C.L.U.R.T. REPORTS
Summaries of Discussions
Other Summaries: Community Service by High School Students / Police Surveillance Cameras 
CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET:  SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION


Discussion of this subject took place for seven Monday evenings from April 9, 1998, through May 21, at the Lakewood Public Library. Between four and seven participants attended the sessions, divided between a Libertarian faction and others with more communitarian leanings. The overall question was: “Should there be censorship of the Internet? If so, by whom, how and of what?”

At the first meeting a background piece was handed out. This appears at the end of this summary, but two of it's points should be mentioned here. First, the mechanism of filters and labeling, intended to give parents, librarians et al. a means of restricting content. The filtering/labeling process supposedly precludes the need for censorship at the source but it raises questions and problems of its own.

Second, a number of distinctions should be kept in mind including:
Public places of use (e.g. libraries) vs. private
Government sponsorship vs. private (industry), with possible gray areas.
Adults vs. children
Parents vs. librarians.
General considerations vs. those peculiar to the Internet.
The discussions were more about censorship than about the Internet, and mostly about censorship for the benefit of children.  Characteristics of the Internet were significant largely because they multiply the possibility of making any kind of material whatsoever available to children, which in turn was seen by some participants as cause for alarm and an urgent reason for restriction. Most of the time (though not always) participants seemed to agree that adult viewing of the Internet posed no problem.  As for places of use outside the home, these were not discussed much, except when participants asked John Guscott, head of the Library’s Technology Room, for information about Library policy and the laws related to it.

Arguments and oppositions

These were the major conclusions and the arguments supporting them:

1) There should be no censorship and in addition no restriction of the child’s viewing by the parents. This conclusion was based on assertion of the absolute right to freedom of expression including the right to freedom of expression for all children.  (Unfortunately, there wasn’t any substantial discussion of a proper dividing line between those children who are and those who are not old enough to have that right. Only two positions were asserted, and they were at the opposite ends of the spectrum: On the one hand the view that children have absolute rights as just mentioned; on the other hand the view that there is no way of determining a dividing line, which requires us to accept the legal/conventional 18-years criterion for deciding when children have the right to freedom of expression.)

2) There should be no censorship, but parents should have the right and the capability to restrict what their children view. This conclusion was arrived at in two ways: by arguing that parents could most effectively protect their children from harm, and by arguing that parents, apart from considerations of protection, have the authority to regulate their children’s lives.

3) There should be government censorship, or at least government censorship should be a possibility. This was based on the premise that displays of pornography, violence etc. are harmful – or possibly harmful – both to children and to society as a whole, coupled with the premise that families often don’t protect their children from such harms.

Thus, as the arguments progressed, several basic oppositions took shape:
Family vs. government as protector of children.
Harmfulness (or potential harmfulness) vs. freedom.
The role of the family as protecting children from harm, vs. its role as inculcating its own values.
Freedom of expression as absolute vs. as restricted (by considerations of  harmfulness and of age).
Three rationales served to found the various arguments in the discussion:
1) The right to freedom of expression (argued by the Libertarian group).
2) The harm, or the possibility of harm, from certain kinds of materials such as pornography and violence.
3) The authority of parents.
These rationales overlapped and intertwined so that some issues (e.g. about the rights of children) were raised in more than one context. But the clearest way to distinguish the arguments seems to be in terms of these three rationales, as follows:

The Argument from Freedom of Expression.

In the appeal to the right of freedom of expression, the basic argument was given as follows:

We have a right to free expression.
Censorship violates free expression.
Therefore, we should not have censorship.
This argument was of course based on the consensus belief in the right of free expression. It was also justified on the basis of harsh criticism of the government, especially the federal government (exemplified by the FCC), as being arbitrary, biased and interested primarily in extending its control for the sake of those in power. The implication was that government will always serve one group, as expressed in the following argument:
One person or group shouldn’t decide information-flow on the basis of their own values.
Censorship of the Internet would require one person or group to decide information-flow on the basis of their own values.
Therefore, we should not have censorship of the Internet.
In addition, proponents of this line of argument claimed that any amount of censorship would take us down a “slippery slope” to worse and worse repression.

