Legalized+and+Institutional+Censorship+in+Education

=**Access Denied:**=

//The Impact of Legalized and Institutional Forms of Censorship on Education//
//Image from D.A. Pennebaker's film,// Don't Look Back //(Docurama, 1967)// **Rachel Hurst** Arguments for censorship and limitations on information access address the needs of a changing world in which electronic communication occurs almost instantaneously. More networked learning and information share takes place, and faster than even ten years ago; it is easy for anyone to publish content and unfettered access to new ideas is available through the great pipeline of Internet media. Where censorship occurs, it impacts technology not by limiting free speech but free access; the way in which this occurs needs to be viewed in terms of how censoring of ideas impacts learning and education through soft and hard power.

As far as content itself, there is little difference between that which is considered pornography and obscenity in the United States legal system (Oliver, Pinnell-Stephens & Jones, 2011). In this country, where the First Amendment defends free speech, there is less blockage of sites because the individually user created content represents their freedom of expression – so censorship without specific targets in mind is nearly impossible. There are legal attempts at censorship, including the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) – but these struggle with First Amenders who continue to uphold the introduction of new acts or institutional policies as violating free speech. They are also not applicable to all institutions that offer Internet access.

Filtering occurs in most countries, and public and private institutions. Its biggest defense is in protecting minors; in some countries, it takes a political bent as it can be used to limit information that counters the government or to place emphasis on government organizations and businesses over privately owned competitors (Greengard, 2010).

Social response to the Internet and digital communications has evolved since its first adoption, going from an open period (1960s to 2000) where the Internet was new and was guided by the dominant principle that the Internet represented a new environment, a “cyberspace,” to an era of “Access Denied” (Palfrey, 2011) from 2000 to 2005 where states and organizations came to the understanding that certain acts of speech and social networking should be regulated like any other, with limitations on what could be accessed online. (Ibid.)

The intent of this article is to present ways in which censorship of digital media occurs under law or through social constraint – as part of a subscription service, within a community, and how it impacts the underlying tones of education and technology as a tool for cultural change. Issues of free access versus free speech (under the US constitution) are examined as they affect the ease with which students and society as a whole can reach the information offered via the Web and digital media.


 * Legalized censorship in the United States**

In the United States, there is little legalized censorship because it would counter the First Amendment, which prohibits the making of any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (Amendment 1). It counters the codes adopted by most other countries – including the Western world – which contain valid laws prohibiting offensive expression or hate speech on grounds of race or religion, in addition, rulings such as Reno vs. ACLU have revealed a general stance the that the First Amendment continues to be applied to popular media – including the Internet (Harris, Rowbotham, Stevenson, 2009).

Freedom of speech has evolved in that it is increasingly difficult to extend its coverage as new forms of digital media rise to prominence – and more data and opinions are scattered to the masses than ever before. The ideological principles of Lockean tolerance in which the Bill of Rights was passed uphold the idea of Justice Homes "that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas" (Harris et al., 2009) Movement has been made to “disable” freedom of speech where it concerns pornographic or obscene content that may be offensive to minors, a new direction that impacts public and private education - setting new precedents.

Legalized protection in the form of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), in 2001, mandates that if a library or other institution is to receive government funds for computers and Internet access, it must use filters to protect minors from viewing pictures that are obscene, child pornography or harmful to minors (for computers accessible to minors.) Before adopting this Internet safety policy, schools and libraries must provide the community with reasonable notice and hold at least one public hearing to address the proposal. Schools subject to CIPA need to adopt and enforce a policy to monitor the online activities of minors. Other parts of CIPA which do not immediately affect censorship, but also filter Internet usage include providing for the safety of minors when using electronic communications (including email and chat rooms), unauthorized activities like hacking and disclosure of personal information online about minors. An authorized person may disable the filtering measure to enable access for //bona fide// research purposes (Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001). While CIPA’s coverage is mandatory only for schools and institutions that receive E-rate funding and not the general academic community, it is often assumed as common practice – with over 52% of schools using filtering technology in 2010 (Johnson, 2010).

As an extension of CIPA’s coverage and over- or underblocking, consider the class action suit, Sarah Bradburn et al. v. North Central Regional Library District (of Washington, D.C.) The suit challenged the library’s action of not disabling blocking filters on computers for adult users in a timely fashion.

Defense for the action included the duty of libraries to follow schools in their censorship of literature, child pornography or other content deemed obscene by the educational community. The American Library Association mandates the civic duty of libraries to support free speech as free access, including access to pornographic content or other censored materials. Many of these libraries receive E-rate funding for Internet access and computers.

