Group+Discussions+Week+3

**Ashley Wray-Filters; Melissa, Marlene, Sean, Lisa**
__Article 1__

Filtering: Just Another Form of Censorship Dority, Barbara. "Filtering: Just Another Form of Censorship." //The Humanist// Mar. 1999: 38. //Academic OneFile//. [|Filtering.pdf] A US District Court ruled that libraries cannot use filters to restrict Internet access and that such restriction is unconstitutional. The case, //Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library//, was filed after a filter installed to prevent children from accessing harmful content ended up restricting access for adults to Web sites that did not contain harmful content.

Question 1: Many libraries still use these filters today. Do you believe they should be allowed to restrict access to adults in an effort to protect children? Does your library use a filter, and if so, what is your experience with it?

Question 2: This article was written in 1999. What has changed since then in regards to filters? What changes do you anticipate happening in the future?

__Article 2__

Oliver, Kent, June Pinnell-Stephens, and Barbara Jones. "All or Nothing: Hardly the Facts." //Library Journal// 136.1 (2011): 42-43. //Academic Search Premier//. EBSCO. [|Web]. 27 May 2011. [|All or Nothing.pdf] This article examines //Sarah Bradburn et al. v. North Central Regional Library District//, a case in which the ACLU of Washington filed suit again the library on behalf of three patrons and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs believe that the library’s filtering policy is unconstitutional because the library refuses to disable filters for adult users of the library, resulting in the blockage of constitutionally protected material.

Question 1: Which side to agree with, the plaintiffs’ (the patrons) or the defendants‘ (NCRL)? Why?

Question 2: Both of these articles discuss the negative use of filters. Do you have an argument in favor of their use? What do you think about the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendants that argues why the filters are constitutional?

Alisa Rochelle Wynn (arwynn) (May 25, 2011 7:37 PM) - Read by: 1 [|Reply] [|Edit] | [|Delete] =Regarding Question 1:=

I love Dority's quote from this article, "//I never met a humanist or free-thinker who didn't harbor an intense curiosity and a profound need to have access to information of all kinds//."

I can't answer about what filters the library that I belong to uses (if any), but I do have to deal with filters on my computer at work since I work in an office that is on the federal government's (specifically the US Department of Agriculture's) network.

To log on to my workstation, I have to log-in onto the network, and then into Windows, and then agree to some little box that I don't really read, but basically says to be respectful and smart, and treat my work computer like my home computer (which makes me laugh when I think about how people "treat" their home computers). To access the internet, I have to use some version of Internet Explorer (I think it's 1 or 2 versions old). I've been told it has to do with the training given to the USDA's tech support employees, but I'm not certain about this.

Apparently, the USDA began phasing the use of filters on employee workstations in 2003, according to Ron Hall's article in USDAnews. Hall's article refers to a March 13, 2003 memo to employees that the filter's purpose was to disable "...access to web pages that contain material that is inappropriate for our work environment and is not authorized in Departmental regulations ... and to eliminate the possibility of employees’ exposure to inappropriate material” (Hall).

The memo goes on to state that while the USDA does not routinely monitor employee internet activity (with and exception being that, "We can do this when law enforcement authorities make a formal request to do so, but this is NOT [emphasis original] done on a routine basis” (Id.) Hall's article continues that it was employees' use of the network to access porn, gambling sites, and other sites that "have no business value to the mission of the Department" that prompted this change in policy.

Lastly, Hall's article quotes Bill Hadesty, Associate Chief Information Officer for Cyber Security in the Office of the Chief Information Officer (USDA) as saying:


 * There is nothing Big Brother’ on your USDA computer; our filters, sensors, and blocking activities are based on the web sites you may be accessing, not on who you are or where you’re sitting...We don’t want any of our best and brightest USDA employees being marched out of here because of computer abuse...So these computer filters might help to protect employees from themselves—and maybe save their careers.**

(Lisa's Note: Wow! They talk about the employees like they are children who need to be shielded from harm! Going back to the Dority quote, apparently the USDA's best and brightest are the biggest humanist or free-thinker? -- **//Joking//**...)

