 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
E-Rate and Filtering: a Review of the Children's Internet Protection Act.
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
Ms. Laura Morgan
I. Introduction In a speech discussing the urgent need for the Children's Internet Protection Act, Senator John McCain stated the following: "What is happening in schools and libraries all over America, in many cases, is an unacceptable situation." [1] My name is Laura G. Morgan, and I am here today to tell you that unfortunately, the Senator is absolutely correct. As a librarian in the Chicago Public Library's central branch, I am well aware of the serious consequences of an unrestricted Internet access policy. I sincerely thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to submit testimony in support of the Children's Internet Protection Act. I also wish to commend the United States Senators and Representatives who have supported this important legislation. On March 20, 2001, the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and others, filed a legal challenge against the Children's Internet Protection Act that became a law in December, 2000. At a press conference, ALA president Nancy Kranich referred to the 61,000 members of the Association and stated that "we are here speaking for all of them today." [2] This statement is troubling because I believe there are many library professionals who do not condone the ALA's legal challenge of CIPA, nor the Association's ideology regarding Internet access in libraries. I am also deeply concerned that many statements by the ALA hierarchy are at best misleading, and at worst, simply not true. I hope that my experiences as a public librarian in an unrestricted Internet access environment will expose the seriousness of this issue and the need for the Children's Internet Protection Act. I also hope my testimony will encourage you to listen to those who object to CIPA with a great deal of skepticism. II. The Chicago Public Library: A Case Study The Chicago Public Library's central building where I work, as well as its seventy-eight branches, are a tremendous asset to the city of Chicago. Mayor Richard Daley and Library Commissioner Mary Dempsey have been tireless advocates for improving library services for all of Chicago's citizens. Since 1989, I have held the position of architecture librarian, as well as arts periodicals librarian, in the Visual and Performing Arts Division of the Harold Washington Library Center. I am truly grateful that I have had the opportunity to work in one of the finest public libraries in the United States, if not the world. It is because of this deep regard and commitment that I have for the Chicago Public Library and the library profession that I have chosen to speak out publicly against our Internet policy. While my criticism of unrestricted Internet access should not diminish the many positive aspects of libraries, I feel that the negative consequences of such a policy can not, nor should not, be ignored. Like the official stance of American Library Association, the Chicago Public Library administration is firmly opposed to Internet filters, even on computers located in children's departments. The Chicago Public Library policy states: The Chicago Public
Library provides public access to the Internet as a way of enhancing its
existing collections with electronic resources from information networks around
the world. It is not within the
purview of the Library to monitor access to any resource for any segment of the
population. The Circulation Policy of the Chicago Public Library states: · Library Bill of Rights (http://www.ala.org/work/freedom/lbr.html) · Free Access to Libraries for Minors (http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/free_min.html) · Freedom to Read (http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/freeread.html) · Freedom to View (http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/freedomtoview.html) [3] In an article entitled "Porn Again" in the Minneapolis / St. Paul City Pages, the Chicago Public Library Internet policy is summarized as follows: "In the children's department, librarians keep an eye on what kids are looking at and redirect them if they seem to be looking at inappropriate Web sites, says library commissioner Mary Dempsey. But in the adult areas, patrons are free to view anything, including pornographic sites. "Adults have a right to look at those things. Adult terminals have privacy screens. If they want to look at it, that's fine. But you don't have to look at it, and I don't have to look at it," Dempsey says. "People are free to surf. We're a big city, with 3 million people. What is objectionable to one person is not necessarily objectionable to another." [4] The major problem with such a policy is obvious. The administration is giving its tacit approval to patrons who wish to view and print a vast array of hard core pornographic material that is normally associated with an x-rated book store or peep show. There is no precedent for this in public libraries, since traditionally this type of material was never purchased in print form. Specifically, what I mean by "this type of material," are sexual images created strictly for the sake of sexual arousal and gratification. The easy availability of pornography on the Internet at the Chicago Public Library and in libraries across the nation has great potential for negatively affecting the staff, patrons (especially children), and the overall environment. The administration claims that