 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
E-Rate and Filtering: a Review of the Children's Internet Protection Act.
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
Ms. Carolyn A. Caywood
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important hearing today. My name is Carolyn A. Caywood. I am the Bayside Branch Librarian in the Virginia Beach Public Library System. My branch serves a population of 85,000 people and our library system serves a population of about 450,000 people overall. I have been a librarian for over twenty-eight years. I am also a member of the Freedom to Read Foundation Board of Directors and an active member of the American Library Association (ALA). However, I am here today in my capacity as a library branch manager to share with you our experiences in Virginia Beach libraries, experiences I know to be similar to situations across the country as it relates to libraries and filtering and the implications of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) enacted in the last Congress. As you know, this legislation requires the installation and use by schools and libraries of technology that filters or blocks Internet access to various types of images on all computers as a condition of eligibility for E-Rate discounts or certain technology funding under the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). I will leave the discussion of the legal and Constitutional issues to the attorneys. We are all waiting for the results of the litigation recently initiated by ALA and others. And, we are all waiting for the promulgation of rules by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and guidance by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and the Department of Education to see how the law may be implemented. The Virginia Beach Public Library System, a department of the City of Virginia Beach, has developed and implemented its Internet use policies. While the details are unique to us, our story is similar to those from hundreds and hundreds of other libraries in the country. And, the story is comparable also to the K-12 public and private schools. Communities across the country are already addressing the issues raised by the Internet. Library boards and school boards have already grappled with and developed policies and networks that meet the needs of their communities. Some states, including my state of Virginia, have their own rules requiring Internet use policies. A few states require filters of some sort. I want to make the following points with you in this testimony: Responsibility for making decisions about Internet usage policies and procedures should always be made at the local level within the bounds of the Constitution. Library and school boards and their communities have the responsibility, which they are already exercising everyday. They are best equipped to make decisions based upon the needs, values and resources in their respective communities; Technology cannot substitute for an informed community, effective librarians and teachers, educated families and trained Internet users; Resources devoted to education are more effective in the long run to protect our children than having Federally mandated filters installed at local expense, especially when that mandate removes options for patron choices about using filters or not. For the record: I want to applaud our Nation's libraries and librarians. All librarians share the Congress' concerns underlying this law -- that children's experiences on the Internet be safe, educational and rewarding. No profession is more vitally concerned about children and their safety, development and growth than our Nation's librarians. We have been unfairly maligned and our position misconstrued by those with a different political agenda. Their hype diminishes the concerns that all of us have for our children as we all struggle to make these difficult public policy decisions together. Librarians know as well as anyone else, that, as new technologies proliferate, it is critical that we balance the extraordinary value they bring to communications and lifelong learning with responsible, safe use and careful guidance through education and training. The core belief of libraries is that knowledge is good. With it, people can take charge of their future. Librarians take seriously the First Amendment limits on government, of which we are a part, and we promote intellectual freedom because that's the only environment in which learning can thrive. Libraries are not prescriptive, we do not endorse the contents of our collections or judge the information people seek. Librarians cannot nor should not substitute for parents. These important Internet decisions must be made by parents. Libraries are tax supported institutions generally providing no-fee public services. We ensure that each person has the opportunity to learn and discover new ideas and different opinions. In recent years, that has meant adding Internet access to prevent a Digital Divide between those with access to electronic information and those without. Not having Internet access is becoming a form of social marginalization, but even owning a computer is not enough if a person lacks the skill to use it effectively. The skill divide is as important as the economic divide.
