Over Blocking, Under Blocking, Biased Blocking
While the under blocking of filters may be the biggest concern for parents and guardians of younger patrons due to the high risk of exposure to inappropriate materials, over blocking can be and has been a problem within the context of the library. Filters that stretch too far can cause more harm than good in several ways including promoting biased blocking for religion, political, and personal beliefs, blocking adults from needed content, and limiting educational resources.
Ayre (2004) in her overview of the history of filtering she mentions that filters were designed for parents, schools and business and have been influenced largely by religious groups and employers whose filter requirements
…show more content…
They offer patrons more privacy by providing computer monitors that “are recessed beneath a glass surface and covered with hoods so that only the surfer can see the material on the screen” (p. 100). However, this method still doesn’t address the concern of children accessing materials online and can be costly. Another method recommended is that “librarians can encourage parents and children to search the Internet together” (p.100). This recommendation is under the belief that parents should not be allowing their children to surf the internet if they are not equipped or old enough to do so. A common recommendation is to offer internet literacy classes for parents to teach their children how to use the internet responsibly. While this seems to be a potentially effective method, there is still the concern that children don’t always listen and they could still be subjected to predatory behavior on the …show more content…
In an effort to at least protect children, who are the most vulnerable, internet filters were created by vendors and enforced by the government. Parents and caretakers saw this as progress. Intellectual liberals saw this as censorship. Thus began a moral debate. Do we use filters and in an effort to protect our children and impair the freedom of speech? Or do we leave our children to potentially discover the dangers of the internet and preserve first amendment rights? Over the years, more effects of having internet filters in the library became apparent. The moral debate expanded from just first amendment rights to intellectual freedom and digital divides. The question then became: Do we leave our children to potentially discover the dangers of the internet or preserve first amendment rights, support learning and discovery via the Web, and close the digital
Kids now want to be more independent and have more freedom which might scare some if not most parents. A lot of parents look at the internet as a dangerous tool and not a tool where their kids can have some freedom. Although parents need to realize that they can’t protect their kids from all ...
Obviously, parents want to do the best things they can to protect their children. However, their fears misguide their thinking when it comes to censorship. As Charles Taylor points out, censorship does not only include pornography or excess violence on television, classrooms and libraries all across America can feel its presence. (Taylor) According to the National Coalition against Censorship website Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) in 1981, which provided funds to charitable and religious organizations t...
There are four motivational factors that may lie behind a censor’s actions. Those factors are family values, religion, political views, and minority rights. On the basis of family values, the censor is usually threatened ...
The Internet, with its unlimited access to any kind of information, is today’s most commonly used tool used worldwide. This poses some complex questions that challenge liberal and conservative alike, the most recent defenders of the First Amendment, and the most passionate exponents of censorship. With the rush by our President to make the Internet accessible to every U.S. student, the problem extends far beyond libraries and into our schools. This censorship problem would seem to have no easy solution. First, let's assume pornography is a bad thing. It encourages poor behavior and disrespect toward women in general. Yes, any respectable human being would agree with that. But why does this have to be a problem in our schools? Isn't it the responsibility of the parents to guide their children? Isn’t it up to the parents to teach their kids stuff like that is morally wrong? Kids should already know behavior like that does not belong at school. Schools have a fear of this happening so they take action and put a block on all key words that are linked with pornography. Great, now how will students learn about subjects such as bre...
Objectionable content found in challenged books across the country can range from some vulgar language, to rape and incest, and even to explicit sex scenes. However objectionable these topics may be, high schoolers are already exposed to them in some way, whether it be through listening to popular music on the radio, watching television, or browsing the internet. Many parents, and even board members of some schools, object certain books for a variety of reasons. What they have failed to realize is this: if they are so concerned about what their children read in school, are they as concerned about monitoring what they hear on the radio, see on television, and search online? Many schools across the country are now taking the technological route when it comes to teaching. This often means students can have access to the internet while in their classroom. This point goes back to the prior statement of ...
