Previous by Date | Next by Date | Date Index
Previous by Thread | Next by Thread
| Thread Index
| LM_NET
Archive
| |
Hi Folks. (Spelling modified to try to get through filters) Well, yesterday was a bit of a turning point for me in this entire saga of trying to deal with Internet filtering. There has not yet been a vote on the Oregon bill that would have required filtering in public libraries, but the representative who requested my appearance at the hearing told me that it was now "dead without even a whimper." This was a one-two punch. The state legislative counsel had been telling the committee all along that the bill was unconstitutional. And he repeated this position assertively at the hearing. But even with prior statements, last week member of the committee was quoted in a news story saying, "I understand the constitutional concerns, But how can you vote against filtering. It would be like voting against motherhood and apple pie." This was the perspective that I was focusing on changing. In brief, I told the committee that this bill represented nothing more than a false promise. I quoted Richard Thornburgh on this, from the preface of the NRC report, Youth, P00rn00graphy and the Internet, and indicated that I did not think Thornburgh was a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Thornburgh made some nice statements about technological quick fixes that are being used as surrogates for training and supervision. Really powerful statements. Then I referred to the Kaiser Family Foundation study which revealed that under conditions simulating intentional access, filtering fail 10% of the time and under conditions simulating accidental access, they failed 38% of the time. There were some middle school students in the hearing room on a field trip to the capitol. I turned to them and asked, "How long would it take you at an unsupervised computer to try 20 p00rn site links to find the 1 or 2 that were not blocked. Their answers were 5 to 15 minutes. Got the committee's attention. The author of the bill had presented amendments trying to address the constitutional concerns. These amendments sought more specificity in the definition of szually ezplict. Clearly, the language of the bill itself would have been blocked by most filters. I told the committee that this reflected a vast misunderstanding about filtering because they could fiddle all they wanted with the language related to what should be blocked, but the decisions were out of their hands and into the hands of private commercial companies that had their own standards of what should be blocked -- standards and criteria that are retained as confidential trade secret information. I only briefly touched on the concerns of overblocking based on viewpoint discrimination in the context of the lack of disclosure and public accountability. It is my perspective that folks trying to prevent filtering too often focus on overblocking. The response to this by more conservative folks is that it is OK that some stuff is blocked if the products are working to protect kids. So my focus is on the fact that we are not protecting kids, we are creating false security and complacency for parents, and there is no public disclosure and accountability with the use of these products in public institutions. I strongly emphasize the importance of encouraging engaged parenting and transmitting to youth the values, knowledge, and skills so that they can make safe and responsible choices. It is hard for conservative folks to assail someone strongly emphasizing engaged parenting and values. Then again, after I presented, a man wearing a big, gaudy tie with the American Flag on it came up to me and, in the presence of my 3 children (11, 9, and 7), said, "All you want to do is to let kids access p00rn on the Internet." Well, OK I did not get through to everyone. ;-) But I was extremely pleased to see the very worried looks on the faces of the group of conservative religious folks who were in the hearing championing the bill. This round went to me. If anyone is interested in receiving a copy of my written testimony, please do not hesitate to ask. If you are in a state that has a bill pending requiring filtering, I would be very happy to work with local folks in providing recommendations for how to defeat such legislation. Nancy Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D. Center for Advanced Technology in Education University of Oregon, College of Education E-mail: nwillard@oregon.uoregon.edu URL: http://netizen.uoregon.edu Responsible Netizen Institute URL:http://responsiblenetizen.org =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=- All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law. To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL 3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation. LM_NET Help & Information: http://ericir.syr.edu/lm_net/ Archive: http://askeric.org/Virtual/Listserv_Archives/LM_NET.shtml LM_NET Select/EL-Announce: http://www.cuenet.com/archive/el-announce/ LM_NET Supporters: http://ericir.syr.edu/lm_net/ven.html =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-