# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the school district has introduced the new technology of Apple iPads and has made it readily available to students throughout the district, there have been internet filter issues hindering the potential benefit of the iPads. With new tech comes new obstacles, and a common issue for many students is the inability to access credible websites and resources on their iPads. With filters on Google searches and unknown sites, students have voiced their concerns with the excessive filters, while many parents are asking for even more.

A fresh wave of complaints from concerned parent Monty Sullivan has increased censorship, leading to the blocking of inoffensive and extremely useful websites like the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Psychiatric Association, and even Kidshealth.org, a website that provides information on menstruation. Students now cannot access information about suicide prevention or even their own bodies. The district has determined that this content is inappropriate, raising the question of why these topics are considered offensive.

Sullivan, father of two elementary school children and two middle school children, complained that students using creative search terms can still access inappropriate material. At a recent board meeting, he proved that pornographic material can still be accessed by holding up explicit pictures on a school-issued iPad. He continued to describe the obscene pictures after the board asked him to put the device away.

"The filter is not working properly. I've lost my patience," said Sullivan in an interview with the Argus-Courier.

At the same meeting, one student spoke up regarding the blocking of search terms such as "rape culture." As a survivor of rape herself, senior Sarah Stypa has been raising awareness about rape culture, and has dedicated her senior project to it. Stypa expressed her concern over the censorship of the search term at the board meeting on March 8.

"I am extremely concerned and offended by the school filter; to block such a term is not only degrading to the awareness I have been trying to raise, but also an inconvenience to students. This is real life, and we are in charge of teaching kids about what the world can be like, and how we can change it to create a better, truly safer environment. I can acknowledge the legal aspects of the filters, and there are good intentions within it; however, we are covering up the problem, rather than addressing it," said Stypa.

Senior Lacey Gallagher agreed with Stypa.

"The filters are a bandaid to this problem. The filters aren't fixing the issue. Obviously if you go looking for trouble, you're going to find it, so what needs to happen is that the parents or the teachers need to teach [children] that they shouldn't be looking up these things that are inappropriate," said Gallagher.

The Children's Internet Protection Act stipulates that schools only receive E-rate funding if their protections block access to pictures that are obscene, child pornography, harmful to minors, or otherwise inappropriate according to community standards. Additionally, schools must monitor the online activities of minors and provide education about appropriate online behavior.

Yet many, including Sullivan, have argued that high schoolers and lower-level students should not be equally filtered.

"I believe that the filter level should vary according to a student's grade level, so that more restrictive filters apply to younger students, and more permissive filters apply to older students. This is, however, solely a matter for the school board to decide," said Sullivan.

Teachers and students alike have become frustrated with the filters. Teacher websites, such as math teacher Melinda Maderious' Weebly website, have been blocked and classified as "adult." Librarian Nathan Libecap discusses the issue further: "For instructors and teachers it has definitely been frustrating, because you don't really know what's blocked and what isn't blocked. As teachers, sources that are open to us may not be available to students, so when lesson planning we may use resources and students can't access it. It has happened to me, and I'm sure it has happened to other teachers. Educators would ideally want open internet; the problem is that students have district devices that the district is in charge of, and are in charge of what is accessed," said Libecap

In light of the grievances students and teachers have with the filters, seniors Sahara Sommer and Erin Murphy have developed a plan for lowering restrictions, beginning at a simple online form and eventually working its way up to the school board.

"The Supreme Court said that minors could ask for sites to be unblocked if they did not fit within the definition of unprotected speech. The school has put millions of dollars into getting these iPads, but the students have seen with these filters that they have a very limited use to them," said Sommer.

Currently, if students want to get a site unblocked, they must go to teachers, who can request for certain websites and search terms to be unblocked. Sommer and Murphy's proposal includes a Google form that would allow students to directly petition for a website to be unblocked. The next step would be to place this form on the school website. Sommer and Murphy have even contacted educational lawyers and a lawyer specializing in Internet concerns to ask for their input.

The fact that students are now developing their own alternative methods shows just how eager many are for the filters to be reevaluated. The filtering has become so extensive that even websites like Amazon are blocked. Although students cannot see explicit images simply by visiting the website, by specifically searching for X-rated videos, students can supposedly see inappropriate content. However, this is more reflective of parenting style than technology. It is the parents' job to monitor their children's Internet use, and it is the district's duty to educate students about appropriate online behavior. While H.I. classes are now discussing Internet behavior, further steps need to be taken in lower level schools to educate children. The problem lies in the education of students, rather than the advent of new technology.

The benefits of the iPads are outweighed by the detractors of the filters. High schoolers, a quarter of whom will soon be legal adults, clearly don't require the same amount of censorship as a kindergartner, and it's far past time for the school board members to understand this.

