Ann Symons
Editor’s Note: The following article is an adaptation of a talk given by Ms. Symons at the Texas Library Association 1997 Annual Conference in Fort Worth.
A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.-- James Madison
The debate over the use of the Internet in libraries has opened a national discussion and galvanized the library community as no other issue has for decades. Much of this debate is about protecting children from what someone may view as "harmful" material. Such material usually includes explicit sexual material, material on homosexuality, violence, drugs and alcohol, and hate speech. This discussion of what is acceptable on the Internet is taking place all over America: among librarians, governing bodies, mayors, Congress, and in our courts.
Parents are frightened, they are looking for solutions, and often they are not as technologically proficient as their children. Think about today’s kids: many of them will never remember the days when the Web didn’t exist (only a few years ago), when surfing wasn’t a part of any school or public library information-seeking activity, and when e-mail wasn’t the communications medium of choice.
There are many questions we are asking ourselves today: What does intellectual freedom mean in an electronic environment? What problems are libraries having with providing open access to the Internet and how do we find solutions? What policies and procedures do libraries need if they are providing graphical Internet access? How can we help educate librarians, parents, community members and leaders, and local politicians about "safe" use of the Internet?
There are no easy answers to these complex and thorny issues--these are tough times for librarians. The Internet has simultaneously opened new vistas and provided an unprecedented forum for sharing information, enabled the average citizen to both view and publish electronic information as well as participate in global debates. For libraries it has created myriad problems and challenging opportunities.
Libraries now provide yet another medium of bringing people and information together. Our values about access have not changed. The real problem with the Internet is that we cannot control what people select to read or view. They are free to go far beyond the walls of our libraries to find the information they need.
As a librarian and as chair of ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Committee, my viewpoint on these issues is not neutral. Overall, I do have one message I would like to convey about the Internet, kids, and sexually explicit material: In our haste to find solutions in our communities and to keep libraries safe, we are in danger of selling kids down the river. The more we filter, the more we try to use library software to restrict access, the more acceptable restrictions become. This will make it harder for librarians everywhere to uphold intellectual freedom principles--principles based on the U.S. Constitution.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the library’s role is to provide access to information from which individuals choose what is appropriate for themselves and their families regardless of age.
And yet some librarians are uncomfortable in providing Internet access at all. Others feel that because of the nature of the Internet, they cannot provide it in their community without a political battle--a battle that may involve loss of funding or loss of the Internet. For these reasons, many library directors are choosing to filter from the "git-go" with the justification that some Internet access is better than none at all. Others are "compromising" and only filtering in their children’s room. Some think that filtering is inevitable for the future of libraries, and others, given a choice between censorship and unfettered access, are not using blocking software at all and doing it very successfully.
The good news is that many librarians, in fact the majority, are adopting strong policies about Internet access and--as we have always done--placing the responsibility for what kids see with parents.
Before discussing filtering, let’s look at some facts:
Filtering
This brings our discussion to filtering. Filtering software is often called "censorware" or parental control software, depending on where it is going to be used. Parental control software is entirely appropriate in the home if parents want to try to ensure that their children will not see sexually explicit or other objectionable material. When used in libraries, filtering software is often referred to as "censorware" because it filters out constitutionally protected materials on the Internet.
As a general rule, filtering software is crude. Filtering tends to block access with a broad brush. What is blocked is generally considered proprietary information. This means that even though you are the customer, you will not know exactly what they are blocking. Companies that sell filters are not doing it as a public service. These are profit making companies and if you filter, they will decide what people in your library will and will not see. Filtering software companies often block nonpornographic information that may be considered offensive--sites that contain hate speech, violence, information about homosexuality, drugs, feminist issues, environmental issues, and more. Cybersitter’s director of product development is quoted as saying, "We’d rather block more than less."
Some librarians argue that using filtering software in libraries is the same as selection. In fact, the act of excluding material from the Internet is not selection and filtering software is not a selection tool. These are "apples and oranges" discussions. The real questions are: who’s doing the selecting--you or the producer of the software? Can you really call the use of these tools "selection" when they are designed to block access to material? Some call filtering "a kinder, gentler form of censorship."
