care - while protection of innocent minds is without a doubt important, it is also important to remember that once the entire world believed the Earth was flat. Free speech and censorship are the two sides of a double-edged sword.
�
�
�
Bibliography
�
Aftab, Parry (2000). The Parent's Guide to Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Alexander, Lloyd (1973). "On Responsibility and Authority". The Horn Book Magazine, Feb.1974, Vol.L, No.1, pp.363-364.
Bass, Doris (1973). "The Last of "Charlie"". The Horn Book Magazine, Feb.1973, Vol.XLIX No.1, p.419.
Bedinger, Margery (1932). "Guide Books for Alice". The Horn Book Magazine, Feb.1932, Vol.VIII No.1, pp.38-39.
Berry, John N. (1998). "Choosing Sides." Library Journal, 3/1/98, Vol. 123 Issue 4.
Berry, John N. (1999). "We 'Protect' Free Expression." Library Journal, 10/1/99, Vol. 124 Issue 16.
Blume, Judy (1999). "Places I Never Meant to Be: A Personal View." American Libraries, Jun/Jul99, Vol. 30 Issue 6.
Burress, Lee (1989). Batttle of the Books: Literary Censorship in the Public Schools. The Scarecrow Press, Inc.; Metuchen, N.J., & London.
Cannon, Angie; Cataldo, Adam L. (2001). "Muggles VS. the Wizards: the Harry Potter Battle." U.S. News & World Report, 5/21/2001, Vol. 130 Issue 20.
Children and the Internet: Guidelines for Developing Public Library Policy (1998). The American Library Trustee Association (ALTA), the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), and the Public Library Association (PLA).
Corcoran, Barbara (1981). "An Open Letter to American Educators". The Horn Book Magazine, Feb.1981, Vol.LVII No. 1, p.483.
Ditchfield, P.H. (1895). Books Fatal to Their Authors. Burt Franklin: New York, NY, reprinted 1970.
Fialkoff, Francine (1999). "Just Ask Alice." Library Journal, 6/15/99, Vol. 124 Issue 11.
Grant, Cynthia (1995). "Tales from a YA Author: Slightly Uneasy." School Library Journal, Oct95, Vol. 41 Issue 10.
Haight, Anne Lyon (1955). Banned Books: informal notes on some books banned for various reasons at various times and in various places. George Allen & Unwin LTD: London.
Hearn, Micheal Patrick (2001). "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas City anymore-or Detroit-or Washington, DC!" The Horn Book, Jan/Feb 2001, Vol. 77 No. 1., p. 16-34
Holland, Isabel (1978). "On Being a children's book Writer and Accompanying Dangers". The Horn Book Magazine, Feb. 1980, Vol. LVI No. 1, pp.34-42.
Hull, Mary E. (1999). Censorship In America. ABC-CLIO, Inc.: Santa Barbara, CA.
Intellectual Freedom for Children: the censor is coming (2000). The Intellectual Freedom Committee, Association for Library Service to Children.
Kniffel, Leonard (1998). "Children's Librarian Fights Challenges, Loses Job." American Libraries, Apr98, Vol. 29 Issue 4.
Knowles, Elizabeth (1999). More Reading Connections: bringing parents, teachers, and librarians together. Libraries Unlimited, Inc.; Englewood, CO.
Kranich, Nancy (2001). "Libraries, Democracy, and Online Access". American Libraries, May 2001, Vol. 32 Issue 5, p7.
Lehmann-Haupt, Hellmut (1949). "What the Nazis Did to Children's Books". The Horn Book Magazine, Jan/Feb1949, Vol.XXV No.1, pp.220-230.
Lehr, Susan ? editor (1995). Battling Dragons. Heinemann; Portsmouth, NH.
McDonald, Frances Beck (1993). Censorship and Intellectual Freedom: a survey of school librarians' attitudes and moral reasoning. The Scarecrow Press, Inc.: Metuchen, N.J., & London.
Oder, Norman (1999). "Can Patrons Move Library Books?" Library Journal, 3/15/99, Vol. 124 Issue 5.
Oder, Norman; Rogers, Michael (1999). "Suit Challenges 'Adult' Book Rule." Library Journal, 9/15/99, vol. 124 Issue 15.
Olson, Renee (1994). "Parents' Rights Lobby Pushes for More Classroom Control." School Library Journal, Oct94, Vol. 40 issue 10.
Parker, Alison M. (1997). Purifying America: Women, Cultural Reform, and Pro-Censorship Activism, 1873-1933. University of Illinois Press.
Preece, Jenny et. al. (1994). Human Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley.
Riley, Gail Blasser (1998). Censorship. Facts on File, New York NY.
Rogers, Donald J. (1988). Banned! : book censorship in the schools. Julian Messner publications, New York.
Rogers, Michael; Oder, Norman (2000). "Judge Nixes Petition to Recall Books." Library Journal, 10/15/2000, Vol. 125 Issue 17.
Saltman, Judith (1998). "Censoring the Imagination: Challenges to Children's Books." Emergency Librarian, Jan/Feb98, vol. 25 Issue 3.
Schneider, Karen G. (1997). A Practical Guide to Internet Filters. Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., New York.
Senate Reports Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov], 105th Congress 2d session, Senate report 105-226.
Shade, Leslie Regan (1996). Cultures of Internet: virtual spaces, real histories, living bodies. Sage Publications, Lt., London.
Sova, Dawn B. (1998). Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Social Grounds. Facts on File, Inc., New York NY.
Tucker, Nicholas (1996). "Profitable Correctness." New Statesman &Society, 2/16/96, Vo. 9 Issue 390, p49.
West, Mark I. (1988). Children, Culture, & Controversy. Archon Books, Hamden CT.
Witnessing for Sociology (1996). Edited by Jenkins, Pamela J.; Kroll-Smith, Steve. Praeger Publishers, Westport CT.
Wolinsky, Art (1999). The History of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Enslow Publishers, Inc., New Jersey.
Woodworth, Mary L. ? editor (1977). The Young Adult and Intellectual Freedom. Publications Committee; Library School; University of Wisconsin.
You Are Not Alone!: Intellectual Freedom issues and Library Services to Youth. (1986). Intellectual Freedom Committee; Young Adult Services Division; American Library Association.
Zuckerman, Linda (1986). "A
Publisher's Perspective". The Horn Book Magazine,
Jan./Feb.1986, Vol.LXII No. 1, pp.629-633.