Week+3+Notes

**Week of May 25****th**


 * **Topic via podcast**
 * Children and censorship
 * CIPA
 * Filters || **Assignments: Due May 31****st**
 * Blog posting #2
 * Responses to blog posting #2
 * Group discussions (leaders: see separate due dates above)
 * Request for Reconsideration case ||

Notes and Excerpts
"...children are often the focus of conversations related to intellectual freedom. I’ll talk quite a bit about children and censorship this week, including CIPA and filtering, but I first want to talk about censorship in general." >>>  >>> "The most common reasons for individuals’ or groups’ desire to censor material often relate to one’s religious views, a perceived threat to national security, or the desire to protect children from material thought to be harmful. Censors want the state to trump individual rights, but only if the state represents the view of the censor." >>> >>> "Hopefully you’re asking yourself how you, as a librarian, can avoid prejudging materials during the selection process. First, keep in mind the ALA’s definition of intellectual freedom:

“Intellectual Freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.” " >>> "...when you’re in the process of selecting, look at the positives of the materials in question, not the negatives. Ask yourself how this material is going to make your collection more balanced as opposed to thinking of reasons why you should exclude it." >>> "ALA is very clear that they consider children to have the same First Amendment rights as adults, within their parents’ discretion. This notion seems to get stickier, either because it is or it appears to be, when we talk about school libraries. In order to make this clearer, I want briefly discuss Supreme Court rulings that dictate the way we consider intellectual freedom in school libraries. " >>>  >>>  >>> "The other important case that has influenced the First Amendment rights of children is Ginsberg v. New York, in which the Court barred minors from being able to receive material deemed “obscene” for their age group. In the Court’s view, obscene speech has no protection under the First Amendment, and may even be criminal to express. Hopefully you’re asking yourself, “What is the definition of ‘obscene speech?’” The Supreme Court decided this in 1957 in Roth v. United States: obscene speech is speech which. . . to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest" and which is "utterly without redeeming social importance..." Here are some Court-supplied definitions to go with that:


 * "[A]ppeals to the prurient interest" means that which appeals to "shameful or morbid interests" in sex, but not that which incites normal lust and includes materials designed for and primarily disseminated to a deviant sexual group (for example, sadists) which appeals to the prurient interests of that group.


 * Jurors are to apply the standards of the area "from which he comes for making the required " decision as the "community standards" for obscenity.


 * "[A]verage person " includes both sensitive and insensitive adult persons, but does not include children.


 * When considering whether or not work is “utterly without redeeming social importance” one should consider:


 * “whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law,”


 * “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

+ Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does not preclude a finding that a work is obscene.

You may need to take a moment to let it all sink in…." >>> "CIPA, or the Children’s Internet Protection Act, enacted in 2000, mandates that any school or library that receives federal E-Rate funds (these funds make connectivity and telecommunications much more affordable) must have an Internet safety policy that includes protection measures such as filters on all Internet workstations in order to continue to receive federal funding. This filtering software must filter visual depictions of obscenity, child pornography, and any materials harmful to minors. Libraries must also be able to and readily remove the filter for adults when asked. Children may request permission to view a particular web site; however, this is left to the discretion of the librarian. " >>> "The problem is that the Internet changes so rapidly that filters often are inaccurate. They often overblock websites that are truly useful to kids, or they underblock and show kids what they aren’t supposed to see. I think the articles this week that focus on filtering do a great job of demonstrating how imprecise filters can be. " >>> "When it comes down to it, I think that we as parents and librarians need to teach kids to act as their own “filters” when it comes to working online. Heck, they can get past the software filters, so why shouldn’t we teach them how to make judgments about what they’re looking at? "

**Readings (all electronic documents may be accessed directly through Oncourse resources):**

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifresolutions&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=78171 "WHEREAS, For libraries, the most critical holding of the Supreme Court is that libraries that make content available on the Internet can continue to do so with the same Constitutional protections that apply to the books on libraries' shelves..." >>> "WHEREAS, The use in libraries of software filters which block Constitutionally protected speech is inconsistent with the United States Constitution and federal law and may lead to legal exposure for the library and its governing authorities..."
 * ALA. (1997). Resolution on the Use of Filtering Software in Libraries. **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/ifresolutions/resolutionopposition.cfm QUOTED IN FULL "Resolution on Opposition to Federally Mandated Internet Filtering
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">ALA. (2001). Resolution on Opposition to Federally Mandated Internet Filtering. **

WHEREAS, The American Library Association has as its cornerstone the First Amendment and free and open access to the information people need and want regardless of the format in which that information appears; and

WHEREAS, Millions of our nation’s library users cannot afford computers, require assistive technology to use them, and therefore rely on public access computers in their local libraries for Internet access; and

WHEREAS, Libraries depend on Federal funding, such as E-rate discounts, LSTA grants, and ESEA Title III grants to provide Internet access; and

WHEREAS, Librarians are partners with parents and work to help their communities—adults and children—become information literate by teaching them how to access, evaluate, and use information; and