From my own experience, the blocking advisory page that you encounter when you try to access a filtered page __does__ explain the USDA's internet filtering policy and provides a link to a web-form that has to be filled out in order to get permission to access a blocked site. When I first started my job, YouTube was blocked, but now I can access YouTube. FaceBook has always been blocked. The USDA uses FaceBook, but the field offices for the USDA cannot access FaceBook or use this tool to create their own FaceBook pages. Some employees who work at the USDA Field Office updated their workplace's FaceBook pages at home because of this. I'm sure many do so without being compensated or their time (I have.)

In a library situation, I think that I side with Nancy Kranich's sentiments:


 * ** Moreover, experts claim that customization of blocking programs requires technical expertise equivalent to a systems administrator—a specialist rarely resident in many small and rural libraries. Not only did these experts find unblocking cumbersome, but also they emphasized that it creates a burden or even a stigma for users uncomfortable with or too busy to request that the library override a block, particularly when the action may take several days to complete. 14 Surprisingly, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy disregarded this testimony in his concurring judgment in the CIPA case, stating:


 * ** If, on the request of an adult user, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay, there is little to this case. . . . If some libraries do not have the capacity to unblock specific Web sites or to disable the filter or if it is shown that an adult user’s election to view constitutionally protected Internet material is burdened in some other substantial way, that would be the subject for an as-applied challenge, not the facial challenge made in this case. (Citing U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, (J.S. Append A), 46a–48a; Edelman, Sites Blocked by Internet Filtering Programs, 32–35.)

Lastly, I find it interesting that Dority urges adult patrons whose libraries use filters to contact the ACLU and ask to be a plaintiff for them. Is it really as simple as that (calling them up and offering yourself to them)?

-- Lisa

__**Sources**__ Dority, Barbara. "Filtering: Just Another Form of Censorship." //Humanist// 59.2 (1999): 38. //Academic Search Premier//. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2011.

Hall, Ron. "Why That Filter Is Restricting USDA Access To Inappropriate Internet Web Sites." //USDAnews: USDA's Employee News Publications--For You and About You!// 62.4 (2003): 1, 7. Web. 25 May 2011. <@http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol62no4/vol62no4.ppdf>

Kranich, Nancy. "Why Filters Won't Protect Children or Adults." //Library Administration Management// 18.1 (2004): 14-18. Web. 25 May 2011. <@http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/whyfilterswontprotect.cfm>

QUESTION 2

[|Re: Filtering: Just Another Form of Censorship] Alisa Rochelle Wynn (arwynn) (May 27, 2011 4:28 PM) - Read by: 1 [|Reply] [|Edit] | [|Delete] Question 2: This article was written in 1999. What has changed since then in regards to filters? What changes do you anticipate happening in the future?

Ashley, you've asked what has changed since 1999 in terms of filters, and what may happen in the future. I'm not sure if you are asking about the filters themselves (the quality, how they work, etc.) or perhaps you are asking about filters in terms of libraries' use of them by choice and/or because of CIPA requirements.

Regarding the second possibility, I did want to point out that a great deal of information could be gained by visiting the ALA's "Filters and Filtering" page which includes extensive documentation on the topics of policies, case law, CIPA, library internet use agreements, resources for current news, organizations that also oppose filtering, ALA's interpretations of filtering in terms of intellectual freedom issues, resources and information hand-picked by the ALA for parents and young people, and so on.

On the other hand, it looks like much of this information is from 2006 and before, and many hyperlinks to ALA's own webpages are, as we are becoming accustomed to, dead links so the topics have to be searched out by using the ALA's search box.

Since either discussion would add to our own professional knowledge, I'm going to focus on the filters themselves.

I was lucky enough to come across Sarah Houghton-Jan's blog entry of roughly a year ago ("Why Internet Filters Don’t Work and Why Libraries Who Filter are Wrong") which includes a table summarizing studies on the accuracy and effectiveness of internet filters from 2001-2008 (noting that she was unable to locate studies for 2009 and 2010).

The conclusions of these studies indicate that while the average accuracy for 2001-2008 was 78.347%, even looking at the average accuracy for the most recent data 2007-2008 yielded only about 5% higher average accuracy rates (83.316%). Regarding multimedia content and social networking sites, filters are only about 40% accurate.

