1. Internet Filtering : Should libraries filter internet content? Paul M. Schoenhard ’00 CS 99, 00W 7 March 2000

2. Internet Filtering… The Issue The Facts The Stakeholders The Positions The Cases The Alternatives Conclusions

3. Internet Filtering…  The Issue The Facts The Stakeholders The Positions The Cases The Alternatives Conclusions

4. The Issue Should libraries [be required to] filter internet content? What is a library’s role in the community? Who should decide what a library grants access to? What are the costs and benefits of internet filtering?

5. Internet Filtering… The Issue  The Facts The Stakeholders The Positions The Cases The Alternatives Conclusions

6. The Facts – Basic Statistics Over 60% of the public libraries in America offer Internet access to the public 45% of Internet users gain access at public libraries

7. The Facts – Filtering How it works Software works with browser to block transmission of “objectionable” sites Keyword-based filtering Text-based searches to categorize sites List-based filtering Explicitly identifies sites which may be considered “objectionable”

8. The Facts – Filtering It doesn’t work well http://www2.epic.org/reports/filter_report.html American Red Cross San Diego Zoo Smithsonian Others: The Safer Sex Page American Family Association Banned Books On-Line

9. Internet Filtering… The Issue The Facts  The Stakeholders  The Positions The Cases The Alternatives Conclusions

10. The Stakeholders Library Patrons Libraries Government Everybody

11. The Key Players  “If libraries allow access to porn, even for adults, then the public will be subsidizing a peep-show booth.” Robert Peters, President Morality in Media  “Censorship in any venue is a danger to liberty. Though the technology is different, the arguments are the same.”  Christine Link, Executive Director ACLU (Ohio office)

12. The Key Players Pro-filtering AFA Morality in Media Congress Religious Right Anti-Filtering IFEA ACLU ALA People for the American Way

13. Internet Filtering… The Issue The Facts The Stakeholders  The Positions The Cases The Alternatives Conclusions

14. Position – Pro-Filtering Basic Arguments Legal Communications Decency Act Internet School Filtering Act Ethical Protection of Minors Hostile Work Environment Subsidized “peep-show booth”

15. Position – Anti-Filtering Basic Arguments Legal 1 st Amendment Commerce Act Ethical Freedom of Expression Library may be most comfortable/only location to research sensitive topics Better Alternatives

16. Internet Filtering… The Issue The Facts The Stakeholders The Positions  The Cases The Alternatives Conclusions

17. The Cases New York Boston California CDA (ACLU v. Reno) Virginia Michigan

18. Case – CDA (ACLU v. Reno) “In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another… As we have explained, the Government may not ‘reduce the adult population… to… only what is fit for children.’”

19. Case – Loudoun Co., Virginia First major court case on library filtering Sexual harassment argument in addition to general access issues Verdict: “unconstitutional” “What we were trying to achieve in our original Internet policy was to treat Net access like our book and movie collections where there is judgement involved in picking the materials”

20. Case – Holland, Michigan First city to put the issue on the ballot “shut its doors rather than install the filters” Added issue: Holland comprises only 1/3 of taxpayers who fund the library Voted 4,379 to 3,626 against the proposal

21. Internet Filtering… The Issue The Facts The Stakeholders The Positions The Cases  The Alternatives Conclusions

22. The Alternatives Internet Usage Policies Privacy Screens Internet “Driver’s-Ed” Links to “Good” Sites Parental Control Shoulder-Tap

23. The Alternatives Internet Usage Policies Privacy Screens Internet “Driver’s-Ed” Links to “Good” Sites Parental Control x Shoulder-Tap

24. Internet Filtering… The Issue The Facts The Stakeholders The Positions The Cases The Alternatives  Conclusions

25. Conclusions Internet filtering in public libraries is WRONG: Acceptable alternatives DO exist Filtering blocks valuable content Any content blocked abridges basic freedom of speech and expression