Libraries Should Use Software Filters for Internet Access

For libraries to remain a place for a lively exchange of ideas, librarians should be armed with the right knowledge and strong conviction to preserve people’s rights.

Futhermore, another reason that items shouldn´t be censored in libraries, is simply based off of the fact that, parents and teachers should have trust and faith in there children. Thus meaning that if students are to pick up something that has bad and or vulgar things,

The biggest problem school libraries seem to face is where to draw the line on book content. But school libraries must understand that allowing book banning, they are taking away the opportunity for all students to read , instead of letting the parents decide what their child should be reading. Finlo Rohrer, BBC News Washington, explains that “In the US more and more parents are pressing schools to withdraw books with bad language or sexual content.” Parents that are uncomfortable with books in school libraries have made the effort to completely remove them from the library altogether. But when parents press to remove books that they might find unacceptable, they are actually deciding for the rest of the students as well. Mike Rose argues that “One disturbing aspect if censorship is its power to deny students in one class or an entire school system the right to read particular texts” (Agee, 61). Parents have every right to watch what their child reads and

Some books contain extremely harmful information that can put lives at risk. Understandably, a guide detailing the step-by-step process of making a bomb could spell disaster in the wrong hands. However, this argument falls flat when you consider that most bookstores would never choose to carry books like this. As shown in Forensic Files, even the attempted purchase of a book like this is often discovered by the authorities There is no reason why this cannot be applied to libraries as well. Less shockingly, most others cling to the concept of moral decay. Some content is supposedly not fit for children, or even people of any age. However, a study hosted on the American Library Association website between the 90s and early 2000s shows that over than 2,000 cumulative book challenges were because of offensive language and sexually explicit content. A parent’s decision to censor their child from more mature themes, should not unfairly spell the same fate for their

The ALA office for intellectual freedom promotes awareness of challenges towards library material. The ALA promotes the freedom to choose and the freedom to express one’s opinion. The ALA OIF compiles lists of challenged and bans as reported to the media and submitted to them. The ALA has formed a banned books week, which is celebrated the last week of September each year. Banned books week brings national attention to the consequences of censorship. The ALA also supports librarians that are facing challenges to materials in their libraries. Banned books are usually removed from libraries or schools. Online resources such as e-books and educational websites are also being blocked and filtered in libraries. People believed that e-books were virtually censor proof and that they would reduce the number of books being banned. Teachers in Colorado were subject to be removed if they were caught teaching from the school boards banned books list. There are more laws regulating public schools than public libraries. The Supreme Court deals with many cases about censorship and banning books. In 1982 the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution does not permit the official suppression of

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).

The parents of our communities tend to fall on either side of the issue, divided into pro and anti-censorship groups. The big question that everyone is asking is if a student were to open a book and read about drugs, sex, or violence will this make a child more susceptible to this kind of behavior? Our United States board of education believes so, and has installed censorship safety precautions in the literature that is available in public schools and libraries. According to the American Library Association between 1990 and 2000 6,364 challenges against books were brought to Office of Intellectual Freedom by parents, teachers, and different pro-censorship organizations. The grounds for these challenges were that the books contained sexually explicit material, offensive language, satanic references, violence, homosexuality, or promotion of a religious belief. Some books that were on this list include The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (for incessant use of the n word), The Catcher and the Rye (Depicts teenage depression, prostitution and use of the f word) and Go Ask Alice (Instances of Drug Use, sex, and suicide. People that are pro censorship argue that no books are being banned. That, in fact, you can buy those same books in many bookstores or other places. They argue that is their right, as taxpayers to decide what their children should have

The internet became a very popular and huge way of getting millions of different kinds of materials and information for everyday use in the later 80's early 90's. It became easy for anyone to access millions of different kinds of materials ninety nine percent of which is decent according to our governments standards and one or less percent which is considered to be material the is indecent or harmful to minors.(ABC) These facts maybe deceiving however because there are millions of internet sites so the internet may only be one percent indecent but that means there are thousands upon thousands of sites that are indecent.(ABC) The biggest question is how can we protect our children from these indecent sites? The government believed that

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

As new technologies are rapidly introduced, people are able to find any information with the access of internet. This leads to people questioning the relevance of libraries and its true purpose. Public libraries cultivate the value of increased education and a social unity to advancing as a society.

Some people are all for censoring what children can read so that they are not corrupted. Other people believe that individuals should have the choice in what they want their children exposed to, and school libraries face this problem frequently. A majority of parents do not want their kids exposed to certain types of books and movies, that most libraries frequently would offer. This is hard for the school, because they have to pick and choose, and virtually censor what they offer to the students to read. People should have the freedom to expose themselves to what they want.

Censorship in school libraries allows teachers, administrators, peers and their parents to decide what a student may or may not read based on their opinion. Opinion is variable between different groups of people within the school; therefore, a single person or a small group of people cannot be trusted to make decisions on the behalf of a larger group. Kekla Magoon argues, “That no one person can be trusted to censor material, individuals can choose to be exposed to.” Expurgation, banning, and abridgement of books are not allowing students to learn how to guard themselves from topics they do not personally believe in. Students would benefit much more if they practiced self-censorship rather than depending on adults to make decisions for them. A

The American Library Association states that the most challenged and restricted reading material have been children books. However, challenges are not merely an expression of a point of view; on the contrary, It is an attempt to remove materials from public use, thus restricting the access to others. Even if the motivation to ban or challenge a book is well intended, the outcome is unfair for everyone else. Censorship denies our freedom as individuals to choose and think for ourselves. For children, decisions about what books to read should only be made by the people who know them best; their parents! (Letter to the Editor). I strongly disagree when people want books banned based on their own opinion of the

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).

It is obvious that for years, the government has been trying to regulate this type of content but has seen very limited success. Part of the reason for this is because certain regulatory actions intended to protect only a small group, such as children, should not require the prohibition of material that adults have access to in other arenas. It is for example, legal for people to rent pornographic movies or buy nude magazines, so distribution of this type of material on the Internet should not be completely limited. People shouting out for protection of their 1st Amendment rights have made a good point when arguing against complete censorship. What seems more feasible is a sort of multi-layered approach to regulate illegal and harmful content on the Net. This would make it possible to form some sort of insulation for children