What about industry restriction, as opposed to government restriction? Those who opposed censorship took the view that industry can be as bad as government in restricting the flow of information, as when the media work together to suppress a story. (The Ruby Ridge episode was mentioned.) Therefore they oppose the situation in which the Internet industry acts in concert to suppress information (industry censorship). This point may be especially relevant to filtering/labeling. The proponents of free speech held that the filtering/labeling must be such that consumers have an informed choice, i.e. they have a choice among significantly different systems and they know what criteria each system is using. The significant opposition, then, is not between government and private industry but between choice and enforced uniformity.

No one disagreed with the basic thrust of the argument from the right to free expression. There was a great deal of disagreement about how far it should extend. There were two primary points of disagreement: First, whether freedom of expression holds for threats to good order. Second, whether freedom of expression extends to children.

The discussion of freedom and good order revolved around the case of the Westlake High School student who used the Internet to insult one of his teachers, was suspended for it and threatened to sue, with the result that he got $30,000 as a settlement. The student’s actions were criticized on three grounds: a) His remarks were, or might have been, slanderous. b) They threatened to break down discipline. c) If a teacher had made similar remarks about a student on the Internet, that teacher would have been fired; therefore to allow the student to do so constitutes an unequal relationship. Of these three charges, only the first, concerning slander, was discussed at length, and the discussion was not very rewarding, for the definition of slander and the condemnation of slander are not peculiar to the Internet. They apply to all media. Furthermore, they are not controversial. Consensus opinion condemns slander, and – legal technicalities aside – almost everyone agrees about what slander consists of.

An interesting point arose out of this discussion, however, concerning the distinction between “private” and “public” places on the Internet. The Westlake student’s web-site was relatively private, it was pointed out, because it would not be indexed by any of the commonly-used search engines, and therefore wouldn’t be turned up by using those search engines. Of course, the web-site could be found by accident or from word-of-mouth.

Library censorship was discussed briefly in connection with freedom of expression. A proponent of the freedom-of-expression argument approved of library censorship on the grounds that individuals would be able to see a given piece of material at home if it was rejected by the library.

What are the rights of children?

There was general (though not complete) agreement that adults have the right to view the Internet under any circumstances. But there was a great deal of controversy as to whether this right extends to children.

One way of looking at the issue was to consider harm to self or others. Opponents of children’s right claimed that they don’t have the right to do that which is harmful to them, and therefore don’t have the right to make potentially harmful choices in ignorance.   This raised the issue as to whether children know their own good or not.

On this point opinions differed, and gravitated to extremes. On the one side, it was claimed that children of all ages know their own good better than anyone else, as expressed in the argument:

The right to make decisions should be based on self-knowledge.
Children have as much self-knowledge as adults.
Therefore, children should have the same right to make decisions as adults.
Those on the other side held that the criterion for the right to make decisions should be widened to include knowledge of the effect of one’s actions, and that children do not meet that criterion. They did not draw any line to mark the point where a child did begin to meet the criterion, other than the conventional line at age 18. Their argument:
The right to make decisions for oneself (in such matters as watching TV or viewing the Internet) should be based on self-knowledge and knowledge of one’s relationship to the world.
Children (up to 18 years or so) do not have sufficient knowledge of that kind, and adults do.
Therefore, children (up to 18 years or so) should not have the right to make decisions for themselves.
(There was no significant attempt to determine an age, other than the conventional 18-year-old threshold, at which an individual would be mature enough to have the right to choose for him- or herself.)

Another way of looking at the issue was from the point of view of self-development. This example was presented:

A 15-year old high school girl tells her parents that she wants to concentrate heavily in math throughout high school and go on to be a mathematician. The parents forbid her doing this, saying it is unfeminine and unheard-of. Are the girl’s rights being violated?
Answers varied. One was that her right to self-development (intellectual self-development in particular) was being violated.  Another was that her rights were not being violated. A third was her rights were being violated but only to a slight degree.