(Holly Keaton and Vanessa Lopez Salinas are students at Casa Grande High School. This story originally appeared in the Casa Grande Gazette.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There are two sides to internet filter debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the school district has introduced the new technology of Apple iPads and has made it readily available to students throughout the district, there have been internet filter issues hindering the potential benefit of the iPads. With new tech comes new obstacles, and a common issue for many students is the inability to access credible websites and resources on their iPads.

# data[].attributes.headline
Having Unfiltered Access to the Internet Encourages Better Digital Citizens

# data[].attributes.subject
Having Unfiltered Access to the Internet Encourages Better Digital Citizens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most people think of censorship in terms of books and other forms of print media. Many are already familiar with the American Library Association's Banned Books Week, which celebrates the freedom to read and draws attention to efforts to ban books across the country, from traditionally controversial works like Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence to more modern classics like J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. But, like everything else in our digital age, technology has transformed the debate. September 28, 2011 marked the first annual Banned Websites Awareness Day, organized by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) as an offshoot of Banned Books Week to highlight the harmful effects of censorship in schools. The AASL argues that Internet filters in schools are overly restrictive and may actually impede students' abilities to access legitimate educational information. Students increasingly rely on the Internet instead of traditional print sources for their research and study needs, and schools have tried to accommodate this shift by embracing new technology.
Banned Websites Awareness Day
Schools and libraries across the country took part in various campaigns to commemorate the first Banned Websites Awareness Day on September 28. The New York Times reported that one Colorado high school that held a "graffiti debate" on Internet filtering, while students and teachers in the Bronx sent emails to the Department of Education to protest the blocking of blogs and social media sites. Another school in Connecticut cut off access to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for the day to show solidarity with students who lacked more open access. For their part, the ACLU released a report called "Don't Filter Me" on the excessive filtering of sites that contain information on LGBT issues, even when those sites are not sexually explicit.
What's the Harm?
Many parents and educators are concerned that allowing students unfettered access to all the information on the Internet may do more harm than good. Advocates of Internet filtering in schools raise a number of very real concerns. Teachers frequently argue that open Internet access is a distraction in the classroom, with students browsing Facebook and Twitter instead of paying attention to the material. Others worry about children accessing obscene or pornographic material online.

Perhaps most troubling is the role the Internet has come to play in bullying and harassment, highlighted by the series of high-profile suicides in the last few years. For example, thirteen year-old Megan Meier committed suicide in 2006 after a classmate and the classmate's mother created a fake MySpace account and posted hurtful messages. Just last month, a gay fourteen year-old boy, Jamey Rodemeyer, who had been tormented for the past 12 months by cyberbullies, killed himself coincidentally on the eve of the National Anti-Bullying Summit.* Advocates of Internet filters argue that blocking access to social media sites in schools could help prevent tragedies like these by setting the parameters for appropriate behaviors in school.
Introducing CIPA
Congressional efforts to address these concerns have often been hampered by the First Amendment's protection of free speech. In the late 1990s, legislators passed the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, to limit children's exposure to child pornography and explicit content online. The Supreme Court struck down both of these laws as unconstitutional limitations on free speech. Then, in 2000, President Clinton signed the Children's Internet Protection Act ("CIPA") into law. CIPA achieves its goals, and circumvents the 1 st Amendment, by attaching conditions to the universal service fund discounts (also called "E-rate discounts") used by schools and libraries to purchase telecommunications and Internet services. The law requires K-12 schools and libraries using E-Rate discounts to operate "a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are (I) obscene, (II) child pornography, or (III) harmful to minors." Each school or library to which CIPA applies must have an Internet safety policy in place to screen or block "inappropriate material" that may not be accessed by minors. Such filtering technology must be employed "during any use of such computers by minors."

In some instances, CIPA explicitly defines the type of content that must be filtered. For example, the act defines material that is "harmful to minors" as: "any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that - (i) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; (ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suit able for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and (iii) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors." However, In other instances, the statute provides for broad discretion at the local level. For example, it provides that "a determination regarding what matter is inappropriate for minors shall be made by the school board, local educational agency, library, or other United States authority responsible for making the determination. No agency or instrumentality of the Government may - (a) establish criteria for making such determination; (b) review agency determination made by the certifying school, school board, local educational agency, library, or other authority; or (c) consider the criteria employed by the certifying school, school board, educational agency, library, or other authority in the administration" of the act. CIPA dictates what is "harmful" to minors, but not what is "inappropriate." Thus, the extent of Internet filtering remains discretionary.

