Constitutionality of filtering, etc.

[Robert J Tiess]

RE:  the "Filtering is Constitutional" thread (Parts 1 - 3)

Dear Listmembers,

As the recently posted Filtering documents seem to be an invitation to
reopen
the irreconcilable debate between pro- and anti-filterists, we should
recall what
thus far has approached confirmation across all the threads--at least
confirmation
in the sense of my own personal assessment of the court of public opinion
on the
matter of filtration and information access in a mature, advanced
society.

Below is a list (in no particular order) of "truths" I've reached on my
own as to
the Great Filtering Debate.  I recognize in advance there will be
disagreements,
so, as to preserve emotions and bandwidth, I recognize you and warmly
wish
you all good fortune and speed in the quest for personal closure on this
loaded, not-so-modern issue.

And now, my "list":

	1.   No filter, past, present, or future, will be the Perfect
Filter.
	      Realizing this will advance the debate beyond the
hypotehetical,
	      philosophical rut it seems to be in.
	2.  Information providers will find a way through to you no
matter
	      what.  Count on it.
	3.  As the Internet is a global resource, regulating it via local
and
	      national laws raises global questions.
	4.  Can the Internet ever be regulated or censored to everyone's
	      taste?  No.
	5.  There will always be access complaints, either for or against
	      the filtering.
	6.  The anti-filterists (myself included) will not likely be
swayed
	      by any further testimony on the subject.
	7.  Mostly all pro-filterists mean well and promote this
technology
	      as a means to protect the public from unsavory data.
	8.  The public has expressed feeling both for and against
filtering.
	9.  Some libraries will filter, most will not.
	10. There will be pressure in some institutions to filter, and
there
	      will be civil disobedience.
	11.  Filtering is a personal matter.  What you do or do not want
	      filtered may not be true of the next person.
	12. Filtering, implemented on a wide, public scale is certain to
	      draw both praise and criticism.
	13. Some institutions will filter out of necessity, because they
are
	      not prepared, for whatever reason, to absorb the Internet
in
	      its entirety.
	14. Some institutions will filter to limit the scope of specific
	      workstations to particular sites or information services. 
These
	      same institutions may, on the other hand, offer unfiltered
	      Internet access through other public terminals.
	15. An institution may perceive filtering as a service to the
public.
	16. Filtering blocks information, and many pro-filterists agree
some
	      of that information should not be blocked.
	17. The Internet is a democratic medium.
	18. No one owns the Internet.
	19. Public funding of public institutions is not an excuse for
filtering.
	      Tax payers may be for or against filtering.
	20. Liability is a real concern.  Filters can fail.
	21.  No filter will ever be able to interpret the appropriateness
of an
	       unlabelled graphic (i.e. gif or jpg).  Artificial
intelligence will never
	       reach that point in our lifetimes.
	22. That "inappropriate data," graphical or textual, could ever
get
	       through the best of filters makes liability a legitimate
issue.
	23. Many pro-filterists are not librarians or in a position of
	       disseminating information publically.
	24. Many anti-filterists perceive filtering as censoring.
	25. The Internet will not flourish in a censored environment.
	26. There is a BACK button or feature on every browser out there;
	        if one encounters potentially undesirable data, one can
click
	        back button or press the left cursor in Lynx.
	27.  The Internet is like a television in the sense that you can
change
	        the channel.  You are not required to wait for the
objectable JPG
	        or GIF to load.
	27A.  One visits a web site.   In spite of "push" technology,
general web site
	        access has not changed, and undesirable web sites do not
come to
	        you.  Links and banners, perhaps, but not the sites
themselves.
	28.  ISPs are pressuring and cracking down upon information
providers
	        of controversial data.
	29.  Search engines have indexed the Internet in manners that may
lead
	         to potentially undesirable search results.  However, you
still must
	        click on a link to get somewhere.
	30.  Search engines are not responsible for what may or may not
be at
	        any site indexed, as web sites change content long after
their sites are
	        indexed or their URL(s) are added to an index.
	31.   Using advanced search features and constructing better
searches
	        (i.e. using more limiting and precise search terms and
phrases) will
	        reduce, perhaps even eliminate the likelihood of having
any
	        potentially objectionable sites listed in the search
results.
	32.  Failure to learn the advanced features of any search engine
will
	        increase the likelihood of receiving site URLs
potentially leading
	        to unwanted data.
	33.  Patrons may have legitimate reasons for viewing content that
	        be considered objectionable by others (e.g. medical
research).
	34.  Patrons usually enter a library or go onto the Internet
wanting to
	        find something specific.
	35.  Some patrons out there consciously, willifully seek out and
view
	        material others may consider objectionable.
	36.  Some patrons want to reserve the right to view anything on
the
	        Internet, even though they themselves may not wish to
view the
	        material potentially in question.
	37.  Most people exercise common sense, the original filter, and
will
	        leave a site if it contains content they sense might be