This brought up the issue as to whether viewing pornography, violence or other sensitive materials on the Internet is part of intellectual development. Again, there were yes and no answers.

If children have the right to choose for themselves, then no restriction on their viewing is justified, whether by government or parents. But if they don’t have the right to choose for themselves, who has the right to choose for them?  One answer was that the government has that right, through censorship. Another answer was that the parents have that right, and the government should not interfere with parental supervision, i.e., should not attempt censorship.

This dispute leads to the subject of harmfulness, to be discussed next, and to the subject of parental authority.

ISSUES:

Should we have the right to freedom of expression?

Is that right absolute?  If limited, in what ways?

Does it cover pornography and violence?

Does it extend to children?  Of what age?

What rights do children have?
Do they have a right to intellectual development?
 
If so, does viewing pornography and/or violence contribute to their intellectual development?
What should be the criterion for determining whether children have the
right to choose for themselves?

Do children know what is good for them (and at what age)?

Does introduction of censorship lead down a “slippery slope” to further repression?

How fair and disinterested is government control of or involvement in the Internet and other media?

Is government restraint (censorship) to be distinguished from industry restraints a) by individual companies, b) industry-wide? What is the nature of the proper distinction?  What is its rationale?

The Argument(s) from Harm

Arguments from harm were applied mainly to children, and its main thrust was to support government censorship. (However, arguments from harm were also used to support parental, as opposed to government, control.) These were the two main arguments in favor of government censorship:

The public good demands that children not have access to pornography.
Control by adults is necessary to deny children access to pornography.
Therefore, we should have limited censorship (i.e. control by adults – parents or librarians – over what children view).

We should prohibit children from seeing what is harmful to them.
Viewing pornography is harmful to children (in all cases).
Therefore, we should prohibit children viewing pornography (in all cases).

These arguments raise the issue as to whether pornography and violence are indeed harmful to children. There were different views on this question. To help settle the issue, an Internet search was undertaken. The results were inconclusive.

A related issue was whether children know what is good for them. This has been discussed in the previous section.

A wider argument was introduced, to the effect that pornography and violence on the Internet and in the media in general are harmful, or may be harmful, to society at large. This argument was given, albeit tentatively:

We ought to advance civilization.
To advance civilization, we need to advance things that protect ourselves from baser instincts and those things that distract
society.
Therefore, we need to advance things that protect ourselves from baser instincts and those things that distract society.
These arguments conflict with the argument from freedom of expression. Proponents of censorship held that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute but must be balanced against the need to prevent harm, in a sort of cost-benefit analysis. They also minimized the likelihood of a “slippery slope” leading to more and more repression.

Uncertainty and Evolutionary Progress. Proponents of this approach recognized the lack of sure knowledge about the harmfulness of pornography or violence. We are uncertain about the effects and lack evidence, they said, but as time goes on we’ll get more evidence and dispel the uncertainty.  This is an example of the general pattern by which society advances, gradually adjusting its determination of what is right and wrong in a certain area as we become more aware of what is involved. For example, society has advanced in the area of child abuse as we have become increasingly aware of the problem and have acted accordingly. Another analogy was to smoking. It was suggested that the country is now, in relation to pornography and violence in the media, at the same stage  we were in regard to smoking when the first Surgeon General’s report was issued. In the meantime, we can send out a “societal caution and warning,” and we should be conservative (especially since the welfare of children is involved.). This combination of argument and issue was presented, in combination with the argument above:

We ought to do that which prevents harm or the threat of harm.
To censor that which causes or threatens harm will to prevent it.
Therefore we ought to censor that which causes or threatens harm.
So the issue arises:;  What kind of viewing (if any) causes harm?
To settle that issue, we need exhaustive study.
Appeal to democracy.  Proponents of the argument from harm also appealed to the democratic process and majority will, saying that if the majority of citizens in the U.S. say something is harmful, then it is harmful.

