|
Feedback From Communitarian Update
Number 44
We are pleased to announce a new listserv exclusively for communitarian events held in the D.C. area. If you'd like to be
informed about these events, please sign up at:
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/dcsubscrib.html
We asked:
A court in Philadelphia is considering whether or not the government should require schools and libraries,
who are connected to the Internet with public funds, to install filters on their computers to prevent minors
from being exposed to pornographic material. What should the court rule and on what grounds? (For more
information on the story, see the New York Times, "Shhh! We're Trying to Surf" by John Schwartz, 3/31/02)
Here are all the responses we received.
In my view the court should rule that the government violates the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause.
Burton Caine
Professor of Law
Temple Law School
I am opposed to the use of any filtering software on the Internet.
HOWEVER, I do not think there should be access to the INTERNET in libraries at all... I think libraries
should have INTRAnets only, to which they can add URL "collection."
I think we should treat whatever URL's a library decides are valuable assets as simply part of their
particular collection. Libraries have principles for adoption of texts and other materials. Those
same principles should be applied to URLs as well. Libraries should have intra-nets which one can
use to access the URL "collection." Is this censorship? Of course it is. Every explicit act of inclusion
is an implicit act of exclusion. We have a collection of books at home for our family. We decide what
becomes a part of the collection. When our daughter is old enough to log on, we will develop a library
of URLs as well. I don't think libraries should be obligated to provide access to any old thing one might
come across on the Internet. I'm for the approach that less is more. Build your own intranet based on the
same principles you build your physical collection. Two days ago I performed an experiment. I looked for a
"snuff film." I found one within 45 seconds. A real one. A short clip I wish I had not seen. I don't think
libraries need to feel guilty for not adding that to their collection...
I don't know where we got this idea that unlimited access to unlimited information and images is an inherently
good or useful thing. I'm not entirely in the Neil Postman camp, but pretty damn close.
Marc Marenco, Director
Pacific Institute for Ethics & Social Policy
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Rather than pass the responsibility to the government, schools, libraries, and software filters, why not, as
parents, educate our children regarding pornography? Software filters, by themselves, are not 100% thorough.
They may blank out legitimate information that a student, for example, might want to utilize in researching
an assignment on pornography or a related subject. Then there is the question of what is pornography and who
should be the arbiter.
Larry Quilici
In my mind it is clear that government has a compelling interest in not exposing minor children to
pornography. There is no free expression interest in exposing children to porn. If there is a way to
restrict children's rights without restricting the rights of adults, as there should be technologically,
I don't see a problem with sending the message that access to such sites would have to be at home with
parental permission.
Thomas B. McAffee
Professor of Law
Boyd School of Law
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Of course schools and libraries which are publically funded should install filters to protect children
to the extent possible from pornography. Children come before adults and it some adults will have to do
some of their research elsewhere, they should be willing to accept that limit for the social good of
protecting our children from harmful material.
Ernest Phillips
Professor of Law
Fordham University Law School
I believe it is different the role that play schools from libraries. I think libraries might be more liberal
in the resources they show because it is a more public space. But in the case of schools, I believe they are
capable of defining their principles and moral codes and norms, which should be known by the parents of the
children before they get to school.
In this way, I think school may use such filters according to a policy of education, because the personality of
a child does not forms by natural means, but needs the concurrence of responsible and qualified grownups, in
the same way that they are taught about eating, or studying or even religion.
Of course, censoring may not be the only way to educated a boy in values. It requires fundamentally the teaching
of positive values and, overall, the example of the persons in charge of such labor.
Juan David Enciso
Bogotá, Colombia
Business Professor
The court should rule to allow such filtering to take place. In the balance between right to free speech
and obligation of a society to its young, the latter in this case should prevail, which would be a rare
exception to the direction in which unfettered civil liberties have taken us. There is no constitutional
obligation for public funds to be expended on activities which clearly can be harmful to children,
do not serve any definable or necessary educational purpose and not only allow but, by availability
for free, encourage minors to have access to developmentally inappropriate material.
