Stefanie Schmidt

Paper Two-Option One: Internet Filtering

Before getting into and discussing more about how internet can, or cannot be limiting
intellectual freedom, there needs to be a discussion on what internet filtering and intellectual
freedom exactly is. In a society where there have been many issues with terrorists, bullying,
school shootings, pornography, and other topics that can cause harm to the community, its safe
to say that the government will do as much as they can to keep their citizens protected.
Internet filtering is used to initially, according to Foundations of Library and Information
Science, permit millions of individuals, including minors, to access thousands of Web sites,
some of which might be sexually explicit. There is an understandable desire to limit childrens
exposure to these sites. [Causing] laws [to] prompt some libraries to implement filtering to
protect themselves for potential liabilities (Rubin 384). By filtering these websites, they are two
ways to go about it: keyword or word blocking, and sit blocking. Keyword/word blocking
compares Web page content with a list of disapproved words or phrases (384). This is the
easiest way, but it also is inexact, because it tends to block many sites that it finds inappropriate,
which may not be the case at all. Lastly, site blocking is when Web pages are compared to a list
of disapproved sites. This also has a setback, in which companies do not identify which sites are
blocked, arguing that it would put them at a competitive disadvantage (384). There are pluses
and negatives to internet filtering, as one can see. It then just comes down to what people find is
fair, which leads into intellectual freedom.
Intellectual freedom, according to ALA, gives the rights of library users to read, seek
information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment. A publicly supported
library provides free and equal access to information for all people of that community. This
Stefanie Schmidt

comes up in discussions when libraries do use CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act). This
act, according to the intellectual freedom manual from ALA, does not apply to libraries that do
not receive funding for internet access through LSTA, ESEA, or the E-rate discount program. No
library is required to have this funding (8). Initially, this act blocks certain things, such as
pictures and links, that would be harmful or concerning for a child to see, but people think this
isnt fair because of the First Amendment.
With these two topics being explained, it really is a catch twenty two situation. On one
hand, people can find it completely acceptable to have these filters, because it protects patrons
from seeing things that wouldnt be acceptable. Yet, according to Internet Filtering by Sarah
Houghton-Jan, The American Library Association (ALA) has stated unequivocally that any
type of content is unacceptable. The ALA Library Bill of Rights says very clearly: A persons
right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or
views. To ALA and many librarians, content filters of any kind are antithetical to the mission of
the library to provide free and open access to all information (25). Its understandable why
people would find this upsetting that a persons right should not be denied at a library, because
one, they are suppose to have the freedom to use a library. And two, many people who use their
library want to be able to use the material that are provided to them to the best of their ability,
since part of their tax money is being put towards libraries. Yet, I also agree with filtering things
on the internet. It is, after all, a public facility; of course things will be filtered/monitored, to
protect the community. I sometimes think people get so wrapped up in the idea that they are
entitled to everything, that they sometimes miss the big picture, which is that people are just
trying to make their country and communities a safer place. So, I have to agree with internet
filtering, because Im all about safety and security for a community, especially children.
Stefanie Schmidt

When it comes to children in a library, there has to be some kind of safety/security net for
them. They are young and nave, and do not know everything there is to life. In a public setting, I
believe there should be internet filtering, because it can reassure the parents, or guardians, that
they children are being protected from seeing things they shouldnt be. Now, some may not
agree with this, because of how the filtering works and is designed. According to Houghton-Jan,
studies were done to test the accuracy of these filters; in 2007 to 2008 there was a higher
accuracy percentage of 83.316%, compared to a 2001 to 2008 test, which was combined to be
78.347% (27). Because of these findings, it shows that these filters arent a hundred percent
accurate in what they are supposed to be doing. But, The National Telecommunications and
Information Administration recommended in its 2003 study of Internet filtering technology that
technology protection measures are most effective when teachers and educational institutions
can customize technology and use it in connection with other strategies and tools( Houghton-
Jan 30). In all actuality, even if the internet filtering isnt fulfilling its job by a hundred percent,
at least its something. I think most parents would prefer it covered something, rather than letting
their children have free range to search whatever they want.
Many patrons feel that internet filtering limits intellectual freedom, and it may. But the
way I see it is, if you are going to be searching things that may be seen as not acceptable at a
library, then I think they should find another place, such as a friend or family members house,
which has a computer they can use. Librarys do this because they are protecting their
community and I dont find anything wrong with that. I think its just a way of showing the
community that the library cares about what their patrons may come across. What it comes down
to, is the fact that the library was developed for the public. With that being the case, there will for
sure be limits to what can be searched, because who knows what type of person may walk in and
Stefanie Schmidt

start researching about weapons, bombs, and terrorist activities, because everything they need to
learn about it is readily available on a computer. By monitoring what patrons can see is just
another way to keep a community safe, which is what everyone should want and strive for. If
people are upset by this, then they should find other ways of accessing their information.














Stefanie Schmidt

Works Cited
Houghton-Jan, Sarah. "Chapter 4: Internet Filtering." Library Technology Reports 46.8 (2010):
25-33. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
"Libraries & the Internet Toolkit." American Library Association. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom>.
Rubin, Richard E. Foundations of Library and Information Science. New York: Neal-Schuman
Publishers, Inc., 2010. Print.