Internet Filters In Schools

There’s no denying that technology has grown to play a major role in education and learning. Students are using laptops, tablets, and smartphones to research, complete, and even collaborate on assignments, both in and outside of the classroom. Timothy D. Snyder and Thomas L. Friedman both have written articles expressing their opposing opinions on technology in the classroom. Timothy Snyder is a Professor of History at Yale University who has written five different award-winning books. In his article, “Why Laptops Are Distracting America’s Future Workforce”, Snyder explains to students and teachers why he is against technology in the classroom. Thomas Friedman is a reporter and columnist for The New York Times, author of six award-winning

Imagine having to turn off all electronics and not being able to use it for a week. Technologies, such as the Internet, have provoked questions about the effects it has to students overtime. Although Internet users have become dependent to the internet, schools should not participate in national “Shut Down Your Screen Week” because the Internet is an exceptional source of information, the Internet is used for instant communication, and Internet users have shown increased signs of social interactions.

Instead of starting homework, teens and others find themselves falling to distractions such as social media. A computet scientist named David Gelernterexpresses his concern by writing, "Our children's attention spans are too short already, but the Web is a propaganda machine for short attention spans" (Source E ). Teachers ulimately find themselves as rivals with technology. Students disregard teachers through phones, iPods, and more. If technology was introduced to schools, teachers would need to acwuire a compromise between distractions and

Patrick Cloonan, teacher at Manheim School District, reported to Hi-Lite Online that while some websites like YouTube have inappropriate content, it can also have beneficial materials for students. In the text it said, students have better research without web filters. This confirms that students could be asked to do an assignment and the websites that are restricted are not able to be used by those students (“NYT”).

While the United States has very little government regulation over the Internet compared to other countries, such as china, the United States government has made it a requirement for schools and libraries to use an intermediary software to filter the content available to minors. While these intermediaries restrict access to websites regarding child pornography, which is not a protection of the first amendment, there is also legislation pending to restrict access to social networking websites, which are considered protected by the First Amendment (Kreimer 22). White refers to the case United States v. American Library Association, which refers to the requirement of a software on computers prohibiting children from viewing anything that is harmful to them, such as pornography. The court ruled, adults still have the ability to view such sites if they ask a library official to remove the website from the blocked list, and therefore does not go against First Amendment liberties. However, the judge also said, “until a blocked site or group of sites is unblocked, a patron is unlikely to know what is being hidden and therefore whether there is any point in asking for the filter to be removed” (White 2009). White believed due to this statement alone, the individual’s rights of speech have been restrained prior to their knowledge (White 2009).

Many of our students have smartphones, laptops, and tablets they use throughout the school day for school work. While some students depend on their devices to look up the current fashion trends and football stats, we feel that technology has also enabled students to think in a different way. Many students are quick on their feet to Google information to prove their friend wrong, send texts and emails in less than 10 seconds, and get excited when they are allowed to use their

controversial yes so simple. To many they are too restrictive while to others they are not

When discussing internet censorship, one of the major concerns is what children can see on the internet. Internet censorship was a huge deal during the 1990’s and early 2000’s and it still is to this very day. The internet back then was much different than it is today. Back then, we could only access the internet from a computer and most people didn’t own one back then. Nowadays, most people have multiple computers and a cell phone that can access the internet. It was easier for parents to control what their children could have access to back then. Now, parents can still put restrictions on the router settings and set a timer for when the internet shuts off but kids can always just go somewhere else that may have internet access to view any

Some researchers argue that the amount of time we spend on the internet has disenabled us from being able to the “deep mental connections that form when we read deeply….” (Carr 575). Some other personal anecdotes suggest that technology has lessened our ability to focus. For example, Carr includes the story of Bruce Friedman who confesses that he has “almost completely lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article” whether on the web or in print (Carr 574). If such hypotheses are true, than removing, or at least limiting, technology in the classroom might be beneficial to cadets, so that there can be an environment where we can learn without a world of

What would you do if you went to your child's school and saw that they were looking at inappropriate material on the internet? Would you react the same way if they were in a public library? Who decides what is okay for your children to view? Who decides where they can view it? What can you do about them being able to view these things? Are there any laws that can prevent this from happening? What are some schools and libraries doing to help prevent children form looking at such material? These are all issues that will be discussed in the next few paragraphs, along with my opinions on the matter.

Congress made an attempt to place content-based restrictions on school and public library internet use in the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000. This act requires the use of some type of internet filtering software for all public libraries that attain funds from the Federal government (in the form of E-rate discounts or Library Services and Technology Act grants). Should a library refuse to comply with CIPA guidelines, that library would have to maintain its technological services without the government discount or LSTA grants. Holding to the CIPA guidelines, both the E-rate and LSTA stipulate that filters may be disabled or ‘legitimate’ sites unblocked by adults who request it, but it is unclear “whether libraries ‘must’ provide for such disabling” (Anten 79).

The Bush administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a federal law designed to protect minors from sexually explicit materials via World Wide Web (Walsh 1). Internet pornography is "readily

In 2011, several people started a “Don’t Filter Me project.” They wanted to remove the web filters on the school computers that blocked several educational sites. They filed lawsuits and demanded that they unblock these sites and take away the web filters. Also another group of people petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down the Communications Decency Act in Reno v. ACLU in 1997. As a result, the court granted the “highest level of First Amendment protection to the internet.” Also in 2004, the Supreme Court “announced that it will not hear government’s appeal of a ban on the Child Online Protection Act.” They thought of this as a violation of the First Amendment (Internet Censorship 1).

Today, many campuses offer free Wi-Fi internet access in all classrooms. However, students abuse the advantage of Wi-Fi internet availability and misuse their laptops in ways that prevents them to engage and concentrate in class. Carrie B. Fried’s points out that although her research demonstrated that laptops are an effective learning tool, there was more suggestive evidence to ban laptops in class because they detract students from learning. Based on her research results, she concluded that students learning are negatively related to in-class laptop use because students spent “considerable time multitasking and that laptop use posed a significant distraction to both users and fellow students” (Computers and Technologies Journal). With Wi-Fi networks, it allows students to use the internet and do non-course related activities: check emails, play online games, visit social media networks such as Facebook and Blogger, and instant message other friends inside and outside of their current classroom. Students performing non course related activities on their laptops distract their fellow classmates as well. A student who misuses their laptop hinders their own learning as well as the learning of peers who are using their laptops appropriately. A student watching a comedy and smiling can distract another classmates’ learning and the disrespect the professor who is struggling to teach.

Thousands of websites are distracting students from studying time. In an experiment at Cornell University, students who used internet-connected laptops during a lecture did much worse on a subsequent test than students who did not use the internet (Carr, 2010). It indicated that using the internet in class impacts students’ attention span (2010). Distractions can take attention away from learning. In fact, using the internet does not promote study efficiency, but wastes time.