Just Give it to Me Straight: A Case against Filtering the Internet

The authors cite four reasons why parents and schools should reconsider the use of Internet filters. First, and most simply, filters don't work as advertised. ONE OF THE MOST controversial and contentious issues surrounding the use of new information and communication technologies, especially in schools and libraries, is whether or not authorities should filter students' access to the Internet. On its face, the idea of filtering seems perfectly reasonable. Like other kinds of "filters," Internet filters keep out "bad" content while allowing "good" content to pass through. However, we argue that filtering is neither simple nor benign and that, with very few exceptions, schools and libraries should not filter students' access to the Internet. We want to say up front that parents have every right to impose restrictions on what their own children view or do on the Internet at home, just as they have the right to limit what their children watch on television. Schools and libraries, on the other hand, have a wider educational responsibility to expose students to a broad range of ideas, experiences, and points of view, and what counts as educationally worthy is a matter for public deliberation. Some restrictions may be suitable in these contexts as well - young children, for example, can't check out certain books from the library. But Internet filters work in a different way: they are indiscriminate and often arbitrary, and they bypass public deliberation about what should and should not be filtered. The decisions are placed in the hands of unknown and unaccountable programmers, who develop their own criteria and automated procedures. From the standpoint of public education, this system inevitably leads to abuses and anti-educational effects. What We Mean by 'Protection' and 'Harm' Filtering policies are frequently justified by the admirable goal of "protecting" young people from "harm. " Who could be against that? But such language is loaded, and the ideas of protection and harm need to be examined. Because schools are generally thought to operate in loco parentis, it is easy to transfer parents' impulse to use filters to protect their own children to the expectation that schools must do the same. But when we look at the situation through a different lens, it appears that protecting children may be less of a factor than protecting others in the educational realm. Filters are a way of protecting teachers from the upsetting nuisance of dealing with unpleasant or controversial topics in the classroom. They are also a way of protecting school administrators from angry phone calls (and even lawsuits) from parents concerned over occasional instances when students go to "bad" places on the Internet. Filters are a way for adults to avoid the hassle of dealing with instances of student misconduct, by attempting to forestall such acts. But in the process the vast majority of students, who would never abuse the system, are disadvantaged. Viewed in this light, the language of protection seems to refer most directly to the protection of adult interests. The idea of filtering seems to imply protection from what may be harmful coming in. But filters are two-way operations: they block what comes in, but by that very action they also effectively block questions or inquiries from going out. Filters not only control the attempts of "dangerous" outsiders to reach an audience of young people, but they also restrict the attempts of young people to ask certain kinds of questions, to reach out and explore this new learning environment. How differently would we think about this issue if we said, "Filters are there to control students"? Another loaded term is what students are being "protected" from - "harm. " Filters prevent students from encountering things that are judged to be bad for them. But what harms are we talking about? Emotional distress? Corrupting influences? Encounters with people who would exploit children? …