Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 1

Running head: Internet Filtering in Public Libraries

An Overview of the Children's Internet Protection Act and Internet

Filtering in Public Libraries

Wayne State University

Schroeder/LIS 6010

May 22, 2006

 Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 2

An Overview of the Children's Internet Protection Act and Internet

Filtering in Public Libraries

Since the inception of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), public libraries from

all over the United States have been forced to evaluate their need or desire to filter internet

access within their library systems. Libraries have struggled with issues of censorship,

information access, and intellectual freedom in the aftermath of CIPA. While internet filtering

has been considered even before CIPA, this act forced libraries that had already decided not to

impose filtering technology to their computers to comply or be faced with losing national

funding. Filtering technologies are also under scrutiny by librarians, as many do not perform to

the quality that many librarians wish they would. The issue of filtering technology has brought

on a heated debate on both sides; librarians who support its use versus librarians who feel that

internet filters are another form of censorship.

The CIPA was introduced in the United States Congress as a means of protecting children

from viewing pornographic images that may be presented to them on the internet, whether it is

intentionally or unintentionally. Goldberg sums up the terms of the CIPA by stating that “CIPA

requires public libraries and schools that receive federal funds for Internet connectivity to filter

every online workstation, even staff-only machines, but does not appropriate additional funds to

purchase blocking software” (2003, p. 12).

Even before the passage of the CIPA, about half of the country’s public libraries had

already been using filtering technologies, although many of those libraries kept filtering

restrained to children’s only terminals (Page, 2005, p. 77). Most public libraries already had

internet policies in place and many others required parental approval for minors to use the

internet. Unfortunately these measures were not enough to satisfy CIPA regulations and most of
 Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 3

these same libraries were forced to apply a broad filtering agenda to their libraries or lose much

needed federal funding (Goldberg, 2003, p. 13). “To comply with CIPA, a technology protection

measure must “protect” users from visual depictions – the blocking of objectionable text is not

covered by the legislation (Johnson, 2003, p. 104). However, much of the internet filtering

software available to librarians will block material based on keywords and block lists, as there

currently is no other way to block only objectionable images. Furthermore, “since there is no

filtering software designed to block only what CIPA requires, innocent sites are often blocked as

well (McCutcheon, 2003, p. 11). Due to the variety in performance and the proprietary nature of

the software being used in most libraries, many librarians are wary of over blocking, therefore

their patrons are not getting the information they desire from their internet searches. Still other

librarians have noticed under blocking, or objectionable images still getting through, despite the

use of a filter.

The CIPA was officially passed in December 2000, however a trial held in lower courts

determined that this act was unconstitutional as it violated the rights granted to citizens under the

First Amendment The CIPA was then appealed to the Supreme Court in May of 2003 and the

original decision upheld (Johnson, 2003, p. 100). Debra McCutcheon paints a picture of both

sides of this issue, including the two groups supported the unconstitutionality of the act and

fought to have it repealed. The American Library Association (ALA), stands firmly on the

grounds that using internet filters is a form of censorship; they also believe that “using a filter to

block inappropriate sites is not covered by the same discretion allowed a library when it decides

not to purchase what it considers an inappropriate book for its shelves.” The American Civil

Liberties Union (ACLU), on the other hand, argues that the “filtering will widen the digital

divide between the ‘haves’–those who can afford Internet access in the home- and the ‘have-
 Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 4

nots’ –low income people, minorities, and those who live in rural areas where reliable Internet

access is not always available.” Both sides come together because they believe that “forcing

libraries to choose between funding and censorship means millions of library users will lose,

particularly those in the most poverty-stricken areas of the county.” (2003, p. 11)

The fate of the CIPA eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice

William H. Rehnquist agreed that the act was effective in blocking pornographic images from

children. The original law stated that adult patrons may ask a librarian to remove a filter at any

time for legitimate research. Rehnquist added that libraries “must have broad discretion” when

deciding what materials are added to their collections and that “their goal has never been to

provide ‘universal coverage’” (2005, p. 73). A librarian, David Burt, also supports that there

should be filters in libraries and claims that the, “antifiltering arguments are often full of

distortions, half-truths, and poor logic” (1997, p. 46).

