Aussie Internet Filter

Although I realize our discussion on internet fair use and censorship is a couple weeks away, an article caught my eye this week in the Associated Press: US concerned by Australian Internet filter plan. It talks about Australia’s plan to impose a countrywide filter on the internet that would exclude websites containing child pornography, sexual violence and criminal drug use. The filter would be constantly updated based on recommendations and public complaints. Numerous companies (such as Google and Yahoo) as well as the U.S. government have voiced their concern over this action that could become law later this year if the Australian Parliament approves it.

The idea of a national filter imposed by a democratic government shocked me when I initially heard the story. But as I began to think about it, I realized that we are not far from this standard, especially when it comes down to America’s public institutions. Although we have weeks dedicated to the reading of banned books, many schools and libraries think nothing of filtering the internet. Schools and libraries often have internet filters in order to prevent students and patrons from accessing “unsavory” webpages and information. However, even with the most positive of intentions, these filters often block users from accessing information that may not be so heinous. The issue I find with internet filters is that often the first intention often snowballs, so that once one keyword or site is blocked, it is much easier to continue the process. In the elementary district where I work, the filters originally started by blocking sites with profanity, nudity and sex. I’m sure that it stemmed from a desire to shield our youth from images and words that were deemed beyond their maturity level. However, in recent years, the district began filtering many web 2.0 sites including Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. While its true that some of these sites may contain questionable content, the main reason that these sites were blocked was because they were seen as “timewasters.” It seems to me that once censorship starts, it is difficult to contain it.

While I don’t deny that child pornography, sexual violence and criminal drug use should be condemned, is it right to censor and filter our link to the web? It would seem to me that if websites are breaking the law by posting such things that the authors of these pages would be prosecuted and the sites shut down anyway. I realize that with the complexity and vastness of the internet, that policing the World Wide Web cannot be an efficient task. Perhaps it is much easier to simply block keywords across the board. However, the easiest path is not always the most logical one. What are we truly teaching kids when we block their searches at school? Is it simply to just wait until they get home and retry on an unblocked and unsupervised computer? If we as educators and librarians do not get the chance to teach our patrons and students proper use, who will?

I will most certainly be following this story, because it will truly have huge ramifications for the democratic world if legislation passes. I also hope that as the U.S. government stands ready to condemn this action that they in turn take a look at what our public institutions already have in practice. Perhaps it is time that we take a look inward.