Speaking Out: Internet Filtering

Filtering The Internet: Trust The People, Not Government

Washington Post, January 14, 2001

Butt Out, Big Brother

Tucked into a huge spending bill that Congress passed at the end of the 106th Congress last month is an amendment that calls for mandatory Internet filtering for schools and libraries that receive federal technology funds. It denies federal money for technology upgrades if libraries and schools do not provide "a specific technology that blocks or filters Internet access" to material that is obscene, harmful to minors or considered child pornography.

Along the same lines, a bill before last year's session of the Virginia General Assembly would have required Virginia's public schools to use technology that blocks access to objectionable Internet material. That bill died in committee, but the issue will be back again this year.

Few would argue with the intention of these measures: to protect our children from harmful Web sites. But the reality is clear, too-filters don't always do what they're supposed to, and often they do what they shouldn't.

All filtering programs miss some objectionable sites, and many indiscriminately block material with undeniable educational value. A recent study found that two of the most popular filtering products (Cyber Patrol and SurfWatch) had error rates higher than 80 percent-meaning that four out of five blocked sites didn't contain any objectionable material, despite the companies' assertion that they had checked out each individual site. Filtering gives adults a false sense of security. Lured by soothing brand names like "Net Nanny" and "Cyber Sitter," parents, school boards, and libraries can conclude that filtering is a magic bullet. As a result, they may fail to do what responsible adults should be doing: monitoring how kids use computers.

Even the best filters leave unblocked some sexually explicit sites and photos, and a tech-savvy teenager can get around most filtering software anyway. Already, a group with the motto: "It's not a crime to be smarter than your parents" is touting a free product on the Internet that claims to "disable any popular Windows blocking software program with a click of a button."

Filters are an unfunded mandate on local taxpayers. Some senator from Arizona or congressman from Oklahoma shouldn't be telling librarians or school board members in Virginia how to do their jobs, and then make them foot the bill for the favored federal solution. If a Virginia school district wants to install filters, that's its business. If it has another workable solution, that's its business, too.

An alternative to mandatory filtering that is less costly and more reflective of community values would require that local schools and libraries issue and enforce "acceptable Internet use policies," tailored to community standards, concerns and conditions. Filtering can be a component of those policies, but it doesn't have to be. That's been the law in Virginia since 1999, and it's working well.

With Internet access, as with every other learning experience, nothing works as well as an involved parent, librarian or teacher who helps children, build the judgment and skills that will serve them throughout their lives. The human process might be a little harder than a technological fix, but it ultimately provides a more successful outcome.

- Robert H. Brink and Elaine S. Furlow are, respectively, a Democrat representing Arlington in the Virginia House of Delegates and a Democratic member of the Arlington School Board.