This line of thought was somewhat confused and was not an important part of the overall argument. For one thing, proponents quickly backed off from an appeal to majority will, for obvious reasons. They pointed out that the Supreme Court, to give the principal example, serves to modify majority rule in our system. But if this is true, then exactly what are the proponents proposing?  Are they saying that whatever our governmental system decides is therefore the correct decision? If so, they are evading the question, because as citizens our task is to decide what it is that our governmental system decides. In any case, determination of scientific facts, such as the psychological harmfulness of viewing pornography or violence, is simply not something that can be determined by majority vote.

However, the appeal to majority will comes up in a different and interesting way when the various definitions of “harm” are considered, below.

Criticisms. Insofar as the argument from harm reached a conclusion that called for parental control, there wasn’t much opposition to it (except from those who claimed absolute rights for all children). However, when the argument called for government censorship, it elicited a number of criticisms.

At the most basic level, the critics questioned the nature of the harm that government censorship is meant to avoid. Different people, they said, have different conceptions of “what’s good for society” and of their own good, so society must leave it up to the individual (or the individual family) to decide how to achieve their own good and avoid harm. Or else, if the government dictates one conception of good for everyone, anyone who disagrees with that conception will be in a straitjacket and will have lost their freedom.

Furthermore, it was claimed, viewing pornography and violence is part of the child’s intellectual development and therefore beneficial instead of harmful (as mentioned above).

Proponents answered that in talking about avoiding harm (protecting ourselves from baser instincts, marching forward), they are talking about freedom from violence and from hunger; we want people not to worry about being harmed, and not to experience anguish and despair. This seemed a satisfactory answer, but opponents suggested that freedom from violence and hunger, etc. is not threatened by viewing of Internet pornography, violence or whatever. For example, in answer to proponents’ assertions that TV violence leads to children thinking that killing isn’t real, opponents asked: If that is true, then why didn’t the old-time movies produce a rash of child murderers? Furthermore, it was asked how ideas can be harmful. Beyond that, it was pointed out, TV, films, and the like (including Internet images) appeal to the emotions and therefore might make people more sensitive.

(The issue as to whether pornography and violence are harmful was also addressed above in connection with the issue of children’s rights.)

Another line of attack was to deprecate the ability of the government to determine what is harmful and attack it. Decisions of the government were attacked as unjustified and arbitrary (as mentioned in connection with the argument from free expression). The government must make blanket judgments. If these judgments go to the extreme (e.g. banning all sexual content) they are unjustified. If they draw the line somewhere, their decision is arbitrary. If the government were to decide on a case-by-case basis, such decisions would also be unjustified, for the government can’t know enough about the individual case.

Opponents of censorship also rejected a balancing of freedom and the avoidance of harm, saying it was better to be free in any case (quoting Patrick Henry: “Give me liberty or give me death!”)

The family as protector from harm

One line of thought accepted the possibility of harm from Internet material and yet rejected government censorship in favor of restriction by parents. The government, it was said, compares unfavorably with the family as the guardian of the child’s welfare, especially in view of the fact that each child is an individual.

One way of arguing in this direction was to point out  that if the government is to be responsible for protecting children, we don’t need parents at all. But since we obviously do need parents, the government shouldn’t be responsible.

The proponents of censorship pointed out that in many cases the family is negligent in their responsibility toward children. In that case, it was argued, the government must step in. The opponents’ answer was essentially to deny the allegation, saying that cases of parental neglect are overblown, largely manufactured by the government to rationalize the enlargement of government power over the family. The implication was that even with a small number of cases of neglect, it is better to do without government censorship. (This matter of government vs. family also leads to the question of parental authority, below.)

What is meant by “harm?”

