Pacific Northwest Library Association

PNLA Quarterly, Vol. 62 No.4 Summer 1998

Public Libraries, Intellectual Freedom, and the Internet: To Filter or not to Filter

By Laurie Langland, Idaho State Library, 325 W. State St., Boise, Idaho 83702, llanglnd@isl.state.id.us

Introduction

Materials selection in public libraries is affected by the attitudes, beliefs, and convictions of librarians regarding intellectual freedom and censorship. Past studies have shown that librarians have practiced self-censorship in materials selection to avoid acquiring materials which could be the subject of later challenges. A new dimension to collection development has been added as a result of Internet access in public libraries--materials and information which may not have been selected by a librarian in any format in the past may now be brought into the library by a search on the World Wide Web. This twist on collection development has challenged public librarians' attitudes and convictions regarding intellectual freedom and censorship. Faced with potential lawsuits, some public libraries have installed filtering software on work stations with Internet access in an attempt to prevent access to materials that might be objectionable. But many librarians question the appropriateness, as well as the legality, of Internet filters in public libraries.

Librarians in public libraries must work with their respective governing boards and communities to develop Internet access policies, guidelines, and procedures which will preserve each library's vision and mission in providing information to its citizens. Librarians must research the issues involved in Internet filtering, learn what filters can and cannot do, and consider the alternatives to filtering. The purpose of this paper is to help conserve public libraries' limited resources by developing a combined checklist and list of resources which librarians can use to guide them in deciding how to handle Internet access for their patrons.

Literature Review

Traditional Materials Selection

A public librarian's primary responsibility is to provide patrons with access to information (Evans 1987). Merritt (1970) states that there are two theories of selection--the value theory and the demand theory--to guide public librarians in acquiring library materials and developing their collections.

According to the value theory, the public library is an educational institution containing materials which provide information, inspiration, and creative recreation. In simple terms, "give them what they should have" (Merritt 1970:11). According to the demand theory, the public library is a democratic institution supported by taxes paid by the entire community. Each citizen has an equal right to find what he or she wants to read in the library collection. In simple terms, "give them what they want" (Merritt 1970:11).

Every library should have a formally adopted collection development policy, approved by the library's governing board, to guide in selection of library materials (Merritt 1970). Such a policy should protect against challenges to the collection and should outline the procedure for handling complaints (Evans 1987).

One distinctive feature of collection development in public libraries is an emphasis on children's materials. This is because of the general concern for children's welfare and because children's materials account for the greatest usage in many public libraries (Evans 1987).

Complaints and Censorship

Topics of library materials that are the subject of complaints and challenges include religion, politics, art, sex, race, health, and medicine (Merritt, 1970). Children's library materials may be challenged for content or format. "Some parents and religious groups have strong objections to any format other than books and journals; it is not always content that is questioned" (Evans 1987:117).

Some view these challenges to library materials as attempts at censorship. "[C]ensorship has been a problem for libraries for just about as long as there have been libraries" (Evans 1987:395).

In 1939 the American Library Association (ALA) adopted the Library Bill of Rights as a policy statement to protect libraries in providing materials representing all points of views and to protect the rights of library users to choose what they wish to read, hear, and view (ALA, History and Achievements, 1997 ;1). (See Appendix A for the full text of the current Library Bill of Rights.) Section V states that "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views" (ALA, Library Bill of Rights, 1997:1).

There are three types of censorship which a public librarian may encounter: legal or governmental, individual or group pressure, and self-censorship (Evans 1995). Self-censorship occurs when a librarian decides not to add an item to the collection because it might cause a problem.

Studies of Self-Censorship

Fiske (1959) studied the question of whether public and school librarians in California practiced self-censorship. Twenty-six communities were selected on the basis of size, rate of growth, ethnic composition of the population, geographic location, and type of library service. From 1956 to 1958, 204 interviews were conducted with librarians responsible for book selection in public and school libraries in those communities.

Although nearly one-half of the librarians interviewed in Fiske's study expressed unequivocal freedom-to-read convictions, nearly two-thirds of the librarians reported actual instances where the controversiality of a book or an author resulted in a decision not to buy. Nearly one-fifth of participants reported habitually avoiding the purchase of any material which was known to be controversial or which they believed might become controversial (Fiske 1959).

