Headlines Extra -- Libraries 5/20/99 (fwd)

[Andy Carvin <acarvin@GSN.ORG>]

thought some of you would be interested in this... -ac

Andy Carvin
WWWEDU Coordinator and Moderator
andy@gsn.org



Forwarded message:
> From owner-benton-compolicy@CDINET.COM  Thu May 20 14:56:09 1999
> X-Sender: taglang@pop.enteract.com
> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Approved-By:  Kevin Taglang <kevint@BENTON.ORG>
> Message-ID:  <199905202148.RAA26403@periplum.cdinet.com>
> Date:         Thu, 20 May 1999 17:48:41 -0400
> Reply-To: lists@BENTON.ORG
> Sender: The Benton Communications Policy Mailing List
>               <BENTON-COMPOLICY@CDINET.COM>
> From: Kevin Taglang <kevint@BENTON.ORG>
> Subject:      Headlines Extra -- Libraries 5/20/99
> Comments: To: upforgrabs-l@cdinet.com
> To: BENTON-COMPOLICY@CDINET.COM
>
> This week's Extra highlights the hot topic of Internet filtering and
> libraries. With the help of the National Commission on Libraries and
> Information Science (NCLIS), the American Library Association (ALA) and
> other sources, we try to put into perspective recent legislative efforts to
> require Internet filters in public libraries.
> ------------------------
>
> HEADLINES EXTRA -- LIBRARIES 5/20/99
>
>         Introduction
>         The Debate
>             *Filtering the Internet in American Public Libraries:
>               Sliding Down the Slippery Slope (First Monday)
>             *After Filter Summit, ALA May Revisit 1997 Resolution,
>               Children's Access
>         Legislation
>             *Children's Internet Protection Act
>             *Safe Schools Internet Act of 1999
>             *In the States
>
> INTRODUCTION
>         "Never before have students - of all ages -
>         been able to gain so much access to information
>         in support of their studies. But we also recognize
>         what some have referred to as the 'dark side of the
>         Internet.'"
>         -- Jeanne Hurley Simon, Chair of the US National
>         Commission on Libraries and Information Science
>
> In response to the potential harmful material available to children over the
> Internet, the NCLIS provides these possible solutions (see Kids and The
> Internet: The Promise and The Perils (www.nclis.gov/info/kids.html):
>
> * Libraries can implement procedures for gaining parental permission that
> describes what sort of access is permissible for their children.
> * Separate terminals can be provided for adults and children, or multiple
> profiles can be installed on terminals, so that children are not allowed the
> same access as older people.
> * Libraries can restrict the use of chat by children to sites that have been
> specifically approved (e.g., moderated chat groups, designated interactive
> sites, such as homework helpers, museums, and zoos).
> * Privacy screens or recessed monitors can be installed on public terminals
> so that only the terminal user can see what is displayed.
> * Libraries can require users to sign up for the use of Internet access
> terminals and acknowledge their understanding of the libraries' Internet use
> policies.
> * Libraries can present their own home pages that point children to sites
> that are pre-selected and evaluated.
> * Libraries can provide Internet training, education, and other awareness
> programs to parents and teachers that alert them to both the promise and the
> perils of the Internet and describe how they can help children have a safe
> and rewarding experience online.
> * Internet access terminals can be configured with software - which can be
> turned on or off - that restricts access to designated Web sites or specific
> Internet functions.
>
> On her April 15th show, national radio talkshow host Dr. Laura Schlessinger
> criticized the American Library Association (ALA) for providing a link to a
> health information Web site, Go Ask Alice, on the organization's Teen Hoopla
> Web site (www.ala.org/teenhoopla/). In an message posted to Filtering Facts
> (www.filteringfacts.org), "an online source for information about making
> Internet access in libraries safe for kids," the ALA maintains the Web site
> was selected "because it is a factual, straightforward and comprehensive
> source of health information."  Dr. Laura, as she is popularly know, called
> the ALA policy on filtering as "indefensible" in that it allows children to
> access sexually graphic and pornographic material.
>
> ALA's official policy on filtering is that everyone should have the right to
> access to all information on the Internet. "I, for one, fear that in our
> haste to find Internet solutions, we may be in danger of selling our
> children and their First Amendment rights as adults down the river," said
> ALA President Ann K. Symons at the Annenberg National Conference on the
> Internet and the Family.