Houghton-Jan provides a simplified overview of how filters work:

...There are automated little spiders crawling the web, looking for naughty content — usually there’s a formula (which the companies will never tell you) that looks for some combination of trigger keywords, trigger URLs, if there are too many images on the site, a weird combination of letters & numbers in the URL, etc. If the spider determines something fits in the “naughty” category, then there it goes. If the company is particularly vigilant (often not the case), they will have some minimum-wage untrained lackey spot-checking results from the spider. So if a filter constitutes collection development, we have left our online collection development in the hands of an automated software system and untrained non-library staff. Worse yet, the company won’t even tell us why or how they choose to categorize items. You usually do have the ability to add things to the white list (OK stuff) or black list (naughty stuff). But as subjectivity is key in issues of content, even among library staff, who gets to decide what is bad and what isn’t?

Houghton-Jan opines (I think rightly):

So, while filters may be getting a little better…they’re still wrong 17% of the time for text content, and over half the time for image, video, and other non-text content. If you think about what that means practically speaking for your browsing experience, you may think: "We’re spending money and time on these systems why again?"

-- Lisa

__**Source**__ Houghton-Jan, Sarah. "Why Internet Filters Don’t Work and Why Libraries Who Filter are Wrong." //Librarian in Black//. 7 May 2010. Web. 27 May 2011. <@http://librarianinblack.net/librarianinblack/2010/05/filtering.html>

[|Re: Filtering: Just Another Form of Censorship] Alisa Rochelle Wynn (arwynn) (May 31, 2011 7:49 AM) - Read by: 14 [|Reply] [|Edit] | [|Delete] Along the lines of "how" filters work and whether they are effective, I happened across an article that examines the companies that create the filters.

At issue includes the fact that there are trade secrets at stake for these corporations, so in essence libraries can't really know exactly __how__ a specific brand of filter works. However, as pointed out by the Rachel Radom article cited below, we find out about the "corporation’s decision-making processes, attitudes, and principles," which will give us some idea of the company's stance on issues related to intellectual freedom (2).

Further, Radom argues that it is our ethical responsibility to evaluate the companies that are creating the filters to the extent that it is possible (5).

Radom makes reference to the fact that in Mary Minow's disussion of CIPA and libraries, Minow points out that "an Internet filtering program is only one type of TPM [technology protection measure]. //**Libraries may use technology options other than Internet filters and still be in compliance with CIPA**//" (3, my emphasis).

With around 85% of libraries in Indiana using filters rather than some other form of TPM for CIPA compliance (4), Radom provides some reasons that filters are a very attractive option, which I've paraphrased below: (4-5)
 * Filters are pretty affordable
 * Filters are pretty easy to use
 * There are lots of filters on the market to choose from
 * "Most board members, library staff, and patrons are familiar with filtering programs and understand both their purpose and their presence on library budgets"
 * Other packaged products that might viable options as far as ease of use, affordability, etc. are not yet "practically viable for implementation" (e.g. Platform for Internet Content Selection [or PICS] classification software)
 * Filters are less time-intensive for staff to maintain than other TPMs like customized blacklists/whitelists

Radom goes on to reference a 2002 report by Nancy Willard, University of Oregon, regarding filtering companies that provide products for public schools and public libraries. Willard found some compelling links between 8 of these corporations and conservative religious organizations. Willard's findings included: > > (5)
 * **Some companies sell their filtering products to conservative religious Internet Service** **Providers (ISPs).**
 * **Some companies have served as religious ISPs.**
 * **Some companies’ executives have publicly announced that a conservative religious** **philosophy guides their filtering"**

Radom provides in depth details on Willard's methodology and summarizes other key findings regarding the filters used in Indiana library systems, including, "...a total of 15.9% of all public libraries in [Indiana] use filtering programs that have some association with religious organizations. This number is a minimum; there may be other filtering companies with ties to religious organizations that have not been identified" (9).

