Library Science: Internet Filtering - Essay Example

Library Science What is the meaning and definition of censorship in regard to library Internet filtering? Censorship is simply the act of suppressing information, which may be harmful, objectionable, inconvenient or incorrect as determined by media outlets, authorities or government institutions. In reference to library internet filtering, censorship entails controlling or restricting the content in which the reader is authorized to view or access. In this case, censorship determines the content that will remain available for viewership or access (Pariser, 2011, p.7). In most cases, librarians can restrict or apply censorship to patron exposure especially on objectionable, inconvenient or incorrect internet content. Therefore, censorship entails the process of blocking or suppressing content from viewership (Smith, 2007, p10). Censorship tends to operate on at least two principles thus the white list and the blacklist principle. The black list principle is simply the blocking filters whereas the white principle tends to work inversely. Censorship in library internet remains an important process given the availability of information, which is always available especially on the internet. Apart from libraries, such restrictions also apply at various levels and institutions. Governments are also associated with censorship in library internet. 2.) Why is the act of internet filtering important in public libraries? An effective internet filtering process remains important especially in public libraries. Granting the library users unencumbered access to the internet tends to open the library to multiple problems, which include security issues, legal trouble and lack of productivity in the library. In this case, unencumbered access tends to pose grave risk especially to the library’s security. An effective internet filtering will definitely judge any malicious web data that is based on the content (Smith, 2007, p14). Therefore, internet filtering protects the internal network from such contents. On the other hand, liability of inappropriate content might cause legal trouble to the library. In most cases, institutions remain liable for any transferred data into their servers or internal networks (Brown, 2004, p. 12). In case the internet remains open to the library users, it might pose risks to the library in that, in case of illegal material, the institution will remain liable. Lastly, internet filtering is important for productivity. In this case, a security breach because of lack of web filtering will affect the library user’s productivity. A good web filter tends to act as a sieve. 3.) How does the procedure of internet filtering violate the 1st amendment of the right to free speech? Most libraries across America are screening out “adult” content in response to local pressure. In fact, most libraries are purchasing filters to control their web pages. On the other hand, local authorities, state and federal legislators have introduced bills, which require libraries and schools to use internet filters on access links (Nadel, 2000, p1117). Despite the amendments, the American Library Association tends to find the new requirements a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. In this case, the 1st Amendment permits usage of filters as long as the filter do not support specific socio-political viewpoints. In America, freedom of speech remains a right. However, the freedom of speech is not absolute in what the society thinks. In most cases, some forms of speech remain outlawed especially in the US. These forms of speech include child pornography and obscenity. Naturally, these forms of speech tend to have a compelling interest from the government (Nadel, 2000, p.1119). Government may regulate these forms of speech in case it has compelling interest or the speech threatens national safety. In the same context, the entire internet filtering procedure remains debatable since it violates the free to speech right. In America, the internet remains protected by the constitution (First Amendment). However, the internet-filtering directive tends to infringe various rights. Areas where speech freedom is a right, then the internet remains protected by it. In case a website is forced to modify or shut down, then the censorship is likely to violate the webmaster’s rights.  4.) How does internet filtering protect children and teenagers? What is internet filtering protecting from? In as much as the internet offers children and teenagers tremendous opportunities, it also has various aspects, which can be harmful (Eneman, 2010, p223). Arguably, the internet tend to pose greater risk of damage among children and teenagers than television and movies do. This is because most media houses are subject to various legislations and pressure. Common risks that children face over the internet include; Exposure to sexual, violent or hateful material Bullying and harassment by receiving messages, which are demeaning Physical molestation Downloading files which contain computer-damaging virus. In order to limit such risks, both parental guidelines and internet filtering are important. In this case, an effective internet filtering will definitely judge any malicious web data that is based on the content. In fact, internet filtering protects the internal network from such contents (Eneman, 2010, p.228). In most cases, internet filtering blocks any outgoing transmission information that the children might be using. It also blocks any exposures from sexual material that the children are exposed to. Here, it suppresses content from viewership by the children hence protecting them. On the other hand, it filters offensive language. 