>
> The Dr. Laura broadcast has not only brought attention to some of the key
> aspects of the issue -- access to information, child protection, and freedom
> of speech -- it has resulted in concrete losses for libraries. On May 3,
> Toys ''R Us canceled its plans to fund children's reading rooms in public
> libraries nationwide. On her show, Dr. Laura encouraged her 20 million
> listeners to demonstrate their opposition to ALA's non-filtering position at
> the ALA conference in New Orleans on late June. For additional information,
> see Dr Laura continues crusade against ALA
> (www.ala.org/alonline/news/1999/990517.html#drlaura) and Filtering Facts
> (www.filteringfacts.org/).
>
>
> THE DEBATE
>
> FILTERING THE INTERNET IN AMERICAN PUBLIC LIBRARIES: SLIDING DOWN THE
> SLIPPERY SLOPE
> Since the American Library Association (ALA) issues its first Library Bill
> of Rights in 1939, libraries in the United States have struggled to ward
> off censorship and promote intellectual freedom. More than a half a century
> latter, libraries are still engaged in the never-ending battle for protect
> free expression, but the focus of debate has shifted from the printed word
> to the electronic world. Libraries and librarians around the nation must
> now struggle to determine what free speech means in the age of the Internet.
>
> Information, The Public Library, and the Internet
>
> With Internet access available in most of the nation's public libraries there
> is a growing national debate about how to best protect children from
> undesirable material online. On June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court declared
> that the federal legislative attempt to limit access to the Internet in the
> name of protecting citizens, the Communications Decency Act, was
> unconstitutional. The Court declared that "the interest in encouraging
> freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but
> unproven benefit of censorship." In reaction to the Supreme Court decision,
> ALA Council by adopted a resolution affirming that "the use of filtering
> software by libraries to block access to constitutionally protected speech
> violates the Library Bill of Rights."
>
> The ALA statement, however, "did not resolve the problem for public
> libraries who must answer to boards, to parents and to their
> constituencies," writes the author. Despite recent legislation and court
> decisions regarding libraries and filtering, public libraries must resolve
> these issues at the local level. "The very real issues arising from
> pornography on the Internet are not going to be resolved by the courts;
> they are going to be resolved by public libraries and public library
> users," explains the Director of the Cleveland Public Library.
>
> The following are key questions that librarians must address in developing
> public libraries role as a gateway to the Internet:
> * Are the well-developed library procedures of selection and mediation of
> information  applicable to the Internet?
> * Should a librarian abdicate those responsibilities in the name of access?
> * Does a library have the same responsibilities toward the potential
> information that may be received via the Internet that it assumes over all
> the other materials in its collection?
> * Finally, how does the public library reconcile its role as a government
> institution while at the same time as safeguarding community standards in an
> Internet environment?
>
> Filtering, The Librarians and The Public
>
> The number of commercial filtering products on the market is rapidly
> proliferating. Currently, there are approximately eighteen different types
> of filtering programs available. The most widely used method of filtering is
> keyword blocking, which blocks sites that contain specific words or phrases.
> Another method is host or site blocking, in which specific Internet sites
> are selected for blocking. Protocol filtering, which is the blocking of
> entire domains, is heavily used in homes and schools. The problem is that
> all these methods can result in the unintentional blocking of useful and
> constitutionally protected material.
>
> Filtering issues are increasingly being discussed on listservs and the
> Internet. One example is Peacefire, a Web site that claims to be a
> "revolutionary space where teenagers from all over the world can gather to
> form a political community, share values, fight for political rights, and
> support and defend one another from continuous assaults on their freedom."
> The Web site monitors software filtering developments, reviews new programs,
> and links to other like-minded sites. Presenting an opposing view, the
> Filtering Facts Web site brings pro-filtering librarians together to contest
> the ALA's position against blocking software.
>
> Active and heated discussions on filtering are also taking place on
> listservs. PUBLIB (public libraries) and LIBADMIN (library administration)
> hold continuous discussions but little is ever resolved. Though worthy
> forums for people to voice their concerns, people usually stand deeply
> divided on the issue and those seeking consensus are often outcast as
> 'traitors'.
>
> Parents and the general public have often praised filtering efforts in areas
> such as Boston (MA), San Francisco (CA), and Orange County (FL). But after
> hearing objections from the ALA and ACLU, the Boston Public Library has
> adapted its initial stance on filtering all its computers by installing "two
> different Internet versions, one unfiltered for adults and one filtered for
> children." Nationally syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman commented on the
> issue saying she supports the "Boston solution" but only as a temporary
> child protection measure. In the name of intellectual freedom, she called
> for a better solution to the problems of libraries and the Internet.
