1. Digital Censorship: Using Internet Filters as a <br />Proxy for Library Media Specialists<br />Michelle de Freitas<br />Auburn University<br />Library media specialists understand that they hold explicit responsibilities to educate students by imparting and allowing equitable access to knowledge. In order to fulfill these responsibilities, media specialists follow a Library Bill of Rights which seeks to produce students who are open-minded and engage in personal investigation to locate information and develop their own answers. The Library Bill of Rights supports intellectual freedom and the First Amendment, which means that not only must library media specialists not engage in self-censorship, but fight against its practice in order to ensure that students' right to information is not infringed upon. However, educators hold an implicit responsibility to act in loco parentis, or as protectors of children, (Duthie, 2010) and this requires that the library media specialist censor content to some degree (e.g., pornography). In 2000, Congress sought to fill the role of parents by enacting the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) which requires libraries receiving federal funds to enact quot;
technological measures to protect students from graphical materials that might be harmful to minorsquot;
(Bell, p. 2). While Congress mandates that technological restrictions be placed on content, the vagueness of their requirement makes it easy for school officials, including library media specialists, to overstep their bounds. As a result, the use of Internet filters within the school library system has led to the censoring of content based on the political, ideological, and religious values of a few which limits students' access to information that might be deemed appropriate by others (Schraeder, 1999; Wolinsky, 2001). Thus, library media specialists are caught in a net of ethical and legal obligations with no clear cut answer as to what is right. <br />In the late nineties, Congress enacted COPA (Child Online Protection Act) in order to ensure that minors are restricted from accessing any images that might be considered harmful. This law was followed in 2000 by a sister act known as CIPA. CIPA was designed to enforce the use of 'technological measures' in school and public libraries receiving e-rate funds to block images which might be harmful to minors (Jaeger & Yan, 2009). Since its approval, libraries have used Internet filters to meet the demands of CIPA. CIPA stipulates that images that are 1) obscene, 2) child pornography, or 3) harmful to minors must be blocked (Bell, 2009). However, with the exception of child pornography, the terms obscene and harmful are ambiguous and are oftentimes left for interpretation by those implementing the filter (Callister & Burbules, 2004). An image that could possibly be considered obscene by one person may seem innocuous to another. For example, a study found that the History of Nevada website was blocked by one filtering company under the category of gambling (Callister & Burbules, 2004). This demonstrates that those with access to the filter may engage in self-censorship by blocking sites based on political, religious, and personal beliefs (Wolinsky, 2001). Furthermore, most school and library officials have interpreted the law to mean that Internet filters must be used. According to Carol Simpson, however, quot;
the word 'filter' actually does not appear in this law...CIPA only requires that a school apply 'technological measures' to protect students from graphical materials that might be harmful to minorsquot;
(Bell, 2009, pp. 1-2). The technological measures adopted by the school to meet CIPA requirements does not have to be an Internet filter, yet many school officials have chosen to implement this method and use it to strictly limit student information access. <br />In addition to the ambiguity of the law, Internet filters are inherently imperfect (Bell, 2009; Jaeger & Yan, 2009). There are several methods used by filtering software to determine whether an image is harmful. Server-side products use a list of server-selected blocked URLs while client side filtering allows an individual to employs a user password to block and unblock websites. Filters can also search for keywords that have been identified as 'inappropriate' to determine whether or not a website should be blocked (Jaeger & Yan, 2009). While the fundamental technologies behind Internet filters have been improved over the years, they cannot completely replace a human being who can holistically evaluate and use his judgment to determine the appropriateness of Internet content. Consumer Reports tested 11 commercial filtering programs in 2005 and found that the software was not infallible. The researchers concluded that the filters were unable to block all porn and blocked informative websites regarding health issues, sex education, civil rights, and politics (quot;
Filtering Softwarequot;