WHEREAS, The ALA strongly believes that educating children to use the Internet wisely provides children their best protection, now and in the future; and

WHEREAS, The ALA strongly encourages local libraries to adopt and implement Internet use policies in the same way they develop other policies, based on the needs of their communities; and

WHEREAS, The ALA does not endorse blocking or filtering Internet content in libraries because there is no proven technology that both blocks out all illegal content and allows access to all constitutionally protected material; and

WHEREAS, The 106th Congress passed the Neighborhood Children’s Internet Protection Act, which mandates the adoption of a prescriptive Internet safety policy that undermines local control for recipients of E-rate discounts as part of a major spending bill (H.R. 4577) which was signed by the President on December 21, 2000 (PL 106-554); and

WHEREAS, The 106th Congress passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act mandating filtering or blocking for recipients of E-rate discounts, LSTA grants, and ESEA Title III grants as part of a major spending bill (H.R. 4577) which was signed by the President on December 21, 2000 (PL 106-554); now, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association will work with the 107th Congress to encourage lawmakers to repeal the portions of Children’s Internet Protection Act and the Neighborhood Children’s Internet Protection Act that usurp and undermine local control; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the ALA will continue to work with the Federal Communications Commission, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the U.S. Department of Education, to ensure that the values of full and open access for all, are considered as they administer these grants and discounts; and be it further

RESOLVED, That ALA will continue to support and encourage local libraries as they educate children and adults in the safe and effective use of the Internet; and be it further

RESOLVED, That ALA will initiate litigation against these Acts to ensure that the people of America have unfettered access to information; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the ALA transmit this resolution to United States President-elect George W. Bush and Members of Congress. Adopted by the ALA Council, January 17, 2001

Links to non-ALA sites have been provided because these sites may have information of interest. Neither the American Library Association nor the Office for Intellectual Freedom necessarily endorses the views expressed or the facts presented on these sites; and furthermore, ALA and OIF do not endorse any commercial products that may be advertised or available on these sites. "

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2009/may2009/lgbtlawsuit052009.cfm "...a First Amendment lawsuit against the school districts for blocking access to information about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered issues on school computers while allowing access to anti-gay sites." >>> "However, students and faculty can access the sites of groups that condemn gay sexuality and promote therapy ..." >>> "Acknowledging that the districts must, as recipients of the e-rate telecommunications discount under the Children’s Internet Protection Act, prohibit the display of online material that is considered harmful to minors, the complaint (PDF file) goes on to argue: “Because the defendants have already elected to block access to Adult/Mature, Pornography, Chat/Instant Message, and Personals, they do not need to block access to the LGBT category to block access to content in those areas,” adding that the mandate applies only to “visual depictions” anyway.>
 * "Tennessee Schools Sued for Blocking LGBT Websites" (May 2009)**

Hampton (Skip) Auld, and Nancy Kranich. "Do Internet Filters Infringe upon Access to Material in Libraries? " Public Libraries 1 Jul 2005: Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 25 May. 2011. "Abstract (Summary)
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Auld, H. (Skip). (2005). “Filtering Materials on the Internet Does Not Contradict the Value of Open Access to Material,”Public Libraries, 44 (4): 196-198. (Oncourse) **

Auld and Kranich debate if Internet filter infringe upon access to materials in libraries. While Auld says that filtering materials on the Internet does not contradict the value of open access to material, Kranich opposes and instead raises the concern of framing one's moral perspective and values." >>> "SA: The fact that most major media outlets sided with ALA's position testifies to the political skill of ALA as an advocacy group and to ALA's consistent and persistent message that filters are ineffective "blunt instruments." It took the Supreme Court to recognize that government has a compelling interest in taking strong measures to prevent the display and use of "obscenity, child pornography, and material harmful to minors" in libraries. A final, legal determination that images are illegal requires a court case. Librarians and other library workers do not have the luxury of awaiting such determinations when faced with a profusion of pornographic images in their day-to-day work on the floors of American libraries.

Kranich says "we cannot afford to abandon our values in midstream and capitulate to intimidation." I agree. But I believe the use of filters does not compromise our values. Rather, filters simply provide a means that should be used carefully and cautiously, in compliance with law as interpreted by courts.

NK: The promises of the twenty-first-century information society must not be placed in peril by those content with restricting public access to information and the free flow of ideas. A hightech society must not become a highly controlled society. The vigilance and activism of those concerned with protecting free expression is more important than ever if the American ideals embedded in the First Amendment are to remain the beacon of our way of life in the new millennium. We must speak up and fight for information equity and open access for all. Otherwise, we will endanger our most precious right in a democratic society-the right of free speech and inquiry."