the "privacy screens" solve this problem, however, the screens do not completely block the view, nor the negative behavior that is sometimes associated with the habitual porn surfers. In my opinion, the Chicago Public Library administration did not sufficiently consider all of the legal and ethical ramifications of the chosen Internet policy. I am deeply concerned about this issue from four different personal perspectives: as a mother, as a woman, as a citizen, and as a member of the library profession. III. Children and Internet Pornography As a mother, I am very concerned about children who access or are exposed to pornography on library computers, both intentionally and unintentionally. Due to the library administration's adamant stance against filters, even in the case of computers used by children, this happens far too often. Prior to the spring of 2000, I had not given much serious thought to the issue of children accessing pornography on the Internet, primarily because, as of that date, I had not witnessed it on the eighth floor where I work. What focused my attention was hearing from staff in the Central Library's Children's Department that children were occasionally accessing pornographic and violent web sites on the twelve new unfiltered Internet computers donated by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. One of the more extreme examples involved a child caught viewing a downloaded porn video displaying a woman performing oral sex on a man. I was extremely disturbed by this revelation because I had assumed that the computers in the children's departments would be filtered. In other words, I had assumed that the library administration would have chosen to make every effort to block pornographic web sites from being accessed in the first place. To their credit, the children's staff tell the kids to get off those sites when they see it happen, but to me the damage has already been done. Whether or not children are deliberately accessing these sites or stumbling upon them by accident is not really the point, either. When it happens, the images are there for anyone in the vicinity of the computer screen to see. As an arts librarian and one who has a graduate degree in art history, I can tell you that images are often much more powerful than words. The Crimes Against Children Research Center's recent study entitled Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth corroborates this point. The study revealed that a significant number of young people who are exposed to unwanted sexual material on the Internet are deeply disturbed by it. Furthermore, the report's authors ask the following questions. "What if a quarter of all young visitors to the local supermarket were exposed to unwanted pornography? Would this be tolerated? We consider these levels of offensiveness unacceptable in most contexts." [5] Over the past several months, I have spoken to several Chicago Public library staff members who have described incidents of children under the age of fourteen viewing pornography in children's departments. In defense of their policy, the library administration claims that staff can monitor what kids are doing at all times while they are using the computers. Many staff have told me this is simply not possible. One children's librarian told me that when she is not in the department due to a day off or lunch, etc., it is a "free for all" in the children's area, and that she often finds porn sites bookmarked on the children's computers upon her return. Another children's librarian commented how a young girl told her that the boys were looking at "bad things" on the computers. I had a similar experience while working at a branch library last December, when a nine year old girl told me that it bothered her when the boys looked at what she called "nasty pictures" on the computers. What kind of a message does that give to a little girl about her local library, the place that is touted as a "safe haven for a safer neighborhood?" At that branch, I also witnessed how adept some of the boys are at hiding what they are doing by changing the screen as someone walks by. After they left the library, I could easily tell by looking at the recent search history and bookmarks that they had accessed extreme XXX porn sites. What I ask all of you today is this: have we as a society become so desensitized that the idea of children accessing hard core pornography in a children's library does not bother us? I sincerely hope this is not the case. In addition to children under the age of fourteen accessing porn in children's departments, minors under the age of eighteen have been known to access pornography in the subject departments of the central library, as well as on the adult computers in the branches. I have witnessed this myself, as well as hearing from several employees about porn viewing incidents involving teenage boys. A librarian told me that she saw some teens viewing Asian child pornography on the fourth floor of the central library. One extreme example I witnessed was a young teen looking at sado-masochistic images of nude women bound with duct tape over their eyes and mouths. Just last week, I noticed a groups of boys around one of the eighth floor computers soon before we closed. After they left and I went over to shut down the computer, I noticed several hard core porn sites were left open. Another group of teen boys once left some print-outs by the computer of a porn site that boasted "Young Teens from Holland." I believe it is obvious that many patrons, and