Internet filtering has been a topic rife with controversy since the technology was first introduced. With federal laws, notably the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), attempting to impose filtering on public and school libraries, the debate has only grown more heated. Advocates of federally-mandated Internet filtering argue that such measures are necessary to protect children from pornography and other harmful materials. Meanwhile, filtering opponents claim that such measures undermine the library's mission to provide open information access to all of its patrons. A quick summary of the major points of both sides of the issue may be found below:
The Case for Internet Filtering
The Protection of Children.Most pro-filtering arguments center around the need to protect children from pornographic and other harmful materials.Filters Work.Though imperfect, the use of Internet filters does lead to fewer problems with pornography access, meaning that filters do help to safeguard children in libraries.
Filters Act as Part of the Traditional Selection Process.Librarians have always made judgments about which materials to include and exclude.Filters just act as another tool within this process.
Filters Can Be Disabled.If an adult patron requests full Internet access, it is an easy matter to turn the filter off.
The Case Against Internet Filtering
Internet Filters Are Not Completely EffectiveThey fail to screen out all “harmful” material, while at the same time blocking inoffensive material.Internet Filters Go Against the Library’s Mission. It is the role of library’s to make information available to patrons, not to block it from them.
Internet Filters Can Be Programmed to Act as Political Censors In other countries, filters have been used to block political dissent, not just pornography.
Internet Filters Aren’t the Best Way to Protect Children It is better for patrons to learn how to use the Internet wisely than to block access to parts of the Internet.