Should Libraries Pull the Plug on Web Site Obscenity?
Kids, Porn and Library Censors

Should public libraries allow children unfettered access to the Internet? Insight asked Judith Krug of the American Library Association and Mike Millen, a Los Gatos attorney affiliated with the Pacific Justice Institute, to tackle the issue in an e-mail debate.

JUDITH KRUG: Just as every adult is an individual with unique needs and interests, so is every child an individual who develops at his or her own pace.

Librarians help children—and parents—become information-literate by teaching them how to access, evaluate and use information. It is only through education that young people learn self-responsibility, which ultimately is the internal filter they carry with them throughout their lives.

“Unfettered” is not equal to “irresponsible.” The vast majority of children and adults use library resources appropriately. Just as every parent doesn’t agree on the “magic” of Harry Potter, every parent has the right and responsibility to decide what is appropriate for their children and when it is appropriate. Only parents have the right to restrict the access of their children— and only their children—to library resources.

MIKE MILLEN: One of the earliest recorded moral dilemmas in human history involved this very question of unfettered access to knowledge. As the first book of the Bible explains it, God commanded that “from any tree of the garden, You may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat.” At the urging of the crafty serpent, mankind tasted the knowledge, lost its innocence, and saw death enter the world.

Not unlike the serpent, the American Library Association implies that all knowledge is good and that knowledge cannot harm children. The American Library Association would like children to be “information-literate” so they can “learn self-responsibility.”

To the contrary, we instinctively know that younger children are unable to process many types of information, and we actively shield them from it. We watch our language around youngsters, we do not allow them to view terrifying movies that give them nightmares and we are careful to insulate them from obscene sexual imagery. While it may be that a 17-year-old can effectively process much of this knowledge, younger children cannot; they need society’s protection when parents are not around. If it really “takes a village” to raise a child, then all the villagers need to be concerned about harming youngsters by prematurely exposing them to adult knowledge.

KRUG: Libraries and librarians are an integral part of “the village.” We care deeply about children—working with parents and community members to guide youth to age-appropriate books, magazines, records and Web sites. At the same time, we understand that children mature at their own rates, and each family has a different approach to discussing difficult topics.

As librarians, it is our role to assist and guide all of our library users to the most appropriate and helpful information for a given need—that is what “information literacy” means. It is not our role, nor our right, to circumvent parents in deciding what information is appropriate for their child, Or at what time. Knowledge is power, and we all must learn to use it wisely and effectively, including children.

MILLEN: The “unfettered access” camp cannot bring itself to condemn any form of pornography, even in the hands of kids. For reasons that are mystifying to most of America, these anti-filtering groups will not come out and say, “Yes, hard-core pornography in the hands of young children is harmful, wrong and ought to be stopped.”

However, even Congress and President Clinton understood that children need protection from unfiltered Internet access, and to that end, they enacted last year the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). That act prohibits libraries from receiving certain federal funds unless they install filters. The American Library Associated has filed suit to overturn the act, suggesting that it is somehow censorship if a library cannot provide little Johnny with “constitutionally protected information” (the code word for “hard-core porn”).

While it’s true that filters aren’t perfect, it is morally wrong to turn a blind eye to the fact that porn harms younger kids. Every state has a law making it illegal to give porn to kids and there is no reason to exempt libraries from this general principle.

KRUG: Why do you assume young people will use their right to access information to seek out the worst the Internet has to offer? The people I know use the library and the Internet for homework, job hunting, hobbies, reading online news and more. No librarian advocates children accessing materials inappropriate for them.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act doesn’t protect kids, but it does block information on all library computers for users of all ages. Superbowl XXX, Marsexploration, Dick Armey and Beaver College Web sites are blocked by Internet filters. Oregon Republican candidate Jeffrey Pollack, who advocated mandatory Internet filtering, was one of 30 candidates whose sites were blocked in the last election. He has since joined the suit against CIPA.

CIPA is censorship. Worse, it provides a false sense of security that kids are protected when actually they are not. Kids need to learn the rules of Internet safety, just as they learn how to cross the street. Filtering technology won’t teach kids not to talk to strangers in chat rooms or how to avoid negative sites. Librarians and parents teach these skills and work to provide a safe and enriching online experience.

MILLEN: The topic of whether we should protect kids from hard-core porn on library terminals is different than the topic of how to protect them. David Burt’s “Dangerous Access 2000” study found that libraries have documented hundreds of “child viewing porn” incidents (the full report is at www.frc. org/papers/booklets/archives/BL063.pdf). One can only guess at the thousands of similar incidents that were never reported to or recorded by library staff. The question is not whether children are viewing porn in libraries, but rather what, if anything, should be done about it.

KRUG: What we are talking about is children accessing the information they need, when they need it.

The truth is that most filters fail to block one in five objectionable Web sites, and at the same time block harmless sites because the technology does not consider the context of a word or phrase. Even more telling, filters are likely to block Web sites addressing political and social issues.