in particular teenage boys, deliberately seek out porn on Internet computers in libraries. This will continue to be true regardless of how many ALA touted "educational programs" or "acceptable use policies" are in place. IV. Internet Pornography and the Creation of a Sexually Hostile Environment As a woman, I am concerned about the porn surfers (who are almost exclusively male) creating a sexually hostile environment, particularly for female staff and patrons. Almost every day on the floor where I work, I see male patrons viewing and sometimes printing pornography. Security guards have told me that some of the men surf for XXX porn for hours on end, by going from floor to floor. I was recently told that the porn surfers now even frequent our ninth floor Special Collections Reading Room, where one staff member jokingly refers to these men as "Internet scholars." In many cases, therefore, the Internet computers at the Chicago Public Library become peep show booths. If the fact that male patrons are allowed to do this is not bad enough, consider for a moment the behavior that it encourages including harassment and public masturbation. I have spoken to numerous staff members who have experienced these kinds of incidents. One employee told me how a male patron had pulled up an image of a sex act and said to her "can you do this?" Several employees have experienced porn images being left intentionally on computer screens. Other clever patrons have figured out how to change the computer wallpaper to porn images. Some patrons have been known to intentionally call staff over to "fix their computer," only to find that a porn image is on the screen. In the worst case scenarios of porn viewing and accompanying behavior, male patrons have been known to masturbate through their clothes, put their hands in their pants, and sometimes even expose themselves. Additionally, a library security guard told me that he often finds porn print-outs in the men's restrooms. Not surprisingly, patrons have also been offended by these conditions. A woman told me a few months ago how it made her uncomfortable that a male patron was viewing and printing "dirty pictures" on the computer next to her. I heard a similar story of a female patron on our seventh floor who was shocked this was allowed. A recent incident on our fourth floor involved two patrons signing up for time on an Internet computer, only to leave quickly upon realizing the computer directly next to them was being used by a porn surfer. A third floor librarian told me of a female patron leaving in disgust for the same reason. It would appear that the library administration is more concerned about protecting the rights of the porn surfers over everyone else! At a library board meeting on September 19, 2000, I spoke out about these conditions, and mentioned the phrase "sexually hostile work environment" in this context. In response, I was asked to speak to attorneys in the City of Chicago's Sexual Harassment Office, which is part of the City's Department of Personnel. It is interesting to note that complaints by staff regarding Internet pornography had been routinely ignored or brushed off prior to this date. It was not until I made a public complaint for anyone to finally take this issue seriously and contact the City's Sexual Harassment Office. A positive result of my three and a half hour meeting with the attorneys on December 1, 2000 was their decision to commence a full scale investigation into how Internet pornography is affecting the environment at the Chicago Public Library. At the very least, I believe this is a step in the right direction. Considering that the corporate world is taking the issue of Internet pornography very seriously in light of sexual harassment lawsuits, I am pleased that the City of Chicago is looking into the matter. I recently spoke to one of the attorneys who confirmed they are still in the process of interviewing employees and expect to complete the investigation within the next few months. Once they complete their report, they will give it to the City's Law Department, who will in turn, make any necessary decisions. V. Illegal Obscenity and Child Pornography As a citizen, I am concerned about patrons who access illegal material, in particular, child pornography. In a hearing I attended last September, Bill Harmening, an investigator of high tech crimes in the Illinois Attorney General's office stated that "it is common knowledge in the business of pedophiles and traders of child pornography to go to your public library and download it because it's there." [6] Although he was not speaking specifically about the Chicago Public Library, I have heard accounts by guards and staff that patrons are accessing child pornography on library computers on occasion. Considering the heinous nature of these kinds of images, I find this simply abominable. In addition, many XXX porn sites qualify as illegal under Illinois obscenity law, and thereby are indefensible on First Amendment grounds for anyone. VI. Pornography @ Your Library As a librarian, I am concerned about what all of this means for the future of public libraries. The plain fact remains that public libraries have never been in the business of providing pornography in print, not to mention illegal obscenity and child pornography. The argument that we must provide it now simply because it is available via the "uncontrollable" medium called the Internet is absurd. Must we now add "x-rated bookstore" to our list of services? Is that what the "public library" has