5.) What are the negative things (name 3 topics) that can arise from Internet filtering? Limits educational rights Violation of rights Widening social gaps Limits educational resources In as much as filtering has its own good intentions, in most cases, it has its limits especially on educational matters. In this case, internet filtering tends to limit educational resources. In fact, some educational contents, which are essential to students, remain limited. For instance, schools, which filter its internet content, may fail to access important book contents. On the other hand, in case a person seeks to find information on controversial subjects such as drug abuse or sexuality for educational purposes, internet filtering is likely to deny them the chance. Violation of rights In America, the internet remains protected by the constitution (First Amendment). However, the internet-filtering directive tends to infringe various rights. Areas where speech freedom is a right, then the internet remains protected by it. In case a website is forced to modify or shut down, then the censorship is likely to violate the webmaster’s rights. Widening social gaps Currently, the internet is giving people a global meeting place hence making the world looks small. In fact, it gives the world a common ground in terms of ideologies and intellectual levels. Therefore, in case the internet is filtered, the world is likely to be limited. Internet censorship is likely to widen the social gap across the globe. 6.) What are the positive things (name 3 topics) that can arise from internet filtering? The positive attributes of internet filtering can be divided in three subjects, which include; Benefits of content filters Understanding the content filtering need Good aspects about internet filtering As previously indicated, there are various positive attributes regarding internet filtering. Common positive attributes, which can arise in this case, include Accessing control Avoidance of inappropriate /harmful content Positive productivity especially at work As part of its function, the process helps in mitigating the risks of people accessing inappropriate content. In this case, it allows the control of the internet. As a result, it helps in avoiding harmful and inappropriate content. Continuous controlling will therefore divert the students’/worker’s attention and instead they will focus on productivity. Another positive attribute, which can arise from the process, is the decrease in the amount of malware, hackers and viruses. In fact, possible attacks on the system are likely to decrease. 7.) When is internet filtering necessary? The internet filtering process is always continuous such that the law determines it. In fact, the decision whether to engage in internet filtering process is beyond legal ramifications. However, internet censorship tends to vary depending with the country and its laws. While America has a moderate internet censorship, other nations across the globe not only limit the internet. Instead, they also limit information access to aspects such as news, films and suppress its citizen’s discussions. As previously indicated, internet filtering is necessary when risks are involved. In doing this, internet filtering would be protecting the internal network from harmful and unnecessary contents. In other situations, internet filtering is necessary when there the productivity need within an institution. Apart from controlling risks associated with web content, filtering also helps to increase productivity. 8.) When is internet filtering NOT necessary? In as much as internet filtering remains important, there are several situations where the filtering process is not necessary. In this case, internet filtering remains unnecessary in situations where web contents are safe. Under certain government legislations, the government also decides when the process is not necessary. 9.) Is the right to intellectual freedom violated when internet filtering is used in public libraries? Intellectual freedom as a librarianship concept entails the freedom to express beliefs and thoughts in unrestricted means and manners. It also entails the freedom to access ideas and information regardless the author’s content. In modern-day librarianship, upholding intellectual freedom principle and opposing censorship remains codified (Krasulski, 2012, p8). Intellectual freedom interpretation as a library freedom is however not a clear cut . Generally, there is constant tension between the intellectual freedom and the constitutional interpretation. On the other hand, it is evident that internet filtering in public libraries tends to violate intellectual freedom. According to the ALA, intellectual freedom remains essential for any democratic governance. The fact that internet filtering suppresses this freedom, it means that the freedom remains violated (Pinnell-Stephens & American Library Association, 2012, p26). The ALA guidelines insist on the need for supporting intellectual freedom. 