The American Library Association (ALA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) were quick to challenge CIPA, on the grounds that the law required libraries to unconstitutionally block access to constitutionally protected information on the Internet. They argued that no filtering technology was sophisticated enough to differentiate between constitutionally protected speech and illegal speech on the Internet. A three judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed, noting that "in view of the severe limitations of filtering technology and the existence of these less restrictive alternatives [including making filtering software optional or supervising users directly], we conclude that it is not possible for a public library to comply with CIPA without blocking a very substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment."

On appeal, however, the Supreme Court upheld the law as a constitutional condition imposed in exchange for government funding. In United States v. American Library Association, Inc., 539 U.S. 194 (2003), Chief Justice William Rehnquist concluded that it was reasonable, given the quantity of material on the Internet and the library's traditional role in identifying material suitable for inclusion, for a library to exclude certain categories of content, even though filtering software tended to erroneously block some constitutionally protected speech outside the categories intended to be blocked. If a patron encountered a blocked site, he or she could always ask a librarian to unblock it or, at least in the case of adults, disable the filter. Furthermore, the federal assistance programs were intended to help public libraries fulfill their traditional role of obtaining quality materials for educational and informational purposes. Therefore, Congress could validly insist that these public funds be spent for the purposes for which they were authorized.
CIPA Impacting Student Development
Despite this ruling, many remain critical of CIPA's broad implementation in schools and libraries. The law does nothing to prohibit additional filtering that blocks Internet access beyond what its terms require. According to the American Association of School Librarians, "Students must develop skills to evaluate information from all types of sources in multiple formats, including the Internet. Relying solely on filters does not teach young citizens how to be savvy searchers or how to evaluate the accuracy of information." Promoting free access to information is also essential to the development of young American citizens. Critics point out that the Internet can serve as a valuable tool to enhance students' educational experience. Social networking sites may foster collaboration on group projects for class and participation in extracurricular activities.

Further, the Internet and social media are playing an increasing role in shaping global affairs, particularly in light of the uprising of the Arab Spring in countries like Egypt. On the other hand, advocates of filtering may well point to the YouTube videos of Anwar Al-Awlaki to support their argument that the Internet can do just as much harm as good. Thus, as a simple Internet search will reveal, the debate over Internet filtering continues as students, teachers, and the rest of the world increasingly rely on online resources.
*For more on cyberbullying, be sure to read this month's "From the Desk of the Editor" feature.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Debate on Internet Censorship in Public Schools - Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most people think of censorship in terms of books and other forms of print media. Many are already familiar with the American Library Association's Banned Books Week, which celebrates the freedom to read and draws attention to efforts to ban books across the country, from...

# data[].attributes.headline
Internet Filtering at Schools is Problematic

# data[].attributes.subject
Internet Filtering at Schools is Problematic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Zealously blocking their access to certain websites can end up undermining learning.

Giving all children access to the Internet and computing became a rallying cry for educators and elected leaders in the 1990s. In March 1996, President Clinton and Vice President Gore led 20,000 volunteers in a one-day effort to connect thousands of California public schools to the " brave new world of mouse clicking and web surfing." Yet that brave new world remains unconquered for many students and schools, especially in rural and high-poverty communities. Some have coined the term " digital redlining " to describe how advanced technology has been deliberately denied from certain areas based on geography as well as the race, ethnicity, and income of residents.

In the intervening years, the spotlight has pivoted to the so-called " connectivity gap"-which hurts schools without high-speed Internet connections-and the homework gap-which hurts students unable to access wireless and broadband connections from home. And like his predecessor, the president is using his bully pulpit to push for change. In 2013, the Obama administration launched the ConnectED initiative with the goal to connect 99 percent of schools to broadband Internet in five years; it also unveiled ConnectHome last year as a pilot project to bring high-speed broadband to over 275,000 low-income households in 27 communities, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Oklahoma's Choctaw Tribal Nation.

Still, even as supporters work to promote equitable access through connectivity, deep-rooted disparities linger. And a more nuanced digital divide seems to have surfaced, thanks to the pernicious practice by school districts of overzealous Internet censorship on in-school computer networks and on school-issued laptops and tablets that are carried home with students. In turn, educators, academics, and advocacy groups have renewed calls to revisit school Internet policies, which, despite some progress, continue to deprive children from becoming knowledgeable digital consumers-with the hardest hit apparently being the most disadvantaged students.
"Ultimately they live in an unfiltered world."
At the core of the ongoing debate is a law passed by Congress in 2000 that mandates all public libraries and schools that receive federal funds for Internet access install blocking software. The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) specifically requires schools and libraries to block or filter Internet access to pictures and material that are "obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors" on computers that are used by students under 17 years of age. The fundamental question has been how schools are interpreting the law-and whether districts are acting in the best interests of children or simply functioning as online overlords.