, 2005). Yet these filters are essentially used as babysitters despite their inability to effectively block harmful sites (Bell, 2009; Consumer Reports, 2005; Wolinsky, 2001). Even though filtering software has been improved upon over the years, it will never replace the guidance of the library media specialist. In the end, filtering software should be used as a tool, not a crutch. Determining whether or not to block a site should be left to the discretion of the library media specialist and educators, not by pressure from members of the community. <br />Prior to the inception of CIPA, librarians began to speak out against filtering. In 1999, Schraeder questioned the use of Internet filters and how librarians around the world should respond to them. As aforementioned, he found that targeting words such as sex blocked informative websites, including NASA (Schraeder, 1999). Of the greatest concern to school and public librarians was how filtering would affect students right to access information. Even though the ALA launched a case against CIPA on behalf of public libraries in the early 2000s, a court case concerning public school Internet filters did not come until 2009. In 2009, Knox County, Tennessee library media specialist Kathryn Storts-Brinks fought to gain access to pro gay and lesbian websites for her students. What started as a simple request to unblock informative websites for her high school students turned in to an ACLU backed court case (Storts-Brinks, 2009). A highly conservative Christian state, all Tennessee schools blocked access to sites such as quot;
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network...[but allowed] 'reparative therapy' sitesquot;
(Storts-Brinks, 2009, pp. 24-25). Upon submitting a request to unblock LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) websites to the filtering company, she discovered that the company, Education Networks of America, simply enforced a contract and did not have the authority to unblock the sites. After discovering that another Tennessee school district designed the contract that determined filtering for all of the state's schools, she contacted leaders within her district to appeal the blocking of LGBT websites. When her pleas fell on deaf ears, Storts-Brinks took her fight to the ACLU. She and several students served as the plaintiffs in the lawsuit Franks v. Metropolitan Board of Public Education. The case was settled in the summer of 2009, after the school districts agreed to unblock LGBT websites (Storts-Brinks, 2010). Despite this victory against censorship through Internet filters, one cannot help but wonder how many other school districts are engaging in the same practices and what harm this is doing to America's youth. For some children, especially those that identify themselves as LGBT, the school official's act of censoring beneficial information is detrimental to their psyche. Thus, by using filters, school officials are actually causing harm to minors rather than preventing it. Brown determined in a year-long ethnographic study of technology use among thirteen twelfth-graders that library media specialists in an undisclosed high school engaged in self-censorship by filtering websites that targeted minority youths (2007). Social networking sites such as AsianAvenue, BlackPlanet, and MiGenti had been blocked by the media specialist because they contained a quot;
find a datequot;
feature. However, these sites had useful informative features such as news and message boards. During interviews, students expressed anger and frustration at the blocking of these sites with one stating, quot;
stop restricting the site! Like that's where we get most our information...it's really educationalquot;
(Brown, 2007, p. 11). Other students further complained that the library media specialists kept them from using the computers for recreational use and one librarian even exclaimed, quot;
if I could block every sneaker site here I would be happyquot;
(Brown, 2007, p. 15). Storts-Brinks and the latter library media specialists are examples on how members of this field are not united in their philosophies and how some choose to uphold the Library Bill of Rights while others ignore it to promote their own interests. <br />Library media specialists must realize that censoring the Internet via the use of a filter not only has a negative emotional impact on students, but hinders their learning as well. This in turn impedes the specialists ability to teach information literacy. As a result of paranoia regarding the content of social networking sites, school officials often engage in over filtering the Internet which means invaluable Web 2.0 tools such as blogs are blocked from the network (Bell, 2009). Loertshcer identifies the school officials who operate in this manner as the Just Say No Crowd. According to Loertscher, “these schools and school districts operate out of fear and lock down access with heavy Internet filters and no access to cloud computing/Web 2.0 tools (no access to wikis, blogs, nings, YouTube, and most Google Apps)quot;
(2009, p. 1). In turn, free tools that support creative and collaborative learning opportunities are blocked. The Just Say No Crowd are also the type of people that block innocuous and informative websites under the claim that they fall under such categories as nudity, vulgarity, and violence (Bell, 2009; Wolinsky, 2001). Library media specialists cannot fulfill their roles as information specialists and teachers if such learning opportunities are prevented. All educators are required to train students to be critical thinkers, and for library media specialists this is accomplished by allowing students access to all information regarding an issue and permitting them to evaluate and draw their own conclusions from their research (Callister & Burbules, 2004). Precious instructional time may be consumed by the process of requesting that site be unblocked. As seen in Frank v. Metropolitan Board of Education, unblocking a website may not be as simple as submitting a request to the technology