Filters are not foolproof. When you filter, there are legal risks. A library that filters is making an implied promise that no "objectionable" material will be viewed. Because of the current state of the Internet and the software, there is a very real possibility that a child will see "objectionable" material even though a filter is in place. Yes, there is a possibility that your library will be sued.
There are also political questions. When the mayor of Boston demands filters for all of Boston’s schools and its public library, we all sit up and take note. Not happily, but we do take note. Our boards take note and so do the conservative members of our communities who want us to be responsible for what young people read, hear, and view. This is a chilling demonstration of the power of government officials--your bosses and mine. Boston is now filtering in their children’s room, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which had threatened a law suit, has backed off.
Let’s assume for a moment that you filter in your children’s room. As a matter of First Amendment law, this is legal. If a library can afford to have Internet access in the children’s reading room and in a public access area, the children’s terminal could have filtering software. At the same time, it would be necessary to have a policy that would allow kids to go anywhere in the library and use any of the library’s resources, including unfiltered terminals.
Lisa Champeli, creator of the web site "The Internet Advocate," put it this way in a February 21, 1997, e-mail message posted to ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom listserv:
First, my library supports the ALA Bill of Rights position that "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views," and added: "In the case of children and young people, the American Library Association holds that it is the parent--and only the parent--who may restrict his children--and only his children--from access to library materials and services. The parent who would rather his child did not have access to certain materials should so advise the child."
Second, the children’s department is not only used by children. We serve parents, teachers, college students, and so forth. Anyone is welcome to use the OPACs and the other library resources in the children’s department just as children are welcome to use library resources in the "adult" department.
Third, blocking software has the potential to block access to resources that are appropriate for children.
For me, blocking software equals censorship and does not have a place in the public library.
All librarians who provide Internet access are balancing open access and community concerns whether they filter or not. It would also be fair to say that no librarian who is filtering or being forced to filter is happy about it.
Does this solve the problem of adults looking at adult material in adult areas of the library? NO. What about when people walk by who don’t like what is on the screen? We haven’t solved this problem either.
The Courts
What have the courts said?
Library and civil liberties groups won a stunning victory on the CDA at the circuit court level. Judge Stewart Dalzell in Third Circuit Court made two comments in a decision that will probably last long after we are all retired. First, he said, "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." Then: "As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion."
Judge Sloviter of the three-judge panel added his own wisdom: "An Internet user must act affirmatively and deliberately to retrieve specific information online." He also wrote, "It is highly unlikely that a very young child will be randomly surfing the web and come across indecent or patently offensive material."
Currently, there is no case in the courts involving the use of filtering software in libraries. However, the ACLU, ALA’s partner in many intellectual freedom cases, is being vigilant in its scrutiny of libraries today regarding First Amendment issues. It’s not pleasant to think about having a library sued by an organization whose principles we support and which has supported ours over many years.
Filtering is not the answer, and it probably is not legal. Eventually, a library will be sued for filtering and the courts will give us our answer.
(See Also, One Lawyer's Opinion)
What Next?
Many librarians are looking to ALA to guide them and many librarians are looking to ALA to "take the high road." ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Committee is working on bringing a strong and useful statement on filtering to the ALA conference in San Francisco to help members. ALA will also be promoting what librarians are doing to guide users to helpful Internet resources.
These are tough times, but they are going to get better. I fear that in our haste to find solutions, we haven’t adequately educated ourselves about the First Amendment. We cannot, however, afford to let those who want to limit information make us fearful.
We have to speak with one voice while supporting our colleagues who are under attack, even when they sometimes make decisions we don’t like. Sometimes they are "between a rock and a hard place" decisions.
Our job is to turn the debate around to focus on access. Read the mission statement of your library and ask yourself the question: What can we do to make Internet access successful in our community?
(See Also, Internet 101 for Librarians)