"If you were to take one word that has driven the use of technology in education over the last two decades, [it's] safety," said Keith Krueger, the CEO of the Consortium for School Networking, a professional group for school-district technology directors. According to Krueger, safety is typically policymakers' and administrators' primary concern when it comes to technology in education.

The ACLU elevated another concern in 2011 when the national organization and its regional chapters in several states issued letters demanding public high schools remove web-filtering software that blocked items related to LGBT issues and support groups for LGBT youth. The ACLU discovered from students that web filters were routinely blocking access to groups such as GLSEN and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, along with LGBT anti-bullying resources like It Gets Better and the National Day of Silence. Joshua Block, the senior staff attorney for ACLU's LGBT Project, credits the organization's campaign, " Don't Filter Me," with changing minds and policies.

A separate LGBT category was eliminated in the filtering software that major companies sell to schools, Block said, and websites with resources for LGBT people are no longer sorted out. He notes that some problems with censorship persist, but not to the same degree. Krueger, representing school technology officers, said the key is balancing safety and access. "Without question, students need to become digitally literate (having the knowledge and ability to use information and technology for varied purposes) because ultimately they live in an unfiltered world. School systems need to ensure that we create a safe environment [but] if we believe any technical solution like filtering will keep us totally safe, that is misplaced."

This common-sense viewpoint, however, has yet to trickle down to many schools, where over-filtering-filtering beyond the requirements of CIPA-is common. One of the most ardent and active opponents of over-filtering to date has been the American Library Association, which for many years has championed the need to protect students' access to "legal, constitutionally protected information that is necessary for their school studies [and] personal well-being," said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the deputy director for ALA's office for intellectual freedom. Stone said in some cases, the problem is as simple as school staff failing to adjust the pre-set maximum settings on filtering software, though much of the difficulty resides with school personnel who misunderstand the federal law and the requirements necessary to be in compliance. As an example, she said both the Federal Communications Commission and representatives from the Department of Education have issued guidance stating that Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms do not need to be filtered, but school districts often block these websites "on the grounds that students might access content barred by CIPA."

Maria Salmeron, a junior at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School just outside Washington, D.C., uses Facebook in student organizing as a leader in the Minority Scholars Program, a youth-led group working to increase the academic success of students of color in Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools. Up until this school year, the district blocked Facebook, effectively cutting Salmeron off from a critical mobilization tool. "Facebook is one of the sites that connects you with everyone the most ... it's kept me in contact with people and groups from all over the world," she said.

Likewise, Caldwell-Stone points to contradictions: students in AP biology classes blocked from accessing information needed to prepare for the AP exam; debate-team members unable to research controversial topics on school computers; and filters that routinely block websites for the National Organization for Women, the Quakers, and other "perfectly innocuous, legal, and informative content." The ALA report " Fencing Out Knowledge"-an analysis of CIPA 10 years after its enactment-found that schools' overreach with filtering software was putting children's education at risk, particularly children in poverty who depend on school-provided Internet access the most. "Other children are likely to have unfiltered internet access at home or through their own mobile devices," ALA wrote.

This finding is confirmed by anecdotal and empirical evidence. In Maine, Portland Public Schools in April 2012 installed filters on high-school students' school-issued laptops that banned access to social networks, games, and video-streaming sites. At the time, Portland was among the first districts in the state to authorize such stringent filtering on take-home school devices. As the Press Herald reported, Portland High School students had very different responses to the new policy, based on their access to another computer at home: "...those from middle-class families expressed various degrees of annoyance when told of the new filtering measures. A group of immigrant students reacted with anger."

New research released this past February echoes these students' sentiments. A team from Sesame Workshop's Joan Ganz Cooney Center, a nonprofit research lab, and Rutgers University conducted interviews on digital equity with 170 Mexican-heritage parents and children in three states-California, Colorado, and Arizona. All of the youngsters were enrolled in high-poverty school districts. Vikki Katz, an associate professor of communication at Rutgers and the study's co-author, said school-supplied laptops were usually not the only digital device in these families' homes, but emphasized that "the poorest families are least likely to have other devices. Districts filtering content means that those children and families don't get the same Internet as their more privileged counterparts."
"We sometimes think too much about the content that we block, and we ... limit their opportunities to succeed, explore their passions, and discover their strengths and talents."
What's more, in-depth conversations with the families revealed that districts blocked YouTube at school, as well as on school-supplied devices, because some content was deemed inappropriate. And the consequences were steep. "Parents and children depended on YouTube to support homework time, including tutorials to solve math problems and to learn more about historical characters. The problem is that these platforms are multi-use, and those uses change too quickly for district [filtering] policies to easily keep up."

