The Internet and Minors at the Library: A Contemporary Hotbed of Intellectual Freedom Issues.

The Internet, itself a tool of great democratization, has, inside of our public and school libraries, become the site of a raging debate.  What makes this debate so terribly interesting is that it has specifically pitted the ALA against not just our own government, but additionally, against many patrons. Specifically, what is at issue in this debate is the highly variable content of the Internet versus minor’s free and open access to this content. There are many different opinions on this topic all of which have implications on freedom and democracy. I will first, summarize the two major stances on minors and Internet freedom held by the federal government and the ALA, then I will present my personal conclusions, and finally, I want to know what you think. 

Opposing Viewpoints

In one corner stands the ALA, its line of thinking, and those that support this line of thought which is best and succinctly summarized within the ALA document "Free Access to Libraries by Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights." Adopted in 1972 and then amended in 2004 at a culminating point in the Internet access debate, the Interpretation states, "children and young adults unquestionably possess First Amendment rights, including the right to receive information through the library in print, nonprint, or digital format. Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images a legislative body believes to be unsuitable for them."

In the other corner stands the United States federal government, its line of thinking and again, those that support this train of thought best summarized through a look at CIPA, the Children’s Internet Protection Act. This federal act, sponsored by Senator John McCain and adopted by President Bill Clinton in the year 2000, established Internet requirements for public and school libraries that receive federal funding for computers and technology.  These requirements, as summarized by the FCC, include “technology protection measures… that block or filter access to pictures that are (a)obscene; (b)child pornography; or (c)harmful to minors.” Additionally, schools subject to CIPA are required “to enforce a policy to monitor online activities to minors.” Finally, CIPA requires that an internet safety policy is adopted that addresses “(a)access to minor to inappropriate matter; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access , including so called “hacking”… (d)unauthorized disclosure, use and dissemination of personal information… (e)measures restricting minor’s access” (Children’s Internet Protection Act. n.d.).     

One Side of the Coin: Consequences From an ALA Standpoint

At first glance, the appropriate viewpoint for library and information professionals appears to be very straightforward. The ALA and its stance many will argue, is an affirmation of first amendment rights and continues the Association’s long struggle against censorship. And indeed, this act appears to be outright censorship. Yet, not only is this censorship, ALA supporters will tell you, but there is also a myriad of other issues that must be taken into account including: 

• The cost of filtering including the actual technology as well as staff time spent learning and monitoring the technology, puts an undue burden on staff and resources.
• Filtering technology can and does erroneously filter out protected material. As stated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration report on technology protection measures as required by CIPA (2003) “every filtering software product demonstrated excluded between 6 percent and 15 percent of protected speech” (p.15).
• CIPA requires that the same filtering requirements be applied to all computers, including staff computers, that are available in the school or library whether or not access is permitted on specific machines thus violating the 1^st amendment rights of adults and limiting staff effectiveness.
• Filtering removes decision making on what is appropriate from the locality resulting in blocked sites that although offensive to some, may not be found offensive in that particular context.
•  Although CIPA requires that filters must be removed for adults upon request without delay, numerous court cases have arisen due to the lack of a definition of delay including a highly controversial case involving the state of Washington's North Central Regional Library District and three patrons. In 2010, Oliver, Kent; Pinnell-Stephens, June; Jones, Barbara in their article All or Nothing: Hardly the Facts tell us, the State of Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NCRLD who argued that it should not have to remove filters for adults as their “filters only erroneously filtered out legitimate websites at an error rate of .033%, disabling a single computer would be costly and inefficient, the filtering system is consistent with its collection policy, is consistent with its duty to work with school, minimizes confrontations between staff and patrons, and minimizes the prospect of liability for a hostile work environment.” (p.43)  This decision has opened up an entirely new can of worms but will be challenged and is headed for the US Supreme Court.
•   Due to CIPA’s reliance on filtering technology, innovation of other technological measures for internet safety are stifled.
• And finally, as Helen Adams (2010) states in Intellectual Freedom Online: The New Battleground for Minors’ First Amendment Rights “relying solely on filters does not teach young citizens how to be savvy searchers or how to evaluate the accuracy of information. Unless all families are using parental control software, filters protect minors only when they are using the Web in schools and libraries, not during their Web use at home, in the homes of friends, or on their personal web-enabled cell phones.”(p.11)

The Other Side of the Coin: An Argument In Support of CIPA

But ahhhh, if it were only so simple.  Much like all questions concerning intellectual freedom, the debate quickly muddies when one dives deeper into the points made by those arguing in favor of CIPA.  These points of contention include:

