Internet Censorship in Utah Schools & Libraries

One of my old partners in crime, Michael Sims, contacted me with the latest report from Censorware.org. By analyzing their web logs, Censorware found that they were blocking access to such offensive materials as The Bible, and The Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution, using the unaptly named SmartFilter software. Check out the Salt Lake Tribune for more information.

Comments

Censorship is NOT GOOD...

[rlk]

Why should children "simply not be allowed to view certain things"? Suppose, for example, that a high school student is writing a term paper on propaganda for a history class, and wishes to use contemporary neo-Nazi sites for examples?

Saying that children categorically should not be exposed to certain things is neither effective nor desirable. They'll either find other sources for the same information, or find ways around the filters. It's much preferable for them to be exposed to this material under mature supervision than to see it in secrecy with their peers, who probably don't understand the harm at all (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not), or who think that it's cool to kill people, and gee, isn't it neat that this web site advocates killing people and tells us how to go about it?

Since it's contraband, it will not be possible to use this for educational purposes. It will not be possible to discuss Nazi propaganda and explain the harm caused by it, and point to examples on the net for classroom discussion. It will be that much harder to teach children how to think critically and thereby avoid the same mistakes in the future. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it (Santayana), and children are better learners than adults.

To address the issue of adult usage: libraries are not intended solely for purposes of scholarly research. Most libraries contain works of entertainment (novels and such). Certainly if one individual is tying up resources to the exclusion of other library patrons the library can enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations; libraries routinely restrict how many books one individual may have checked out at any one time, and impose fines for late return.

Furthermore, even by the definition of scholarly research, individuals may not want others to know what they're accessing. It may be that someone wishes to research something unpopular and does not wish to be exposed to the opprobrium of the surrounding community (consider someone who wants to study the ACLU or Planned Parenthood in a conservative community -- or the NRA in certain other communities). It may be for other reasons of secrecy, such as a desire to be the first author of a given piece of research, for preservation of patent rights (as distasteful as that may be to many of us), a nondisclosure agreement that someone may believe he is in violation of if others can see what's on his screen, and so forth.

So no, I cannot agree that censorship is good in certain circumstances. I'm Jewish, and for that reason I would want my children to have access at a relatively early age to hate sites, in order that I could teach them the dangers of hatred and how to recognize it.

Why?

[burnsbert]

> And why should kids go to school?

"To learn how to read, write, and do simple math. Hopefully, to learn a bit more than that. To be a useful member of society in the 20th century, you
need to have at least these basic skills."

Not American society. If your "at least" is reading, writing, and simple math, then you're in a world of hurt. "Readin' ritin' and cipherin'"
is a skillset adequate for a steam-powered thresher-driver of the late nineteenth century.


That's called the "straw man" argument, when you purposely misunderstand a person's view in order to rail against them. You knew that I made no such claim, inane sophistry notwithstanding.

You (or another AC) asked me why children should go to school. I listed the most basic skills imaginable that children typically learn from school (Reading, Writing, Arithmatic). I never suggested that this was the limit of what children should learn. But no one without these skills can become a useful member of society.

Now, my dear demagogue, how do you suggest children gain these skills if they don't attend school? Not enough parents stay home to make home schooling en masse a viable alternative. Do you suggest a means of education, or are you simply taking potshots for the fun of it?

-Eric

blame the software?

[Lurking Grue]

I am using Smartfilter for a 30-day eval period. (Squid version.) Like other filter vendors they do not publish the list of filtered sites. But there are also other configuration files that allow you to exempt sites and workstations. In short, there's flexibility.

With filtering in place, ACLU types bitch & moan about suppressed free speech. Without it, conservative types bitch & moan about subsidizing perverts.

Smartfilter was intentionally purchased to filter "objectionable" sites. It enforces a policy. If a user unsuccessfully attempts to access a "non-objectionable" site then the user should notify the IT person in charge. That site can then be exempted.

Smartfilter is not perfect. It is, however, flexible.

blame the software?

[jamiemccarthy]

But there are also other configuration files that allow you to exempt sites and workstations. In short, there's flexibility.

It is unfair to expect this to serve in place of the vendor's inability to construct a sane blocking list. School officials and librarians cannot hope to keep up with the huge list of wrongly blocked URLs for SmartFilter and other censorware products. Librarians are not supposed to monitor the thousands of sites being added to the web daily - that's supposed to be the software's job.

In fact, as the report shows, certain blocks were overridden, such as Utah's own www.mormon.com (one wonders why that was blocked in the first place). But the list of wrongly censored sites dwarfs any attempt to catch up.

In short, this "flexibility" is a red herring.

Jamie McCarthy

Seperation of Church and State!

[jerodd]

But of course! It would be an absolutely TERRIBLE crime if a schoolchild used public resources to read religious materials. What would the parents think?

Seriously, I was in a school a while ago that had censorship, and it was terrible. It blocked useful sites and let some really bad stuff through (a pudgy kid in the back was hogging the printer--I can't believe no one said anything).

The only cure for this is to have adults monitoring their children when they use the Internet. Of course, that would require that a parent be involved in their child's life, and that really does take more effort than we'd like. The sad thing is that most parents don't realise how much worse the material on T.V. is. IMO (and IIRC there is research that confirms this) watching violence depicted in a moving picture is more harmful to a young child than seeing a still picture of a much worse seen. No-one wants to address these issues with the real solution, which is for parents to take care of their children. Everyone wants software and V-chips to do the parenting for them.

Cheers,
Joshua (hi Orwell!)

Censorship is _never_ GOOD...