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the discussion on harmfulness was the emergence of various definitions of “harm.” As the allegations of harm from pornography and violence were challenged, proponents had to answer why these are harmful, and thus had to spell out what  the harmfulness consists in. Four definitions of “harm” emerged:

1) Psychological harm, objectively measurable (at least in principle) – e.g. creating or encouraging suicidal tendencies.
Problem: Determining what is harmful. (Among other things, there are ethical objections to the required experiments.)

2) That which makes the child act contrary to family values.
Problem:  Subjective and relative to the family.

3)  What the majority says is harmful.
Problem:   Think of numerous counterexamples.

4) That which is clearly harmful to society, through the actions of the child – e.g. influencing the child to harm others.

Problem: Establishing harmfulness on this definition requires proving a line of causation and the proof may be very difficult. Furthermore, people may make subjective judgments about what is “harmful to society.”
(A lesson to be drawn is that one’s conception of harm is tied to one’s values. This point was summed when one participant said, “whether material is harmful depends on how you want kids to grow up.” Harmfulness means conducing to a bad result, and what you think to be a bad result depends on the values you hold. One person may think of psychological harm, for example, as consisting of an unwillingness to marry – because marriage is a value for that person. Even the apparently most objective conception of harm, namely creating a tendency to suicide, depends on our considering life itself to be a value. The only significant difference therefore is between values which are and those which are not widely held.)

ISSUES:

What is meant by “harm?”

Is there a conception of harm, social or individual, that all persons agree on?

Should the right to freedom of expression be balanced against protection from harm?

Are viewing pornography and violence harmful to children?

If so, should the government intervene to prevent children from viewing pornography and violence (or whatever else is deemed harmful)?

Is exposure to pornography and violence part of the child’s intellectual development?

How are we to deal with uncertainty with respect to questions of harmfulness? How cautious should we be?

To what extent, in what proportion of cases, do parents safeguard their children’s welfare, especially regarding protection from the harmful effects of pornography, violence, etc.?

To what extent is our system of government capable of deciding what is or is not harmful to children and eliminating what is harmful?

The Argument from Parental Authority

This line of argument rejected both government censorship and the absolute right of the child in favor of parental control over children’s viewing. Unlike some arguments of the previous section, it did not rely on the claim that parents know best what will benefit their children. Rather, it was based on the special relationship between parent and child, as expressed in the argument:

Parents are responsible for bringing up their children.
If parents have responsibility, they should also have the authority necessary to accomplish their children’s upbringing.
Therefore, parents should have the authority to decide what the child may view.
In place of government censorship, this view would be sympathetic to a filtering/labeling system that serves the parents’ wishes about what their children will view.  Also, this view tends to downplay the harmfulness of pornography and violence in the media, sometimes holding that parents forbid such things not because they think they are harmful to their children but because they are embarrassed when their children see such things. (This is seen as a legitimate reason for restriction.)

This argument raised the issue as to where the parents’ authority ends and where the government’s begins. Do parents have absolute authority to decide what their children will and will not see, or does their authority in this area yield to that of the government?

Proponents of course argued for maximum parental authority. They held that parents have authority to decide or do anything for/to their children short of committing a crime. And “crime” in this formulation means anything that would be a crime when committed on a person other than the child. (In other words, there are no special crimes arising merely out of breach of the parent/child relationship.)  Thus child abuse, consisting of harm to the child, is a crime in this context because it consists of assaulting the child, and that would be a crime no matter whom it is committed on. It is not within the parent’s authority, therefore, to commit child abuse.

Opponents offered a counterexample, namely child neglect. When applied to any other person, they said, neglect isn’t a crime.  (E.g., it wouldn’t be a crime to neglect someone else’s baby under ordinary circumstances.) But the fact that it is a crime, and a moral wrong, to neglect one’s own child shows that there is a special obligation on the part of the parent toward the child. Parental authority does not extend to the point where that obligation is broken, i.e., parents do not have the authority to commit child neglect. The government, therefore, does have the authority, legally and morally, to act in this area and insure that the parent’s obligation (their obligation not to neglect the child) is carried out.

