FREE ESSAY ON FILTERING THE NET

FILTERING THE NET

Filtering the Net
Over the last several years many attempts have been made to put a limit on what can be
viewed on the Internet. In 1996, it was the Communications Decency Act and in 1999 the
Child Online Protection Act. Both were shot down because they were said to violate the
first amendment right to free speech. Should the government have the right to limit what
children view on the Internet? The government does this in places like schools and
libraries. 
Filtering the Internet has become commonplace in most schools and libraries. Internet
filters are software that puts restrictions on what can be viewed by using a vocabulary
list. If a word on a website is in this list than the filter kicks in and the site cannot
be seen. This has caught the eye of many different groups of people, such as the Family
Research Council. This is what the Family Research Council has to say about Internet
filters "software that filters out objectionable Internet content will save public
libraries from becoming sex havens where children and adults routinely go for
pornography".
Then there are groups with totally opposite views, such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance
against Defamation. When asked about Internet filters they said "filters are imperfect
and can harm children by creating a false sense of security and censoring some important
information". The alliance just feels that if you deny children access to certain things,
it will hurt them in the long run. Some teachers in New York City are also against the
Internet filters because they said the filters would not allow access to many educational
sites. There are also people who think the Internet filters are just a violation of free
speech.
Most people think that libraries and librarians were the ones that brought about these
filters, but that is just not true. The American Library Association released this
statement on internet filters "it does not endorse the use of filtering software in
public libraries for one simple reason: research has shown the filters block up to 40% of
web sites with valuable and useful information". This has to be the most important
statistic that deals with Internet filters. To take away access to almost half of the
information available is just plain dumb. In addition to this, the filters do not filter
chatrooms or e-mails so it does not really protect children.
In conclusion, the Internet filters are looked at by some people as mandatory and by
others a violation of free speech. Should our public computers be made to have these
Internet filters? The Family Research Council says yes, "if you get public funds, then
you're going to have to have a filtering system-period-for the greater public good". I
find this ridiculous because they know it blocks out 40% of the information, but they use
these filters anyway. In the long run the government thinks they will be helping children
by denying them access, but really what they are doing is denying them an education.