Censorship: filtering in the public library 1

RUNNING HEAD: CENSORSHIP: FILTERING IN THE PUBLIC LIBRARY

Censorship: filtering in the public library

Information Science in Librarianship

LIS 6260 Section 8

Fall Semester

Corinne Spallino

December 9, 2008
 Censorship: filtering in the public library 2

Censorship: filtering in the public library

The First Amendment entitles citizens of the United States of America

to have the freedom of speech (Rubin, 2004). Freedom of speech does not just imply that

citizens have the right to convey any message they desire, but it also means that they have the

right to receive information (Rubin, 2004). This intellectual freedom issue is brought into a new

light with the many ways to express and receive opinions on the Internet. The Internet has

opened up doors to this issue because of its uncontrolled speech and high-speed communication

qualities (Rubin, 2004). From questionable advertisements on websites to very sexually explicit

web pages, freedom to access this information and attempt to control this information has been

met with disagreement. While it may be considered the library’s obligation to promote

intellectual freedom and “to protect the rights of patrons to free access to ideas and information

in a democratic society” (Rubin, 2004, p. 187), it has been debated on whether children and

minors should have free access to the same information as well (Rubin, 2004). This paper will

discuss the issue, the limitations of filters and suggestions regarding censorship and filtering on

public library computers.

Issue

Public libraries should offer a balanced collection of material and offer access to

materials for the “common good” (Gorman,2003 ). However, Michael Gorman (2003) writes

that “the common good is the good of each individual in a community funded collectively, not

the good of those in the community who think alike” (p. 143). As mentioned above, the

American Library Association Library (ALA) Bill of Rights poses that “Libraries should provide

materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues.

Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval”

 Censorship: filtering in the public library 3

(ALA, 2008, para. II). Although the ALA encourages that censorship should be challenged

because of the library’s mission to provide access to information, this does cause some difficulty

when controversial subject matter is exposed to children.

Although obscene or pornographic material is not illegal in all the states, the U.S.

Supreme Courts has ruled that state legislation can enforce state regulation on how to handle

obscene material when it concerns minors (Morgan, 2001). With the Congress’s Child Online

Protection Act (COPA) passed in October 1998, efforts have been made to restrict access that is

determined “harmful for minors” (COPA commission, 2000). COPA has exposed the many

issues of the Internet may be harmful to a child’s welfare (COPA commission, 2000). COPA has

realized that children can easily be exposed to a full range of obscene content online through the

web searches, instant messaging, inappropriate websites left on the screen after another patron’s

search, or by a simple click of the mouse in error (COPA commission, 2000). One way COPA

was trying to limit inappropriate material was to require credit-card certifications or codes for

adults to access the restricted material (Rubin, 2004). To prevent unnecessary exposure to

minors, COPA has been working since 1998 to enforce this law, however, it is currently not

being enforced because it as seen as a violation of the First Amendment (Dobija, 2007).

Another attempt to censor pornographic or adult materials was presented in 2000 as the

Children’s Internet Protection Act, also known as CIPA (Rubin, 2004). Through CIPA, public

and school libraries will not receive government funding for the Internet, unless they have

provided an Internet policy and use software that will filter material considered “harmful” to

minors (Rubin, 2004). While ignoring CIPA’s mission is not an option, choosing not to have all

of the terminals filtered can be disputed. During the initial compliance of CIPA , many libraries

who heavily relied on federal funding , had to participate in the options put forth by the CIPA to
 Censorship: filtering in the public library 4

receive funding (Anthony, 2004; Rubin, 2004). Even today, many libraries with limited budgets

and libraries who do not have affluent library donors, often have no choice but to comply to the

conditions set forth by the CIPA (Anthony, 2004). While the majority of libraries do offer some

sort of Internet filtering system on a least some of the computer terminals, this censorship issue

has been challenged in court because filters do not always work and it limits equal access to

information (Rubin, 2004).

The use of filters

It sounds like a fair compromise for libraries to provide filtering software for minors but

provide the opportunity for adults to request the filter removed. However, the American Library

Association does not see the optional filtering as a solution (Library Bill or Rights, 2008).

According to one study, out of eleven filtering products tested for reliability in filtering

questionable material, the worse filtering system restricted access to eight-eight percent of

questionable websites (Munroe, 2006). The majority of sexually explicit material was blocked

but it was difficult to distinguish between websites that promoted hate speech, illegal drug use

and violence (Munroe, 2006). Although imperfect filters are a reality, the CIPA is still requiring

them for libraries in order to receive funding (Rubin, 2004). The use of filtering software to

block websites, whether they work or not, still limits access to information for adults and for

minors (Library Bill of Rights, 2008; Rubin, 2004).