The arguments against filtering include concerns that filtering impedes intellectual

freedom and potentially goes against the statements contained in the Library Bill of Rights,

which are the foundation for library services and policies. Internet filtering places a barrier

between the patron and the information, those against filtering believe that even though an adult

patron has the right to ask for the filter to be removed, many are unlikely to do so and the barrier

will still exist. Also, as stated in the Library Bill of Rights, the ALA does not discriminate by age

when access to information is involved; therefore internet filtering violates this principle because

filters are implemented on all machines for all patrons. More importantly, by upholding the

CIPA, the Supreme Court has laid the groundwork for more dangerous legislation that may

further “erode intellectual freedom rights” (Rubin, 2004, p. 157).

 Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 5

It has been six years now since the original passage of the CIPA and three years since it

was upheld in the Supreme Court and declared constitutional. Libraries that have let their public

internet terminals remain filter free have decided to make due without federal money, while

those that rely on federal money have tried to make due with the filtering software that is

available to them. The ALA has made resources available on their website to educate librarians

on the best software solutions for library systems and how to comply with the CIPA regulations

while still giving patrons the most unfettered access to information possible. Unfortunately there

is no one size fits all solution for every public library and each one has to determine how best to

serve their community, whether that is filtered, or unfiltered.

 Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 6

Annotated Bibliography

ALA | CIPA. Retrieved May 16, 2006, from

http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/cipaweb/cipa.htm

The American Library Association has compiled a list of resources for librarians

interested in educating themselves on the Children's Internet Protection Act. The site

sections include advice for internet filtering implementation, articles, and legal history.

The advice area of the site contains useful frequently asked questions, best practices,

and links to other helpful resources for librarians. The news and articles section

highlights pieces that have been written about the internet filtering and about The

Children's Internet Protection Act. The articles give a clear picture of the background

and controversy through an authoritative source on the subject. The legal history of

the site is a collection of legal documents for further investigation of the act and its

regulations.

ALA | Library Bill of Rights. (1996, January 23). Retrieved May 23, 2006, from

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm

The American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights was adopted in 1948 as a

list of fundamental principles that all librarians should follow. The Bill of Rights was

amended in 1980 and reaffirmed in 1996. The Bill of Rights is especially valid in the

argument that internet filtering is in violation of the principles held in high regard in

the profession of Librarianship, including offering information from varied points of

view and without bias or censorship. The Library Bill of Rights also states that

libraries shall not discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or age. It is also stated
 Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 7

that libraries should cooperate with individuals that do resist the free expression of

ideas.

Burt, D. (1998). In defense of filtering. American Libraries, 29(7). Retrieved May 18, 2006,

from ProQuest Reference Library Core database.

David Burt, a librarian in favor of internet filtering, is the pro-filtering arguments

biggest supporter. He launched a non-profit organization called Filtering Facts,

however since this was more than ten years ago the organization is no longer in

existence. His original 1997 article in favor of internet filtering is still most cited,

however, as Burt lists ten anti-filtering arguments and refutes each of them. While he

is not the only librarian that is in favor of internet filtering he seems to be the most

outspoken about the issue and quite dismayed that the American Library Association's

continued and unbending stance on anti-filtering.

Chlebanowski, L. (2006, May 9). Filtered at the reference desk [098209]. Message posted to

http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/

Lise Chlebanowski, a Library Manager at Avondale Public Library in Avondale,

Arizona, posted a direct response to Jim Maroon's original post on being filtered at the

reference desk at his library. Lise's situation was similar in that their information

technology is also administered by a municipality and not by their library system;

therefore a city wide internet blocking policy is in place. This hinders the work that

Lise is able to do for her patrons. The unfortunate outcome of her situation, however,

is that Lise often takes reference questions home to research on her own unfiltered

internet access. It is apparent that internet filtering in Lise's case has a direct effect on

her job whereby she cannot even do some of her work at her job.
 Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 8

Goldberg, B. (2003). Supreme court upholds CIPA. American Libraries, 34(7), 12-13. Retrieved

May 18, 2006, from WilsonSelectPlus database.