Regarding the argument that internet filters are comparable to collection development practices, Radom offers this take:

A related issue is the degree to which libraries, with a professional code that advances intellectual freedom, continue to rely on commercial businesses with no such code to decide the suitability of information in a library. Librarians essentially give up their roles as selectors—a key part of collection development—to agents with purposes and codes very different from their own, who seek reasons to reject (censor) the material rather than reasons to keep (select) it... The result is the exclusion of materials based on content alone. In this case, wittingly or not, at least 15.9% of Indiana libraries are condoning religious censorship. (11-12)

I think that Radom's article has some valid points, her call to take serious the ethical responsibility of librarians to really understand the motivations behind the companies that create these handy tools.

What do you think?

__**Cited**__ Radom, Rachel. "Internet Filtering Companies with Religious Affiliations in the Context of Indiana Public Libraries." //LIBRES Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal// 17.2 (2007): 1-19. Web. 31 May 2011. <@https://libres.curtin.edu.au/libres17n2/Radom_2007_07_30_Ess%20&%20Op_final.pdf>.

[|Re: All or Nothing: Hardly the Facts] Alisa Rochelle Wynn (arwynn) (May 27, 2011 6:41 PM) - Read by: 10 [|Reply] [|Edit] | [|Delete]
 * Article 2**
 * Question 1:**
 * Which side to agree with, the plaintiffs’ (the patrons) or the defendants‘ (NCRL)? Why?**

Oliver, et al. rightly point out that the 2006 Washington State case of //Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District// conflicts with the 2003 Supreme Court decision in //United States v. American Library Association//.

While the //US v. ALA// Court ruled that CIPA-mandated filters (in exchange for e-rate funding) does __not__ violate library patrons' First Amendment rights, FindLaw.com writer, Julie Hilden points out that in the 2003 case "the government promised, in the course of litigation, that the libraries could, and would, remove the filters if users asked them to do so. It also promised that users would not have to explain why they were making the request."

Of note is the fact that it was the fact that patrons do have the option of asking for filters to be removed that provided the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling that CIPA does not violate First Amendment rights. Hilden specifically refers to Justice Kennedy's assertion that "there is little to this case" in light of library patrons ability to ask for unblocking. Hilden points out that:

//Kennedy also wisely suggested that if it turned out that, in practice, unblocking was slow or difficult, and impeded users' computer access, then patrons would not be prevented from suing the government, or perhaps the libraries, a second time. (Thus, if you actually go down to your federally-funded public library and demand unblocking, and they either refuse or make you wait a long time, under Kennedy's theory you may just have become a potential First Amendment plaintiff.)// Hilden even suggests that, as a principle of free speech, adult patrons should simply ask for filters to be removed at the start of each session, regardless of their intended internet use.

Getting back to //Bradburn vs. NCRL//, the plaintiffs Bradburn, et al.'s Complaint alleged that "The NCRL will not, upon request, disable the Internet filters that it has installed on its publicly-available computers in order to allow adult library patrons to conduct bona fide research via the Internet or to access the Web for other lawful purposes" (Dockets and Filings for Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District).

In NCRL's Answer to the plaintiffs' Complaint, it denies this entire statement.

However, it NCRL's Statement of Facts in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, it concedes that "NCRL will not disable the filter upon the request of an adult patron." To justify this policy, NCRL cites the fact that CIPA's language is that a librarian “may” disable a filter “for bona fide research or other lawful purpose." In other word, NCRL maintains that CIPA makes disabling filters optional.

NCRL"s State of Facts in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment does go on to state that NCRL will, however, consider permanent unblocking of individual sites for all viewers (and, therefore, those sites NCRL deems to be appropriate for minors).

Ultimately, NCRL's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted, which decision flies in the face of the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in United States v. American Library Association, which decision, as discussed above, relies heavily upon the partons' right to ask to have filters disabled with no questions asked.

In short, I believe the Bradburn decision was made in error, and I hope the plaintiffs are able to have their case heard by the federal court system.

__**Sources Consulted**__

Dockets and Filings for Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District. Justia.com. Web. 27 May 2011. <@http://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/waedce/2:2006cv00327/41160/>

Hilden, Julie. "A Recent Supreme Court Decision Allowing the Government to Force Public Libraries to Filter Users' Internet Access Is Less Significant Than It Might At First Appear." //FindLaw.com//. Web. 27 2011. <@http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20030701.html>

Oliver, Kent, June Pinnell-Stephens, and Barbara Jones. "All or Nothing: Hardly the Facts." Library Journal 136.1 (2011): 42-43. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 27 May 2011.

