To Filter, or Not to Filter…

Although no one would deny that the Internet has forever changed the way we access information, not all would agree that this change is for the better. Unbelievably, it is a common belief that access to large amounts of information is not healthy…even for adults. The idea is that by viewing “inappropriate” material, intentionally or not, a person will be forever changed. Apparently, exposure to this material will cause significantly more harm than it’s censorship. The idea is basically that someone else knows what is best for the rest of us; someone else should decide what is appropriate and what is not. It was this belief that began the movement to place Internet filtering software in public libraries.

The first attempt at censoring Internet use in public libraries was in 1997 with Reno v the American Civil Liberties Union. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled against censorship and found the anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act to be a violation of the First Amendment. Hooray Supreme Court!!! Unfortunately, 3 years later Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, which in effect negated Reno v ACLU by requiring publicly funded institution to use Internet filtering. Boooo Congress!!!

The idea behind CIPA was to protect children from “illegal visual depictions accessible through the Internet”. On the surface this seems like a very noble endeavor, but the reality is not so cut-and-dry. The reality is that we are entrusting a software program to keep our children safe from the “terrors of the Internet”. No filtering program is perfect and children will inevitably find a way around any software if they really want to. It seems to me, that a better approach is the one that the ALA has adopted. The program promotes educating children (and adults) on Internet safety. Teaching children how to learn and play on the Internet safely will give them the skills necessary to ensure a lifetime of positive Internet experiences.