Filtering out minorities
At the time of writing the issue of either censoring or else filtering the Internet has been very much under the spotlight in Europe. In September the Council of Europe published a report by Paul Sturges entitled Freedom of expression and the communication networks (Sturges, 1998), prior to its discussion in November as one the four ‘core issues’ at an international conference at Strasbourg entitled ‘Libraries and Democracy’ (Council of Europe, 1998). In Britain, UKOLN (the UK Office of Library and Information Networking), the Earl Consortium of Public Library Networking, and the Library Association have jointly published a policy ‘issue paper’ on Internet filtering (Ormes, 1998). The UK Library Association has not yet drafted its own policy with respect to the use of filtering software in libraries, but this is expected by the end of 1998.
Internet censorship and filtering have been an issue for some years in the USA, where freedom of expression is guaranteed under the Constitution. The Communication Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, which sought to curb some of the excesses of the Internet and protected young people from malign influences delivered by their computers, was opposed by CIEC (Citizen Internet Empowerment Coalition). This was a campaigning group consisting of twenty seven organizations including the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, representatives of the book industries, software producers and Internet providers, together with 55 000 network users. As a result of their efforts the CDA was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in June 1997. However over the last year there have been several proposals that would force libraries and schools to install filtering software on their computers and the issue is far from settled.
Paul Sturges categorizes the controversial content of networks according to: sexual content hate speech, heterodox politics, dangerous topics (drugs weapons etc.), defamation, and official secrets, but he also deals with issues of privacy of private communication. Without doubt there are networked materials in all of these categories that most people would find objectionable, but sites with sexual content are perhaps the most pervasive and easily found. Indeed studies of use of Internet search engines indicate that, ‘sex itself is the most common search term, and various permutations of ‘pornography’ and ‘erotica’, the names of magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse, and related terms predominate’ (Sturges, 1998 p.16). He also notes the enormous turnover of the sex industries, particularly in America and states ‘what happens on the Internet is therefore no different in principle from what takes place in other media of communication’. Perhaps the essential difference lies in the ease with which such images and information is available over networks and the lack of control over to whom it is ultimately delivered.
According to the Oxford Thesaurus the verb ‘filter’ has a number of synonyms some of which have positive connotations (such as clarify, refine, purify or clean) whereas others have negative connotations (separate, weed out, exclude, eliminate). Likewise the issue of Internet filtering, can be legitimately viewed from entirely different perspectives and no two commentators will see matters in the same way. Thus in discussing this topic I intend to take the Editor’s prerogative of giving my personal opinions.
I do not have the slightest doubt that children ought to be protected from many of the grossly offensive and occasionally illegal materials on the Internet, and specifically on the World Wide Web (which is so easy for them to use). I recognize that this protection is largely the responsibility of parents but it also falls to some degree upon the schools and other institutions specifically catering for children. However I am by no means certain how that protection should be effected, and am concerned that the point where I would wish to draw my line, would be somewhat different from many of the more vociferous campaigners for Web censorship. The filtering software and services currently available are notoriously clumsy, sometimes blocking perfectly respectable sites, and indeed curtailing whole areas of legitimate enquiry for young people, simply because of the use of a few terms that might have sexual connotations. The purveyors of pornography are likewise renowned for being one step ahead of other Web providers, by fooling search engines and filters to bring their sites to the notice of an audience because so much of their profits are at stake. Thus, in any event the filtering process will never be entirely certain and remove all the responsibility for parental or educational guidance. However if the use of filters in schools is the only way we have of providing children with otherwise unsupervised access to the Web, it is probably acceptable.
The situation in Universities and other institutions serving adults is however quite different. Whilst I do not think it is part of the University’s role to provide access to pornography to its students, neither is it part of its role deliberately to shield them from some of the more unpleasant features of life. My own institution does not subscribe to the ALT.SEX newsgroups, but at the same time does not seek to filter Web usage in any way. It conforms to the UK wide ‘Janet Acceptable Use’ policy (Joint Academic Network, 1995) and has its own published policy on computer-based offensive or harassing material (University of Wales, Aberystwyth, 1995). It will warn and ultimately punish students who contravene these policies. This seems to me to be the right approach. Perhaps the more worrying prospect in academic environments is one of surveillance. Until recently, the policy of most UK Information Services departments (incorporating both Library and Computer Units) has been not to log or otherwise identify material accessed over the Web by users. However, the introduction of transatlantic charging this year has resulted in institutions monitoring Web usage more closely. Recent changes to the server software have facilitated more careful tracking of Web access. So long as such monitoring only takes place at the macro level, it would seem to be an acceptable price to pay for otherwise unrestricted Web access but one does begin to see inherent dangers of individual tracking and profiling that might take place at some time in the future. Yet every time I take a book from the library, or indeed send an e-mail message to a colleague I have to be aware that the information is being stored somewhere.
Perhaps the most difficult issue with respect to Web filtering is with regard to its use in public libraries, which have responsibilities for both adult and child users. Sarah Ormes discusses both the pros and cons of filtering in a public library environment together with the different types of filtering available (Ormes, 1998). She believes that ‘irrespective of whether libraries choose to use filtering software or not it is important that they develop a policy about it’, and goes on to offer an example of one such. She also points to the potential legal issues that might be involved. In May 1998, the Livermore Public Library in California became the first public library to be sued for failing to protect children from harmful information on the Internet. In this case the complainant (a local parent) sought as injunction against the City ‘preventing it from spending any public funds on any computer system connect to the Internet for which it allows any person to access, display, and/or print obscene material.’ (Filteringfacts, 1998) This case was dismissed in October 1998, but it will no doubt not take long before another is initiated (American Libraries, 1998).