Fiske concluded that although the findings of the study could not be projected to the communities, institutions, or librarians of the community as a whole, the institutions and respondents who participated in the study were responsible for library service to a majority of California's population, so the results would probably remain the same if the study were repeated with a true cross section (Fiske 1959). Fiske's study was considered controversial both inside and outside the profession of librarianship, and her findings "shook the library profession" (Evans 1995:523).

Busha (1972) examined the attitudes of Midwestern public librarians toward intellectual freedom, censorship, and authoritarianism as an anti-democratic trait. Using a questionnaire with Likert-type attitude scales with "fixed alternative responses," Busha surveyed 900 randomly selected public librarians in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. After scoring the responses and subjecting them to statistical analyses, Busha concluded that mid-western public librarians did not hesitate to express agreement with cliches of intellectual freedom but that many of them apparently did not feel strong enough as professionals to assert these principles in the face of real or anticipated censorship pressures. (Busha, 1972:300)

Internet Access in Public Libraries

With the advent of the World Wide Web, anyone can be a publisher by creating and disseminating documents via the Web. "To the conscientious public librarian, the World Wide Web is like a warehouse full of potentially useful pamphlets and brochures, but in no particular order. And new truckloads of pamphlets are arriving every hour" (LaRue 1997:3).

Public libraries have obtained Internet access to make this information accessible to library staff and patrons. According to the ALA more than 75% of the public libraries in the United States provide free public access to the World Wide Web (LaRue 1997). In Idaho 93 (86%) of the 108 public library jurisdictions have Internet access (R. Simmons, pers. comm., November 14, 1997).

A survey commissioned by MCI LibraryLINK, a partnership between ALA and the telecommunications entity MCI, indicated that the nation's public libraries are the single highest alternative resource for Internet access (Rogers 1997). Commercenet/Nielsen Media Research Internet Demographic Studies conducted the survey by randomly surveying more than 6,000 American and Canadian residents by telephone. Four percent of the respondents said they used "alternative points of access" -- meaning outside the home, office, or school -- to connect to the Internet. In a similar 1996 survey, 1.5% of respondents said they access the Internet using alternative access points. Of the alternative access points, public libraries accounted for 36 percent of users and ranked highest among the other alternative resources listed -- churches/community centers (14%), retail outlets (11%), hotels (6%), museums/recreational facilities (5%), hospitals (3%), and airports (3%) (Rogers 1997).

Filtering Software

Materials which librarians would not have selected for their library collections are showing up in libraries as a result of Web searches by library staff and patrons. Filtering software has been installed in Internet-accessible work stations in many public libraries in an attempt to block access to some Web sites (LaRue 1997).

Software filters contain lists of forbidden sites as determined by the respective software vendor. Filters also scan Web pages for certain predetermined words or phrases prior to loading the Web pages. If a page contains any of the objectionable words, the filter blocks the page and prevents it from being loaded (LaRue 1997).

Controversy Surrounding Filters

Proponents of these filters liken them to book selection policies. For example, if a public library would not expend funds for a book on bomb-making or pedophilia in accordance with the library's collection development policy, then filtering software which prevents access to Web pages on bomb-making or pedophilia is in accordance with the collection development policy as well ("Free Speech Headlines San Francisco" 1997).

There are risks for children who use Internet services. A child may be exposed to material of a sexual or violent nature or encounter E-mail or bulletin board messages that are harassing or demeaning. A child might also provide information to or arrange an encounter with a pedophile (Magid, 1997).

There are approximately 4.3 million sites on the Internet, and new sites are added every day (Morse, 1997). Approximately 0.5% of those sites provide pornographic material (Champelli 1997).

Critics of filters state that filtering is censorship and not selection. Filtering software takes control away from librarians and vests it with the software programmers and vendors, who may have social and political biases. Filters restrict access to information and may prevent libraries from providing information on all sides of an issue. Furthermore, filters are imperfect and may block unobjectionable sites while allowing undesirable sites to slip through the filters. Critics emphasize that it is the responsibility of parents, not libraries, to monitor what their children view and read (Simmons 1997).

Berry (1997) believes that the use of Internet filters is a quick fix, "one size fits all" remedy to a complex problem. In his opinion filters deny service to some users, distort and subvert the purpose of the library, allow library administrators to shed responsibility and avoid accountability, undermine the principles of librarianship, and convert human judgment into automatic responses. "Filters make human judgment automatic, using an arbitrary list of unacceptable words. They violate principles of free expression. They lead children to believe that a dumb machine "knows" better than a librarian or parent what is acceptable. Filters don't work very well, make idiotic mistakes, and often block access to stuff kids really need" (Berry, 1997:6).