10.) How is the right to intellectual freedom protected when internet filtering is used in public libraries? As indicated, intellectual freedom as a librarianship concept entails the freedom to express beliefs and thoughts in unrestricted means and manners. Protection of the intellectual freedom remains possible during the internet process in libraries since the librarians are able to restrict the unnecessary contents in the library. Here, most people’s freedom to express will remain unlimited. Additionally, there would be limited interferences and risks. 11.) What does the American Library Association (ALA) say about intellectual freedom? About internet filtering in public libraries? The American Library Association is always clear regarding intellectual freedom. In fact, The ALA guidelines insist on the need for supporting intellectual freedom. However, the American Library Association tends to find the new requirements a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. 12.) Why should librarians protect intellectual freedom? Librarians should always protect the intellectual freedom because it remains a right in the American constitution. Additionally, the fact that concept entails the freedom to express beliefs and thoughts in unrestricted means and manners. It means that protecting it remains an important aspect. Here, librarians can ensure that there is the freedom to access ideas and information regardless the author’s content. 13.) What is the historical background of internet filtering? In 1993, John Gilmore a founder of Electronic Frontier Foundation claimed that the internet tends to interpret censorship as damage. In fact, it routed around it. This was the start of the internet filtering process. However in 2007,Vint Cerf stated claimed that the government internet control is likely to fail since the Web remains a privately owned affair. The entire internet filtering process began later in the same year. However, in 2011 reports indicated that information control especially on the internet is certainly feasible (Semitsu, 2000, p.537). In fact, technological advances failed to guarantee the speech freedom. 14.) Provide two examples of how internet-filtering procedures work in a library There various ways of how internet filtering operate in public libraries. However, the most common procedures are site blocking and word blocking. In this case, site blocking entails filtering the web content depending with their addresses or identities (Michael, 2012, p. 219). This process remains the least over inclusive filtering method since blocked sites are always selected individually. On the other hand, word blocking tends to look for objectionable words. It also blocks sites that have inappropriate content (Jones, & American Library Association, 2009, p3). Word blocking filters are sophisticated unlike site blocking. Other content suppression method that is common in public libraries is the technical censorship method. The approaches in this case include IP address blocking, DNS filtering, packet filtering and network disconnection. 15.) Conclusion Summarize key points of internet filtering/intellectual freedom and pros and cons Internet filtering Pros The process helps in mitigating the risks of people accessing inappropriate content. In this case, it allows the control of the internet. As a result, it helps in avoiding harmful and inappropriate content. Continuous controlling will therefore divert the students’/worker’s attention and instead they will focus on productivity. Another positive attribute, which can arise from the process, is the decrease in the amount of malware, hackers and viruses Cons Internet filtering tends to limit educational resources. In fact, some educational contents, which are essential to students, remain limited. Additionally, the internet-filtering directive tends to infringe various rights. Internet censorship is likely to widen the social gap across the globe. References Brown, K. K. E. (2004). The Internet filtering dilemma: A qualitative analysis of the beliefs, themes, and patterns associated with internet filtering in Kansas K-12 schools. Eneman, Marie (2010). Internet service provider (ISP) filtering of child-abusive material: A critical reflection of its effectiveness. Journal of Sexual Aggression. Vol. 16 Issue 2, p223-235. 13p Jones, B. M., & American Library Association. (2009). Protecting intellectual freedom in your academic library: Scenarios from the front lines. Chicago: American Library Association. Knox, Emily (2014), Supporting intellectual freedom: Symbolic capital and practical philosophy in librarianship. Michael J. Krasulski (2012), A Review of “Protecting Intellectual Freedom in Your Public Library: Scenarios From the Front Lines: Scenarios From the Front lines,” Journal of Access Services, 9:4, 218-219. Nadel, Mark S (2000), The First Amendments Limitations on the Use of Internet Filtering in Public and School Libraries: What Content Can Librarians Exclude? (April 2001). Texas Law Review, Vol. 78, P. 1117, Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press. Pinnell-Stephens, J., & American Library Association. (2012). Protecting intellectual freedom in your public library: Scenarios from the front lines. Chicago: American Library Association. Semitsu, Junich (2000). Burning Cyber books in public Libraries: Internet Filtering Software vs. the First Amendment. Stanford Law Review, Vol 52, No. 2 pp. 509-545 Smith, G. J. H. (2007). Internet law and regulation. London: Sweet & Maxwell. United States. (1998). Internet filtering systems: Report of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on S. 1619. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. Read More