>
> Filtering and the American Library Association
>
> At its 1996 Midwinter Meeting, ALA membership unanimously approved a new
> Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights -- "Access to Electronic
> Information, Services, and Networks." The Interpretation affirms the rights
> of the users, including minors, to access electronic information and states
> that "users should not be restricted or denied access for expressing or
> receiving constitutionally protected speech. The statement concludes, "it is
> left to each user to determine what is appropriate."
>
> Subsequently, ALA had issued statements that discuss the use of filers,
> explain some of the problems associated with filtering software, and offer
> suggestions for promoting access to the Internet without compromising
> adherence to the association's resolution. Not addressed by the ALA,
> however, is the critical issue of dealing with information on the Internet
> that is not constitutionally protected. The author argues that by "leaving
> decisions on appropriateness up to the user, ALA leaves public librarians
> stranded with no real tangible guidelines to help them provide electronic
> services."
>
> Possible steps that might bring libraries and communities closer to a
> solution, include:
> * compelling technology vendors to provide an interface that would allow
> libraries themselves to label those pornographic and obscene sites that do
> not fall within constitutionally protected speech, while still protecting
> intellectual freedom and 'community values' benchmarks;
> * assistance by the ALA in defining those constitutionally unprotected
> sites, perhaps by setting standards for identification libraries could keep
> within the bounds of First Amendment rights; and
> * librarians reasserting their responsibility for the information that is in
> their libraries, whether it is on the Internet or in the stacks.
>
> "The use of commercial filtering software as described in this paper will
> inhibit access, will deny fair use and will gradually lead librarians away
> from the principles that have glued the profession together," concludes the
> author. "But if librarians also eschew responsibility for the information on
> the Internet," she warns, "then they are headed down another 'slippery
> slope', one on which their services will be less and less required and one
> from which there is no return."
> [SOURCE: First Monday, Vol.2 No.10 - 6 October 1997,  AUTHOR: Jeannette
> Allis Bastian]
> (www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue2_10/bastian/)
>
>
> AFTER FILTER SUMMIT, ALA MAY REVISIT 1997 RESOLUTION, CHILDREN'S ACCESS
> After the ALA met with representatives of Internet filtering companies on
> March 12, 1999, ALA representatives voiced their readiness to revisit the ALA
> 1997 resolution that opposed any library use of filtering software. "Given
> where we were, this [1997 resolution] was the right decision at the right
> time," said ALA  President Ann Symons. ALA leaders were pushed to acknowledge
> the "awkwardness of their policies" when filter makers stated their positions.
> The awkwardness of the ALA position emerged when Steve Herb, Chair of the IFC,
> listed features that ALA may want from a filtering system -- a system that
> their policy opposes.
>
> ALA President Ann Symons said she stands by the ALA's lobbying statement:
> "Internet policies should be local decisions; individual users -- not the
> library -- should be able to control Internet access; and every library should
> have an Internet access policy." The meeting demonstrated to the ALA that it
> can't ignore the diversity of positions on filtering within the ALA, she said.
>
> Seattle Public Library Director Deborah Jacobs said she thought the 1997
> resolution "harmed our credibility." She was hopeful after the meeting that the
> ALA was willing to rethink a policy that many practicing librarians oppose.
> Symons said she would like to see the 1997 resolution be reconsidered by the
> (IFC) Intellectual Freedom Committee.
> [SOURCE: Library Journal, (March 16, 1999)]
> (http://www.bookwire.com/ljdigital/leadnews.article$27656)
>
>
> LEGISLATION
>
> Children's Internet Protection Act
> HR 896 Rep Bob Franks (R-NJ)/  S 97 Sen John McCain (R-AZ)
>
> The bill would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to make an elementary
> school, secondary school, or library ineligible to receive or retain
> universal service assistance unless it certifies to the Federal
> Communications Commission that it has selected and installed (or will
> install) a technology for computers with Internet access which filters or
> blocks material deemed harmful to minors.
>
> The bill requires the determination of what shall be considered
> inappropriate for minors to be made by the appropriate school, school board,
> library, or other responsible authority, without Federal interference.
>
> Safe Schools Internet Act of 1999 (H.R. 368)
> Rep Bob Franks (introduced 01/19/99)
>
> The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to
> prohibit universal telecommunications services from being provided to any
> elementary or secondary school unless its administrator has certified to the
> Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that it has selected and installed a
> system for computers with Internet access which filters or blocks matters
> deemed inappropriate for minors. The bill would prohibit such service with
> respect to a library having Internet access unless it certifies that it
> employs such a filtering or blocking system on one or more of its computers.
> The bill requires a library to notify the FCC within ten days after changing
> or terminating such a system.
>
> It also requires the determination of what shall be considered inappropriate
> for minors to be made by the appropriate school, school board, library, or
> other responsible authority, without Federal interference.