Beverly Goldberg, a contributing editor to the publication, American Libraries,

published a special news report in the journal regarding the Children's Internet

Protection Act shortly after the Supreme Court upheld the decision that it was

constitutional. The new report gives an in depth picture of the views of the Supreme

Court Justices and where each one stood in their decision. Goldberg also gave an in

depth report on how libraries were forced to examine their bottom line. Since national

funds are tied directly to the decision to install internet filters, the cost for some

libraries to choose a filter effected their purchasing decisions for other items and

worker salaries. Goldberg even revealed that for some states the decision is a little

more complicated because state funds may be directly tied to federal funds, often

libraries do not have the option to refuse both and must choose to implement filtering,

despite their best interests.

Johnson, M. (2003). The children's internet protection act. Texas Library Journal, 79(3), 100,

102-104. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from WilsonSelectPlus database.

Marilyn Johnson, a manager of continuing education at the Texas State Library and

Archives Commission, published a primer for libraries and librarians on the Children's

Internet Protection Act, once the act was upheld by the Supreme Court. The primer

includes a description, a brief history, and a description of terms and regulations

important to librarians. The publication is straightforward with a frequently asked

questions section for librarians concerned about what they need to do to continue

funding options and operate under CIPA guidelines. A brief description of what a
 Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 9

library needs to do to be CIPA compliant and what a typical internet user policy must

contain is also available.

Maroon, J. (2006, May 9). Filtered at the reference desk [098184]. Message posted to

http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib

While much of information on internet filtering ranges from 1997 to about 2004, it is

apparent that this issue is still prevalent in 2006. Jim Maroon, Head of Public Services

at Lawton Public Library in Lawton, Oregon posted an inquiry on the Public Library

Discussion List about his own filtering experiences. As stated, the decisions on

internet filtering fall on the municipality where the library is located and not the by

library administration. Since the municipality has agreed on filtering policies that will

not exclude the library, due to the fact that the municipality is administrating the

internet, this librarian had the unfortunate experience of encountering a blocked page

while researching a topic for a patron. This librarian also could not get the block

removed due to a less than understanding information technology department that did

not understand the reason why a librarian would need unrestricted access to the

internet.

McCutcheon, D. (2003). Internet filtering: Battle lines and solutions. PNLA Quarterly, 67(4), 10-

13. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from WilsonSelectPlus database.

Debra McCutcheon is a school librarian; her article published in the Pacific Northwest

Librarian Association Quarterly outlines the issue of the Children's Internet Protection

Act before a decision by the Supreme Court had been granted. McCutcheon gave a

concise overview of the issue from two sides of the filtering issue, including an

explanation of the issues concerning both the American Library Association and the
 Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 10

American Civil Liberties Union. McCutcheon includes a review of the issue from

both the opponents and the proponents of internet filtering, and includes a review of

the how well internet filtering software works based on her own research and

experiences.

Page, C. (2005). Internet Filters Should Not Be Used in Libraries. In N. C. Nakaya (Ed.),

Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 75-78). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

Clarence Page is an editorial columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He was awarded the

American Civil Liberties Union James P. McGuire Award for columns he has

published focused on constitutional rights. After the Supreme Court upheld The

Children's Internet Protection Act he took a hard stance against the new law in an

editorial claiming that it was in clear violation of freedom of speech rights. His

position strengthens arguments claimed by American Library Association and the

American Civil Liberties Union that the CIPA strengthens the digital divide. He

argues that tying the filtering law to funding only forces libraries with less money and

more of a reliance on government funding to impose censorship.

Rehnquist, W. H. (2005). Internet Filters Should Be Used in Libraries. In N. C. Nakaya (Ed.),

Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 71-74). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2003, was one of the

proponents of the Children's Internet Protection Act during the appeal process. His

arguments in favor of the act claimed that because adults could ask a librarian to turn

filtering off, it was not a violation of First Amendment Rights. He also justifies his

stance by interprets the public libraries mission and the Library Bill of Rights by
 Internet Filtering in Public Libraries 11

stating that libraries have a broad discretion to determine what materials are included

in library collections and that libraries do not seek to provide universal coverage.

Rubin, R. (2004). Foundations of library and information science. New York: Neal-Schuman

Publishers.

Richard Rubin, director of the School of Library and Information Science program at

Kent State University in Kent, Ohio has published a definitive text and authoritative

overview of the Information Profession. Helpful to the research of internet filtering is

the section on the Children's Internet Protection Act offered in the book. This section

outlines various intellectual freedom concerns that librarians should be aware of when

trying to understand the CIPA. Rubin also gives a substantial time line for the CIPA

and explains how the law was implemented.