[|Re: All or Nothing: Hardly the Facts] Alisa Rochelle Wynn (arwynn) (May 27, 2011 8:02 PM) - Read by: 9 [|Reply] [|Edit] | [|Delete] Article 2 Question 2: Both of these articles discuss the negative use of filters. Do you have an argument in favor of their use? What do you think about the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendants that argues why the filters are constitutional?

From what I can glean, the key to NCRL's argument is the use of internet filters as a collection development tool, as reiterated in NCRL's Reply Memorandum in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment: "Plaintiffs' demand that the NCRL provide unfiltered internet access upon the request of an adult patron essentially asks NCRL to abdicate its traditional role and responsibility for collection development."

Later in its Reply Memorandum in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, NCRL's argument along this line continues with such statements as, "Moreover, what is and is not filtered by a public library is a matter of collection development, and area where public libraries have broad discretions," and "Internet filtering occurs pursuant to NCRL's Internet Use Policy which, in turn, incorporates NCRL's Collection Development Policy." NCRL relates that its collection comprised of "traditional forms," and multi-media formats supplement its web-based collection (i.e., the internet), so, "What is unavailable through one channel... may be well available through [another]."

While NCRL does not disable filters, it does allow adult patrons to suggest specific sites that NCRL may decide to unblock permanently based on its Collection Development Policy (and the requirements of CIPA).

Why do libraries have collection development policies in the first place?

The fact that no library has an unlimited budget surely is a (if not //**the**//) major underlying reason for such policies. Specific collection development guidelines for each library are in line with the library's mission and values. When considering intellectual freedom, decisions on materials to purchase should be inclusive rather than exclusive (Moeller).

Filters, however, rely on exclusivity.

NCRL also attributes its filtering policy (//ahem... collection development policy// ) to preventing a hostile work environment for its staff (apparently based upon concerns expressed by staff). Specifically, NCRL states it is concerned about potential "exposure to unwelcome, sexually-explicit content that none should have to contend with in the performance of their daily duties."

In support of this argument, NCRL cites the 2003 federal court case of Wendy Adamson, et al v. Minneapolis Public Library, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (see "Adamson"). In Adamson v. MPL, a dozen library employees (six librarians, five aides and a page) filed a complaint against MPL's administrative management, asserting that over a period of several years, they had been sexually harassed by library patrons who were accessing porn on the library computers. The plaintiffs' alleged that MPL's management did nothing to prevent or stop this harassment.

The plaintiffs' filed their court complaint in light of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 2001 determination that "the Respondent did subject the Charging Party to sexually hostile work environment. This is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended." This case never made it to trial. Instead the plaintiffs were awarded $435,000 and MPL agreed to take corrective action to prevent further harassment.

Staff reporter for The National Law Journal, Gary Young examines the MPL settlement, providing an opinion from Eugene Volokh, University of California at Los Angeles law professor, who:

...argued that the danger of sexual harassment law trumping the First Amendment is not limited to public libraries, since private employers are also liable if they create or tolerate a hostile work environment. Finally, the danger is not restricted to libraries, since "every place is someone's workplace, whether it's a park, a library or an art museum," [Volokh] said. I'm somewhat sympathetic to NCRL's argument in favor of protecting employees, however, I don't believe that NCRL's filtering policy is the ONLY way in which they could choose to protect their employees against a hostile work environment.

__**Consulted**__ "Adamson." //GetParentalControls.org//. Web. 27 May 2011. <@http://getparentalcontrols.org/policy-research/legal/adamson/>.

Moeller, Ph.D., Robin. "S640 Seminar in Intellectual Freedom: Week of May 25 Lecture Transcript." //Oncourse//. IU School of Library and Information Science, 25 May 2011.

"REPLY MEMORANDUM re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by North Central Regional Library District." //Justia.com//. 3 Mar. 2008. <@http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/waedce/2:2006cv00327/41160/61/>

Young, Gary. "No Smut At Work, Please." //The National Law Journal//. 15 Sept. 2003. Web. 27 May 2011. <@http://www.plan2succeed.org/nlj-no_smut_at_work_please15sep03by_gary_young.html>