The Washington state Supreme Court upheld the libraries’ actions – provided that the filters were removed for adult patrons as requested, in a timely fashion – because the library represented a paid subscription service with terms of usage. However, it the state Supreme Court’s ruling does not bear any insight on how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in terms of its constitutionality against the First Amendment; its ruling is still pending (Oliver et al, 2011).

//An Internet kill switch?//

An "absolute shutdown" of freedom of speech? (BPstroll001, 2011) The Internet runs the telecommunication grid, political news and intelligence. Having the capacity to shut it down in times of war would direct service providers to patch information. Lieberman says that the bill's proposal is a matter of national security, as a cyber attack on America would cripple transportation and finance. The "kill switch" would shut down the internet for a maximum of 180 days, and is a privilege of the Chinese government (Ibid.. The bill is still under consideration, though Lieberman has backed down some since this interview was filmed in June of 2011.

How this violates freedom of speech under the First Amendment would call upon the transmittal of information as hazardous to the government - but this would impact both military and civilian content, and represent a breakdown in communications different from the splintered access provided from filters.

media type="youtube" key="BqTRLVxi0bU" height="349" width="425" (BPstroll001, 2011)

//Protect IP Act://

A group of law professors has signed a letter to Congress proposing that this not only counters the First Amendment, it is an Internet Death Penalty. It allows the government to block links to websites with content that is destructive or counterculture. The law is

This also allows the government to break the Internet by breaking the main name infrastructure. Every Internet search provider and institution will now have to consult a list of sites that break copyright laws, and make sure that they do not let users reach them. Other countries have simply tried to cut off access for foreign sites with information considered objectionable; this law would be unique in that it cuts off access to domestic sites. (TheAlyonaShow, 2011).

These controls may represent a fear of Congress in being unable to legislate on some of these issues, so there is a tendency to control the Internet flow itself rather than trying to censor inappropriate content or pass legislation to limit the flow of information without passing a law that would violate free speech as protected by the First Amendment. (Ibid., BPstroll001, 2011)

media type="youtube" key="XBlZ0GWjpqk" height="349" width="425" (TheAlonyaShow, 2011)


 * Free access versus free speech**

Where people and organizations come together through electronic media, they often have their own codes in place for how they, as a digital society, view the censorship of actions and material. The perceived difference is that these are subscription services, and the limitations placed – as on profane content and obscenity – are agreed upon by users at the time of sign-up. These codes may blur the distinction between real-world legislation and virtual media where identities are fluid and so much media content is still at a user’s caution (Goldberg & Schulz, 2010). . Individual treatment of violations on these codes becomes harder to define as there is no legal standing for them in most courts of law, especially when what acts there are to limit the visibility of content – like the CIPA, which does not cover social networks – only addresses content that would be obscene, pornographic or harmful to minors.

Theories as to why there has been a change from open access to closed filtering of the Internet abound; while there have been regulations since the late 1990s in the United States, researchers suggest the closed mentality represents tight-lipped fears about national security in a post 9/11 world (Dobija, 2007). Legislation curbing the accessibility of information, particularly disclosure of personal details or government activities, has risen ad the White House has made moves to cork the flow of information from its offices about world events. (ibid.) Taking censorship of actions into communal practice by exercising individual jurisdiction over issues makes justice hard to come by where cases conflict morals. In the educational realm, issues of how to present challenging themes like religion and politics are avoided by administrators for primary and secondary grades because they challenge so many family views.

Scenarios under media scrutiny include how to handle pornographic content online, particularly in chat-rooms where minors may enter; whether filters can block only obscene imagery and profane speech; and where free access contravenes the freedom of speech, in the United States (Goldberg & Schulz, 2010). Free access is seen as the blockage and controls that take place which inhibit not the publication of material (covered under free speech) but the ability of users to reach it, particularly minors. Adults have their own challenges reaching the media in school and library settings that use filtering software geared towards blocking all profane speech or pornographic imagery, with the assumption that every computer system would be available to a minor.

With the challenges of not reaching the needed resources or images for a lesson plan notwithstanding where it comes to curriculum implementation, not being able to reach content based on domain name or word inclusion alone prevents students from harnessing the internet at its fullest potential. Free speech enables the content to be made – but they do not have free access to their world. Blocking out the word “bikini” leaves out research and images of Bikini Atoll, a key in understanding our development of nuclear weapons and the end of the Cold War; blocking the word “tit” makes titbirds and tufted titmice extinct – and prevents learning about “titular” ownership, the Titans, the doomed vessel Titanic and what might be more than exciting, but titillating. In addition, where video feeds and openshare forums are YouTube is blocked, not being able to view recaps of the news in a computer lab cuts students off from the world and does not enhance their literacy of new media forms.