Therefore, according to the opponents, parents do not have the authority to do anything they want for/to the child short of committing a crime. Perhaps, therefore, the parent’s authority does not extend to deciding what the children will or will not view, which might mean either that the child has an absolute right to view what he or she wishes or that the government has the authority to decide what the child will or will not view. (Both of these views have been argued above).

The example of the 15-year math devotee, mentioned above, illustrates the same issue. Does the authority of the parents extend to their deciding that she will not follow a mathematics career?

ISSUES:

What is the extent of a parent’s authority over a child?

Does it extend to decisions over what the child may view?
Discussions of library policy

From time to time during the discussion, John Guscott was asked about the library’s policy with regard to the Internet and the laws that elicit that policy. Here are the points he brought out:

The Library’s policy is dictated by the “harm to minors” provision of Ohio law. This provides specific standards defining what images may not be exhibited in the library – e.g., buttocks, genitals, bizarre acts of violence. This is in contrast to the obscenity statute, which provides for material to be judged according to community standards in a jury trial.

This question was asked:  “if an individual in the Library utters obscenities to other adults quietly, without the possibility of children hearing, would he or she be stopped?  And why?” They would be stopped because they are disturbing others, not because of the utterance of obscenities itself.

“Hard-core,” “soft-core” and “medium-core” have legal definitions in Ohio, in the law and in court decisions.

Background Information (handed out at beginning of discussion)

Features of the Internet:  It is a way of transmitting information that::

 . . . involves many receivers, many sources
 . . . is inexpensive
 . . . is to some degree anonymous (which means no accountability)
 . . . is instantaneous
 . . . provides images as well as printed text
Comparisons and contrasts with other ways of transmitting information
Libraries:  Both are ways of disseminating information to the public at large.  But the Internet does not offer face-to-face control of its material, and it is not a governmental organization.

Bookstores, magazine sellers:  In contrast with bookstores, the Internet, again, offers no face-to-face control of material.

TV:  Both TV and the Internet  consist of electronic transmission to many users; but the Internet does not consist of a small and identifiable number of sources, as TV does.

Movies:  similar to TV; but in addition, movie-viewing (unlike using the Internet) occurs in a controlled atmosphere.

Telephone: similar to the Internet, except that each transmission is to one particular user.  In addition, telephone (in most cases) does not offer images.

In short, the Internet is similar to other media in some ways, and dissimilar in others.  Attempts to restrict the Internet are attempts to deal with the differences.  So two kinds of questions or consideration arise:
. . . pertaining to censorship in general (same as other media)

. . . pertaining to the Internet in particular.

Because of the distinctive features of the Internet, its technology is important.  To be sure, we are considering what ought to be done; but what ought to be done is conditioned by what can be done.

The Internet transmission process

Let’s look at the Internet process, in outline:  Transmission of material is initiated at a given site – the source – of which there are hundreds of thousands.  It travels to a number of destinations, such as a library computer or home computer, to be called up by the user.

The purpose of restricting content on the Internet is to eliminate – block out – those things that are inappropriate.  There are two places the restriction can occur:  at the source or at the destination.

SOURCE:  I.e., regulating what is put on the Internet.

This was the aim of Communications Decency Act, which prohibited posting of  ”indecent” material on the Internet, and which was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Not much is said about source restriction, at least not in the literature I have read.  In addition to the legal barriers, there are other difficulties:  A law or practice regulating sources could not touch those sources outside the U.S.  Also, any measures addressing a given source would have to make one decision for that source – yes or no – which would hold for all potential users in all parts of the country, Los Vegas as well as Peoria.  There is no way to make the restriction relative to the user.

DESTINATION (e.g., homes, libraries):  I.e., restricting what comes through to the individual user.
This involves filtering (a term used here more broadly than some others might use it).

Let’s note that not all filtering is what we would call censorship – e.g. filtering can help parents shield their children.

Basically, filtering is done by installing software (with names such as CYBERsitter, SurfWatch, Net Nanny, etc.), which serves to make a judgment on all pieces of material that are called up at a certain destination, excluding those that are not wanted.  (It filters the material that comes through it much as a water filter excludes impurities from water.)