At first sight there might seem to be no difference between filtering the Internet in schools and in public libraries. However the public library has a role in providing information of value to the whole community. One singularly ironic example of the difficulties encountered when imposing filtering is fact that the recent Starr report on the conduct of President Clinton was unreadable in many public libraries in the USA because of the filtering software that they used! However, I am more concerned with the responsibilities of public libraries towards minorities, who might not be able to access their information elsewhere. It is in this respect that the use of Internet filtering software could seriously undermine the work of the public library service.
Over the last twelve years I have taught a course entitled ‘Information Sources and Services’ which seeks to give a critical awareness of different kinds of information source to those whose who will undertake this work. As a traditionally trained reference librarian, who still has several dozen basic reference tools on my bookshelves at home, I admit to a slight sense of depression when students automatically leap to an Internet search engine in response to every question I set for them in preparation for seminars. They will often take far longer by doing so, compared with going to the reference shelves and consulting printed sources such as Whitaker’s almanac, Brewer’s Dictionary of phrase and fable, or The Oxford companion to English literature. Alternatively they may find only half the answer, or an out of date or unreliable version of the answer. Yet at the same time, it is noticeable that each year a greater proportion of my questions is answerable through the Web, albeit occasionally through ‘subscriber only’ sites. Likewise each year there are more questions that are better answered from the Web, or indeed only answerable from this source. The World Wide Web is still a long way short of providing or hosting a comprehensive reference and information service for all subjects, but at the same time, it is undoubtedly the single most useful information resource, and no library providing such a service can now afford to ignore it.
One area where the Web really seems to me to come into its own, is in the area of ‘community information’ - not so much in the local sense, but rather in the creation of hundreds of virtual communities across the globe. These consist of individuals sharing minority interests, beliefs, disabilities, or other pre-occupations who are widely distributed throughout the world. Each year I ask students working in pairs to investigate and then report back to a seminar dealing with how the Internet serves communities. In the past we have looked at groups such as vegans, recovering alcoholics, the visually impaired, the homeless, the unemployed, political refugees, or Buddhists, and the number of helpful and informative sites for each group is steadily rising.
Last year, having heard a radio interview on the subject I added one further group to my list of possible topics for investigation – the transgendered. My initial group of student investigators immediately uncovered many thousands of sites world-wide dealing with every conceivable aspect of what until recently has been a largely undocumented phenomenon. These resources include electronic journals, chat lines, specialized shopping sites, email discussion groups, sites offering legal, medical, social or fashion advice, sympathetic hotel accommodation, restaurants and entertainments together innumerable personal home pages. In fact the emerging community has attracted the attention of some social scientists and one site invited users to take part in a large scale social survey. Thus a whole new information infrastructure has grown up within a few years.
Some of the material on the personal home pages was undoubtedly narcissistic and self-indulgent, but arguably this was not significantly more so than on many others with more mainstream interests. Yet there appeared to be relatively little material that was clearly pornographic, and those few sites that did have an explicitly sexual content were clearly labelled and protected from inadvertent access. I suspect a substantial amount of the material provided was useful and reliable information of value to the members of the communities concerned which is not available from printed sources. Yet almost all of this material would have been excluded by some of the filtering software or services currently available.
Undoubtedly there are many other minority groups with eccentric interests or practices, some of which will be sexual in nature, which have been brought into contact with one another by means of the Web, and this trend will certainly continue to grow as more individuals become aware of its potential. Likewise there will be the development of other Web communities with crackpot political beliefs, bizarre religious practices, obsessions with discovering lost civilisations or proving their own historical interpretations. If such communities do no harm to others and contravene no laws, then access to their information ought to be available through public libraries. This is not a plea for greater permissiveness with regard to hard-core pornographic materials, especially those which are abusive to children, adults or even animals. It is rather a request for greater tolerance of human diversity.
The Internet appears to be the ideal vehicle for bringing together hitherto dispersed and secretive minorities in a way that both respects individuals’ privacy and need not offend the sensibilities of the majority. The enforced extension of the use of filtering software in public libraries could undo a lot to undermine this important role, and heighten the sense of isolation from which many poeople now suffer.
David
Stoker
With thanks to Sarah Ormes at UKOLN.
Council of Europe. (1998) Libraries and democracy: four core issues. Background Paper for the Conference “Libraries and democracy” Strasbourg 23-25 November 1998.
American Libraries ‘Court dismisses Livermore suit over Internet smut’, American Libraries October 26 1998. (http://www.ala.org/alonline/news98/981026.html#livermore).
Filteringfacts (1998) Lawsuit against Livermore Public Library (http://www.filteringfacts.org/liver.htm).
Ormes Sarah. (1998) An Introduction to Filtering: An issue paper from the EARL Networked Policy Taskgroup. UKOLN, on behalf of EARL, the Library Association and UKOLN
Sturges Paul (1998) Freedom of expression and the communication networks. Council for Cultural Co-operation, Culture Committee, Council of Europe (http://culture.coe.fr/).