Internet Filtering: Protecting Students AND Their Freedoms

There is obviously no easy answer as to what exactly an educator’s role is in protecting students from harmful material. While no teacher wants his or her students to come to harm, there is a serious philosophical flaw with censoring a student’s access to information, no matter how we personally feel about it. The slippery slope occurs when trying to define what is “harmful” to our students – the right-wing conservative finds exposure to homosexuality potentially harmful, while the left-wing liberal finds exposure to right-wing conservatism harmful. The lines that are drawn end up reflecting the personal views of those who draw them, rather then a simple wish to protect students from basic danger. Having said all of that, I would rather openly discuss the potential threats on the internet and teach students how to navigate the internet in a safe and responsible way than have strict filters in place.

Even though that means a whole lot of extra work for everyone involved. J

Pros of Filtering Cons of Filtering

Filters are an easy solution to obvious abuse of internet privileges. Let’s face it – students will do stupid things without supervision. While filtering products don’t replace supervision, they sure do help.	Filtering internet access is a form of censorship. As future librarians, we have a long struggle ahead of us FIGHTING censorship, not condoning it.
There is much on the internet that students need not experience. As educators, we have a responsibility on some level to protect students from harm. At the very least, it would prey on the conscience of an educator if they were in some way responsible for a student’s exposure to harm.	Determining what material should be censored is tricky and politically charged, and could reflect the personal political and moral views of the creator. We should be encouraging students to understand the viewpoints of many, not those of a select few.
Students can and will take advantage of unrestricted access to the internet by visiting sites that are at best inappropriate and at worst harmful. Educators know that students will push the envelope whenever possible, and a filtering program will help to monitor students from pushing it too far.	Students will more likely be prevented from visiting inappropriate sites due to good parenting and open communication, not a computer program. As the ALA so aptly put it, filtering the internet is like building a fence around a pool instead of teaching people how to swim.
Teachers and librarians have some liability when students are exposed to dangerous or harmful material while “under their watch.” No teacher or librarian wants to face the angry parent phone calls, where they will be eviscerated for exposing students to something harmful or inappropriate.	Many filtering products over-filter, blocking helpful and informative information from student access. Many filtering products under-filter, allowing student access to inappropriate material despite the restrictions. Despite spending money on expensive programs, educators are still forced to monitor student internet access as closely as they would without the program.
Unrestricted access to the internet can cause computers to be exposed to dangerous and damaging viruses. While less philosophical, the pragmatic problem of damaged computers is costly and frustrating, and will only serve to prevent the learning process from occurring.	Filtering internet access encourages and inspires creative and difficult-to-prevent hacking into inappropriate sites. We are talking about the “net generation” here – do we really think that a commercial filtering system is going to keep them out of trouble?