# data[].attributes.body
After looking at both the pros and the cons on internet filtering, we have come to the conclusion that we are against internet filtering. The main source that convinced us of this was the article from The Atlantic. Life is not filtered. When students go out to the real world or to their friend's house, they could potentially have unlimited access. As future educators, it is our duty to provide students with the knowledge and self-efficacy it requires to be a responsible digital citizen. If we do internet filtering, it takes out all the work and learning because it will already be blocked. It is time to teach students how to effectively use the technology of today.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teachers and administrators can collaborate on flexible internet policies

# data[].attributes.subject
Teachers and administrators can collaborate on flexible internet policies

# data[].attributes.body
CIPA is the law of the land for districts who seek discounts that come with compliance, but there is freedom and opportunity at the local level of CIPA regulations. School districts can team with teachers and librarians to ensure that their adopted filters and policies are flexible and have the fewest possible restrictions on student searches and access—all while maintaining CIPA compliance.

Administrators and teachers should engage in ongoing evaluations of appropriateness that default to individual discretion when possible. If educators arm their students with internet and media literacy, they equip them to use online research in safe ways both in the classroom at at home.

https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/how-internet-filtering-affects-education/

# data[].attributes.body
Top 3 Reasons I Like the School’s Internet Filter

# 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.body
Open to public posting, so take with a grain of salt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voice your opinion on the debate of schools blocking websites such as media networking and other websites that could detrimental to minors.

# data[].attributes.body
We live in an unfiltered world... this will prepare them for the future.

# 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.readable_text
The three national television networks are already state controlled, though small circulation newspapers generally remain independent.

Just this month, a bank loyal to the president tightened its control of an independent television station and Parliament passed a new amendment to a law banning "extremism" in the media.

Prosecutors are now going after individuals who post critical comments on Web chat rooms, and Parliament is considering extending state control to Internet sites that report news, reflecting the growing importance of the Internet as the country becomes more affluent and growing numbers of middle class Russians acquire computers.

This past week, the police raided the Educated Media Foundation, a nongovernmental group sponsored by U.S. and European donors that helps foster an independent news media. That brought down a Web site run by the Glasnost Defense Fund, a media rights group, which published bulletins on violations of press freedoms.

"Russia is dropping off the list of countries that respect press freedoms," said Boris Timoshenko, a spokesman for the fund. "We have propaganda, not information."

Also Friday, officials at Russian state companies, including the chief executive of the state oil company Rosneft, canceled their speaking engagements at an economic forum in London scheduled to open Monday. The Vedomosti newspaper, citing a company employee, reported that Putin had ordered the executives to pull out of the engagement at the Queen Elizabeth II conference center. The forum is typically attended by dissident Russian businessmen living in exile in London. The Kremlin declined to comment on the report.

With this new campaign, seemingly aimed at rolling up the loose ends before an election for Parliament next autumn that is being carefully stage-managed by the Kremlin, censorship rules in Russia have reached their most restrictive since the breakup of the Soviet Union, media watchdog groups contend.

"This is not the U.S.S.R., when every print or broadcasting outlet was preliminarily censored," Masha Lipman, a researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Center, said during a telephone interview. Instead, the tactic has been to impose state ownership on media companies and replace editors with those who are supporters of Putin - or offer a generally more upbeat report on developments in Russia these days.

The new censorship rules are often passed in vaguely worded measures and decrees that are ostensibly intended to protect the public.

Late last year, for example, the prosecutor general and interior minister appeared before Parliament to ask deputies to draft legislation banning the distribution on the Web of "extremist" content - a catchphrase, critics say, for information about opponents of Putin.

On Friday, the Federal Security Service, a successor agency to the KGB, questioned Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion and opposition politician, for four hours regarding an interview he gave on the Echo of Moscow radio station. Prosecutors have accused Kasparov of expressing extremist views.

This past week, Parliament passed a law allowing up to three years imprisonment for "vandalism" motivated by politics or ideology. Once again, vandalism is interpreted broadly, rights groups say, including acts of civil disobedience

Already, listeners to the Russian News Service are grumbling about the positive news policy.

"I want fresh morning broadcasts and not to fall asleep," a listener complained in a post on the station's Web site signed: Sergei from Vladivostok. "Maybe you've tortured RSN's audience enough? There are just a few of us left. Down with the boring nonintellectual broadcasts!"

The change at Russian News Service leaves Echo of Moscow, an irreverent and edgy news channel that often provides a forum for opposition voices, as the only independent radio news outlet in Russia with national reach.

And what does Aleksei Venediktov, editor in chief of Echo of Moscow, think of the latest news from Russia?

"For Echo of Moscow, this is positive news," Venediktov said. "We are a monopoly now. From the point of view of the country, it is negative news."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The three national television networks are already state controlled, though small circulation newspapers generally remain independent. Just this month, a bank loyal to the president tightened its control of an independent television station and Parliament passed a new amendment to a law banning "extremism" in the media.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Filter Is Bad for EducationBy guest editor Ted Nellen 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Filter Is Bad for EducationBy guest editor Ted Nellen 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In My Opinion: The Filter Is Bad for Education
By guest editor Ted Nellen

Educational technology innovator Ted Nellen reacts to reports that the majority of Americans favor filtering Internet access in schools.

Recently, The New York Times reported on the results of a survey that concluded that the majority of Americans are in favor of filtering Internet access in schools. Today, Ted Nellen -- a pioneer in the field of educational technology -- voices his concerns about that survey and about the effects of filtering on education.

Do you think Internet filters are bad for education? Share your thoughts on the Education World message board.

When it comes to a discussion of filtering Internet access in schools, it seems to me that it only makes sense to include in that discussion teachers who are actually using the Internet in their classrooms. Who, after all, is more knowledgeable about a subject than those who confront it each day?