Intellectual freedom limits for minors

By restricting information from minors, it is a violation of intellectual freedom that

libraries work so hard to advance (Rubin, 2004). Restricting access to information may shelter

minors but it also promotes the ideology that minors do not have any civil liberties that are

independent of their parents and that is a false assumption (Morgan, 2001; Rubin, 2004).
 Censorship: filtering in the public library 5

Minors do have constitutional rights to access information (Library Bill of Rights, 2008; Rubin,

2004) and the ALA poses that age should not be a factor when equal information access is being

questioned or challenged (Library Bill of Rights, 2008). The Center for Democracy and

Technology has posed that COPA, "would have led to severe restrictions on a wide range of

legal, socially valuable speech, including content relating to sexual identity, health, and art" (as

cited in Dobija, 2007, p. 51).

In addition, there is sufficient evidence that filters block and restrict resources that may

be unrelated to anything sexual or inappropriate (Rubin, 2004). Over-blocking of Internet

resources and websites can limit access to quality information that really is not harmful to

children (Pace, 2005; Rubin, 2004). Filters may shelter children but it may filter information

that could be beneficial while they develop. Certain committees may label certain materials

“inappropriate” but ultimately, according to the public library’s policy, it is up to the parents

(Rubin, 2004). Unlike in a school media center, public librarians are not expected to act the loco

parentis function (Rubin, 2004). Regarding the education al process of children, Richard Rubin

(2004) points out that “although some feel that this process requires that some ideas be restricted,

others would argue that children who are free to explore ideas become healthy adults and better

educated citizens “(p. 188).

Intellectual freedom limits for adults

Moreover, it can be argued that if libraries use filters, it is censorship to material that,

constitutionally, adults can and are allowed to access (Rubin, 2004). Filter software often can

often “over-block” material that may be “obscene” for children, but for adults it is enlightening

material and age appropriate (Pace, 2005; Rubin, 2004). Also, as discussed above, filters may

over-block material that really is not inappropriate for either children or adults. Having filter
 Censorship: filtering in the public library 6

software on all of the computers in the library means that there is only easy access to resources

and websites available only suitable for children.

Restriction to library materials also acts as a barrier between the user and the information

(Rubin, 2004). Although some libraries use filtering systems that allow for adults to request

blocked websites, this not only violates freedom to access information, but it can also cause an

embarrassment for the patron. An adult user can request that the filter be disabled or turned off,

but adult users may be reluctant to ask for it to be disabled (Rubin, 2004). By making a request

to have the filters disabled, innocuous or otherwise, Richard Rubin (2004) writes that it “raises

the possibility that they may wish to consult material that is sexual or otherwise sensitive. It is

analogous to the time when individuals had to ask a librarian for sexual materials that were

stored in ‘closed’ stacks” (p. 157).

In addition, filtering adult terminals not only limits information availability but it also

may not be necessary. In Phoenix, Arizona , the city council mandated the public libraries to

filter material for adults as well (Eberhart, 2004). In September of 2004, after a sex offender

admitted that he downloaded child pornographic material at the library, the council decided that

libraries would not provide the option for adults to disable the filters (Eberhart, 2004). It is

worthy to note that in this instance with the Phoenix Public Library, no one actually saw the sex

offender download the pornography and, according to the director of the library, this was never a

prevalent issue at this particular library (Eberhart, 2004). Even a member of the Phoenix Public

Library’s advisory board, Robert Villase, responded to this act by saying that this censorship for

adults and children would be “removing a great wealth of information that ought to be available

and is protected under the First Amendment” ( as cited in Eberhart, 2004, p.14). In addition, the

Board Chair Tim Blake was reluctant for this type of censorship because he has been quoted as
 Censorship: filtering in the public library 7

saying, "I'd hate for us to overreact, as ugly as it sounds, from what people had on the computer

screens” (as cited in Eberhart, 2004, p. 14). Although some argued that because the library is

“family-oriented” it should have “family-oriented” material, the question still remains on how

much material needs to be filtered (Eberhart, 2004) Limiting access to information, that adults

have a right to view, may not be worth restricting all of the materials because of the exceptional

circumstance where an adult downloads pornography at the library (Eberhart, 2004).

Suggestions

While filtering software brings intellectual freedom issues to the forefront, many

journals, librarians, and associations have possible suggestions on how libraries should handle

the CIPA’s request to have filters on their computers. One way libraries are handling this

request is to provide filter software on their computers that enables the use of a site-blocking

method of filtering rather than a keyword -blocking method of filtering (Pace, 2005). An

example of this would be the Queens Borough Public Library in New York (Pace, 2005). This

Queens library uses an 8e6 Technology Enterprise filter that blocks certain URL’s that are stored

in the custom 8e6 database that the Queens Borough Library has specifically selected (Pace,

2005). When a patron tries to access a certain URL that is in the database, an option to request to

view the site will be sent to the Queen librarians (Pace, 2005). If the material is not harmful to

minors, the librarian has the ability to unblock the site permanently in the database (Pace, 2005).