I believe the Virginia Beach situation, which is typical of what is happening across the country, supports how these responsibilities are taken fully and seriously. On the issue of E-rate and filtering in Virginia Beach: we get $25,000 from the E-rate. We use filters in three ways: 1) to present the best web sites for kids; 2) to block chat rooms; and 3) to provide patron options for Internet searches in the library branches. For example, on the "Kidsnet" pages of our web site, our library system uses filters to block everything but the URLs that have been selected by our library staff. In other words, ALL other URLs are blocked. Children going to the "Kidsnet" site find only materials our librarians believe is age appropriate and developmentally appropriate materials. We provide ongoing classes and training sessions in the library branches for different age groups, including family sessions. We provide an online list of links for parents to learn more about using the Internet, preferably in conjunction with their children. This list includes interactive exercises that parent and children can do together to find out and discuss questions about privacy, using the Internet, safe web surfing, and so forth. I encourage you to review our web site: http://www.virginia-beach.va.us/dept/library/families/kid.html We have had, and continue to have, open, broad and ongoing discussion within our community about Internet use and when and how we use filtering. We will continue to apply for the E-rate but we cannot break faith with our community and the policies it has established through public dialogue, education, and local decision making. The relationship between the community and the library in the development of guidelines for access to the Internet, is extremely important in Virginia Beach and elsewhere. As a practicing librarian in a community that has developed a policy for addressing children's Internet use, I believe that CIPA will have a devastating impact on the ability of all library users to access valuable constitutionally protected material. Equally, if not more importantly, CIPA will actually increase the risks for many children because filters give parents a false sense of security. What is more, it strips library boards and local communities of local control and decision making and will impose extraordinary financial and administrative burdens on libraries and schools. As a branch librarian in Virginia Beach, I have had direct experience with the development and adoption of policies for library patron access to the Internet. In my experience, the role of the community in helping to inform and shape a solution is absolutely critical. My concern with the law is that, while it permits some discretion for local officials to determine what material is "deemed to be harmful to minors" and what software to use to block content, it denies local communities the opportunity to determine what approach will best serve children in these communities in dealing with challenging content. It is not just that one solution doesn't fit all communities. It is also that a Federal mandate on a matter so closely tied to local norms and values is, in my view, counterproductive and even harmful. The law may not only discourage communities from doing the hard work to reach their own solutions and to educate themselves, it also lacks the legitimacy necessary to foster broad community support. While no one approach to Internet safety will satisfy everyone in the community, I believe it is possible, indeed necessary, to work with the community to fashion a "bottom up" approach that respects community values, to address core concerns and to provide useful solutions. Not surprisingly, local decision-making processes vary significantly and the solutions are extremely diverse. But what they have in common is involvement of the community, understanding of local norms and values, knowledge of practices that take into account the information needs of children and teens, and a general good faith desire to work together to find a solution that respects the diverse perspectives in the community. Libraries are educating and encouraging parents and children to work together and have family dialogues about how best to use the Internet and other library resources by developing search skills, critical thinking and knowledge of risks and benefits of using the Internet. Virginia Beach developed our policies as part of a larger dialogue on what kind of library services our community wanted and needed. We started discussing the Internet and filters with the public as early as 1994. We also started a public dialogue about library services as a whole and how the Internet and other electronic resources fit into this mix of services. This was done as part the process we used for developing long term plans for the expansion, construction and/or remodeling of our library branches. These public dialogues were extensive and held throughout the City in a series of eight meetings. It included discussions of just what the public wanted in terms of the balance between books and other printed materials vs. electronic resources. Starting with these community discussions, our library launched many Internet education programs for individuals and families. It is important that our education programs inform all stakeholders about the Internet and its strengths and weaknesses so that informed decisions can be made. We continue to provide Internet training for parents and for families through classes and literature. In this process we encourage parents to ask whether their children know their own family values, whether they know and understand how best and safely to search the Internet, and how to behave online, in chat rooms, and on email. We discuss with parents that no one sends a toddler out to cross even a neighborhood street alone. Adults accompany their children and stay with them at the roadside, until they are mature enough and trusted enough to cross on their own. As a child gets older they learn, again with more adult training and supervision, how to cross busier roads. They eventually learn that it is never wise to dash across a major interstate highway. It just isn't safe. The same type of incremental education and opportunities can and should be applied to using online Internet resources. Our library advisory board, like hundreds of library boards across the country, has been directly involved in developing and leading the public discussions that have shaped our policies. Staff at all levels are also involved. We have provided continuing staff training and discussion about these issues so that staff understand and feel comfortable with the community policy. And, because this is a community-wide issue and we are a department of city government, we also met with the police department, the sheriff's department, and the office of the Commonwealth's Attorney during policy development. We met with the recreation department, the schools, and even the public works department to inform and explain the community policy. If someone finds something on the Internet that they think is obscene or child pornography, we encourage them to go to the police with their complaint to have it properly investigated. Our policy is not static - just as the technology is not static. For example, right now we're amending our polices to deal with instant messaging issues. In our branch, we have six Internet public access terminals not counting the terminal devoted to "Kidsnet." Patrons have a choice about whether to use a terminal that is fully filtered or one without filtering. One terminal is fully filtered using I-Gear software. We utilize their maximum level of filtering on that terminal which is in an open desk-carrell. There are five other terminals with no filtering. The unfiltered terminals are designed for maximum privacy so that no one but that patron can see the screen. We do this in part so that there is no "visual startlement" for any other patrons. You have to invade their physical space to see what they are looking at. This is extremely important for all types of users. (Imagine looking up information about your own cancer treatment and likely prognosis in a public area.) We respect that different people have different values and comfort levels. That is why our community developed this flexible policy that respects patron choice. Even before we offered public access, we had extensive staff training and discussion. We are sensitive to the concerns of our employees to help them understand why and how the policy was developed. We also have a complaint process although we remind people that we are a library, not a court of law; we are not authorized to legally determine whether something is obscene or not, whether it is Constitutional or not.