That being said, it should come as no surprise that I'm wary of a recent survey that found that most Americans support Internet filtering in schools. The survey, commissioned by the Digital Media Forum, a consortium of public interest and consumer groups concerned with issues of media policy, polled only 1,900 people, yet a New York Times article about the survey reported that "an overwhelming majority of Americans" said schools should install filters. (See Survey Finds Support for School Filters, by Rebecca S. Weiner, October 18, 2000.)

WHO SAID THAT?

Now (especially in light of the recent presidential election) I'm suspicious of both the number of people surveyed and of the conclusions reached. Operating on the premise "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see," I'd like to know a couple of things:

What did the survey say? Since the results may have an important impact on something so important to me, I'd like to see the instrument that made these claims possible. What questions were asked? Were those questions weighted to produce a particular conclusion?

Who were the respondents? In the New York Times article, Dhavan Shah, the University of Wisconsin professor who conducted the survey, is quoted as saying that he was surprised to see that those who don't use the Internet were in favor of filtering and that those who do use the Internet opposed filtering. Now that doesn't surprise me at all. What it tells me is that the 1,900 people who took part in the survey were not teachers, nor did they seem to know much about using the Internet in educational settings.

A WAY OF LIFE?

The New York Times article quotes Andy Carvin, a senior associate at the Benton Foundation Communications Policy Program, as saying, "The vast majority [of Americans] seems to accept filtering as a way of school life." I agree. Filtering is becoming a fact of life in education, but teachers accept it only because they have to; they don't have a choice. Another emerging fact of life is this:

The filter is bad for education.

I say this based on my own experiences teaching in a New York City public high school classroom that was first connected to the Internet in 1985. I taught until 2000 and, in the intervening years, used the Internet every day in my classroom. My success in using the Internet was based on non-filtered Internet access.

The filter is bad for education.

The filter doesn't behave as it is supposed to behave. In New York City, teachers have to teach AIDS lessons to 11th graders. In my unfiltered classroom, I had no problem teaching those lessons. In a filtered classroom, I was never able to teach any of the lessons because the board of education was never able to efficiently disable the filter when I needed it disabled. The plan the board had in place simply didn't work; it still doesn't work, even though the board claims it can be done. A filter cannot be disabled as easily as many filtering proponents claim, and yet as flawed as it is, the filter stays in place.

The filter is bad for education.

The filter takes away the teacher's right to decide what educational resources to use. When I conduct surveys in educational settings, the vast majority of teachers who use the Internet in their classrooms are not in favor of filters that they cannot control. The problem with the current use of filtering agents is that too few have too much control over access to information, and it's too hard to disable or adjust that control. That isn't filtering; it's censorship.

The filter is bad for education.

The filter takes away the teacher's ability to educate students about proper computer use. In education, the activity in the classroom and the teacher's supervision of that activity make inappropriate access highly unlikely. In fact, computer logs tell us that in schools with unfiltered Internet usage most inappropriate access occurs by adults after school hours. Inappropriate student access -- when it does happen -- is momentary. And yet students whose Internet access is filtered at school go home and use unfiltered, unmonitored online computers -- without the protection of having learned proper use in an educational setting.

The filter is bad for education.

The filter is an issue in public schools only. We must be aware that we're having this discussion about public schools -- not private schools, religious schools, home schools, or distance learning settings. I'm concerned that the discussion of filtering affects only public schools. Who goes to public schools and who doesn't go? This selectivity of who is filtered and who isn't screams that the filter is bad for education.

The filter is bad for education.

The filter affects only the Internet. Why is the Internet so tightly controlled while other forms of media in schools are not? We have rooms filled with textbooks that are notoriously flawed and loaded with incorrect information. We have books in our school libraries that contain hate speech, show how to make bombs, and include pornography. We have magazines and newspapers, some of which contain the same kinds of questionable material. Yet only the Internet is suspect.

Only the Internet and this latest survey, that is. I'd like to see another discussion of this topic -- one that's more open and that includes many more teachers who use the Internet in their classrooms. I'd like to see those teachers have the opportunity to present their expert views and provide evidence to support their opinions so that we might actually find the best way to employ the filter in our schools. Because the fact remains:

The current use of filters in schools is bad for education.

Ted Nellen
Education WorldÂ®
Copyright Â© 2000 Education World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In My Opinion: The Filter Is Bad for Education | Education World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In My Opinion: The Filter Is Bad for Education By guest editor Ted Nellen Educational technology innovator Ted Nellen reacts to reports that the majority of Americans favor filtering Internet access in schools. Recently, The New York Times reported on the results of a survey that concluded that the majority of Americans are in favor of filtering Internet access in schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the most popular yet controversial innovations of technology is the internet. It is a medium for self-expression and disseminating information across on a global scare. However, despite the benefits it offers millions of users, there are also setbacks that drive people and nations to push for and practice internet censorship.

What is Internet Censorship?

This is the act of banning or blocking some or all of content that can be published, viewed and accessed online. Sectors which implement this ban can include governments, private sectors and individuals with a common goal to control what people can read and post on the World Wide Web. Some countries impose direct censorship, others have stringent policies against unlawful posting online while there are countries who are somewhat lenient with videos going viral.

The contentious issue on how much information should be out there in the internet and whether there should be some sort of censorship remain to be divided between supporters and critics. Here is a look at the top pros and cons by these two opposing groups.

List of Pros of internet Censorship

1. It will keep children from being victims of sex trafficking and pornography.
Proponents of controlling content on the internet claim that innocent children who become preys of predators waiting to engage young kids in child pornography and other malicious acts that can be made possible via the internet are given protection. With this, violators will be punished and lesser children will be victims.

2. A free society should be able to set limits.
Some journalists who advocate for internet censorship maintain that even if there is freedom of speech and expression, there shouldn't be absolute freedom. If there is no censorship of any kind, some individuals can be victims of cyber bullying and racist speech which should not be the case. These practices should not be allowed in cyberspace.