This opinion is shared by Mary Beth Hertz, the art/tech teacher and technology coordinator at Science Leadership Academy at Beeber, a public high school in West Philadelphia. In her role as a technology teacher leader, Hertz has watched the district's filtering process evolve since 2006, with teachers now able to request that sites be unblocked and requests "reviewed by actual human beings instead of an algorithm." Hertz said what many districts get wrong is listening too closely to lawyers. CIPA leaves a lot of room for interpretation, she said, and some districts opt to choose a strict interpretation to protect themselves rather than engage families, parents, teachers, and students in these digital-access decisions. "We should be blocking what the law requires, but unfortunately the phrase 'harmful to minors' to some districts means everything and anything that could offend or embarrass kids and their families," Hertz said, adding that blocking content doesn't teach kids how to "effectively, respectfully, and responsibly use the Internet."

At the start of each school year Hertz asks her freshmen "Is the Internet a basic right?"-eliciting responses from a dismissive "no" to an enthusiastic "yes" and prompting comparisons to China, where access to the Internet is restricted. A room of 14-year-olds is able to grasp what some school leaders seem to overlook.

"They understand that this connection is not a life-or-death situation, but that it affords opportunity. They also have a basic understanding of oppression and the idea that limiting access to the Internet limits people from opportunity," said Hertz. "We sometimes think too much about the content that we block, and we forget [that] when we cut kids off [from social media] we limit their opportunities to succeed, explore their passions, and discover their strengths and talents."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Problem With Filtering Kids' Internet Access at School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zealously blocking their access to certain websites can end up undermining learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A conversation with middle school technology coordinator, Kevin Erlinger, about how web filters affect schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
Filtering in Schools is a Form of Censorship

# data[].attributes.subject
Filtering in Schools is a Form of Censorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nat wrote, "It's censorship, plain and simple, when you can't access more than a handful of news sites and some purely educational, not opinion-based sites."

Most students agreed with that sentiment.

Gheff wrote: "Just recently I was doing a project on Super Smash Bros. and its history for web design. I could not even get to the REAL website which gives information from the creator and what will happen next with the game. For this I had to change my topic to something I was not really wanting to learn more on."

Olivia added, "The other day I was researching birth control for my health class and it took me way longer than it should have to complete my essay because the web filter wouldn't let me open any websites including Planned Parenthood."

Tyler wrote, "It's too much when I can't even go on an informal website talking about breast cancer or sexual abuse because they have the words 'breast' or 'sexual'."

In a statement about Banned Websites Awareness Day, the American Association of School Librarians, a division of the American Library Association, includes the following background:

Usually the public thinks of censorship in relation to books, however there is a growing censorship issue in schools and school libraries - overly restrictive filtering of educational websites reaching far beyond the requirements of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Students, teachers, and school librarians in many schools are frustrated daily when they discover legitimate educational websites blocked by filtering software installed by their school.

Filtering websites does the next generation of digital citizens a disservice. Students must develop skills to evaluate information from all types of sources in multiple formats, including the Internet. Relying solely on filters does not teach young citizens how to be savvy searchers or how to evaluate the accuracy of information.

Over extensive filtering also extends to the use of online social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Blogger, etc. In order to make school more relevant to students and enhance their learning experiences, educators need to be able to incorporate those same social interactions that are successful outside of school into authentic assignments in the school setting. Unfortunately, filters implemented by school districts also block many of the social networking sites.

Students: We want to hear what you think. Tell us:

- What internet sites are blocked in your school and why?

- How have web filters affected teaching and learning at your school? How have they affected your experience as a student?

- Do you agree with the American Library Association that overly restrictive filtering of educational websites "does the next generation of digital citizens a disservice"? Why? If so, what would you say to your principal or school board if asked to argue for making your school's filters less restrictive?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are the Web Filters at Your School Too Restrictive?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nat wrote, "It's censorship, plain and simple, when you can't access more than a handful of news sites and some purely educational, not opinion-based sites." Most students agreed with that sentiment. Gheff wrote: "Just recently I was doing a project on Super Smash Bros. and its history for web design.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW CANEY, TX (KTRK) -- When Shannan Martinez got a call from her daughter's elementary school computer teacher, she was worried. Now, she's angry.

The class of second graders had an assignment to find an online image associated with each letter of their first names.

"That was a disaster waiting to happen," said Martinez.

When Martinez's seven-year-old came to the letter "N," trouble hit.

"She thought of [the word] 'nasty' -- and she was thinking maybe I can find some squashed bug pictures," said Martinez. "But she didn't type 'squashed bug pictures', she typed 'nasty'."