Over time and with use, the customized 8e6 database can grow or be reduced to cater to the

needs of over and under filtering material (Pace, 2005). Libraries should be aware of the benefits

of choosing filtering software that has the ability to customize the censorship process (Munroe,

2006). Libraries should not include a filtering system because they are being forced, because it
 Censorship: filtering in the public library 8

may be convenient, or because of cost factors (Munroe, 2004). Knowledge of what the filtering

software is actually restricting is an important task that librarians should not ignore.

In addition, another suggestion that is often presented to libraries is that libraries could

offer some specific computers for minors that have filters (Morgan, 2001; Rubin, 2004). Having

special computers for children may cater more to their educational needs but also offers

protected search options for the children (Morgan, 2001; Rubin, 2004). Considering the design

and space in a library is important to offer distinguishable and separate computer terminals.

Having separated computer terminals may also alleviate the chance that children may be exposed

to inappropriate material that another adult may be viewing on his/her own computer.

Another suggestion for libraries is to offer open forums or workshops to the community

in regards to Internet safety and policy (Morgan, 2001). Involving the community when

adopting an Internet policy for the library may reduce the risk of a lawsuit involving minors

(Morgan, 2001). At the same time, having a written and known Internet policy will also limit

access to inappropriate materials and provide a defined violation policy for misuse of the Internet

(Morgan, 2001). Publicizing an Internet policy can allow the patrons to be held responsible and

accountable for their own behavior (Morgan, 2001).

In addition, getting parents involved may also limit the exposure to inappropriate material

(Morgan, 2004). As discussed above, media specialists and school librarians often act as a loco

parentis figure, or in place of a parent, with the selection process for children when they check

out materials from school (Rubin, 2004). However, parents do need to get involved in the

selection process with materials from the public library although librarians can assist as well.

Librarians can also educate children by “guiding children so that they become thoughtful,

well-informed citizens with abilities to discover the information they need for themselves”
 Censorship: filtering in the public library 9

(Rubin, 2004, p. 189). One writer even encouraged that filters may even stunt the education

process for children because they are not allowed to make choices on their own (Weinstock,

2008). Jeff Weinstock (2008) writes that “Teaching kids to govern themselves is what we ought

to be doing, not having their visits to the school library or computer lab chaperoned by web

filters” (p. 6). Having filters on computers can become a scapegoat for responsibility. Parents

should be monitoring the material that their children view online. In addition , the opportunity to

show that a child could be responsible to make good choices on his/her own is taken away

(Weinstock, 2008).

Conclusion

In conclusion, although public libraries have to abide by state legislations and protect

minors from harmful material, many issues also need to be addressed and considered when

choosing filter software or an Internet policy. Librarians and the community need to be aware of

how the rights to intellectual freedom may be in jeopardy due to CIPA stipulations on providing

funding. As Andrew Pace (2005) writes, “A filtering software or hardware vendor looking to

score a quick buck will look at the situation and provide a solution that satisfies the basic

problem without regard for policy or implementation flaws” (p. 83). Because of this, many

libraries have to be educated on the topic of filters, laws, and intellectual freedoms. Librarians

need to consider their view of filters and whether the need to protect or the need for restriction

takes precedence in their institution.

 Censorship: filtering in the public library 10

References

Anthony, R. (2004). Shhh! And cover your computer screen. Black Issues Book Review, 6 (1),

p. 17. Retrieved December 7, 2008 from Wilson Web database.

COPA commission (2000). Introduction. Retrieved December 2, 2008 from

http://www.copacommission.org/report/introduction.shtml

Dobija, J. (Sep. 2007). The first amendment needs new clothes. American libraries, 38 (8), pp.

50-53. Retrieved December 3, 2008 from Academic Search Premier.

Eberhart, G. (Oct. 2004). Phoenix council demands filters on all library computers. American

libraries, 35 (9), p.14. Retrieved Decemeber 7, 2008 from Wilson Web database.

Gorman, M. (2003). The enduring library-technology, tradition, and the quest for balance.

Chicago: American library association.

Library Bill of Rights (2008). American Library Association. Retrieved November 28, 2008

from

http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cf

Rubin, R.E. (2004). Foundations of library and information science. New York: Neal-Schuman.

Morgan, C. (2001). Liability for obscenity and pornography in providing internet access in the

library. Library administration & management, 15 (1), pp. 17-19. Retrieved on

November 26, 2008 from Wilson Web database.

Munroe, M. (2006). To filter or not to filter, that is the question. Illinois library association

reporter, 24, (1), pp. 38-39. Retrieved December 8, 2008 from Wilson Web database.

Pace, A. (Jan. 2005). Lemonade from lemons. American libraries, 36, (1). Retrieved November

16, 2008 from Wilson Web database.

Weinstock, J. (Jun 2008). Don’t filter out responsibility. T H E journal, 35 (6), p. 6. Retrieved
 Censorship: filtering in the public library 11

December 7, 2008 from Academic search premier.