Jerry M. Wiener, M.D
Emeritus Professor in Residence of Psychiatry and Pediatrics
The amount of persiflage and disinformation the American Library Association is using in its attempt
to defeat CIPA is both culpable and criminal. Filters not only work, but they work well and effectively,
at least as effectively as any other tool librarians use now. For example, many libraries subscribe to
"full-text" databases that either do not list all articles, or even the complete text of the articles
cited yet you'll hear no one complaining about censorship.
Finally, if you attempted to give Screw magazine to a library for free that library's administration would
decline it and so it has been since the beginning of libraries. Libraries have never been repositories of
the pornographic and the obscene until the advent of the world wide web. Neither has the First Amendment
provided protection of same. To argue that because filters overblock and so cannot be used is as silly as
saying we cannot arrest anyone for fear we may arrest an innocent man.
Mark Y. Herring
Dean of Library Services
Dacus Library
Winthrop University
I feel as though the court should rule in favor of the filters on these computer systems. The children
today in our society are exposed to way too much bad stuff just by living and being a part of everyday
life. The Internet can be a very useful tool in the educational sector, but it also can be very damaging
as well. Our children need to be protected from this pornographic material and if it takes the filters to
do this, then I say go for it.
Pam Gruber
Concerned Parent
Visalia, CA
Absolutely a filter should be installed on computers in Libraries and schools. It is possible to monitor
your children's computer at home but not in schools or libraries. Children will be children. Pornographic
material can be accessed accidently or inadvertently. Children are protected by the fact that adult books
are kept separate in sections.
The court ruling could be: Tax dollars allowing pornographers to expose our children to harmful,
disturbing, material. As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for it. I'll pay to stop it.
Susan Schroeder
Chicago, IL
I believe that we should protect minors from pornography on the WEB. I believe in general that we
should protect children from materials that are overly violent and heavily sexual. Why give children
images that will be troublesome and that they cannot process maturely? Whether such restrictions should
come from schools, local communities, or state and federal government needs to be discussed.
Karen A. Schwab, Ph.D.,
The solution seems fairly simple to me. Yes, such filters should be installed. We have robbed our
children of enough of their childhood already. We don't need to encourage them to grow into adults
sexually too soon. As explorative as kids are they will find ways at their own pace and time (I
certainly remember some magazines under my mattress). But we shouldn't make it too easy for them.
However, a child's parents are the proper censors, rather than the government. So here is where my
solution comes in. Install such filters, but issue to adults coded cards which can be "swiped" through
a reader, thereby disabling the filtering program. When the adult logs off, the filter is restored. If
a parent wants his child to have totally free access at a library, the parent can share his coded card
with the child(ren). Of course, some kids will find ways around this, most obviously by stealing mom's
or dad's card. But it is a good faith effort, which respects parental rights, yet allows access when a
parent deems it suitable. You may include this response.
Jim Flechtner
By all means the government should use public funds to place filters on computers. On what grounds?
With the amount of "absentee" parents in America today, someone needs to step up to the plate and
protect our kids. Since no one else is interested in taking on the task, it must fall to the government.
Our kids must be protected; the government has the funds, the committees, the power to make it happen.
What better replacement for parents could parents ask for?
Mrs. Jaime Capener, housewife, devoted mother of 3 children
A quick response to the issue of whether the Internet should be filtered in public libraries etc. Having
grown up in a society where censorship was ubiquitous (the Republic of Ireland) I have deep reservations
about any form of censorship. However, I do recognize that minors need a degree of protection and it is
not an infringement of rights if control is exercised over the Internet where they may have access. The
point is that if an adult wishes to access pornography, it is not difficult to do so and for the most
part they can achieve this on a home computer or in another form. What a filter in a public library will
do is prevent minors from accidently or knowingly gaining access to material that a parent might not wish
them to view and save the public library from accusations of colluding with pornography.