What does it exclude?  Material that conforms to certain criteria (i.e., negative criteria, criteria prescribing what is unacceptable). There are two kinds of criteria:

a) Keywords --  the technique known as “word-blocking”

On this method, the filter rejects any site that contains a forbidden word in its title or other identifying material.

As you might guess, this is a crude way of detection, and it has come in for a good deal of ridicule.  Perhaps the most famous example is that of the key-word “breast” excluding a site concerning breast cancer.  Also, “sex” rejects material about poetess Anne Sexton, and so on to even more extreme examples.

Parenthetically, it is also possible to extend the process to block entire categories of material, e.g. chat rooms.

b)  Labels  --
 
This procedure involves attaching one or more labels to each site, and deciding on site on the basis of their labels.  Unlike the keyword-blocking, this is not an automatic process.  It involves scrutinizing each site (of which there hundreds of thousands, as mentioned above), to determine its content.  Overall, there are several steps and roles involved:

-- Someone must decide on categories of objectionable material and the various degrees or sub-categories within each (e.g. nudity: “revealing attire; partial nudity; frontal nudity; provocative frontal nudity.”)

-- Someone must examine each site and apply the appropriate label.

-- Someone must decide which type of labels will be accepted and which rejected at a destination.  (This could be the user.)

Of these roles, the most significant is the second – applying the labels to individual sites. There are three ways in which this may be done:
 

. . . self-labeling:  Those who put the material on the Internet apply the label.

. . . the software vendors do the labeling.

. . . third parties do the labeling (e.g. church groups).

(Note:  labeling may also be applied for purposes other than avoiding pornography:  e.g. to rate library content, or in business to make sure that office computers aren’t used for recreation.)

The labeling method seems to be the most promising approach, or at least the most discussed.  (And it can get us furthest away from what we would call censorship.)  However, common sense suggests a number of problems mostly revolving around the labeling:

… ideological bias in labeling:  Groups may exercise their own political or social agendas when they apply labels.

… differences between the way the labeler understands the term used in labeling, and the way the user would understand it.  (E.g. “provocative frontal nudity” might mean one thing to a labeler, another thing to a user.)  Consequently, users would get the wrong idea about what was being kept from them.

This is compounded by the fact that users cannot get the full picture of what  kind of material is being rejected – they don’t get a sample or full description as we do about movies from previews or movie reviews.

In addition, if vendors do the labeling, their “stoplists” are not revealed, because they are trade secrets.  (Enormous amounts of work go into examining all those sites).   As a result, ordinary viewers have no way of judging whether
the labels are doing what they want to be done.  (See the EPIC experiment, below.)

…  incompleteness, in cases where self-rating is not used:  It’s a tremendous job to rate all sites, and new sites are being created constantly.  Therefore, some sites may well be unlabeled, especially the less popular sites where labelers may feel less need to do the labeling.   Those who decide what to accept  then have to choose between rejecting all unlabeled sites (unfair) or accepting all unlabeled sites (which tends to defeat the purpose of labeling).

…  dishonesty, in cases where self-rating is used:  Obviously, the author of a site will want to give his/her site the best rating possible, even if that means bending the truth.  (There has been a proposal to make mis-labeling a crime, but that gets into obvious difficulties of definition or judgment.)

…  changeability of sites:  New material may be put in a site after labeling.

One thing that’s gaining a lot of attention with regard to labeling is PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection). This is a method – a “set of technical specifications” – which promotes flexibility by allowing different parties to perform the various roles mentioned above. That is, one party (perhaps the software vendor) might determine labeling categories, another (e.g. a church group) might do the actual labeling, while a third party might decide the criteria for acceptance or rejection, i.e. which of those labels get through and which don’t.