[ethereal]

First things first: I agree with you wholeheartedly that community resources like computing time in the library or in school shouldn't be wasted on browsing porn, etc. Of course, they shouldn't be wasted browsing the news, ESPN, or Slashdot either, unless that's an assignment or research project. It's a non-argument that schools and libraries exist to provide information, not entertainment, and when resources are limited, those with legitimate information needs should get preference over mere web browsers.

...but what is inarguable is that children should simply not be allowed to view certain things...

However, I will certainly argue with that. Who decides these "certain things"? I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with your choices for what my kids should see, because I have no idea what your beliefs are - your religious convictions, your morals, even your taste in art. Can't have you deciding things for my kids.

I'll go a step further and say that I may not even be a good person to decide which "certain things" we censor. Why, you ask? For all you know, I might be a militant flat-earther, a Luddite, or some other persuasion of thought that society generally sees as reactionary. Do you want me to decide that your kids shouldn't read about space travel, evolution, or medical information about the human body?

Granted, none of my examples address the examples that you mentioned. Personally, I happen to agree with you that I wouldn't be crazy about my kids learning how to treat women from pornography, or learning about the rest of the world from a Nazi viewpoint. However, I don't see censorship at school as a solution. Why?

• Because reading about Nazis or pornography on the Internet doesn't automatically make you a racist or a wife-beater. If my kids are that impressionable, then I've already been making mistakes as a parent for a long time. There's a big difference between finding out that something exists, and wholeheartedly espousing it as a way of life. Most of the porn I've run into on the Internet was more laughable than anything, and certainly hasn't altered the way I treat my wife, for example.
• Because by the time someone is 13, like it or not they are going to have to deal with adult issues. If your kid gets to age 13 before he hears an off-color joke that puts down women or another race, then please let me know what school system you're in! Kids are blasted with the same flood of information and impressions as any of us, and you can't really shelter them once they head off for that first day of school. The only thing you can do as a parent is try to explain to them not just how to act but why to act that way, so that they can make their own decisions about porn, etc. Children have to be taught to have an open mind but at the same time be skeptical about what they hear.
• Because I as a parent could be wrong in my views. For example, my grandparents held rather, um, conservative views on race and so on. However, their daughter turned out to be the most open-minded person I know, regardless of the way she was raised. If she hadn't been able to learn that there were other viewpoints, she might be a very different person today. Give people enough information and let them draw their own conclusions - the worst thing you can do to a person is to deny them access ideas that let them make their own decisions.
• Because, believe it or not, we the community could all be wrong in what we think is right. There are plenty of crazy people out in the world, and 99% of their ideas are worthless. But there are also the brilliant people who can make the mental leap to the next level, and we don't want to ignore them just because they don't fit our conventions. People that can really change things if we cultivate an open mind: Jesus Christ, Galileo Galilei, Mahatma Gandhi, and so forth. All of these people offended the views of the majority at the time, and all of them went on to really shake things up. Now, I personally don't think that skinheads have the right perspective on the world, but I'm not willing to censor 99% of the crazy people and risk not hearing about the next revolutionary idea.

Censorship programs don't work well

[Taral]

Unfortunately, censorship programs rarely work very well on things like pornography sites. There are only really two ways to catch things like that:

1) Trying to second-guess the URLs the sites will use. It's already been shown just how badly this works. The filters _invariably_ manage to filter out something that isn't really offensive.

2) Constantly updating site lists. This requires continuous maintenance, and therefore drives up the cost of the software (and our taxes, if the schools use it).

Both of these things result in a cat-and-mouse game to a certain extent, as some providers alter their sites to get past the filters, and the filter makers try to keep up the filtering lists.

To boot, who are these content providers to say what is offensive? Some religious parents may find the text of the bible offensive, and not want their children to read it...

Censorship is GOOD...

[lee]

Libraries are not there to babysit anyone. Common sense or no, it is none of their business.
Before I was able to afford my own computer and internet access after college, I paid a fee and used the local library's computers. Just because I could not, or would not, pay for my own access doesn't mean that they have a right suddenly to regulate all information i get there based on what they feel is in my best interest. Some ppl here seem to think that the library is for intellectual, erudite pursuits, but if you look at the collection of books in most local libraries you will find many books that are not very erudite. A good library has books which its patrons wish to read, not just what they should read. Why should the webpages available from library computers be any different?

Personally, i do look up medical information on the web, AND IN LIBRARY BOOKS. I do not use it to substitute for a doctor. Before a surgery I looked up what the doctor said was the problem and was able to not only confirm what he had told me but also to understand how he had come to that conclusion. I felt much better about the surgery which did solve the problem.

I did the same after another doctor visit and after reading several articles and not improving after a week, decided to get a second opinion. My doctor in that case got angry and refused even to recommend another for a second opinion. I am glad I saw someone else. Following the second doctor's advice, I quickly got better.

It is not always possible to ask all of my questions to the doctor when I am there. I think of things later, or just want to find out more. There are a lot of sites with solid information on the web.

Free Health Clinic's indeed! It is my body, my brain, and I will do as I please within the bounds of the law. The point of all of this is that the US Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court says that libraries cannot censor adult access to the web!

I bet you would not like my opinion on what people should not read any more than i like yours. That is one reason the US Constitution has a bill of rights.

An idea

[Mr T]

What if you had to log in at a school? Colleges require this. Then each month or something, the list of URLs visited by the student get's mailed to their parents, it could even be assembled into an easy access webpage type list on a disc. No censorship or anything of that sort, just tracking.

Naturally, when your 16 year old daughter is visiting lot's of sites about birth control you're going to want to have a sit-down with her. The thing is, you should have that talk with her anyways.