Now with CIPA, those well reasoned and community supported outcomes will be swept away and replaced by a blunt, indeed a crude instrument that cannot respect First Amendment freedom, distinguish between the needs of adults and children, or between the needs of a 7 year old and a 17 year old. The law does not respect the diversity of values of our communities or the power of concerned adults to find common sense solutions to protect children. Sadly, the communities that will suffer most from the CIPA mandate are those where librarians are struggling to provide the first bridge across the digital divide and most need the E-rate discounts.
What is expected from librarians under CIPA? Simply put -- to do what cannot be done. As Clarence Page so eloquently put in a recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune to, "force them to bear the cost of technology that is expected to do what technology cannot do: make value judgement about what material may be too pornographic, hateful, illegal, or violent for human consumption." It would be difficult to put a price on the loss of the library as a "mighty resource in the free market of ideas" (6th Circuit 1976). It would be difficult to put a price on the transformation of the librarian into a full time content monitor and censor. It would be difficult to put a price on the replacement of trained librarians and teachers, working and living within their communities, by a filtering company which must sell to a national market to make a profit and which typically refuses to disclose its blocking criteria, their employees' qualifications, their "point of view" or their biases. Librarians are well aware that Internet access can create or exacerbate social problems, but we are philosophically committed to finding answers in humane, not mechanical ways. We look to education, both for skills and character, rather than to technology, for solutions. We cannot and should not substitute for parents. It is precisely because libraries are not a mass medium that we have no way of knowing what any individual child's parents would choose for that child. We constantly urge parents to be part of their child's library, not just Internet, experience because no one knows their child better or can apply their personal values better. And, we do not want our parents to have a false sense of security by relying too heavily on technological measures. The Internet is not the issue -- it's people and behavior that are at issue. Now, with CIPA, Congress has substituted its judgement for libraries all over our country that have -- with their communities -- tackled the tough questions on how best to guide children's Internet access and reached a diverse set of solutions. When Congress enacted CIPA, the issue of how best to guide children's Internet access appeared to be treated as an easy "yes or no" decision. In fact, it is complex and deserves a full range of discussion in the community and in the Nation. In my experience, those discussions lead people of all persuasions to recognize that there is no simple answer to this complicated issue and to encourage us all to work toward a viable solution. In the end, the CIPA law forces libraries to make an impossible choice: submit to a law that forces libraries to deny their patrons access to constitutionally protected information on the Internet or forgo vital Federal assistance which has been central to bringing the Internet to a wide audience. It is because the CIPA law demands that libraries abandon the essential role that they play in a free society as the "quintessential focus of the receipt of information." (Third Circuit 1992) that the American Library Association, the Freedom to Read Foundation and many local libraries and state library associations have challenged this law in Federal Court. Although I do not agree with the decision made by Congress, I am hopeful that your Subcommittee will recognize the vital role that libraries play in assisting parents to help their children and themselves learn to use these marvelous resources in ways consistent with their family values. Although I believe that CIPA cannot and will not achieve the goals of the promoters of filtering, and that, in the process, communities and the First Amendment will be the victims, I am hopeful that this will start a renewed dialogue between your Subcommittee, the library community and other stakeholders. I realize that it is too much to suggest that Congress should revisit this issue but I believe that we must work together on how best to provide our children, lifelong learners and students with the skills and the resources to function effectively and safely in the information age of the Internet. Congress must understand that there is "no one-size fits all" solution that the Federal government can impose that is better or more thoughtful than the solutions communities adopt. Even as we all wait for the pending litigation process to be completed, we in the library community, stand ready to work with you and to continue this dialogue.
|
|||||||||||
|