Rather than relying on faulty filters, librarians are providing tools to our communities. More than 95 percent of libraries have Internet use policies, which may include signed agreements, parental consent, time limits or optional filters. We also offer child-friendly search engines, guides to great sites and tips for parents (www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/children.html).

Censorship is antithetical to the purpose of libraries. Unlike those who would hand over content decisions to anonymous third parties not accountable to the community, such as software companies, we trust parents to set guidelines for their children.

MILLEN: While the American Library Association may not endorse children viewing obscene materials, it also refuses to condemn or do anything about it. Many libraries allow kids to access porn on their Internet terminals. Concerned parents are justifiably upset at this, but the library association has no solution except to say that parents should “set guidelines” and “teach” their children.

Moving on to the question of how libraries can prevent children from viewing hard-core porn, filtering children’s terminals is certainly one response. The fact that a filter may occasionally let porn through is hardly a reason to condemn it; that’s like saying we shouldn’t have a police force because the police can’t stop all crimes. Putting aside dated anecdotes about first-generation filters, the current crop of filters rarely prevents youngsters from getting information they legitimately need; best of all, librarians always have the option to let through any mistakenly blacklisted site so that children can have immediate access if necessary.

Apart from filters, parental permission is another cheap and easy way to solve the problem. If a parent is willing to sign an “informed consent” form giving their child access to unfiltered terminals, then the problem may well be solved. Your 95 percent statistic does not break out the percentage of libraries that have chosen this option, but my understanding is that it is quite low.

KRUG: What is “legitimate” information? In March, both Planned Parenthood and PlanetOut.com, which respectively offer information on reproductive health care and gay, lesbian and transgender issues, were still being filtered. We continue to hear of examples like this —sites some parents may not choose for their children, but some do.

A mechanical device cannot replace human judgment. With the filter on, you may not even know what is being blocked, because these blacklists are considered proprietary business information. If you do know the specific site, and it is blocked, the librarian cannot necessarily override the filter quickly, easily—or at all.

Regardless, how comfortable are you asking for access to sensitive information? How many men do you know who will ask for a site on testicular cancer to be unblocked, or young women who may be seeking information on pregnancy, or gay teens seeking community?

Right now, none of these people has to ask permission to see this legal, valuable—and sometimes graphic—information in U.S. public libraries. Discussion, debate and open access to information are among the most valuable gifts of a free country.

MILLEN: I think our philosophical difference is again playing itself out here. If you believe that numerous children are being harmed daily by exposure to hard-core porn on the Internet, the trade-off of a child occasionally losing access to a blocked site (or having to ask for parental help to have it unblocked) is well worth having. However, if you believe that library- accessible porn doesn’t hurt kids, then of course the balance would tip in favor of unfettered access. Most parents believe the former.

Do you have any statistics on how many 11-year-olds are really interested in testicular cancer or pregnancy Web sites? And if a kid were interested, isn’t there a wealth of non-Web resources to consult? The Web is just one knowledge tool, and in the end, it is much better to protect kids from the real and present danger of online porn then to worry that an infinitesimally small number of kids won’t be able to get some sexually related information off the Web without the help of their parents. Is protecting kids in this way really going to be the downfall of the republic?

KRUG: The maintenance of the republic depends on a literate and informed citizenry, one capable of distinguishing between information that is useful and accurate, and information that is dishonest or inappropriate.

The library provides a setting where all people, young and old, can develop the skills they need to analyze information and make choices among a wide variety of competing sources. But these skills must be learned, and we cannot begin early enough; information-literate children will become the adults who preserve our democracy.

Americans depend on libraries to provide information and tools we may not be able to get anywhere else. Libraries are the No. 1 point of online access for people who do not have computers at home, work or school.

Contrary to what some think, it is the lack of information, rather than the abundance, that does harm.

MILLEN: And so our debate ends exactly where it began. The unfettered- access camp is convinced that all knowledge is good, bristling at the suggestion that libraries should try to prevent youngsters from viewing hard- core porn. Those of us who want to safeguard kids from such exposure are decried as “censors” who are fiendishly shielding kids from “constitutionally protected information.” The fact that children have no legal right to view or demand porn is apparently lost in the debate.

Truthfully, this battle is for the heart and soul of America and for the morals that underpin the formation of the country. One of the greatest observers of American life to ever visit our shores, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it bluntly: “America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, it shall cease to be great.”

If our final decision is that public libraries should be allowed to serve up porn to kids, can we truly say that America is good? If that decision stands, then let it come as no surprise when we wake up one day to find that America is no longer great.

Links to non-ALA sites have been provided because these sites may have information of interest. Neither the American Library Association nor the Office for Intellectual Freedom necessarily endorses the views expressed or the facts presented on these sites; and furthermore, ALA and OIF do not endorse any commercial products that may be advertised or available on these sites.