Previous by Date | Next by Date | Date Index
Previous by Thread | Next by Thread
| Thread Index
| LM_NET
Archive
| |
I recently posted a message that indicated my opinion that schools should allow library media specialists to have the ability to temporarily override the Internet filter to review a site that has been blocked and to make the decision that access to the site be provided to the student. I indicated that my position was supported by the Supreme Court decision in CIPA. I have been asked privately to provide more insight on this from a legal perspective. This message will outline the legal analysis that supports my prior statement. As with my prior message, feel free to forward this to your administrators and tech director or anyone else. Here is the decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf. The key language is on page 11-12 of the decision. "Like the District Court, the dissent faults the tendency of the filtering software to "overblock"--that is, to erroneously block access to constitutionally protected material that falls outside of the categories that software users intend to block. ... Due to the software's limitations '(m)any erroneously blocked [Web] pages contain content that is completely innocuous for both adults and minors...' Assuming that such erroneous blocking presents constitutional difficulties, any such concerns are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled. When a patron encounters a blocked site, he need only ask the librarian to unblock it or (in the case of adults) disable the filter. As the District Court found libraries have the capacity to permanently unblock any erroneously blocked site ... And the Solicitor General stated in oral argument that a 'library man ... Eliminate the filtering with respect to specific sites ... and at the request of a patron.'" You can find the statute here: http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/cipaweb/legalhistory/ cipatext.pdf. The specific provision of CIPA states "An administrator, supervisor, or person authorized by the responsible authority ... may disable the technology protection measure concerned to enable access for bone fide research or other lawful purpose." Note this provision is included in both the section that applies to schools and to public libraries. Both Kennedy and Breyer's opinions include language that references a "facial challenge" to the law. What this means is that they were both focusing solely on the provisions of the CIPA law -- leaving open the possibility that the practices of libraries -- or schools -- could be challenged if the libraries or schools were not implementing the filter in a manner that protected the constitutional rights of patrons. And what is clearly necessary to support the constitutionality of the use of filtering is for people who are working directly with patrons, which includes students, to have the *easy* ability to *promptly* override the filter to provide access to an erroneously blocked site! So CIPA was ruled constitutional BUT this does not mean that schools can implement filtering in a way that interferes with constitutional rights of students to access information. If you are a school that has not provided for such easy and prompt overriding of the filter, you are infringing on the constitutional rights of your students. It is also necessary to include in this discussion a prior court decision about the rights of students to access material. The case of Pico v. Island Trees 457 US 853 (1982) is the leading Supreme Court decision on the constitutional rights of students to access material in a school library. Here is some key language from Pico: "(T)he state may not, consistent with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. In keeping with this principle, we have held that is a variety of contexts the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.... In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. ...[School] officials cannot suppress 'expressions of feeling with which they do not wish to contend. (J)ust as access to ideas makes it possible for citizens generally to exercise their rights of free speech and press in a meaningful manner, such access prepares students for active participation in the pluralistic, often contentious society in which they will soon be adult members. ... (S)tudents must always be free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding. The school library is the principle locus of such freedom. ... In the school library, a student can literally explore the unknown, and discover areas of interest and thought not covered by the prescribed curriculum... In brief, we hold that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." Such purposes stand inescapably condemned by our precedents." The other thing that is really important in the Pico decision is the emphasis on local control. Here from the majority opinion: "(W)e have 'repeatedly emphasized ... the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials ... to prescribe and control conduct in the schools." And here from the dissent: "We can all agree that as a matter of educational policy students should have wide access to information and ideas. But the people elect school boards, who in turn select administrators, who select the teachers, and these are the individuals best able to determine the substance of that policy. ... (L)ocal control of education involves democracy in a microcosm. In most public schools in the United States the parents have a large voice in running the school. Through participation in the election of school board members, the parents influence, if not control, the direction of their children's education. A school board is not a giant bureaucracy far removed from accountability for its actions; it is truly "of the people and by the people." A school board reflects its constituency in a very real sense and thus could not long exercise unchecked discretion in its choice to acquire or remove books. If the parents disagree with the educational decisions of the school board, they can take steps to remove the board members from office." ALL of the Supreme Court justices are in agreement about the importance of local control. But when school districts implement filtering, they are turning over authority for decision-making about the appropriateness of information to third party commercial filtering companies. These filtering companies protect all information about what and how decisions are made about what to block as trade secrets. The ability to override, both temporarily or permanently, is the ONLY WAY for school districts to retain local control. Given the strength of the language in the Pico decision, school districts can't simply totally turn over the decision of what students can and cannot access to filtering companies. In other words, the Supreme Court did NOT overrule Pico by its decision in the CIPA case. Students still have rights to access information -- this was reiterated by the court. And the only way to protect student's constitutional rights is to ensure that the filter can be *easily* and *promptly* overridden. This analysis does not immediately lead to the conclusion that all school librarians must have the right to override the filter. This is my recommendation. If, under the Supreme Court ruling on CIPA, it is clear that it is necessary for someone to be able to easily make a prompt decision to override the filter to allow students to have access to material that has been inappropriately blocked, who are the most appropriate staff people to be making these decisions? The answer for those who need things spelled out is: The school staff members who have received the most professional training in reviewing material and making decisions about the appropriateness of that material for students. To wit (she says tossing in some legalese): Library media specialists! (Duh!) Presuming this message might be forwarded to technology directors, here are some words of guidance for them: What astounds me is the number of technology directors who would hold the decisions made by a search "spider," a low level employee of a filtering company, or themselves as superior to a decision made by a trained information professional. Unless you have received the degree of training in information sciences that your school's library media specialists have received, you are unqualified to make decisions about overriding the filter. And filtering companies have been found to be deficient in making such decisions by the US Supreme Court. And some words of guidance for administrators: It is my opinion that effective leadership is grounded in making decisions about who are the most appropriate staff members to be charged with the certain responsibilities, ensuring that these staff members have the authority and ability to assume such responsibilities, and holding them accountable for the decisions they make. If you are letting the filtering company or your technical services personnel make the decisions about what sites are appropriate for students, you are not being an effective leader. Your district's library media specialists are professionally trained to make such decisions and should receive the authority and ability to do so. 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. Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Use the Internet Safely and Responsibly. Jossey-Bass (forthcoming) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------