You can imagine what popped up. The computer teacher saw the images and wrote up the little girl. Martinez inquired about the Internet filters at school.

"They said sometimes they don't work so good," said Martinez. "I expect a guarantee that my daughter isn't going to be subjected to inappropriate content."

The school district issued a statement, reading in part: "New Caney ISD has taken all steps to ensure that we are compliant with the Child Internet Protection Act. We make every attempt to prevent students from seeing inappropriate things on the Internet, but if an accident occurs, students are taught to inform their teacher immediately."

To Martinez, that's not good enough.

"It means that sometimes they're exposed to inappropriate content," she said.

Martinez wants enhanced filters and doesn't think her daughter should be punished.

"She's very confused, she doesn't understand what happened." null

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School's internet filters not good enough, mother says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEW CANEY, TX (KTRK) -- When Shannan Martinez got a call from her daughter's elementary school computer teacher, she was worried. Now, she's angry. The class of second graders had an assignment to find an online image associated with each letter of their first names. "That was a disaster waiting to happen," said Martinez.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Students don't surrender their First Amendment rights when they log onto a school library computer"

# data[].attributes.subject
"Students don't surrender their First Amendment rights when they log onto a school library computer"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Commentary

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 30 years ago that public schools cannot engage in viewpoint-based censorship of library books. Schools can keep books off the shelves if they are poorly written or inappropriate for a particular age group, but they cannot limit access to Harry Potter books out of a concern they glorify witchcraft, or remove Kurt Vonnegut novels because they perceive the books to be anti-American, the court held in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico.

That also means that if a library includes novels about star-crossed teenagers in love, it can't selectively remove similar novels about gay and lesbian teenage romance. If an elementary school library includes children's books designed to teach kids about family relationships, it can't remove similar books discussing families with same-sex parents.

Technology may have changed since that ruling, but the law has not. Schools cannot block access to information on the Internet any more than they can engage in viewpoint-based discrimination toward the books on the shelves.

We at the American Civil Liberties Union launched the "Don't Filter Me" campaign last year after receiving a disturbing number of reports from students who were blocked from accessing websites about college scholarships for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teenagers; anti-bullying resources; and activities for student-led gay-straight alliances. In response to the campaign, reports flooded in from students across the country whose schools were using filtering software configured to block LGBT-supportive websites. When activated, the filter would block websites that expressed support for LGBT people and their legal rights, but allow access to websites that condemn homosexuality as immoral or oppose laws protecting LGBT people from bullying and discrimination.

For students, the stigmatizing effect of these filters is not just an abstract First Amendment issue. At a time when bullying and suicide among LGBT youths is all too prevalent, blocking certain websites deprives students of access to anti-bullying resources, suicide hotlines, and religious organizations that help students and families. This is especially relevant to students in crisis who may not feel safe accessing such sites from their home computers. By blocking these sites, or requiring students to ask for special permission for access, schools send a message that being gay, bisexual, or transgender is dirty or shameful.

Even when a school allows students to ask for a censored site to be unblocked on a case-by-case basis, discriminatory filters still impede the free flow of information by placing special burdens on particular viewpoints, and they violate a students' privacy by requiring them to disclose the nature of their searches to school officials. If students suspect that a staff person disapproves of their research, or if students wish to seek support online without outing themselves, policies like these may discourage them from accessing the information they need.

Over the course of the Don't Filter Me campaign, we found that many schools mistakenly thought their filters were designed to block pornography, not knowing they were blocking nonsexual LGBT websites as well because they were overinclusive. These schools were surprised to discover that their filters were designed specifically to identify nonsexual content, and that actual pornographic or sexual content was covered by completely different filtering categories. Once they realized the filters played no role in blocking actual pornography, the vast majority of schools agreed the filters served no educational purpose and promptly disabled them.

Based on these experiences, we reached out to the software companies that designed the filters and pushed them to take responsibility for viewpoint-based censorship caused by their products. Several companies agreed to eliminate their LGBT categories and placed nonsexual LGBT websites in neutral categories such as social science, history, or other appropriate areas. Unfortunately, some businesses left the filter parameters unchanged, but agreed to issue public statements and enhanced customer guidance to make clear that websites identified in LGBT filters categories are nonsexual and should not be blocked by schools.

But even though the software companies have helped address problems, school districts bear the ultimate responsibility for school-based Web filtering. One district-Camdenton R-III in central Missouri-learned that lesson the hard way after arguing that disabling its software program's filter for "sexuality" would allow students access to sexually explicit sites. We suggested alternative filtering systems that would block adult content while allowing students to access nonsexual sites, but district officials were unresponsive, so the American Civil Liberties Union sued.

