Art
  Censorship
  Censorship
  History
  Censorship
  of Youth
  Copyright   Internet   Media
  Policy
  Political
  Speech
  Sex and   Censorship     Violence in   the Media

  Home
  About Us
Archives
  Commentaries
  Contact Us
  Court and Agency Briefs
  Fact Sheets
  Issues
  Links
  News
  Policy Reports
  Press
  Reviews


Search FEPP



Commentary

THE GOVERNMENT'S NEW REPORT IS A SALES PITCH FOR INTERNET FILTERS

By Marjorie Heins

On August 15, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Commerce, released a report that reads like a sales pitch for Internet filters.

Although the report conscientiously outlines the massive, well-known over- and under-blocking problems with filters, including the extensive findings of the trial court in the recently concluded "CIPA" case,1 it concludes that the defects are inconsequential, and that the real problem lies with teachers, librarians, and administrators who simply need more training in how to use filtering technology.

The report was a response to a mandate from Congress in the 2000 CIPA law (the "Children's Internet Protection Act") to "evaluate the effectiveness of Internet technology protection measures" -- that is, filters. CIPA requires such filters in all computers -- for both minors and adults -- in schools and libraries that receive e-rate discounts or other forms of federal aid for Internet connections.

The NTIA waited until after the Supreme Court ruled on the American Library Association's constitutional challenge to CIPA before releasing its report. Despite the findings of the trial court in the CIPA case that filters, even at their narrowest settings, block tens of thousands of valuable Web pages on religion, public health, and countless other topics, the Supreme Court upheld the controversial law in June 2003. (See Ignoring the Irrationality of Filters, Supreme Court Upholds CIPA.)

The NTIA report relates that the agency received comments from educators outlining the difficulties with filters. It quotes one educational study: "Most of our students feel that filtering software blocks important information, and many feel discouraged from using the Internet by the difficulties they face in accessing educational material."2 Yet the report accepts unquestioningly the submissions of filter manufacturers that tools are available (including disabling the filters) to solve the problem.

For example, the report says that "several vendors' comments discussed their products' ability to allow users to type in a Web address to learn more about a particular site's blocking category" -- without explaining how this information would restore erroneously blocked sites to a student's or teacher's computer. It accepts at face value the claim of one company that it reviewed more than 60,000 requests to "add, delete, or change a blocked Web site" during a 7-1/2 month period; then fails to discuss how this asserted responsiveness to public pressures or complaints would lead to an objective or rational system.3

The disconnect between facts and conclusions is most evident in the section of the report titled "Fostering the Development of Measures That Meet the Needs of Educational Institutions." Here, the NTIA outlines five features that would improve filters, including "image recognition technology" and "technology that scans a Web site's content, rather than relying on key words."4 It fails to note that attempts to develop "image recognition" software that can distinguish human nudes (or human nudes engaging in sexual activity) from other images have been notoriously unsuccessful; or that, as the CIPA trial court found, there is no way that technology, unaided by human judgment, can really evaluate Web content. Nor does the NTIA mention that given the size of the Internet, with millions of sites changing daily, there is no way that humans can review and make judgments about every page on the Web.

Instead, the report naively accepts the claims of filter manufacturers that they already offer many of the features desired by educators -- including the incredible assertion by one vendor that it relies on "100 percent human review of all Web site content," and the obfuscatory language of another asserting that its "comprehensive content monitoring" tracks "all inappropriate content flowing through the network."5

The NTIA also does not question this vendor's -- or Congress's -- assumption that "inappropriate" content can be easily identified or defined, or that all of us agree on what it is. Although the report does note that no filter can identify the content targeted by Congress for blocking -- obscenity, child pornography, and "harmful to minors" material -- it does not pursue the point, and simply assumes that widespread censorship of sexual, violent, or other "inappropriate" communications is necessary to protect youth.

On the positive side, the report does recognize that technology is not really much of an answer to concerns about unrestricted youthful Web surfing. It recommends an amendment to CIPA that would allow schools and libraries to prevent access to sexual material without relying on the mindless, intellectually destructive, and inevitably inaccurate technological fix of filtering.6

And the report notes the importance of acceptable use policies, Internet training, and media literacy education. It cites one commenter's statement that "children need to be trained to think critically and use the Internet safely."7 It does not, however, explain how youngsters are to develop critical thinking skills or the ability to evaluate controversial information and ideas if they are kept in an intellectual bubble until they are 18.

In this respect, the NTIA report is a poor substitute for the much more detailed, thoughtful, and analytically rigorous report released by the National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences) last year. The NRC report noted that although "people have very strong beliefs on the topic," there is no consensus among experts that sexually explicit material is harmful; and that "technology solutions are brittle, in the sense that when they fail, they fail catastrophically"; they are expensive; and most youngsters can easily circumvent filters if they want to. (See National Research Council Adopts FEPP's Approach.)

August 20, 2003

(For FEPP's Comments to the NTIA on the problems with Internet filters and on more effective ways of addressing concerns about minors' access to the Web, click here.)

NOTES

1. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Report to Congress: Children's Internet Protection Act: Study of Technology Protection Measures in Section 1703, pp. 14-15, www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/cipa2003/index.html (accessed 8/19/03). The CIPA trial court's findings are reported at American Library Association v. United States, 201 F. Supp.2d 401, 431-48 (E.D. Pa. 2002), and are summarized in the Brief Amici Curiae of Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide et al., filed with the Supreme Court in the American Library Association case, pp. 14-18.

2. Id., p. 14.

3. Id., p. 18.

4. Id., p. 24.

5. Id., p. 25.

6. Id., p. 28.

7. Id., p. 33.


The Free Expression Policy Project began in 2000 to provide empirical research and policy development on tough censorship issues and seek free speech-friendly solutions to the concerns that drive censorship campaigns. In 2004-2007, it was part of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. The FEPP website is now hosted by the National Coalition Against Censorship. Past funders have included the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Open Society Institute, and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.

All material on this site is covered by a Creative Commons "Attribution - No Derivs - NonCommercial" license. (See http://creativecommons.org) You may copy it in its entirely as long as you credit the Free Expression Policy Project and provide a link to the Project's Web site. You may not edit or revise it, or copy portions, without permission (except, of course, for fair use). Please let us know if you reprint!