On this subject, I must pass on a report from EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center. Their address is http://www2.epic.org/reports/filter-report.html), concerning their experiment on the functioning of a “family-friendly Internet search site.”  Keep in mind that this is only one experiment, conducted by an organization that may have an ax to grind.  Nevertheless, the results can be checked by anyone who has the time to imitate their procedure.  In any case, the reported results are astounding:

The purpose was to compare a) what an ordinary search would do with b) what the family-friendly filtered search would do, as concerns terms of significance to young people – terms including “American Red Cross” and “National Basketball Association.”  The ordinary search engine they used was AltaVista.  The filtered search engine is named Net Shepherd Family Search.

In every case, the family-friendly search excluded almost 90 percent of the materials on the Internet (material that was turned up by the full search on Alta Vista.)  In the case of “National Basketball Association,” only two documents were allowed through the filter, out of the 18,018 documents from the full search.  In the case of “American Red Cross,” almost 40,000 documents were returned with a full search, but only 77 through the filtered search (99.8 percent blockage.)

Significant Happenings

Communications Decency Act:  Overturned by the Supreme Court in July, 1997.  The Act prohibited “indecent” material on the Internet.

Loudon County, Virginia, Library Board: They are in the news because they have decided to arm their Internet computers with filters to censor obscene sites, and installed a filtering program called X-Stop. An adult will have to request a librarian to shut off the filter.  Children under 17 will have to be accompanied by an adult in order to do so. A lawsuit, appealing to the First Amendment, has been filed against this policy by a group of citizens.

The case of the Westlake High School student who used his Web site to deliver complaints against one of his teachers. (Judging by the newspaper account, these were not obscene and apparently not the sort of thing that could be libelous.) For this, he was suspended by the school district. The U.S. District Court ordered the suspension lifted, pending a full hearing on April 3. (I’ve seen no further information on that hearing.)
 

Relevant Distinctions

Public places of use (e.g. libraries) vs. private

Government sponsorship vs. private (industry) with possible gray areas

Adults vs. children

Various kinds of content

User-based criteria vs. provider-based

Kids of criteria: Key-word; site labels; site categories

(Thanks to John Guscott for compiling information and otherwise helping with this summary.)

Conclusions and Reasons (listed by participants at beginning of the session)

Against Censorship:

All human beings have the right to communicate and express themselves freely, unless that  expression is in violation of another’s rights.

Expression on the Internet does not violate any person’s rights (except in case of libel or slander, which are dealt with by the law separately).  *

Therefore there should not be organized censorship of any kind, including filters. (Self-censorship, e.g. by parents, is OK.)

* Reasons in support of this premise:
A viewer is free to turn off offensive material.
Decisions as to what is offensive may be open to political motivation.
(We should not inhibit free speech.)
Censorship has a chilling effect on free speech.
Therefore we should not have censorship.

The parent (family) should make decisions as to what a child should view. *
(Censorship means that the government or a librarian makes the decision.)
Therefore there should be no censorship.

* Reasons in support of this premise:
Government cannot select what is appropriate for a diverse population. It is families that have the ability and right to make selections that protect family members from undesirable material.
We ought to insure a free forum of ideas.
By nature (cheap, easy-to-use, instantaneous), the Internet promotes a free forum of ideas.
Therefore we ought to promote free use of the Internet.
Censorship inhibits free use of the Internet.
Therefore we ought not censor.

For Censorship:

(We ought not allow harmful material to be presented to young people.)
Some of the contents of the Internet are harmful to young people.
Therefore the Internet should be censored.

The Internet is a public place.
In a public place, you are not allowed to display whatever you wish.
Therefore, there ought to be a filter system.

Conclusions without arguments:

ISPs should be rated, and their content filtered according to the ratings.

Public computers should have blocks but otherwise material should flow freely and be a family responsibility.

Adult material should be defined by the web page creator, as reviewed by judges, paid by the Internet community. Access to this material must always be on request from the user, who must have an adult pass.

Adult material should be relegated to specific ISPs only, and access to these ISPs should require a specific user account.


Committee for the Fourth R

Lakewood Public Library