3. Parents cannot be there always to watch out for their kids.
Proponents of internet censorship point out that parents have the responsibility to teach children about morality and guide them on what is good or bad but the truth is, they also have to earn a living to provide for their kids. They do not have the capacity to be on watch on most parts of the day.

4. It can control illegal activities.
Supporters claim that regulating content in the internet is an effective way to lessen if not totally deter illegal activities because it keeps people from promoting malicious content which can easily influence others, if no regulations are imposed.

5. It helps in strengthening national security.
By implementing laws against hacking and imposing hefty punishment to violators, national security can be preserved. Without any form of censorship, it will be impossible to keep bad elements and terrorists from accessing information that will pose a threat to the security of the nation.

6. It lessens the incidents of identity theft.
Advocates for internet censorship say that by limiting what information is accessed in the internet, personal information will not be easily accessed. By using anti-phishing software, which serves as a form of internet censorship since it warns the user that a kind of software is trying to get access, it gives the user the chance to keep hackers and companies from getting pertinent information.

List of Cons of Internet Censorship

1. It removes the freedom of expression and deprives people of learning the truth.
Opponents of internet censorship argue that by making this a law, freedom of the press, expression and speech is killed and is a violation of the First Amendment, which includes the prohibition of making a law that infringes freedom of the press and speech, among others. For them, censorship will be a violation of this amendment. Moreover, if people are not given the opportunity to learn the truth, this can lead to ignorance.

2. It can be used by the government to keep pertinent information from its citizens.
Critics also say that by implementing a law on internet censorship, abusive government officials will get away with their wrong practices such as abuse of power and corruption. A government leader, for example, can ban the release of videos and online content proving his or her illegal activities by imposing news blackout. They also claim that dictators can use this to only publish images and stories that will work for their personal gain and not of his or her constituents.

3. It is an added expense to the government.
People who are not in favor of censoring the internet argue that in order to implement censorship and ensure all areas are covered the government needs to invest in equipment, man power and other costs. Aside from upfront expenses, there are also added costs for maintenance and monitoring. And with the power of the internet and its coverage, it is impossible to be on monitor 24/7 and not spend for it.

4. It can harm businesses.
Critics of internet censorship say that there are businesses that rely on the internet to advertise their services and products. Banning their websites to be accessed by consumers of legal age will harm the sales and profit of these companies. If censorship is implemented, these businesses will not be able to reach its global market.

5. People can practice self-autonomy.
Some groups that oppose censorship argue that individuals can have control of what to see and read, making it irrelevant to have a law banning content online. They also add that parents should take the extra effort to monitor what their children are searching online and this is part of their responsibilities as parents.

Conclusion

The controversial debate on internet censorship will continue to be a hot topic. Both sides have relevant points about controlling which content can be accessed and published or not. Other countries like China and Turkey are adamant in banning content which they think are inappropriate. Perhaps internet censorship should be regulated so as to have balance although absolute censorship might not be the solution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 Chief Pros and Cons of Internet Censorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the most popular yet controversial innovations of technology is the internet. It is a medium for self-expression and disseminating information across on a global scare. However, despite the benefits it offers millions of users, there are also setbacks that drive people and nations to push for and practice internet censorship.

# data[].attributes.body
Filtering Software: The Educators Speak Out

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Filtering Software: The Educators Speak Out

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) passed in 1999, requires schools qualifying for federal E-rate funding to use filtering technology to block access to materials that are "obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors." This month, we asked members of the Education World Tech Team to tell us about their experiences with filtering technology and to discuss whether they believe the software is good or bad for education. Included: Educators discuss the plusses and minuses of the filtering software they use.

In 1999, Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), requiring schools qualifying for federal E-rate funding to use filtering technology to block access to materials that are "obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors." That law generated a great deal of controversy.

Critics of the law claimed that filtering technology is inconsistent and unreliable, that it blocks student access to legitimate educational resources, and that it denies students the opportunity to learn to properly evaluate online resources. Proponents said that the disadvantages of filtering are overstated and that any disadvantages are more than overshadowed by the need to protect students from inappropriate online materials and the need to protect educators from the possible consequences of unlimited student access to such materials.

Recently, the Kaiser Family Foundation released the results of a study on the effects of filtering software on student access to online health information. According to See No Evil: How Internet Filters Affect the Search for Online Health Information, "Internet filters most frequently used by schools and libraries can effectively block pornography without significantly impeding access to online health information -- but only if they aren't set at their most restrictive levels. At the least restrictive level, the filters incorrectly block an average of just 1.4 percent of health sites.... The amount of pornographic content blocked was found to increase only marginally, from 87 percent at the least restrictive configuration to 91 percent at the most restrictive level."

The report, which served to re-ignite the smoldering debate on the use of filtering software in schools, made us wonder how educators feel about filtering software today -- now that they have had a chance to use it. Who better to tell us than the Education World Tech Team?

A TOUGH QUESTION

"Is filtering software in schools necessary? Is it desirable? That is a very hard question to answer," Jayme Swinford told Education World. "As a parent, my first instinct is to say yes; I want my children protected from all of the evils of the world. As an educator, my instinct is to say no. I have a responsibility to produce active, media-literate members of society who are able to deal with any kind of information and who possess the ability to make sound decisions based on knowledge and understanding.

"The Education Service Center I work at provides the Secure Computing filtering service to any district in the region at no cost. The disadvantage to using that service is that districts give up the flexibility of being able to customize the filtering. For example, if games are filtered because one participating district wants it, then all districts must filter games. Often, decisions on what should be allowed are made at the regional level and not by participating districts. Each district does have an override password. Most teachers are unaware of this, because the password is given to the technology coordinator who decides, often with administrative advice, whether or not to distribute the password. N2H2 does offer the option at the bottom of every page it blocks to have the page reviewed. Sometimes the review results in a page being unblocked; sometimes it doesn't.