In February, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted a preliminary injunction blocking the use of Camdenton's Internet filter and finding in PFLAG v. Camdenton R-III School District that students don't surrender their First Amendment rights when they log onto a school library computer. The federal court made clear that when a school district intentionally uses a discriminatory filter, it is engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

The federal district court's groundbreaking decision in the Camdenton case should be a warning to school districts. As technology changes, schools must be aware that all outposts in the marketplace of ideas should be open to students, whether on the bookshelves or the Internet. They must adhere to the same standards of viewpoint neutrality that apply anywhere else in a school library.

Published in Print: May 16, 2012, as The Legal Cost of Improper Internet Censorship

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Legal Cost of Improper Internet Censorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Commentary The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 30 years ago that public schools cannot engage in viewpoint-based censorship of library books.

# data[].attributes.headline
Our Stance: Pro Filtering in Middle School but Against Filtering in High School

# data[].attributes.subject
Our Stance: Pro Filtering in Middle School but Against Filtering in High School

# data[].attributes.body
Filtering is a positive force in middle schools but is a negative in high schools. At the middle school level, it is keeping them safe from possibly negative and harmful images or videos. However, at the high school level, filtering limits access to a lot of important resources. For example, it limits access to LGBTQ support systems that students might not have or be able to use at home. It also limits access to mental health resources for those students that are struggling. From an academic standpoint, filtering hurts students who are actively researching topics that may be approved by the teacher but not approved by the filtering system. This forces the student to research at home which is not possible for all students, especially those who do not have access to technology outside of school. As a whole, filtering doesn’t allow students to learn how to use the internet effectively, safely, and responsibly. It stops them from becoming good ‘digital citizens’ because they do not have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Schools Block Websites and You Should Too

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Schools Block Websites and You Should Too

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A school's most important job, along with educating your kids, is protecting them while they are there. Which is why many schools choose to filter Internet content, by blocking certain websites and shielding students from harmful content.

With an endless supply of new websites, it can be difficult to keep up with the ones you'll want to have blocked, but parental control software like Net Nanny can make this task easier for parents. Net Nanny aids parents in blocking websites and filters unblocked pages in real-time to sift out content that is unsuitable for your children.

For parents, knowing how to block websites, can be an important piece of keeping your kids safe online. The Internet is packed with websites that end up being highly inappropriate for kids even when they seem innocent to begin with. Blocking these websites is the first place many parents and schools start in an effort to make the Internet safer for kids.

According to a survey by the American Association of School Librarians, 98% of the nation's schools filter the online content that's available to students. For most schools, it's a moral imperative, but then again, it's also for monetary reasons.

The federal government's E-rate program provides discounts for schools and libraries by purchasing certain communication services and products. As a condition for this federal funding, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), passed by Congress in 2000, requires that K-12 schools and libraries in the U.S. use Internet filters and implement other measures to protect children from harmful online content.

The Argument for Schools Blocking Websites

Teachers are not always around in the computer labs or study halls to police online safety. Using school Internet filtering to block pornography and websites that are inappropriate provides a level of consistent online security that is not only nice to have, but also a necessity.

There are many debates about schools being too restrictive with online boundaries and limiting students' access to research. But those criticisms are outweighed by the greater good of protecting them from harmful images and content. Without content filtering, for example, simple Google searches by students researching a subject can return obscene images in the thumbnail results- that's not what we want our kids seeing in the classroom.

At the same time, schools need to teach kids how to use the Internet responsibly, and work with parents to plant seeds for kids to learn how to be safe online as they become more independent. As they learn which websites to visit and which to avoid, the importance of awareness becomes a key factor, learned at school and home.

Years ago, there was no debate about websites that should and shouldn't be allowed in classrooms. Everyone was more concerned with which books students should be allowed to read. Now, Internet filtering is an ongoing issue, specifically between school administration, faculty and concerned parents.

According to a Project Tomorrow 2018 report, each year a greater number of students have access to devices:

91% of high school students and 79% of middle school students have access to smartphones

57% of elementary students have access to laptop and 50% report having access to a smartphone

68% of students say they have periodic access to devices during class

These numbers will continue to increase throughout the years and eventually all schools will go paperless and utilize technology in the classroom full time.

How Website Blocking Keeps Students Safe

Safety is the number one priority of school systems and this applies not only to the time kids spend in school, but also their time spent online. There are many dangers on social media that we want to protect our children from such as adult content, Internet strangers, and more.

Do we want our children exposed to mature material? Do we want our children corresponding with strangers or exposed to online predators? Are we ensuring that our child's privacy is protected? These are valid concerns that school administrators must take into account when deciding to allow students to access the Internet.

