|
Schools, Public Libraries and the Internet A Speech delivered by Ithaca College professor Chris Harper on March 27, 1999 Keynote speaker Bill Schrader said he supported pornography because it was legal. When I asked him about how he handled the issue with his children, his answer was simple: No Internet connection until they were 16. Brock Meeks, the Washington columnist for MSNBC.com, faced a similar dilemma. He was a key player in the attack against the Communications Decency Act. But he returned home and found that his two teenagers had been banned from America Online because they had used profanity in chat rooms. He also found they had downloaded pictures of women. This is the quandary that often exists: what we believe is necessary to protect freedom of speech and what happens in our homes. I always find it useful to state exactly what is contained in the First Amendment before discussing it. Following is the text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Although it is important, the amendment actually wasn't the first one. It was the third. The other two were voted down during ratification. When I was a reporter for Newsweek in Chicago the American Nazi Party sought a parade permit to march through Skokie, Illinois. Many inhabitants of Skokie had suffered through the Holocaust and did not want the Nazis to march. The courts ruled that to prevent the Nazi march would violate their First Amendment rights. Larry Flynt depicted a prominent religious leader, Jerry Falwell, as having sex with his mother. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Flynt's right to do so, arguing that his actions were protected under the First Amendment. I am not a member of the Bible-thumping Christian coalition. I have been a journalist for more than 20 years with the Associated Press, Newsweek, and ABC News. I have been a professor for five years and have written three books and numerous articles about the Internet. I defend the First Amendment and sometimes force my journalism students to memorize its 45 words. I cannot, however, defend the way the courts have applied the First Amendment in the cases of the American Nazi Party and Larry Flynt. That's why I also have difficulties with applying the notion of absolute freedom of speech and press to the Internet. In this forum, that difficulty extends to public libraries. First, let's look at the notion of freedom of speech. In no manner can this protection be considered absolute. The Internet is a medium for mass communication and should be considered under this rubric. If you look at other forms of mass communication, they fall into three basic categories: the printed media, which include books, newspapers and magazines; the electronic media, which include sound recordings, movies, radio and television; and the persuasive media, which include advertising and public relations. Some would place journalism is this category, too. The printed media face the fewest restrictions on freedom of speech, which is generally synonymous with freedom of the press. The printed media can face restrictions through laws governing libel, defamation, invasion of privacy, and placing individuals in false light. Sound recording faces limitation on free speech through federally mandated labeling. The movie industry has adopted a series of voluntary guidelines to prevent particular groups, mainly those under the age of 18, from exercising a right to view objectionable material. Radio outlets face actual government regulation through licensing and protection against the use of indecent materials, usually prescribed as the seven dirty words. Over-the-airwaves broadcast outlets also face government regulation through licensing, including the restriction against the portrayal of pornographic materials during specific hours when children might be present. Advertisers face even more restrictions, including governance by the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. I recall one ad, for example, for a dietary drug in which the following side effects might occur: --Drowsiness --Headaches --High blood pressure --And even possible birth defects for children if a pregnant woman even touched the drug The company was forced to make these pronouncements--a clear abridgement of its right to freely speak or freely ignore the possible side effects. Irrespective of the medium, the law prohibits obscene material, which means individuals are engaged in a sexual act, bestiality, or other acts that do not simply cause titillation; the material has no artistic or scientific value; and offends local community standards. Also, the law prohibits any production, purchase, and sale of child pornography. The leaders of our society with the support of a majority of the public have restricted freedom of speech in many ways. So how should society deal with this newest medium? Some would argue that the Internet has existed as a free-wheeling libertarian society and should remain that way without any significant restrictions on speech. Others want to impose federal legislation to restrict pornography and other forms of expression on the Internet. Let's look at how the Internet exists in school libraries and public libraries. First and foremost, no constitutional guarantee exists that every student and every member of the public should have access to any medium, including the Internet. If, however, a school or public library decides to provide access to the Internet, what concerns should exist? Despite all the media attention given to amazon.com and other e-commerce strategies, pornography is by far the biggest and most profitable business on the World Wide Web. Also, the Web provides a much larger audience with significantly fewer restrictions for hate groups than other media. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has released a new report listing 1,426 Internet sites promoting racism, anti-Semitism, hate music, neo-Nazis and bomb-making. Also listed are anti-gay, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and pro-violence anti-abortion Web addresses. Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Los Angeles-based human rights center, says the Internet does two things. It gives racists a sense of empowerment and an unparalleled, unprecedented opportunity for marketing themselves, unencumbered, 24 hours a day. In 1995, one hate site existed on the World Wide Web. By the end of 1997, there were 600, and now this report lists almost 1,500. He argues that the World Wide Web has provided "the cement to bring racist skinheads together into a movement." If anyone is offended by sexual pictures or hate messages, I would suggest you leave the room for a few minutes. Here are a few examples: www.sex.com www.whitehouse.com www.excite.com http://people.goplay.com/whitepower www.whitesonly.net
Are these sites appropriate for those under the age of 18 to access either in a school library or a public library? I would argue they are not appropriate and should be restricted. Few libraries stock back copies of Hustler, Screw or provide a videotape collection that includes pornographic movies. Moreover, most communities restrict the purchase of pornography to those 18 and older. Few libraries would stock clearly racist material on their shelves unless you consider the works of Mark Twain as racist. Local governing boards made a conscious decision and supervisors to restrict access to specific types of materials--a clear restriction on the right of free speech. Should adults face restrictions on the use of pornographic and hate material in public libraries? Again, local government bodies and supervisors have restricted access to these materials in other forms of media. Why, then should access be allowed in this newest medium? If an adult wants access to this material in the privacy of his or her own, no restrictions should exist. But public monies should not be used to satisfy the sexual or hate tendencies of an individual. Nearly 93 percent of the American public has a television set and nearly 98 percent has a telephone. More than 50 percent of Americans have computers at home--a number that continues to grow rapidly. For $15 a month, people can obtain an Internet connection through WebTV if they want to use sexual and hate sites. Despite my desire to see increased restrictions on the availability of these sites in school and public libraries, some problems exist. Filtering programs don't work very well. Consumer Reports tested the top filters. The magazine chose 22 adult sites and put the filters to the test. Cyber Patrol missed six of 22. Cybersitter allowed access to eight. Net Nanny blocked none of the adult sites. SurfWatch performed the best but still missed four adult sites. In another test, a variety of programs missed "Deviant Dictionary," filtered out the poet Anne Sexton because of the letters s-e-x in the middle of her name, and blocked out the home page for Sri Lanka, probably because it called itself an exotic country. Internet Explorer comes with a security system that offers parents the ability to restrict viewing of sex, nudity, foul language, and violence. The options include "provocative frontal nudity", "clothing sexual touching", and "passionate kissing." IE, however, still allowed access to 19 of the Consumer Report's 22 adult sites. I oppose federal legislation to mandate library standards in school or public libraries. Instead, I see the funding authority--school board, city council, or county board--establishing local standards for appropriate material for Internet access. These standards then should be given to the Internet Service Provider of choice to provide a sex-free or hate-free or violence free zone for the libraries along the lines of the children's zone provided by America Online. If the libraries or schools are ISPs themselves, then these organizations must create such a zone. It is a standard many communities have used through zoning principles. Adult bookstores, adult movie theaters, and adult entertainment sites have been placed in specific zones of a city or town. The same principles should be applied to the Internet. At the University of Oklahoma, for example, administrators created two servers--one for those under 18 and one for those over 18. This separation--primarily to restrict access to pornography--passed judicial review. And there has been a historical tendency to protect those under the age of 18. Under the system I propose, local administrators and the public will grapple with what subjects may or may not be appropriate for children and adults to view in libraries. Clearly, freedom of speech will be restricted. But freedom of speech is not and should not be absolute, irrespective of the medium, including the newest medium, the Internet. should not be absolute, irrespective of the medium, including the newest medium, the Internet. Christopher Harper is the Distinguished Park Chair at Ithaca College, where he is a journalism professor. |