"Does filtering really work? It may be that filtering software or services provide a false sense of security to teachers and administrators. No filtering system is 100 percent fail proof. A diligent student will be successful at locating inappropriate material if it is out there. At the same time, a student with a legitimate request for information may be unsuccessful. Unfortunately, many valid research sites are blocked along with the undesirable sites.

"No level of exposure to objectionable material is acceptable. However, filtering options may be influenced by the age of the student. Stronger filtering may be appropriate for elementary students, as they are learning to discern and disaggregate information, while secondary students may need some flexibility to perform research pertinent to their education.

"One reason for filtering is to limit liability to the school district and to individual employees. With filtering in place, a district can at least demonstrate that it is taking positive action toward protecting students from objectionable information.

"Ultimately, responsibility for content control in the classroom lies with the educator. Young children should not be allowed to surf the Internet unsupervised; neither should older students. The teacher or adult with the students should be aware of what is going on at all times. Too often, a lab design places the teacher at the front of the room unable or unwilling to monitor the kids. A partial solution to this problem could be adequate technology training and support for teachers from district administrators. Many times, teachers are not aware of what the district's Acceptable Use Policy says. Another possibility is improved facility design and better management tools. Something as simple as software that allows teachers to chat with students and to share, supervise, or remotely control students' computers could prove invaluable.

"Educators should care for their students as a parent would, offering education and guidance in making appropriate decisions during computer use. The decision to filter should not be made by one or two individuals. The question should be discussed with teachers, parents, and students to reach a balance between educational values and community expectations."

A WELCOME ADDITION

"Internet filters, if used wisely, provide a welcome addition to the protection of schools," said Fred Holmes. "With the horror stories about the Internet that the media puts out, a school's use of filters can be one way to ease parents' fears about their children's safety on the Internet.

"The layout of many computer labs does not allow teachers to look over every student's shoulder when students are using the Internet. A filter allows teachers and districts some control over what students are accessing. That is a plus because of the possibility of complaints by parents if inappropriate material is viewed or downloaded by students. Yes, a school should teach students what is acceptable, but -- students being students -- some will access inappropriate sites if no filter is used. An Internet filter, along with a clear Acceptable Use Policy, can help a school police what students are accessing and viewing. That way the school is protected from complaints or even lawsuits.

"Our service unit area, which also provides our Internet access, uses the Bess Internet Filtering Service by Secure Computing. Each school district is allowed to create its own restrictions within certain categories. Some schools have very restrictive policies; others have less restrictive policies. Our technology committee, along with the administration, determined what categories would be blocked. The administration, along with the three LAN managers, have an override password, so restrictions can be bypassed if a need arises. If a teacher or student can justify overriding a block, then it will be overridden. The site still needs to monitored, of course, to make sure the material is educational in nature. Supervision is important, but a filter helps with that supervision.

"So, is an Internet filter system necessary in a school setting? I think so -- with some thought on what should be restricted."

A FACT OF LIFE

"I personally oppose filtering," Sith Nip said. "Due to legal issues and concerns about parental reaction, however, filtering is a fact of life for most educators. Schools and districts cannot afford to face legal action brought by parents or city officials; it wastes time and money. My school, for example, although using district filtering software, still requires all students and parents to sign a legal form releasing the school from liability for anything a student might encounter while using the Internet.

"I oppose filtering because filters prevent students from accessing information they need. For example, working at home, I have found some great Web sites for teaching students to use cognitive thinking and quicken their motor skills. When I tried to access the sites at school, however, they were blocked! It's very frustrating, both for me and for my students.

"Another problem I have with filtering software is that it is not foolproof. There are ways to bypass some filtering. Certain links also bypass filtering software.

"Due to legal issues, local solutions to the filtering problem must be developed by school boards. Board members should decide what should be filtered, or they should set up a filtering committee to make those decisions. Webmasters who feel their sites were unfairly blocked could submit the sites to the filtering committee for review."

A FIREWALL SOLUTION

"Our local protection is a firewall -- divided in "half" with a city side and a school side, Julia Timmons told Education World. "The firewall is Symantec Enterprise Firewall and the integrated filtering software is WebNot Content Filtering Software. Our firewall protects us from outsiders coming into the system and hacking information.

"Firewall software is basically a man-made database of 'bad' sites, so any URL in the content filter's restricted list is not allowed and the user receives a Forbidden message. The content filter is constantly being updated by the vendor; we also have the ability locally to add blocked sites or to unblock sites. My experience, however, is that inappropriate sites still make it through the firewall. Unfortunately, every day more negative sites are created than the blocking software can keep up with.

"I have had numerous experiences in which students have accidentally (occasionally on purpose!) accessed inappropriate Web sites. I have found only two sites that teachers needed that were blocked.

"My opinion is that we need blocking software, accompanied by a strict policy that is enforced with consistency. I like our system because it is based on a database, rather than on blocking sites by individual words. I feel it allows the best possible use of the Internet and provides us with the ability to reach the resources we need."

A LEGAL NECESSITY

"I think legally it is in the best interests of schools to provide filtering," agreed Robin Smith. "Students can easily end up on sites that are not what you want an elementary child to view. Teachers can't hold every child's hand constantly. If students accidentally end up somewhere inappropriate, parents could blame the school for allowing their children to view the material. Schools open themselves up to lawsuits if they fail to provide some type of filtering.

"That doesn't mean we shouldn't also educate children to do their own filtering. The ethical use of computers should be taught in elementary school and continually reinforced. Education is key to providing students with the skills they need to use computers and the Internet outside of the school setting. Many parents do not have filtering at home, but they want to be sure their child is not exposed to anything inappropriate at school. That is sort of a double standard, but that's the way it is.