// A Partnership for Free Access: //

A partnership between parents and academic institutions can help spread the importance of e-safety as schools continue to harness new technology. Using this as a means of providing safeguards removes the restrictions of free speech and focuses on Web 2.0 conventions of social networking sites and open access, open communication. Instead of censoring ideas, they are presented with the tools for challenging information and sources of communication as they face them, to help them make their own decisions (HarnessingTechnology, 2010).

Identifying and prioritizing areas of development for Internet usage in a non-restrictive way is the goal for ensuring students have safety policies to replace filters, and can reach whatever they need without the over-blocking or under-blocking that so often occurs with internet filtering programs.

media type="youtube" key="WJ_BT_A6vtw" height="349" width="425" (HarnessingTechnology, 2010)


 * Impact on Education, Technology and Culture**

The future brings continued competition as groups and the legal system continue to define which actions that transpire online – including the activities of states, private companies, individuals and groups – can be censored as it represents a new realm of society and civilization. Regulations placed on access of materials by states upon private companies and by the government or local districts upon schools for educational purposes are not defensible by the First Amendment in that they do not prevent free speech, so much as limiting free access (Dubija, 2007; Palfrey, 2011).

Technology regulates access in enforcement of censorship (where it occurs by law) and also by groups as a whole that adopt filtering software. Filtering placed by CIPA impedes education where it prevents students from accessing needed information online. In addition, blocking computer applications hinders students’ mastery of technologies that are an integral part of communications and work in this online area – enhancing the digital divide. (Dubija, 2007; Goldberg & Schulz, 2010).

The inequalities of censorship must also be addressed, in that – if it is intended to protect the rights of citizens (chiefly minors, in this context) – care must be taken to avoid over- or under-blocking of media. Eliminating mass search engines like Google and Yahoo does not prevent students from seeing images that may be potentially harmful, as the same information could be found from numerous other web crawlers or social networks. The information still exists; teaching digital citizenship and ethics will help them know how to address it when they come across it, and scale their response within the context of learning and socio-cultural values.

//Towards Free and Open Access://

Networked knowledge depends on free access to information – even with protectionary laws like CIPA withstanding. Consider the proposal made by The District Media and Technology Advisory Committee of Mankato Area Public Schools in 2003, which made provision for controls on the degree to which filtering was implemented in libraries and media centers within the district:
 * The filter would be set at the most lenient settings, which blocked graphic sexual acts and child pornography and other illegal sites.
 * There would be at least one unblocked computer in each media center, with controlled access
 * The Technology Director would, immediately upon request, unblock sites by recommendation of faculty
 * Teachers wanting sites blocked for reasons other than pornography or sexual content would need to follow the procedures required for removal of any district-adopted material (In theory, preventing free speech of political, religious or personal views from impeding free access by all.)
 * Faculty monitoring of all Internet activity – because no filter was recognized by the Committee as being 100% accurate (Johnson, 2010)

These provisions protect students from obscene and pornographic content, while still allowing teachers to reach needed materials and social news groups for lesson planning and research purposes. In addition, it recognizes the different needs of adults from minors when accessing Internet resources – successfully circumventing “free speech” where it violates free and safe access.

This video illustrates some of President Obama's views on internet censorship and the concept of open access; the more figurative the information flow, the stronger the society becomes - and the more creativity is generated as people think and interact together. These comments emphasize the current administration's goals of continuing unrestricted Internet access - a Web 2.0 idea that fits the role of technology in society and culture, to benefit education and overall learning (StopTheWarCoalition, 2010). It is different from radical legislation that would propose a kill switch - which would be more for military goals. Free, open access is the way to go.

media type="youtube" key="B9_w9ZTyTx8" height="349" width="425" (StopTheWarCoalition, 2010)


 * The solution**

Defense of CIPA comes from the argument that it lies outside of the First Amendment as it represents controls on obscene or pornographic content placed by Congress on institutions, rather than on civil liberties (Oliver, Pinnell-Stephens & Jones, 2011). (as a first step)

It is this issue of civil liberties that leads into the debate over free access versus free speech in the United States, which has found supporters and challengers among the social networks that use the Internet for commerce, development and open communications – a reach that extends into education if we consider the increasing reliance of academic institutions on the Internet as a tool for research and professional development.

//In loco parentis// necessitates that teachers remain responsible for guiding their students towards moral and ethical choices, and protecting them from material and events that would be damaging to them under normal circumstances. However, the continued censorship of internet computers under CIPA standards (for applicable schools) has demonstrable oversight in how it filters material that would otherwise be useful for research purposes or building a foundation for digital literacy.

Acceptable use and a model of support are the goals, rather than access denied.

//Where free access is the open window - and seeing is the full spectrum.// (Horsey, 2010)
 * References:**