immoral.
	38.  Some patrons accidentally stumble into "bad websites."
	39.  Many web sites of potentially objectionable material offer
access
	        only after registration, the entry of a credit card
number ($), or
	        after age verification.
	40.  Some patrons may misrepresent their ages to access adult
	        matieral.
	41.  Parents should be the primary filters of information for
their
	       children.
	42.  Parents should impart values and teachings to reinforce
their
	        sense of any given information's "appropriateness," so
the child,
	        on her or his own, could make the "right" choice,
whatever that is.
	42B.  No agency, statute, or artificial software filtration can
or should
	        be considered a substitute for parental guidance, nor
should such
	        forementioned measures and devices be construed by
parents as
	        a foolproof means to protect their children from "bad
data."
	42C.  Good up-bringing accounts for a lot.
	43.  Some parents don't care, don't know of the Internet or that
their
	        children may have access to it.
	43B.  Parents should take the time to familiarize themselves with
	        cyberspace so they can intelligently discuss the matter
with their
	        children.
	43C.  Parents claiming they have no time or desire to do so
should
	        not expect other legal or public entities to fill the gap
and take their
	        parental places as Primary Educators.
	44.  Public education concerning the Internet should be a high
priority
	        for any institution offering Internet access.  Giving the
keys to the
	        car to someone not knowing how to drive is
unconscionable.
	        Freely available public instruction and intructional
materials is key.
	45.  Librarians develop print collections within the constraints
of
	        budgets and have not generally, in historic retrospect,
sought to
	        make potentially harmful material available to the
public.
	46.  Librarians were not and are not the primary architects or
consultants
	        for the Internet, and, as such, resources have not been
adequately
	        labelled and catalogued.  That they should be asked,
after the
	        Internet's establishment, to account for or limit access
to the vast
	        amount of multilingual resources out there now is
unthinkable.
	47.  Librarians can and do develop electronic resource
collections, such
	        as links to good sources of information.  Doing so
reduces the
	        likelihood of a patron encountering potentially
questionable material.
	48.  Any library contemplating public Internet access would do
well to take
	        the time to train staff and develop link lists to guide
patrons to
	        the information requested.
	49.  Filter implementation, either through software, hardware, or
	        administrative policy, costs money.
	50.  It's economically unsound to expect libraries to install
filters and
	        to hire additional staff members to implement the level
of filtering
	        needed to ensure every possible instance of encountering
undesirable
	        data is avoided.
	51.   In a true democracy, filtering should occur at the level of
demos, the
	        people; they alone, person by person, should decide what
is acceptable
	        for themselves and their family members.
	52.  The Internet will continue to change into the forseeable
future.
	        Information sources will rise and fall, and there will
always be
	         intepretations as to the validity and appropriateness of
that data,
	        even with the filters in place.
	53.  Filtering is subjective.
	54.  There is no hypothetical end to filtering.  Something will
always
	        disturb someone out there.
	55.  The Internet and World Wide Web is not, all media
considered, a
	        medium suited for easy filtering technology
implementations.
	        Keyword-blocking, while shown to be effective, is not a
panacea.
	56.  Censorship is filtration.
	56A.  Censorship is a natural response to human expression.
	56B.  Those who want and have a right to be heard will be heard.
	56C.  Those who want and have a right to be seen will be seen.
	56D.  Those who want and have a right access will have access.
	56E.   Filtration is censorship.
	56F.   If information is concluded to be righfully blocked, it
must be
	        done so for the "protection" of people, not personal
agendas.
	56G.  There will be challenges to blockage, and future debates.
	56H.  Anti-filterists want to protect people as much as
pro-filterists--
	        the rights of people to provide and/or access
information.
	56I.  Information providers have rights too.
	57.  As long as the threat of free speech being abridged is
present,
	        filtering will be an issue of Constitutional proportions.
	58.  There is surely to be landmark legislation the pro- and
anti-filterists
	        will challenge.
	59.  No single legislative move will revive, not resolve, the
filtering debate.
	60.  The Supreme Court must rule according to the Constitution.
	61.   There are other constitutions beside our own.
	62.  We live in a global information society.  As the issue is
global in
	        scope, we must also perceive it in that context, not
merely the effect
	        of any given data, textual or graphical, on a particular
section of
	        our own society.
	63.  Both the pro- and anti-filterists make compelling arguments.
	64.  Some will covert.  Some filterists will become
anti-filterists, and vice
	        versa.
	65.  We would probably do well to invest the energy otherwise
spent on
	        debating To Filter or Not to Filter on developing,
cultivating, and
	        linking to sites containing information we all could use
and benefit
	        from.
	

Just a few, random personal thoughts on the matter.

Peace,
RJT