Previous by Date | Next by Date | Date Index
Previous by Thread | Next by Thread
| Thread Index
| LM_NET
Archive
| |
> While I strongly am against any form of censorship, I am thoroughly > disgusted by school districts that allow their filters to prevent > educators from engaging in professional discourse. I have lost track of > the number of times that I've posted a message to my WWWEDU discussion > list and received a bunch of autoreplies from school districts saying > that teachers there won't be reading my post because they contain > "inappropriate content." Usually, these posts have to do with cases of > school filtering censorship, controversial sites like MySp@ce or other > media literacy-related challenges faced by the modern educator. The > filtering software used to supposedly protect children is preventing > educators from taking an active role in understanding and discussing the > complexities of Internet use in the classroom. Schools may claim "in > loco parentis" when describing filters used to protect children. But > what are they trying to protect teachers from? Being better users of > technology? Being responsible, informed educators? Like Andy, I frequently have messages returned to me stating that a message I sent to a member of either EdTech, Lm-Net, or WWWEDU indicating that my message contained "inappropriate content." But the problems are significantly deeper that simple censorship. Consider this: When the Internet emerged into public awareness, concerns about youth online activity related to porn and predators also emerged. In an attempt to ward off Congressional efforts of control, technology industry, civil rights groups and others, came up with "parental empowerment tools" as a solution. Far too many people believe that filtering actually works. When the Internet came into schools it was the same time as NCLB. Administrators do not understand technology and had their hands full with NCLB. And there were insufficient funds for professional development. So techies, who think all problems can be solved with techie quick fixes, were given control. With the enactment of CIPA, filtering because the solution. Because there was insufficient attention paid to professional development and the false security of filtering, many teachers are still not prepared to effectively lead students in high quality online learning activities. Internet recess is far too common and it is during Internet recess that students are using the Internet inappropriately at school. The situation of concern has been exacerbated by the expansion of wireless laptop programs -- for which there is no compelling research indicating success and emerging research indicating concerns. NO ONE has paid attention to what has been happening with the filtering companies. So follow these links, if you will -- an amazing journey: Go to the American Family Association web site. AFA is an extremely conservative right-wing organization. http://www.afa.net. Now look down the left side of the page to AFA Filter. This takes you to the AFA branded page of BSafeOnline. http://www.afafilter.com/. Now scan down this page to the Partners, strategic. http://www.afafilter.com/partners.asp?link=strategic. Note there is a link to 8e6 Technologies. Click on this link http://www.8e6.com/. Now on this page note under Customer Solutions that this product is marketed to and used by many public schools. But look at the SOHO/Home link http://www.8e6.com/solutions/sl_soho.htm. And scan down to the link "Click here." Look familiar? Now how is it that a filtering product that is marketed to, and used by so many public schools has this close of a relationship with one of these most right wing organizations in the country? So, let's take another tour. How many of you have Symantec's Norton Securities on your computer? This has a version of I-Gear, the product they sell to schools. This product has a category called "Sex/Sexuality." You will note that it blocks information on sexual technique, multiple partnership relations, and homosexuality. So are you going to block or not block? Most tech directors are going to tell you that they have to block because of CIPA, and they are probably correct. If you have this software, select this category to be blocked. Now try to get to sites like GLSEN, GLAAD, or any of a number of other support sites for GLTB teens. You can't. But now try to get to the American Family Association pages on the anti-homosexual agenda, or any other sites of the radical right that are opposed to civil liberties for GLTB. So let's take another trip. This time to the Supreme Court ruling on CIPA www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf. Now, you can ignore the majority ruling, except you should note that this was only 4 judges. But look closely at the concurring opinions of the two other judges who ruled in favor of CIPA. Note that both of these decisions were grounded in the finding that filters could easily be overridden to provide access to material that was inappropriately blocked. But you have to understand that the ACLU did not really push the issue about biased blocking or youth access to constitutionally protected material. So the language of the justices focuses on adult access and does not mention biased blocking. Students still have constitutional rights of access to information. How many schools do you know provide a rapid override and review of blocked sites? But if filtering products are blocking access to potentially controversial material, even providing rapid override may not be sufficient. Imagine if a shy 7th grade boy is "questioning." Is he going to ask to have the filter overridden? The ACLU did not do a good job at all on the CIPA case, and will not touch the problems that are quite apparent based on involvement of the religious right with filtering companies and obvious biased blocking because they are still involved in the COPA case. COPA is a criminal law that requires sites with adult material to have age verification. It will work as well as Federal laws against online gambling -- in other words "not." But to block the implementation of COPA, the ACLU has taken the position that filtering is a "less restrictive alternative." This case went all of the way up to the Supreme Court, who indicated that they too were convinced that filtering works, and they sent it back down to trial with instructions to the US DOJ that it had to prove that filters do not work. The ACLU will be seeking to prove that filters do work. It is a good thing these folks are all lawyers and so are not bothered by the inconsistencies and illogic of this all. So next October, this case will be going to trial. And the US DOJ will be seeking to prove that the primary method that schools and 64% of US parents rely on to "protect students" does not work. I should also mention that the US Government provided funds to Peacefire to develop a cheap, easy to implement proxy that can be used to circumvent filters. But this was Voice of America and their concerns were the censorship against the radicals in China and other similar countries. The fact that students are now using this and other similar proxy systems to circumvent school filters probably did not occur to them. And in the meantime, students know how to get around the filters to get to MySpace and other such sites, but many principals and counselors if presented with a report on concerning online material remain blocked by the filter. So forgive me if I think that blocking the word "myspace" is sort of a minor part of a much more major problem. Nancy -- Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D. Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use http://csriu.org http://cyberbully.org nwillard@csriu.org Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Cruelty, Threats, and Distress, a resource for educators, is now available online at http://cyberbully.org. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law. You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book. 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://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ * LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/ * EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/sub/ * LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html --------------------------------------------------------------------