become? Think about that, and what that says about the library as a public institution. Regardless of what people think of pornography on a philosophical level, I believe that most Americans would agree that viewing and printing it in a public library building is highly inappropriate. The library administrators who prohibit porn surfing often claim that their "acceptable use policies" are a solution to the problem. Such a policy would certainly deter some of the porn surfers at the Chicago Public Library, but I have become increasingly convinced, that these policies are not adequate. In addition, such "tap on the shoulder" policies are much more intrusive and subjective than filters, because they imply that library staff are watching what patrons are viewing on the computers, all the while making inconsistent individual judgments about site content. VII. Internet Pornography in Libraries: A Nationwide Problem In his report entitled Dangerous Access, 2000 Edition: Uncovering Internet Pornography in America's Libraries, former librarian David Burt documented numerous cases of children accessing pornography, sexual harassment, adults exposing children to pornography, patrons accessing illegal material including child pornography, and so on, in libraries across the country. [7] He collected the data by making Freedom of Information Act requests to libraries for their Internet logs, incident reports, and other data pertaining to Internet use. As expected, the American Library Association discouraged libraries from complying with Mr. Burt's requests, thereby resulting in a relatively small return rate. The Chicago Public Library, was in fact, one of the libraries that refused his FOIA request. Many people have speculated that the ALA and many libraries did not want to comply because they were wary (for good reason) of this kind of negative information becoming publicly known. In my opinion, it is very obvious that there is indeed something to "hide." There has been increasing media coverage of problems relating to Internet pornography in libraries across the United States. Last year, a major story broke surrounding the unrestricted Internet access policy at the Minneapolis Public Library. Several courageous employees spoke out about the egregious conditions there, and twelve ultimately filed a charge of a sexually hostile work environment with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. [8] Even though conditions improved once the administration adopted an acceptable use policy, librarian Wendy Adamson recently informed me that some patrons still attempt to break the rules and surf for pornography. Another library porn news story involves the 21 branches of the Sno-Isle Regional Library System in the state of Washington. As reported in the American Library Association's online news, "Councilman Dan Anderson successfully argued for a council resolution earlier this month that asks the library to amend its Internet policy to comply with the Children's Internet Protect Act, to be phased in beginning April 20." Several citizens have voiced complaints regarding adults and children accessing pornography on the library's computers. [9] Another recent news story described how the Camden County, New Jersey Library System decided to filter every computer due to problems relating to Internet pornography. [10]
VIII. Deconstructing the Anti-Filtering Arguments of the American Library Association I am well aware of the American Library Association's many arguments against filters in public libraries and public schools, even in the case of children's departments. At a few sessions I attended at the ALA conference in Chicago in July 2000, these points were raised repeatedly. As the Wall Street Journal stated in a editorial in September, 1999, however, the ALA's ideology "makes no room for common sense." [11] One of the Association's primary arguments is that libraries simply make Internet access available and that parents hold the sole responsibility of supervising their children when using the Internet. What this statement does not take into account are the many responsible parents who do supervise their children but who have no control over the adult or unsupervised kid accessing a porn site on the computer next to them. Additionally, by the time a child is of a certain age, it is neither realistic nor possible to supervise one's children 24 hours a day. In a speech advocating the mandated use of filters on tax-funded computers, Senator John McCain stated that "Parents, taxpayers, deserve to have a realistic faith that, when they entrust their children to our nation's schools and libraries, that this trust will not be betrayed." [12] A second ALA argument against filtering of any kind, is that defending the right of a patron to access a hard core pornography web site is no different than defending the right of a patron to access controversial books, music, or videos from library collections. The Visual and Performing Arts Division in which I work does, in fact, include books on a handful of artists whose body of work includes pieces considered controversial. All were carefully selected by librarians because of the artists' prominence in the established art world. Most of these books are kept in the closed reference stacks and patrons must leave an I.D. to use them in the library. I think there is an obvious difference between these relative few art books owned by our department and the thousands of web sites that feature everything from bestiality to child pornography. If these