What this does not address is the extent young adults should have an awareness of erotic material
(which some will deem pornography) and of sexuality. For many young people knowledge of sex comes from
the Internet and a fine balance needs to be drawn here. Many young people will access the Internet to
find out things their parents will not discuss with them (and some of this stuff will be objectionable),
but this is part of growing up. My view would be that the fewer the obstacles to this the better, but
this can be done elsewhere than in a publicly funded forum. Best wishes,
Brian Girvin
Professor of Comparative Politics
Department of Politics
University of Glasgow
I say yes to filters on school computers -- we would not put pornographic books in the school library,
would we? I think the principle is the same. They may be able to get access elsewhere but the schools
should not provide it.
Dr. Linda M. Sweeting
Chemistry Department
Towson University
I am a single person but have a number of nephews, nieces, great-nephews and great-nieces. I feel
that the young ones among them should be protected from pornographic material because being exposed
to it at a young age might distort their view on sex and lead them to unhealthy practice of it when
the time comes.
Gabriella Poggi
Associate Professor of theoretical chemistry
University of Bologna
In reply to your question, I think the court should rule that the government is certainly within
its rights to require libraries to install filtering software.
If parents are heck-bent on allowing their kids to have access to EVERYthing, I feel sure they
can find a way to do it.
I suspect that libraries will handle it this way. The filtering software will be installed, then
they also will find a way for patrons to enable or disable it, according to their preferences.
Adults will still have a choice, even parents who choose to disable it for their kids.
If we can put other restrictions on kids, like making them wait until a certain age to buy alcohol,
tobacco, and see X-rated movies, I see this filtering mechanism to be quite parallel.
Peggy Cairns
Silver Spring, MD
Secretary of the Maryland Coalition Against Pornography
The issue is twofold. First, do we put limits on what people can do with public funds and whether
there is a morality that must, needs or should be imposed by the government. Second, is the government
in the business of the protection of young people from inappropriate material. I do not believe that
the government can require any limitation on the freedom of access to information for any one group
that is already protected by First Amendment rights and available to the general public. And, the Supreme
Court continues to support freedom of access to information despite the personal distaste for some of
that information by members of the Court's. However, it is not in conflict with public policy to protect
our young people from access to information that their maturity may not be able to handle or in fact might
do them some harm. All of us as parents make those decisions every day and introduce more adult materials
as we see our children ready to handle that information. So, while on an adult level, I would disagree with
any limitation on personal "ADULT" freedoms to this information, I do not find it at all troublesome that
a court might wish to filter information available to young children. It is in line with public and private
policy to do so.
Jack Harney
I am absolutely opposed to government censorship. Government funds should never be conditioned on a
public library (of all places!) censoring the material they make available to the public. This is best
left to the local community to police themselves.
Jules J. Mermelstein
Upper Dublin Township Commissioner
Managing Attorney, Levin & Associates
I am writing in response to the question of whether libraries should be required to install filters to
protect minors from porn on the Internet. My husband is a reference librarian, and I am an academic
political scientist. I heard an NPR spot last week that suggested different libraries have different
experiences, and some have very little problem with public access computers, since, in plain view, few
people are going to access such sites. Other have had problems and have installed filters. I believe it
should be "local option"--libraries should decide individually (their boards, perhaps, in consultation
with the director and staff) whether or not to install filters. I do not like one-size-fits-all solutions.
Besides, minors should be monitored by parents, anyway. I am also concerned about the way filters can tend
to block legitimate sites--let's say accessing sites to do research about breast cancer--by being triggered
by certain words, like "breast," etc.
Emily R. Gill, Prof. of Political Science
Bradley University
Parents and in loco parents have some responsibility to monitor their children's activities. Therefore,
it seems reasonable for schools and libraries, in their in-loco- parental role, "to install filters on
their computers to prevent minors from being exposed to pornographic material." Just because it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish pornography from art, for example, does not mean that all pornography should be
available to children. Much of pornography is clearly pornography. However, I would not like to see the
federal or state government dictate the standards or methods of filtering. In the spirit of parental and
in-loco-parental responsibility, these decisions should be made at the local level where parents, educators
and librarians can more likely reach some consensus or workable compromise.
Howard Kirschenbaum
Frontier Professor of School, Family and Community Relations
Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development
University of Rochester
|