• As decided by the Supreme Court, minors in fact, do not hold the same rights as adults. As Theresa Chamara explains in Minors First Amendment Rights: CIPA and School Libraries (Pico 1982, 868, quoting Tinker 1969, 506) “the Court has acknowledged that the rights of minors are not equal to the rights of adults… thus… school boards can restrict speech or access to information for minors in two circumstances. First… if they are motivated to do so because the materials are "educationally unsuitable" or "pervasively vulgar." Second, school boards may restrict materials that are obscene, harmful to minors, or child pornography. Whether material is obscene, harmful to minors, or child pornography generally is defined by state or local law” (p.18).
• The second key argument is also based on a Supreme Court decision in which CIPA was ruled not to be a violation of first amendment rights at all. As summarized by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) report on technology protection measures as required by CIPA (2003) “In a plurality decision, the Supreme Court… in June 2003, [found] that the filtering provisions did not violate the First Amendment. Four justices held that (1) the Internet access provided by libraries is not a public forum, and therefore, decisions to block pornography are not subject to heightened scrutiny; (2) the disabling provision eases fears of "overblocking;" and (3) requiring filtering and blocking technology is an appropriate condition on the receipt of federal funding because libraries already exclude pornographic material from their other collections.” (p.10)
•  Additionally, many patrons prefer filtering. In recent Pew Research Center studies, it was found that 54% of parents of children between the ages of 12-17 limit internet use in the home through filters. This means that well over half of the parents of minors believe in filtering and that therefore the ALA’s stance may be out of touch with reality. This point was well argued by Julian Aiken in her Article Outdated and Irrelevant: Rethinking the Library Bill of Rights--does it work in the real world?.
• Finally, in response to the argument that the use of filters does not teach appropriate internet use, the government amended Title II of the Broadband Act, so that, as summarized by Donlin, (2010) "in order to be E-Rate compliant (one of the funders of schools libraries that leads to mandatory CIPA compliance), school districts must now show that “as part of its Internet policy [they are] educating minors about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with other individuals on social networking websites and in chat rooms and cyberbullying awareness and response.” 

My Solution

As a former teacher and now librarian I firmly agree with the National Telecommunications and Information Agencies findings in their study of CIPA and technology protection measures (2003) that “the Internet has become a valuable and even critical tool for our children’s success. Access to the Internet furnishes children with new resources with which to learn, new avenues for expression, and new skills to obtain quality jobs”(p.7) and therefore, I cannot accept the limiting of this resource. Even if one accepts the premise that minors lack first amendment rights in schools and public libraries and even if it is also accepted that filtering isn't a violation of first amendment rights in the first place (these are both a stretch and topics for other times), as a librarian it is my job and duty to argue for empowerment through information rather then suppression.  This empowerment, I believe, can and must take on many different forms and I offer the following as possibilities for innovation:

• Offering patrons the choice to control their Internet access level through various educational and informational methods.
• The use of Internet safety policies that appear whenever a patron logs onto a public computer that sets forth what the specific locality has deemed appropriate and inappropriate use of the technology.
•   Offering or requiring participation in responsible and safe Internet use courses that teach minors how to use the Internet safely. These courses could include the skills needed to conduct safe and successful searches, lessons on how to evaluate online material,  and the necessity to, as the NTIA (2003) states it, “report bad activity, ignore and report harassment or threats, protect their privacy and personal information, and detect information that is not appropriate”(p.32).
• Finally, provide computer spaces either through the location within the building or via privacy screens to allow patrons to make their own decisions about what they deem appropriate while not affecting those around them.

Your Solution: Post Comments for Ryan on Minors & the Internet Here
As you can tell, I have a strong opinion on this topic however, I am also very aware that there are many different solutions and therefore I want to know: What side of the coin do you agree with and why? Are there solutions that mediate both sides? Do you know of any innovating answers to this dilemma? 

Written by Ryan Deery

Resources

Adams, H.R. (Sept/Oct 2010). Intellectual Freedom Online: The New Battleground for Minors’ First Amendment Rights. Journal of the American Association of School Librarians, v.39 (no.1). Retrieved From http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/knowledgequest/docs/KQ_39_1_SeptOct10.pdf

Aiken, J. (January, 2007). Outdated and Irrelevant: Rethinking the Library Bill of Rights--does it work in the real world?. Librarian Scholarship Series, (Paper 1). Retrieved From http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylss/1

American Library Association. (2004). Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved From http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8639

Chmara, T. (Sept/Oct 2010). Minor's First Amendment Rights: CIPA and School Libraries. Journal of the American Association of School Librarians, v.39 (no.1). Retrieved From http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/knowledgequest/docs/KQ_39_1_SeptOct10.pdf

Donlin, M. (November 2010). The Broadband Act: Protecting Children in the 21st Century. Retrieved from http://www.insidetheschool.com/articles/the-broadband-act-and-protecting-children-in-the-21st-century/

FCC. (n.d.) Children's Internet Protection Act Guide. Retrieved From http://www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act


Jobbins, C., Lenhart, A. (March, 2005). 54 Percent Of Parents With Teens Use Internet Filters – A Big Jump From 2000. The Pew Charitable Trust. Retrieved From http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=23118

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2003). Children's Internet Protection Act: Study of Technology Protection Measures. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/cipareport08142003.pdf

Oliver, Kent; Pinnell-Stephens, June; Jones, Barbara. (January 2011). All of Nothing: Hardly the Facts. Library Journal, v.136 (no.1). Retrieved From http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.3