Library Filtering - Getgood, Martin, Harmon

Internet access offers the possibility of viewing pornography and other types of materials and content that many would argue should not be viewed by children. "Filtering" software products, such as Cybersitter, CyberPatrol, NetNanny, SurfWatch, etc. have been developed to allow users to control what sites will be available for viewing on their desktops, in essence placing control of the what content can be viewed with end users. Proponents of filtering products argue that they are the ideal way to control and monitor net access, particularly for children. Opponents decry the use of these products as censorship, especially when they are used in government-supported libraries. The American Library Association, in July 1998, found that the use of filtering software by libraries to block access to constitutionally protected speech violates the Library Bill of Rights. Though many librarians support the ALA position, others argue that filtering is merely an extension of the library's right of selection. The current panel will discuss the issue of filtering from the perspective of librarians, free speech advocates, and software vendors. Susan Getgood, Microsystems Software, Inc. Robert Martin, Texas State Library and Archives Commission Charles Harmon, Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Danielle Gallo: The Friday afternoon session featured a lively panel on library filtering. Susan Getgood was the first speaker; she is a representative for The Learning Company (http://www.cyberpatrol.com/), the makers of Cyber Patrol filtering software. Getgood stated that the makers of Cyber Patrol will not market to libraries but will definitely sell to them. I accept this point as the Learning Company is in a business that wants to make a profit along with helping children surf safely. I think, though, that if librarians are going to purchase the product they need to know what limits filtering has. Charles Harmon presented the opposing view and argued that filters are against the library's mission of providing access to information. Harmon said, "the use of filtering software to block sites is against ALA (American Library Association, http://www.ala.org amendments." Harmon stated that NO software will ever meet the standard for libraries, and filters impose the producer's viewpoint on the community. For criticism of Cyber Patrol, see http://www.spectacle.org/cwp/ada-yoyo.html. Many attendees lined up to disagree with Susan Getgood during the question and answer period. One attendee raised a good point in stating that many library software users don't have a technical background, thus they are not fully aware of how to use software products. Library users need to be informed of how the technology works, its limitations, and how to use it successfully. Finally, I felt Susan Getgood did an admirable job defending her product despite the heated comments directed at her by libertarians. She stated that she believes Cyber Patrol is a product worth purchasing, and 68% of the parents in California who use technology to monitor their children's surfing agree with her. And no, they aren't going to publish the list of blocked sites.