sites had print equivalents, I can tell you with certainty that the Chicago Public Library would never buy them. When filtering advocate and librarian David Burt offered a free subscription to Hustler magazine to any public library to prove this point, he had no takers. In a Chicago Sun Times editorial regarding Internet access in public schools and Illinois House Bill 1812, writer Dennis Byrne adds, "might I suggest that if school administrators and teachers stocked school bookshelves and libraries with the materials available unfiltered on the Internet, parents would consider a public lynching." [13] Why then does the American Library Association and some library administrators treat the Internet as an exception to traditional collection development policies? A third argument is that filters don't work. While I do not propose to be an expert on filters, I have spoken to librarians who work in libraries with filters on children's computers and even some with filters on all computers. Everyone knows that no filter claims to be or is one hundred percent effective, but the librarians who have real experience with them tell me they suit their purpose quite well. One library administrator told me that the odds of accessing an inappropriate site with a filter on is about "as likely as winning the lottery." The ALA claims that filters give parents a "false sense of security." As a parent, I can tell you that I would be quite happy with the odds that the administrator mentioned. In addition, the ALA's favorite example of filters blocking most of the web sites about breast cancer because of the word breast are simply not true. A fourth argument against filtering or even acceptable use policies, which prohibit patrons from accessing hard core pornography, is that only a minority of users actually access objectionable web sites. My response to this is who is to say how much is too much or too little? Should the viewing of hard core pornography by children and adults in public libraries be tolerated on any level? In January 2000, the Wall Street Journal quoted Sarah Long, the previous past president of the ALA, as saying that "the American Library Association has never endorsed the viewing of pornography by children or adults." [14] The editorial continues by saying that the "problem is, it's never endorsed their not viewing it, either. Quite the opposite." The plain truth remains that unrestricted Internet access policies permit numerous instances of porn surfing in libraries across the country. The few examples I have provided represent only a fraction of the actual situations witnessed by me and other staff of the Chicago Public Library. If I had the opportunity to speak to each and every employee, I am certain that everyone would have their own stories to tell. Cumulatively, the numbers and situations would be significant. Then consider the times this must happen on computers with unfiltered Internet access in other Illinois libraries and elsewhere in the United States. While some libraries have acted responsibly and at the very least have installed filters in children's rooms and enforced acceptable use policies for adults, many have not. The hierarchy of the American Library Association and some others in the library profession strongly oppose any state and federal mandates for Internet filtering, most recently exhibited by their legal challenge to the Children's Internet Protection Act. I believe they represent a radical view that is not shared by the majority of librarians or the public. While they will try to marginalize those of us who do not agree with the official ALA party line as right wing extremists, I am proud to say that I have always considered myself a liberal. And in the end, support of the Children's Internet Protection Act is not a matter of left or right, liberal or conservative, but a matter of common sense. It is time for each and every one of us who is concerned about maintaining a safe and welcoming environment for all library users to stand up and make our voices heard. 1. U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator John McCain speaking in support of Amendment no. 3610, 27 June 2000. 2. http://www.ala.org/cipa/kranichremarks.html 3. http://www.chipublib.org/003cpl/internet/policy.html 4. Kokmen, Leyla, "Porn Again," Minneapolis / St. Paul City Pages, 17 May 2000. 5. Crimes Against Children Research Center, Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth, Funded by the U.S. Congress Through a Grant to National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, June 2000), p. 33. 6. Illinois House Republican Hearing on House Bill 1812, Marion, Illinois, September 7, 2000. 7. Burt, David, Dangerous Access, 2000 Edition: Uncovering Internet Pornography in America's Libraries (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council, 2000). 8. Oder, Norm, "Minneapolis PL Modifies Net Policy," Library Journal, June 1, 2000, pp. 15-16. 9. http://www.ala.org/alonline/news/2001/010402.html 10. "Philadelphia-Area Library Found Internet Filters Far From Simple," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 8 March 2001. 11. "Dr. Laura's Theme," Wall Street Journal, 3 September 1999, p. W15. 12. U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator John McCain speaking in support of Amendment no. 3610, 27 June 2000. 13. Byrne, Dennis, "Parents Need Help in Fight With Pop Culture," Chicago Sun Times, 23 August 2000, p. 53. 14. "Taste - Review & Outlook: X-Rated," Wall Street Journal, 14 January 2000, p. W11.
|
|||||||||||
|