"A few readers questioned the judgment of teachers who use their own mobile devices to allow their students access to blocked sites. One reader, identified as Cwells67, goes so far as to claim: “If we do not block inappropriate sites ‘to the extent practicable,’ meaning ‘if you can block inappropriate sites, you are legally bound to block them,’ we will lose ALL FEDERAL FUNDING.”
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Barseghian, T. (2011, April 26.). Straight from the DOE: Dispelling Myths About Blocked Sites.MindShift. **
 * http://mindshift.kqed.org/2011/04/straight-from-the-doe-facts-about-blocking-sites-in-schools/**

To clear up some of the confusion around these comments and assertions, I went straight to the top: the Department of Education’s Director of Education Technology, Karen Cator." >>> " 5. 6. Teachers should be trusted. “If the technology fails us and filters something appropriate and useful, and if teachers in their professional judgment think it’s appropriate, they should be able to show it,” she said. “Teachers need to impose their professional judgment on materials that are available to their students.”

Here’s the full transcript of my Q&A with Karen Cator."

<talks about frustrations with filtering on school computers> >>> "After suffering from blocks preventing her from using pieces of Web 2.0 in her teaching, National Board Certified Teacher and Instructional Technology Integrator Sharon Elin used her blog at edutwist.com, to conduct a survey about which popular sites were blocked and find out what other schools were allowing. Her results, displayed in colorful graphs, represent the more controversial of sites, but even simple sites that include questionable images are blocked from most students." >>> "In most cases, educators are waiting for technical administrators to release the block after explaining how they are going to be using it in they teaching. By the way, these tech administrators are NOT teachers or librarians; they are IT people and network security experts that are now responsible for evaluating things like 5th grade students’ research on endangered species. Are we even speaking the same language? I don’t think so. In my school, those requests are only read once a week.
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Bunn, A. (2009, September 28). “Access denied." **
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">http://librarygarden.net/2009/09/28/access-denied/ **

As a result, we’ve (older students and teachers) resorted to bypassing and unblocking the filter on our own. My Google search returned over 1 million hits when using the search terms “how to bypass school internet filters” and the responses included videos and instructions galore. A large portion of these requests could be from students as well." >>> "What can we hope for in the future?" >>> "
 * Trust from our Administration that we are professionals and will use the internet wisely in our teaching
 * Filtering programs that are created by educators and parents
 * Websites designing “school-safe” versions for filter approval
 * Open access to dynamic information online without lurking viruses and predators
 * Faith from the parents whose children we inspire on a daily basis that we are working to create better global citizens"

"The American Library Association recommends against the use of automated filters, arguing they make too many mistakes and are inconsistent with a library’s commitment to intellectual freedom. But while many library directors fight to keep filters out, or minimize their use, others have had to fight to defend their Internet filtering policies." >>> "The Websense Internet filter looks at many other clues, beyond keywords, such as what other websites a page of content links to, says senior product marketing manager Mike Lee. “If a page uses the word breast five times, but it links to eight or ten health care sites, that’s a tremendously strong indicator that this is not a porn site. Porn sites link to porn sites, and healthcare sites link to healthcare sites.”
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Carr, D. F. (2010, August 14). Library filtering remains controversial. Baseline. **
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/IT-Management/Library-Filtering-Remains-Controversial-581401/ **

The software works by parsing web content almost the same way a search engine does, except instead of helping finding content customers want to find, filters seek out content customers may want to block, including pornography and malicious software downloads. The automated filters sort content into categories, like business, entertainment, file sharing, nudity, sex and so on. Libraries and other customers then decide which categories to block, Lee says.

Filters work mostly by analyzing the text on the page and other contextual clues. Although a big part of their purpose is to filter out offensive images, in most cases they don't analyze the images themselves. Although techniques exist for analyzing flesh tones to determine if an image is showing too much skin, that analysis is too processor intensive for routine use, Lee says." >>> "Elsewhere, some libraries have managed to provide adult patrons with unfiltered access, and do it with little controversy. Leslie Scherer, director of the Wallingford Public Library in Wallingford, Conn., says she would rather rely on the judgment of her staff to intervene in the rare case that someone is viewing something inappropriate. To use software filtering properly would mean creating a process for deactivating it on a case-by-case basis, she says. “I think it’s more of a staffing issue if you filter, and have to remove that filter, than it is to have to tap someone on the shoulder occasionally.”"


 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“Censorship is not an effective way to protect children.” Censorship. Charles Taylor. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale (IUPUI database) **

"A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed “harmful.”
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Urbina, I. (2007, March 22) “Federal Judge Blocks Online Pornography Law.” **
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/us/22cnd-porn.html?_r=1 **

The ruling, which will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, represents a second major setback in federal efforts to control Internet pornography, after a similar law was struck down by the high court in 1997.

Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods, including software filters, that parents can use to control their children’s Internet use."


 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Fine, S. (1996). “How the mind of a censor works,” School Library Journal 42(1): 23-27. ([|Oncourse]) **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“Censorship should be used for the protection of children.” Censorship. Kevin W. Saunders. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale ([|IUPUI database link]).

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Kranich, N. (2005). “Filtering Materials on the Internet Contradicts the Value of Open Access to Material,” Public Libraries, 44 (4): 198-200. (Oncourse)