"We use the Bess Internet Filtering Service. Last year, I was not pleased with the system -- mostly because it slowed our network down and blocked too many educational sites. (Our computer coordinator at the time had the level of filtering at the max.) Since then, we have upgraded our network and installed the newest version. It now runs smoothly, and we have not had any problems with slowness. We have also removed many restrictions; now we are filtering at a much more appropriate level for education.

"Now, if an educational site is blocked, teachers submit a written request to the principal asking that the site be unblocked. We unblock the site so the principal can review it. If he approves its use, we unblock the site for everyone. We have 280 teachers and 4,000 students using the filtering and, so far this year, we have had only two requests for sites to be unblocked. Both went through the procedure and both sites were unblocked.

"Several years ago, when I was a classroom teacher, I found the blocking to be very frustrating. There was no system in place for unblocking, and teachers were at the mercy of the computer coordinator -- who rarely, if ever, unblocked a site. Most teachers are happy with the current system, however. Teachers can't be everywhere at once, and they don't have eyes in the backs of their heads. Most are relieved that some filtering is in place -- for their protection as well as for the protection of their students.

"Teachers here know that if a site is blocked, we will promptly unblock it if it is needed for educational purposes. We don't ask a million questions or give them a hard time. In the course of this year, students have gotten to four sites (that we know of) that should have been blocked. Those sites were reported and promptly added to the list of blocked sites."

PREVENT PORN

"Having worked in several labs, some that used filtering and some that did not," said Linda George, "I can say that I believe there should be some filtering. The online porn market uses the simplest typos to divert innocent searchers to its sites! I also believe, however, that computer users need to learn to fine-tune their searches, so the results include more relevant content and less inappropriate material, and that the filtering folks need to spend more time fine-tuning their products.

AN UNFORTUNATE NECESSITY

"Is filtering software necessary? Unfortunately, yes -- but I think it should be used after teaching students how to use their judgment, discretion, and common sense when using the Internet," noted Jennifer Wagner.

"Our school uses the Cybersitter Internet filter, and we have been quite pleased with it. I have to remember, though, that while a filter protects my students at school, probably more than 90 percent of them don't have filters at home. So I have to teach them the 'brain tools' and not just the filter tool.

"My students are first taught how to evaluate sites for content, how to conduct searches that bring up the information they are searching for, how to hit the home button to return to our safe home page, how to use the back button, how to recognize that they have not 'won a prize' or 'received an urgent message,' and how to shut off the monitor if they get stuck in an unacceptable area. Once they understand those tools, then we utilize the Internet under the safety of a filter -- not as a protection, but as a backup tool to keep students safe.

"My school is a K-8 school and we are blessed with students who (at school!) follow the AUP [Acceptable Use Policy] guidelines. If it had not been for the CIPA requirements, I honestly don't think we would have installed a filter."

For information on some resources to use when teaching students to evaluate online information, see the Education World article Fact, Fiction, or Opinion? Evaluating Online Information

MORE TROUBLE THAN IT'S WORTH

"I'm glad to have the opportunity to respond to this month's question," Michael Hutchinson told Education World.. "As a social studies teacher, I've always had a concern about whether Internet filtering provides someone (and since filtering is a requirement of Federal law, that someone would be the U.S. Government) with an opportunity to censor (allow for prior restraint of) online materials.

"I'd also assert that filtering keeps me as an educator from doing legitimate educational research online and, in some instances, keeps me from downloading legitimate software for my school computers.

"My district has used Bess Internet Filtering Service from N2H2 for approximately six years. There have been instances where sites were blocked for, in my view, less than legitimate reasons. For example, the Discovery Channel's School site has hosted a message board for some time, and I had been a regular contributor. One day, I tried to access the message board, and found it blocked. I sent a request to N2H2 to unblock it, and they refused. Their view was that the message board wasn't moderated, therefore it was open to obscenity and pornography. I immediately replied that this was a legitimate site (after all, it was a Discovery Channel site), but they refused to unblock it. My local information systems department finally unblocked the site for me.

"In another instance, the software blocked most pages for Online Class's North American Quilt Project. Our district had paid a subscription fee to participate in the project, so of course I was concerned that our students couldn't access the pages. I still am not sure why N2H2 decided to block those pages...the only suggestion my assistant superintendent could give was that perhaps they had confused "North American Quilt" with the "AIDS quilt." I did make a request to unblock the site and, in that case, N2H2 did so.

"Bess also routinely blocks sites such as download.com, which I could legitimately use to download newer versions of Web browsers and other software that could be used on my classroom machines. In addition, it's been my experience that it blocks nearly any page created on a public Web server (such as Geocities, Tripod, AOL, etc.). I recognize that some pages on those sites might be objectionable, however, I believe the great majority are legitimate. To simply block them because of their domain name seems to me to be a little heavy handed.

"In projects I create for my classes, I frequently find that sites I have found on my home machine are not accessible on school machines. The sites include those that might be politically sensitive (for example, sites on the Holocaust). I've found Bess to be pretty restrictive in other instances as well. I once had students do projects on major league baseball in conjunction with a Turner Broadcasting electronic field trip we were participating in. When my students tried to access sites on Babe Ruth, they were blocked (because of the word 'Babe'). On the other hand, if they found sites for George Herman Ruth, they access the materials. To me, that's an unreasonable restriction on a legitimate research request.

'As a curriculum developer who has created lessons for various companies, and done most of it on a home computer that is NOT blocked, I have no idea whether teachers who want to use those lessons in a school setting can actually access the resources I suggest. I don't really have much information on filtering software other than Bess, so I don't know how easy or difficult it would be for other teachers using other filtering software to override an 'objectionable' site.

"I do know that on several occasions when I have requested that N2H2 unblock a site, they have told me that the blocking is because of our local settings. N2H2 does allow for an appeal to have a site unblocked, but the procedure takes some time. N2H2 has to review the site before it can be unblocked and generally that cannot be done until the next day. That leads me to another issue regarding filtering software. As a classroom teacher, I must rely on either my local district administration or N2H2 to unblock sites. That is a process that may take some time to accomplish. No one in my building has the ability to immediately override a block. (In other words, no one has the password to access a site BESS has blocked.)