Another issue to consider is, can we guarantee that the students will make good ethical choices on social media? Some adolescents today are engaging in inappropriate and illegal behaviors on social media. Some of these acts include: sexting, hacking into networks, stealing passwords, creating fake accounts, and much more.

Many of these behaviors can lead to school suspensions, expulsions, and even criminal charges. Schools today are spending countless hours dealing with these new social media issues instead of focusing time and energy on academics and school priorities. And the question that remains is, who should be held accountable? The student who accesses the websites that are banned from school or the school for not having adequate security?

Each year more and more technology is incorporated into the classroom meaning that it is even more vital to put more effort into education and teaching responsible digital citizenship among students. Educating kids and teens on the pros and cons of social media, dangers or threats that might be found online, and other issues is a positive first step towards finding a solution.

Schools must also have policies in place, specifically geared at addressing social media, Internet and technology usage, and cyber bullying. If the policies are specific, outlining which websites and behaviors will and will not be tolerated, schools can confidently stand behind their disciplinary practices.

Why Parents Should Block Websites at Home

It only follows logically that: website blocking should be just as vigilant at home. Ideally throughout a child's development, the school, and parents work hand-in-hand to keep children safe. You might be asking, "Is it really necessary?" Take a minute to think about the vast sea of Internet content today- would you want your kids to see everything and anything that's available at such a young age?

Websites that are off-limits at school should also be out of bounds at home. In fact, the real teaching about online safety and discipline for your kids should probably start at home, with school rules reinforcing the importance of it. Using a digital family contract can be beneficial for families and parental controls, like Net Nanny, makes it easy for parents to enforce house rules for Internet use. Since Net Nanny is downloaded onto each device, your rules can travel whenever and wherever they are using the device.

Parents need to be encouraged to be educated just as much as the students. Net Nanny offers families Internet filtering and content monitoring solutions for personal devices that can be used at both home and school. Remote access and alerts and reporting mean that parents can stay up-to-date, even with everyone on-the-go. Keeping your kids safe at all times is always a priority and we must be sure to not overlook website blocking and Internet safety.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Schools Block Websites and You Should Too

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A school's most important job, along with educating your kids, is protecting them while they are there. Which is why many schools choose to filter Internet content, by blocking certain websites and shielding students from harmful content.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Internet Filters in schools and libraries

Have any of your internet searches at school ever been blocked?

That is because of a law called the Children Internet Protection Act, passed in Dec. 2000, which requires schools and libraries receiving federal e-rate funding for Internet connections to filter out certain types of objectionable online content. CIPA survived a challenge in the Supreme Court, and today schools and libraries are still required to adhere to the law.

PROBLEMS WITH CIPA:

1. Underblocks - Filters exist presumably to filter porn, yet it still manages to seep in. It is impossible to filter out so many sites, particularly when new ones are appearing every day to replace filtered ones.

2. Overblocks - Some students have found that words like "pussy willows; magna cum laude; Dick Army; also Buddhist nunnery. Hump-back whales, Titanic" are filtered.

3. Misleads - Because many filters can have overly broad categories like "sex", which includes homosexuality; "cult," which includes Paganism, wicca, these groups are marginalized.

4. Infringes upon students' free expression rights.

5. Costs needy school districts a lot of money and time to install filters and keep them updated.

6. Discriminates - Filters can create a "Digital Divide" between the haves and have-nots. Those who depend on schools and libraries for information, and do not have access to personal internet access at home, find themselves disadvantaged in the information age if their searches are being filtered.

We believe that censorship is not the solution and actually creates greater problems. The real solution is to teach children how to be media literate, to be responsible and to make educated decisions on how to participate and take advantage of the information age.

Links for more information on internet filters and CIPA
Some filtered sites may include:

Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, www.GLSEN.org, is "the leading national organization fighting to end anti-gay bias in K-12 schools. It combats the harassment and discrimination leveled against students and school personnel by creating learning environments that affirm the inherent dignity of all students, and, in so doing, teaches students to respect and accept all of their classmates- regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression."

NYCLU Teen Health Initiative, www.nyclu.org/thi, was founded to help New York State kids and teens obtain vital information about their rights to healthcare, including comprehensive reproductive healthcare.

Planned Parenthood, for news articles, resources, and free advice and legal assistance about your right to public health information, visit this abstinence-only report by Planned Parentood at their website www.plannedparenthood.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Internet Filters in schools and libraries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have any of your internet searches at school ever been blocked? That is because of a law called the Children Internet Protection Act, passed in Dec. 2000, which requires schools and libraries receiving federal e-rate funding for Internet connections to filter out certain types of objectionable online content.