specialist or company overseeing the Internet filter. While not all unblocking attempts by library media specialists will go to the extremes that Storts-Brinks experienced, library media specialists need to be prepared to justify their requests. This means reading and staying current on present issues concerning Internet filtering, citing peer-reviewed studies, and knowing what is protected by legal precedents and the First Amendment . Finally, library media specialists, their fellow educators, and parents cannot sit idly by and allow the Internet and filtering software to do their jobs. Adults must realize that tech savvy students will find methods, such as proxy websites, around the filtering software (Bell, 2009) . Allowing complete, open access is not the answer either (Wolinsky, 2001). Students need to be monitored by an adult and instructed on the ethical use of technology. After all, this is one of the primary responsibilities of the library media specialist. Collaborating with coworkers, school officials and community stakeholders to build a solid Acceptable Use Policy that clearly outlines how the technology is to be used is a start. Library media specialists should place computer workstations in an area of the library where an adult may easily monitor students and they should provide continuous training regarding ethical technology use throughout the school year (Bell, 2009; Wolinsky, 2001). Such training can be accomplished through collaborative lesson planning, so that it is placed in a meaningful context and used to support the core curriculum. <br />The same cries librarians issued against filtering in 2000 are still being ushered today, more than a decade later. If I have learned anything from this topic, it is that more library media specialists, and educators in general, need to be willing to show the same dedication and support to their students that Storts-Brinks did. Through advocacy and educating our students about their rights that we can fully hope to develop our children into citizens who are prepared to work in the 21st Century. Library media specialists need to build support in their community by educating parents and stakeholders alike on the significance of intellectual freedom in a child's education and helping him to develop into a well-rounded, compassionate, and intelligent human being. After all, the United States is a multicultural society with a diverse set of values and ideas. Students should not be shielded by what is different, but should be encouraged to celebrate the collective thoughts that make this society unique. Ultimately, adults have become too reliant on Internet filters, and they are naive if they think tech savvy students will not find a means to circumvent them. Educators and parents alike should collaborate to help minors filter content on the Internet. Besides educating adults about the importance of intellectual freedom, library media specialists should hold workshops for parents and inform them about the fallibility of Internet filters and how to help their children evaluate content and use technology ethically. The library media specialist must also educate faculty on how to request that a website be unblocked. This should not be something they fight alone and teachers should know that they have the right to use a site that will aid in their instruction. While I am hopeful that authorities in the field such as Loertscher will eventually be heard and library media specialists will not find Internet filtering to be so cumbersome, I know that I will still have to engage in some form of censorship. I know as an educator that it is my responsibility to some extent to act as a parent for the six hours that I have my students. This means respecting the wishes of the child's parents whether I agree with them or not. I believe this conflict of interest will always exist for library media specialists, however, I think it is important to recognize that it is not solely up to me or any other educator to decide what is appropriate for a child based on our personal beliefs. That is a decision to be made by each child and her parents. <br />References<br />Bell, M. (2009). Anti-filtering snapping turtle. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools,16(2), 37-39. <br />Brown, T. M. (2007). Culture, gender and subjectivities: Computer and internet restrictions in <br />a high school library. Journal of Access Services, 4(3/4), 1-26. doi: 10.1300/J204v05n 1/2_01<br />Callister, T. A., & Burbules, N.C. (2004). Just give it to me straight: A case against filtering the <br />internet. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9), 649-655. <br />Duthie, F. (2010). Libraries and the ethics of censorship. The Australian Library Journal, 59(3), 86-94. <br />Filtering software better, but still fallible. (2005). Consumer Reports, 70(6), 36-38. <br />Jaeger, P. T., & Yan, Z. (2009). One law with two outcomes: Comparing the implementation <br />of CIPA in public libraries and schools. Information Technology and Libraries, 28(1), 6-<br />14. <br />Loertscher, D. V. (2009). Access to technology in transition. Teacher Librarian, 36(5), 46-47. Schraeder, A. (1999). Internet censorship: Issues for teacher-librarians. Teacher Librarian, 26(5), 8-13. <br />Storts-Brinks, K. (2010). Censorship online: One school librarian's journey to provide access to<br />LGBT resources. Knowledge Quest, 39(1), 22-28.<br />Wolinsky, A. (2001). Mandating the wrong filters. Teacher Librarian, 29(1), 26-28. <br /> <br />