"Personally think Nancy Willard's idea that 'Kids need to learn to use the filters sitting on their shoulders,' is a great one. I'd like to go one step further, though. As a classroom teacher, it is my responsibility to keep kids on task, to make sure they aren't accessing those sites that might be objectionable. Isn't this the same as making sure, for example, that kids aren't reading comic books during history class?

"Most of us take care of classroom management by providing students (and parents) with a set of guidelines the first day of class. Why can't we do the same when we have kids work online by providing a reasonably crafted Acceptable Use Policy? If I have a reasonable AUP, that should work as well as any filter to ensure that students know what is an acceptable site or an acceptable use of equipment -- and what is unacceptable -- and it should protect the teacher as well. (One AUP clause I heard of that I thought was really interesting was one that stated that if a teacher felt a student had gone to an unacceptable site, the teacher, student, and the student's parents would review the site together to determine whether the site violated the teacher's AUP. I'd recommend a school administrator be present, also.)

"In a personal case, for example, a student who was submitting information to a Web site for a class project accidentally submitted a rather obscene e-mail instead. The Web site immediately forwarded the e-mail to me, and I notified school officials. The student was suspended. The parents came to school for a conference, but we had an AUP with the student's and parents' signatures on it, and that carried enough weight to have the suspension stick.

"I'm not sure if anyone can effectively filter. I consider myself fairly liberal, and if I ran an Internet filter, I'm sure there would be those who felt I let too much slip by -- and an equal number who felt I was too restrictive. To me, any sort of outside filtering constitutes 'prior restraint.' While I'm aware that a school setting is somewhat different than a print publication, I think filtering overly restricts legitimate Internet use and research, and it just isn't worth the trouble or the expense."

Â

Article by Linda Starr
Education WorldÂ®
Copyright Â© 2003 Education World

01/15/2003
Updated links 04/30/2007

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Filtering Software: The Educators Speak Out | Education World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) passed in 1999, requires schools qualifying for federal E-rate funding to use filtering technology to block access to materials that are "obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors."

# data[].attributes.body
Main reasons being:
no inappropriate thumbnails
Provides a level of security
"highlights the students who are using it right"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Staff at Dr Frank J. Hayden Secondary School in Burlington, ON, Canada are opposed to a proposal to install Internet filters at HDSB schools. They sent a copy of their letter to school trustees to a local newspaper for parents to understand their viewpoint. Their letter highlights the ongoing issue that educators face - should schools have Internet Filters?

When I read the letter, I was surprised with how conflicted I felt about the issue. I agreed with all the arguments made by the HDSB teachers. Yes, students need to learn digital citizenship. Yes, students can circumvent Internet Filters using proxy servers. Yes, Internet Filters cost lots of money to maintain. Yes, Internet Filters mistakenly block content that students should be able to access.

Should schools restrict the Internet?

So if I agree with the HDSB teachers, why do I like the fact that the school where I teach has an Internet filter?

Don't get me wrong. There are things I DON'T like about the school's Internet filter. For example, I cannot stand that YouTube is blocked. I have begged the IT Committee to approve joining YouTube for Schools so that students can have access to videos that have educational value. However, so far I have made little progress (still not giving up!).

I also really dislike it when there is a perfect site that I want students to visit and for some unknown reason it is blocked. Yes, I can make a request for it to be unblocked, but this tends to take a few days. Typically, this means that I need to plan ahead if I know there is a site I want my students to access.

I also have found that from time to time, some of the Grade 8 students will find a way to circumvent the Internet Filter to access a social media or gaming site. This always highlights the imperfect nature of the Internet Filter.

Despite these complaints I still like the Internet Filter. What do I like about it? I like that it removes some of the worry.

Top 3 Reasons I Like the School's Internet Filter

1. Prevents Inappropriate Thumbnails
When students are searching for images, often thumbnails will appear in the search results that are inappropriate. The Internet Filter is really great at making sure pictures of nude women or men never appear. I like that my students don't have to be exposed to pornographic images when researching a topic at school.

2. Provides a Level of Security
In the ideal world there would always be a teacher in the computer lab. However, often students are in the computer lab before or after school, during recess, or at lunch time. During those times, a teacher may not always be present or they may be engaged in another task that prevents them from closely monitoring student activities. It is comforting to know that the Internet Filter is there to maintain some level of security.

3. Enforces Digital Citizenship
Some people argue that students need to learn how to become responsible digital citizens and an Internet Filter prevents them taking ownership for their behavior. I disagree. Everyone knows that the Internet Filter is imperfect. However, it tends to protect the students from innocently stumbling on inappropriate content. However, for those students who intentionally want to seek out banned content such as pornography or gaming sites it forces them to engage willfully to circumvent the filter. This activity is a breach of the Internet AUP and it highlights students who are NOT behaving as responsible digital citizens. I find the Internet Filter does not negate digital citizenship - instead it highlights the students who are engaging in ethical, safe, and responsible behavior and those students who are not.

TechnoInternet is a TechnoKids project designed to teach students to apply search strategies, access digital resources, practice Internet safety, and communicate electronically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Schools Have an Internet Filter? - TechnoKids Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Staff at Dr Frank J. Hayden Secondary School in Burlington, ON, Canada are opposed to a proposal to install Internet filters at HDSB schools. They sent a copy of their letter to school trustees to a local newspaper for parents to understand their viewpoint.

# data[].attributes.body
5 pros and cons of social media in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 pros and cons of social media in the classroom for educational use

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let’s look at 5 different pros and cons schools should consider when deciding whether or not to use social media in the classroom to enrich education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Internet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn on the advantages and disadvantages of the Internet, and what you can do to keep your online security and privacy intact.