Since the internet has been available in schools and libraries in this country, there has been a debate about what should be accessible to users, especially minors. The amount of information disseminated on the world wide web is vast, with some sources valuable for scholarly and personal research and entertainment, and some sources that contain material that is objectionable to some (ie. pornography, gambling, hate groups sites, violent materials). Some information potentially accessible on the internet such as child pornography and obscenity is strictly illegal and is not protected under the First Amendment. Some information available on the internet that may be valuable to some is at the same time perceived to be worthless or potentially harmful to some. For libraries serving the public, there has been controversy on the issue of providing the internet, free of censorship or filtering, to users. While some librarians and their professional associations align with ideals of free and unfiltered access to all information provided by the internet, some feel that filtering internet content to exclude possibly objectionable materials is a reasonable measure to prevent potential harm to minors.
This article emphasizes the point that censors go too far when they attempt to not only ban a book for their own children but want to remove it altogether from a school library, so that other students cannot read it.
Tears begin to fall down a child’s face. Her body goes into shock out of fear. Her mother warned her about watching inappropriate content, and there it was, right on her computer screen. This could not have happened though. All she was doing was casually browsing the internet before a pop-up appeared. Although it may seem hard to believe, the major cause of events such as this is the lack of censorship on the internet. Internet censorship relates to the removal of offensive, inappropriate, or controversial content published online. The current problem with the internet is that there are few restrictions on what can be published or viewed. Several sites on the internet only offer a warning about inappropriate content that can easily be bypassed by agreeing to the terms. Other websites provide access to private or military information. More dreadfully, however, are websites that use their explicit content as a promotion. These factors bring the conclusion that anybody of any given age can view and publish inappropriate or dangerous content. The current problems with the internet serve for clarification as to why the United States should create a nonpartisan assembly to censor the internet in order to protect its citizens from the mental, emotional, and physical harms the internet creates.
The most debatable and controversial form of censorship today is the banning of books in school libraries. Banning books that educate students is wrong and selfish. Censorship of books in school libraries is neither uncommon nor an issue of the past. Books with artistic and cultural worth are still challenged constantly by those who want to control what others read. The roots of bigotry and illiteracy that fuel efforts to censor books and free expression are unacceptable and unconditional. Censoring school books in libraries can often lead to censorship of our basic freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. In some cases, a minority ends up dictating the majority in censorship cases. To be told what is permissible reading material and what is not is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
McCarthy, M. (2005). THE CONTINUING SAGA OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP: THE CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 83-101.
Censorship is Necessary to Protect Children from the Internet Do you want our future generations being exposed to violence, hate, sexuality, illegal substances, and false information, and then one day think it would be cool or alright to try these things? The internet is filled with dangerous information, that children should never have the freedom to access. Children learn from example, and if they search, watch, or read something on the web that could be potentially dangerous, they could be influenced or curious and think that it would be alright to imitate one day. If our children now are viewing these things, it could mean that future generations could grow to be more violent and our world could become more dangerous than it already is today. Censorship is necessary if we plan on having our kids grow up in the safest environment possible.
Reitman, Rainey. " The Cost of Censorship in Libraries: 10 Years Under the Children’s Internet Protection Act." Electronic Frontier Foundation. Electronic Frontier Foundation, 4 Sept. 2013. Web.
Free speech on the Internet is a very controversial subject and has been the key problem surrounding the Internet today. The attempt to regulate and govern the Internet is still pursued by government officials. This subject has been intensified due to terrorist attacks against the United States and around world within the past years. The government believes that by regulating the Internet, it will protect the general public from criminal actions and eliminate the exposure of children to pornography or vulgar language. Senator Jim Exon of ...
Censorship is blocking or hiding something that is considered unacceptable to the public eye or a group of a certain age. In looking at the effects of censorship on society, it is apparent that it can both be beneficial and harmful. Censorship is seen to be beneficial through preventing dangerous people from viewing government documents and preventing children from viewing inappropriate content. Censorship can be harmful when it comes to taking away rights declared in the Constitution and setting unequal standards for men and women. These examples show how effects censorship has on society can be both good and bad. Looking at facts and credible opinions is a way to truly see how censorship has negative and positive effects.
There are two real issues at stake when looking at this controversial topic. The first issue is finding a way to protect our children from potentially damaging material. There are advocates to censoring the Internet and removing this type of material because it will help shelter our children from this type of content. On the other hand, Free Speech advocates believe that it is the individual citizens right to have access to this typ...