Internet filtering was a topic at the American Library Association's 116th annual conference in San Francisco June 26 through July 1, 1997. On July 2, the ALA Council officially denounced the use of filtering software by libraries, stating that "to block access to constitutionally protected speech violates the Library Bill of Rights" ("Free Speech Headlines San Francisco," 1997, p. 37). As stated by Deborah Liebow, Assistant Director of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, "Libraries are the gateways to free and open access to information and ideas and it is not the responsibility of the librarian, or the government...to restrict Internet access..." (Krug, Liebow and Robinson 1997).

A Study of Filtering Software

The Internet Filter Assessment Project (TIFAP) was organized to test Internet filters. Over 100 test questions were developed; many were "real reference questions from the front lines of librarianship" (Schneider, 1997). Volunteers tested nine filters by searching for the answers to the test questions and submitted their results using surveys. TIFAP's preliminary report stated that filters are too inconsistent for a library environment. Filters "are tools in development, unreliable, inconsistent, difficult if not impossible to troubleshoot, and time-consuming to modify and maintain" (Schneider 1997).

Schneider (1997) stated that TIFAP was not a scientific study. It lacked controls, the actual conditions could not be verified, and the filtering products could not be tested consistently due to limited volunteers and resources. Schneider also pointed out that the surveys were as amateurish as would be expected from people who do not design surveys.

However, Schneider claimed that in terms of conclusions about specific filtering products, "TIFAP is no less valid than a vendor's claims, a personal assessment, or a software magazine's review" (Schneider, 1997). Schneider recommends that librarians test the filtering software under the public access conditions at their respective libraries.

The final results of TIFAP are in Schneider's (1998) new book, A Practical Guide to Internet Filters. This book also includes additional discussions, case studies, vignettes, and tips from other librarians on using filters and not using filters.

Legal Issues

Librarians in public libraries are under pressure from both sides on the filtering issue. For example, Family Friendly Libraries, an entity in Fairfax, Virginia, considered suing the Ada Community Library (ACL) in Idaho if it did not use filters on all Internet work stations (D. Hoffpauir, pers.l comm,, August 29, 1997). According to Dian Hoffpauir, ACL has installed a filter on one of its three Internet computers. Attorneys for the ACLU have hinted that it is likely that the ACLU will sue a library system using filtering software. Public libraries in Austin, Texas, and Orlando, Florida, are among those being investigated by the ACLU (Oder 1997).

According to attorney Ann M. Kappler, the United States Supreme Court declared in the Communications Decency Act decision that the Internet gets the highest level of First Amendment protection, as do books and the press (National Issues, Local Decisions: Libraries, the Internet, and the First Amendment 1997). First Amendment tests and protection apply to the federal government, and the 14th Amendment makes the First Amendment applicable to state and local governments. Governmental entities, including public libraries, cannot restrict adults' access to constitutionally protected speech in an effort to protect children. Governmental entities can prevent children from accessing harmful materials. There are no clear guidelines, however, because children have constitutional rights as well, and older children have greater rights than younger children. It is not yet clear if filtering is legal, so Kappler advises public libraries to place responsibility for children's Internet access on the children's parents (National Issues, Local Decisions: Libraries, the Internet, and the First Amendment 1997).

Another concern of library administrators is that of creating a hostile work environment for library staff who assist patrons. Specifically, there is a concern about sexual harassment of library staff who clear objectionable screens left by previous users (D. Hoffpauir, pers. Comm., August 29, 1997). However, according to Kappler the computer images alone probably are not enough; harassing conduct usually is required to create a hostile work environment. Nevertheless, Kappler encourages librarians to be sensitive to staff members and their concerns (National Issues, Local Decisions: Libraries, the Internet, and the First Amendment, 1997).

Alternatives to Filters

One alternative to filters is for librarians to build a list of web sites and link them to their library's home page. This approach is comparable to materials selection. Librarians should educate staff, their library boards and governing bodies, and members of their respective communities as to the benefits and problems of the Internet; develop and implement written policies and guidelines on Internet use; and make parents responsible for children's Internet use (Simmons 1997).

Checklist with Suggested Resources for Public Librarians

The above literature review presents many issues which librarians should consider when deciding whether to filter the Internet access of patrons in public libraries. The following checklist is a synthesis of these issues. Some suggested resources are included with the checklist to aid librarians in their research; however, the list of resources is not exhaustive.

Checklist and Suggested Resources