# data[].attributes.body
8 Advantages and Disadvantages of Internet Censorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Internet censorship is defined as the suppression or control of what a person can view, publish, or access when they are online under their own initiative.

People and organizations can engage in the practice of self-censorship at any time. There are religious, moral, and even commercial reasons why such a practice would take place. It can also happen because of intimidation or fear of potential consequences.

When censorship occurs at a national level, then the reasons for this lack of access involve political manipulation, propaganda, and oppression more than an authentic approach from a foundation of morality. It can also occur in anticipation or response to specific events, such as a riot, protest, or election.

There are several advantages and disadvantages of internet censorship to consider as we move toward a future where information management becomes a critical component of life.

List of the Advantages of Internet Censorship

1. It provides another layer of security against identity theft.
Before the internet became available to most homes, identity thieves had to steal mail, dive into dumpsters, and have information from bills or paperwork that you threw away. If you were proactive about protecting these documents, then it was virtually impossible to have thieves try to compromise your finances. Some would even use phone scams as a way to discover the needed personal information to open accounts.

Internet censorship restricts the ability of identity thieves to gather data about you. That means you can protect your medical records, Social Security number, and driver's license from being compromised. It offers tools to law enforcement that makes it easier to stop or restrict these behaviors.

2. Censorship can identify specific illegal activities.
You can find a lot of great stuff on the internet today, but there are also some corners of it that show off the darker sides of human existence. Exploitation, abuse, illegal drugs, and much more are all available online if you know what you're trying to find. Placing limits on these actions or expressions is a form of internet censorship because it seeks to protect vulnerable populations. The search mechanisms and firewalls that are in place for these items can identify their location and remove the average person's access from them.

3. It adds a measure of security to our daily lives.
We all create petabytes of data every day that tell others about our personal choices, preferences, and tastes. All of this information can be used for positive or negative outcomes. If you share information on social media that shows you are on vacation, then that is an open invitation to a thief who sees that your home is free and clear. Now imagine what would be possible when your schedule is posted online, what your favorite foods are, and how much money you make.

If you take this concept to a national level, other countries could discover information about defensive capabilities, weapons schematics, and other critical items. That is when censorship occurs almost everywhere at some level, even in democratic countries. There are some things that all people don't need to know.

4. Internet censorship can reduce the levels of false data found online.
Up to 60% of the internet traffic that occurs every day is human. The rest of it comes from bots, AI interfaces, crawlers, spiders, and other forms of technology. There are a lot of ways to create pages, posts, and videos that make false information seem real. Deepfake videos can manipulate images and audio to make it sound like someone is saying or doing something real when they are not.

It has been possible to manipulate video for several decades. In Forrest Gump, filmmakers inserted the image of Tom Hanks with footage of John F. Kennedy in the Oval Office, and then manipulated his mouth movements to make it seem real. This effort took a lot of time, skill, and money. Deepfake tech could let anyone weaponize imagery for political or malicious purposes. Censorship can stop it.

5. It gives society an opportunity to place common-sense limits on content consumption.
ABC13 Eyewitness News in Houston put together a list of the 10 most shocking moments captured by Facebook Live. When used correctly, this streaming feature lets people share with family and friends moments that they might miss otherwise. It can also become a tool to express hatred or show violence.

Robert Godwin, Sr. was killed when Steve Stephens shot the 74-year-old at point-blank range with the entire incident streamed. A 20-year-old man hung his 11-month-old daughter in an abandoned hotel before killing himself on Facebook. Four people in Chicago were charged with kidnapping and the brutal beating of a man with special needs. Restricting access to this content can help society set up some ground rules to teach appropriate behaviors and interactions.

6. Censorship gives us an opportunity to be respectful of other cultures.
Many countries have laws in place that ban websites that threaten national security, distribute copyrighted material illegally, or show images of children engaged in sexual or violent conduct. Several nations have cultural rules that may not apply to the rest of the world. Internet censorship creates a system where we can all respect one another's life perspectives while still providing information access to those who require it.

7. It forces companies to take content down that could be harmful to others.
The Godwin incident on Facebook was reposted and viewed millions of times before the platform was able to take the footage down. His grandson, Ryan, was on Twitter begging people to stop sharing the video. "That is my grandfather," he wrote, "show some respect." Mark Zuckerberg once wrote a 5,700-word piece that outlined measures to address the challenges of violent content. Beatings, suicide, rapes, and child abuse still continue appearing on the platform. Offering this performance aspect of behavior maximizes the impact of the perpetrator. They can distribute with just the touch of a button.

By implementing a series of internet censorship protocols, it would be possible to stop this content from being shared. It takes responsibility away from the company, who might use the incident as a way to promote themselves. That effort could then reduce the exposure of young people to items they don't need to see.

List of the Disadvantages of Internet Censorship

1. It allows a government to control the population.
After the Green Revolution in 2009, the state of freedom of expression in Iran entirely collapsed. Anyone who went online to disagree with the state of affairs in the country was hauled away, arrested, or worse. Even bloggers and social media posters fell into this category. Many were sentenced for crimes against the state or their religion, with a few even facing capital charges. Monitors slow connections or shots of access whenever there is a fear of organization or protest.

Even with sanctions in place, the knowledge that Iran has of how the internet works makes it easy for them to circumvent many of the measures. That also makes it almost impossible for its citizens to use TOR or other methods of anonymous browsing.

2. Censorship works to control the flow of news.
Censorship can be helpful when you're trying to stop the flow of fake news across social media channels. When governments use this process to prevent access to relevant current events, then the narrative switches to one of population control. China has a large group of monitors that scour the internet to find issues or stories that could be problematic for the government's official response. That's why there are Chinese versions of social media instead of YouTube, Twitter, or Google.

