Cyber-Screening Parental Involvement Is The Ultimate Solution

Internet filtering software is a tool to prevent children from accessing sites their parents might find inappropriate or dangerous, and there is controversy over whether it should be used in public libraries.

It is very easy to find a page you did not intend to find, given the speed and ease of surfing the Web, the power of its search engines, and key words which are common to a wide range of topics. On the other hand, filtering software can be overly limiting, as was the case for the recent Super Bowl, where searchers couldn’t find sites for it because XXX was in the game’s title.

Kootenai County’s main library in Hayden has a sensible compromise policy that offers some protection while managing not to trample on civil liberties.

Users must first speak to staff, and provide a library card prior to using the Internet computers. A child must have a parent first sign an agreement, acknowledging that there is adult approval for the young person’s use of the machine, and the child’s library card is marked accordingly. The computer stations in the library are configured so that employees can see the monitors, and they watch often enough to remove any kid looking at any age-inappropriate materials. (I would think such high visibility would discourage most adults from looking at many sites!)

The Post Falls library has filtering software on the terminals used by children and young adults, and no one under 18 is allowed to use the unfiltered computers without authorization from parents or guardians. The Coeur d’Alene library uses no filtering software, and depends on parental involvement and staff supervision.

Whatever any library’s approach, there always will be an uneasy balancing act between the sacred right of free speech and realistic concern that a child will see something, some erotic image or provocative text, that either might create emotional trauma, or present an idea or concept that a parent for whatever reasons wishes the child not to know.

There is a natural tension between a parent’s desire to shield, and a young person’s eager curiosity about the world, including the forbidden portions of it. The tension eases as teens age, and approach, if not adulthood, at least legal maturity.

But we are all concerned that impressionable youth not see so-called adult material that might be unsuitable for them, and I think it would be realistic to admit at the outset that no filtering software can be 100 percent effective, and both designers of exploitative material and curious youth can be very creative at finding each other.

There also is the point that parents will differ in what they find offensive for their children.

With some it might be sexual imagery, with others it might be political theories, with others it might be anything having to do with evolution.

The most practical answer with the fewest constitutional considerations is aggressive parental supervision. Adults should know where their children are, what they are doing and what they are reading.

It is harder in our day to be a parent, in large measure because the temptations and dangers are both more numerous and more subtle than in the past. However, intense activism still is the best safeguard.

This is not a new problem. Fifteen or so years ago, Department of Defense satellites were altered in their orbits by youngsters who hacked their way into complicated government programs, while the parents innocently claimed afterward, “We don’t know anything about our kids’ computers.”

Parents cannot afford that particular stance any longer.

I tend to think that the panic of Internet access is overblown. I keep hearing unverifiable statistics that up to 90 percent of all computer searches involve pornography. I believe that claim is bogus and hysterical. The Internet is used for a stunning variety of purposes, from shopping to research to vacation-planning to news, and while adult sites might be obnoxiously aggressive in their marketing and visibility, they are still and always relatively small in number.

Freedoms are fragile, and there always is some well-meaning and muddle-headed effort afoot to limit the First Amendment, 45 words which define in large measure what makes our nation special.

The Internet dilemma will solve itself through active supervision and parenting, common sense, and time. No frantic hysteria is required. Neither is any legislative action.

I like the solution the Hayden Library has found.

See opposing view written by Monica Hillard under the headline: Cyber-Screening / Internet restrictions should be put in place