>
> Senate Hearing summary
> At a Senate hearing May 20 on the proposed Children's Internet Protection
> legislation,
> witnesses offered testimony on the proliferation of hate, violence, and
> sexual content on
> the Internet. Sen John McCain (R-AZ) opened the hearing by recognizing that
> parents are
> the first line of defense against this harmful content and that schools and
> libraries are partners in protecting kids especially concerning access to
> the Internet as a result of the  E-rate program.
>
> Dr. Peter Nickerson, President and CEO of N2H2 -- a server-based Internet
> filtering company -- testified that in a given week his staff of 75 Web
> reviewers find an average of 180 hate pages, 2,500-7,500 adult and child
> pornography pages, 400 violence pages, and 50 murder and suicide related
> pages. The N2H2 service allows clients to select what material should be
> filtered and to override a filter with a password. He stated that schools
> and libraries understand the need for filters and most want to implement
> them. If Congress cares about filtering inappropriate materials to minors,
> than the funding for filters ($.50 to $3.00 per workstation per month)
> should be included in the E-rate.
>
> Mark Potock of the Southern Poverty Law Center testified that "the Internet
> has done for hate groups what the printing press has done for literature." A
> few years ago, a Klansman would have to put out substantial effort and money
> to produce a pamphlet that might reach 100 people. Today, all that is needed
> is a $500 computer and the Klansman can produce a slick Web site with a
> potential audience of thousands. Hate on the Internet cannot be blocked by
> filters, he said. Web sites are constantly changing and it may take several
> pages into a site before hateful content is apparent. Instead, hate sites
> should be a catalyst for thoughtful discussions between parents and children.
>
> Howard Berkowitz, the National Chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, noted
> that hate sites are often disguised as informative and academic sites, such as
> the Holocaust-denying site of the Institute for Historical Review.
> Respecting the First Amendment, he recommends that Congress consider
> requiring public libraries with multiple computers to only monitor
> children's use and allow unrestricted access to adults.
>
> Special Agent Mark James of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
> testified that publications once only marketed through "counterculture
> markets" like "The Anarchist Cookbook" are now widely available on the
> Internet. From 1985-1995, 35 bombing incidents were attributed to
> information on the Internet about explosives. One solution ATF is currently
> pursuing involves working with Internet Service Providers to hyperlink
> explosive information sites to Web sites about the dangers of explosives.
>
> Senator Hollings (D-SC) asked if the Children's Internet Protection Act
> could really work to block kids from inappropriate material. Dr. Nickerson
> answered, "it works where it is in place, but kids can always get around
> it." Mr. Berkowitz said that filtering should be voluntary. He raised the
> concern of who will decide what should be filtered. Sen McCain replied that
> the bill would require schools and libraries to filter the Internet
> according to community standards, as they decide what books to put on the
> shelves. "Or a community may choose not to use it all," he said. The bill
> allows local determination of which Web sites are harmful to minors, but a
> library must certify it has installed a filter to block information harmful
> to minors in order to receive E-rate funding for Internet connection.
>
> In the states
> In addition to pending federal legislation, twelve states have proposed
> filtering legislation. The state bills are similar to the federal Children's
> Internet Protection Act and Safe Schools Internet Act in requiring that
> public schools and libraries implement filters. The states currently
> examining possible filtering laws, according to Filtering Facts, are:
> Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri,
> Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (c)Benton Foundation, 1999. Redistribution of this email publication -- both
> internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. This
> service is available online at (www.benton.org/News/Extra/).
>
> Headlines Extra is a free online news service provided by the Benton
> Foundation (www.benton.org/cpphome.html). Much like our daily,
> Communications-related Headlines, Headlines Extra is intended to keep
> you up-to-date on important industry developments, policy issues, and
> other pertinent communications-related news events.
>
> *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
>
> To subscribe to the Benton Communications-Related Headlines,
> send email to: listserv@cdinet.com
> In the body of the message, type only:
> subscribe benton-compolicy YourFirstName YourLastName
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to:
> listserv@cdinet.com
> In the body of the message, type only:
> signoff benton-compolicy
>
> If you have any problems with the service, please direct them to
> benton@benton.org
>

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=
    All postings to LM_NET are protected under copyright law.
To quit LM_NET (or set-reset NOMAIL or DIGEST), send email to:
 listserv@listserv.syr.edu         In the message write EITHER:
 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL or 3) SET LM_NET DIGEST
 3) SET LM_NET MAIL  * Please allow for confirmation from Listserv
 For LM_NET Help & Archives see:  http://ericir.syr.edu/lm_net/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=