When foreign entities can find workarounds for the issue, then the Chinese government has the authority to shut down the internet for an entire region. They took that action in 2009 when ethnic riots were happening in Xinjiang.

3. It shifts the responsibility of conduct from the person to the government.
When there are rules or regulations governing the conduct of censorship, then individuals are no longer responsible for their actions. The government (or other oversight entity) takes on that role by declaring what is safe to view and the sites that one must avoid. There is no longer a need to make personal decisions any more in this environment. Someone could legitimately justify their actions, even illegal ones, by saying that no one in authority had told them to stop.

This disadvantage makes it easier for governments or dictators to rule with an iron fist. When someone allows another to rule over specific areas of their life without consequence, then it is easier to give up more control over time.

4. There is a power dynamic in society that forms when internet censorship is present.
Internet censorship might restrict access to harmful data, but it also creates a relationship where one specific group has power over another. That people who are in charge can filter what the average visitor gets to see when they start browsing online. Dictating what people can or cannot do is not a definition of freedom. It creates a dynamic where one person or group is eventually in charge of everything. Someone is in charge where they don't need to report to anyone. Once you reach that stage, their opinion becomes regulations - and that allows them to enforce their will onto others.

5. There is a cost to internet censorship that must be considered.
Each country that decides to place censorship rules on their population will spend an average of $2.5 billion each year to enforce those regulations. That means the global effort to restrict information from individuals can total close to $100 billion. Since it is the government that imposes these stipulations, taxpayers are the ones who end up footing the bill. That means all of us end up paying for our ability to let other people control the data we see without really having a way to alter the outcome.

6. Censorship disrupts the freedom to conduct conversations or business.
About 40 governments around the world regularly process criminal charges against individuals for content or conduct they find online. The World Economic Forum notes that 25% of today's population with access to the internet lives somewhere that censors what they can see in some way. Simple actions, like browsing Facebook, are taken for granted in places without censorship, but many people do not have this ability. The average sentence given to someone because of conduct found disruptive by the government is over a year long.

7. Censorship on the internet limits the national economy.
The Great Firewall in China might be one of the world's most famous forms of internet censorship, but it is not the only way that governments stop entrepreneurs from pursuing a good idea. When everyone must receive permission to publish the content they want, then they are not in full control over their economic opportunities. Shutting down the internet cost countries about $2.4 billion in total economic activity.

The costliest results came from disruptions to specific services and apps, accounting for almost half of the lost activity. National and subnational internet disruptions reduce the levels of economic development for future months as well. Online transactions account for 6% of the entire U.S. economy, which is a figure shared by more developed nations. Losing that amount can be devastating to local communities.

8. Online information censorship creates lower intelligence levels.
Blogger Zakariya Rashid Hassad was arrested in 2011 in Bahrain for inciting hatred, sharing false news, the promotion of sectarianism, and calling for an overthrow of the government in online forums. Several journalists and editors have found themselves detained, imprisoned, or deported from the country because of the information they shared online. Many regimes use content removal as a way to create a structure of internet censorship, forcing people to comply or face jail time or worse if they refuse to do so. A blogger was even shot and killed for filming a protest in that country.

Governments often use the processes of censorship as a way to lower the intelligence levels of their population. If there is a lack of awareness present in society, then it is easier to manipulate outcomes.

9. Censorship restricts the right of people to share an opinion.
Even though hate speech is morally abhorrent and ethically questionable, the U.S. Supreme Court says that there is a freedom to share it. Attacks that involve race, religion, gender identity, sexual preference, and more happen every day when you look at social media. We even have late-night comedians having celebrities read "mean tweets" about themselves shared by people online.

The reality of internet censorship is that we could try to restrict everything that is offensive, but then we'd end up with nothing left to share. Some categories are not protected by the court ruling, such as a call to commit violence or a direct threat against a person, business, or group. We must remain vigilant to maintain our rights while placing common-sense restrictions on actions that could lead to harm.

10. Countries use internet censorship to control specific global narratives.
It is not unusual for governments in the Middle East to refer to the United States as "Satan" or worse. The goal of these actions is to show their people that Americans are not to be trusted. It creates an us vs. them dynamic that officials exploit for their personal benefit. When content is available online that proves this approach is false, then censorship is the only way to restore the "balance" that the government attempts to create.

Saudi Arabia sent a content takedown request to Netflix regarding an episode of Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj after receiving a complaint that the comedy show violated the cybercrimes law of the country. It discusses the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi and was highly critical of the nation and its relationship with Silicon Valley and the United States.
Conclusion
Direct censorship of the internet is prohibited by the First Amendment in the United States. The only exception to this rule involves obscene content, such as child pornography. Even when laws were passed to regulate a child's ability to access these materials, they were found by the judicial system to be unconstitutional.

Most countries try to take a common-sense approach to the idea of censorship. Protecting a person's identity when needed, stopping exploitation, and preventing people from coming to harm are the top priorities. It is when a government oversteps these boundaries that the restrictions become problematic.

When looking at the advantages and disadvantages of internet censorship, there will always be some people who believe that nothing should be off-limits. There will be governments that manipulate online content to their advantage. What we must provide is an approach that protects vulnerable populations while encouraging entrepreneurs to continue pursuing great ideas.

About the Blog Post Author
Natalie Regoli is a seasoned writer, who is also our editor-in-chief. If you have any questions about the content of this blog post, then please send our editor-in-chief a message here.

---

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Internet Censorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Internet censorship is defined as the suppression or control of what a person can view, publish, or access when they are online under their own initiative. People and organizations can engage in the practice of self-censorship at any time. There are religious, moral, and even commercial reasons why such a practice would take place.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Everything You Need to Know About Parental Controls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From simple content filters to robust home network solutions, new parental controls offer a range of media-management options. Advice from Common Sense Media editors.

# data[].attributes.body
Here is a blog that addresses that it is the responsibility of the teacher to instruct students how to search in a safe and impacting way.